If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum Rules. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to RPGamer's new forums running under Vanilla Forums! If you're run into any odd or strange issues after our software migration please see this thread for details

Thread Resurrection

lithoroselithorose Fire! Fire! Meiuuu!Full Members
edited September 2009 in Site & Forum Support
I don't understand why we have this rule- this is the only forum I've ever been on that won't allow you to resurrect old topics...

Comments

  • shentinoshentino Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    I'm going to hazard a guess and suggest that having the no resurrection rule keeps the boards from getting cluttered, and since any thread is either fresh enough to post in or old enough to make it OK to create a new one, there is no loss.

    Having said that, I wouldn't mind a feature that automoves old threads to an archive section. Maybe the codemonkeys can do that when we upgrade to vB.

    I'm not staff though, so I don't know for sure. As mentioned, I'm just guessing.



  • Anna Marie PrivitereAnna Marie Privitere Purr RPGamer Staff
    edited September 2009
    At the moment I'm suffering from an excellently virulent (but not swine) flu, so I don't have the patience to write a big post until I'm feeling a little better, but I do want to leave two quick notes in the thread.

    1. The rule's been relaxed, in two ways. We no longer slap and box for first offenses -- in fact, the mods are encouraged to go out of our way to assure people they're not really in trouble, but that they should be familiar with the rules. We also extended the time to bring back a topic.

    2. Go back and look at posts a year ago in some of the various sections. Most of them will be irrelevant. Do you wanna discuss the ramifications of FFXIII being PS3 only? I don't. The video game industry waits for no one, and people change their minds.

    Like any rule, if you can provide me with a compelling argument to remove or in this case modify, the rule, then have at it.
  • lithoroselithorose Fire! Fire! Meiuuu! Full Members
    edited September 2009
    Alright, compelling reasons (to be read after you get over your flu- my sympathies!):

    -it isn't really necessary. None of the other forums I've been on have had a problem with users dragging up tons of material from the void; it can even be fun to look at your old (and ignorant!) posts from a couple of years ago. If it isn't a topic anyone wants to talk about anymore, they simply won't talk about it (but being pedantic gamers, I guess we'd be up for any discussion, no matter how well beat), and probably won't resurrect it in the first place. The only advantage to it that I can see is in the case of adbots advertising ammendment of body parts.

    -it doesn't clutter up the forums. If I'm doing a search for, say, FFXII related threads in topics, it would be more convenient for me to find it all in a single (or small number) of threads, rather than making users start new threads on the same old topics, none of which achieve much depth because the topic is constantly restarted, instead of being allowed to touch on points already brought up (in the event that anyone actually still wants to talk about it).

    I'm sure someone out there has made a mod (or whatever they're called) to move threads automatically, so you don't have to go in there and close them all manually.:)
  • JeffreyJeffrey Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    That's...what?

    Resurrecting an old topic is almost never a good idea. There's a reason it's an old topic, aka the discussion ended aka no one wants to talk about it anymore. Yeah, maybe you JUST started playing Persona 3 for the first time and you want to make some hilarious quip about "Baby baby baby baby baby baby baby," but everyone else has said just about everything they have to say about the subject.

    Nine times out of ten, if a moderator doesn't get to a resurrected topic right away to lock it the rest of the board ignores it because we've already been down that road and played out the conversation.

    It's especially egregious in the Latest Updates section, where a resurrected post could be misinterpreted by readers browsing the forum. Maybe you had a poignant parting shot to make about "Final Fantasy XIII to be Playstation 3 exclusive," but bumping that old story up to the front can easily confuse other readers into thinking that the story is new.

    There's no compelling reason to remove the current rule as it stands, in my opinion.
    [url=\"http://evilpandapirate.tumblr.com/\"]Tumblr[/url] | [url=\"http://twitter.com/EvilPandaPirate\"]Twitter[/url]
    \"FFXII doesn't really have a story to tell, and so it doesn't. FFXIII doesn't really have a story to tell, but has hours of cutscenes anyway.\" -SiliconNooB
  • TGBarighmTGBarighm Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    I remember when I used to get yelled at for NOT posting in older topics. Didn't matter how old it was, if there was a topic for it, you had to use it.

    There are too many assumptions here. You're assuming nobody will ever have a new perspective or thing to say regarding the old topic. "Before and After" subjects can be highly illuminating, and occasionally thought provoking. If somebody posts some dumb quip, scold them and lock the topic. There will always be bad apples, but creating rules around combatting them at the expense of possibly fostering new discussion is folly and ultimately discouraging. Mod the dumb posts, but don't limit the heights your good members can reach because of them.
    A good example is a thread from a few years back that started as an art thread. It somehow turned into a very longrunning discussion about God. If this rule was enforced back then, that discussion would have never took place. Hell, a lot of today's international debates revolve around old problems, some decades old, other centuries old. This is because there is always something new to bring to the table. If not...oh well. The delete button was created for a reason.

    Besides, raising old threads fosters discussion. This is a discussion forum after all. You should be looking for ways to encourage discussion, not creating rules that prohibit it. It's not like RPGamer is big enough to have a GameFAQs case of bumping (I've seen threads there with 3 WHOLE pages of "bump" in the post).


    But hey, do whatever you want. I don't really care that much. Just wanted to say, you know, don't look for reasons to kill discussion in a discussion forum. Sounds like common sense to me.
  • ShinseitoriShinseitori Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    If somebody posts some dumb quip, scold them and lock the topic. There will always be bad apples, but creating rules around combatting them at the expense of possibly fostering new discussion is folly and ultimately discouraging. Mod the dumb posts, but don't limit the heights your good members can reach because of them.
    Arbitrary enforcement of the rules leads to angry posters and eventually chaos. You can't have it both ways, so they err on the side of caution. I can understand that, as this is a news site, after all. There's a different standard here than, say, GameFAQs. As full disclosure, I think that the rule is for good reason and I would have it on the site I administrate if it wasn't for the fact that it is a relatively small board with infrequent posts.

    On a site like this one, though, I've been thinking, and I really can't come up with a good reason why to necro a thread that's been dead for a year, for example. If nothing else it just creates confusion and misleads others who may not notice the date discrepancy to expect that the others who contributed to that thread will continue the discussion. If someone has an interesting topic they'd like to bring up as it relates to an old one, they can summarize the idea in a new thread (e.g., people used to think x, now I think y) and be more likely to have a productive discussion on the matter. If someone really wanted to discuss the topic, this would be a much more effective way of doing it. Otherwise, motivations are suspect; perhaps it just becomes the Internet equivalent of speaking to hear your own voice, and nothing really good comes out of that.
    Rise!
  • Anna Marie PrivitereAnna Marie Privitere Purr RPGamer Staff
    edited September 2009
    A couple other quick points before I write a longer post:

    1. The argument "other places do(n't) do it isn't anywhere near a compelling argument. We do what works <span style="text-decoration:underline">here</span>. However, in case there's any further argument I myself have never posted, moderated, or professionally worked on forums that DIDN'T have a threshold of "this is old, let it die."

    2. We're not discussing Latest Updates. The rule won't change for there, period. There's a LOT more reasons for that then other sections, most of which have been covered already in this thread and other places, but just in case you need a practical example: a few weeks ago some spambot dug up an old FFXI thread. Despite the fact that it:
    a) clearly covered an old subject matter (it was the launch of a new class);
    b) had spam posts in it;
    c) is clearly dated as old;
    d) posted by someone who is no longer on staff (members cannot begin threads in LU, something we openly denote),
    people were still responding. Old information confuses people.

    Carry on. I'll have a more complete post later.
  • shentinoshentino Member Full Members
    edited September 2009
    Personally, I don't know exactly why thread necromancy is a Bad Thing ™, other than the fact that it seems to be taboo.

    What I find even more puzzling is the fact that one is allowed to make a new thread on the subject altogether instead of bring back the old one. It just seems a little bit on the silly side not unlike deciding whether to eat one's toast butter side up or butter side down.

    What exactly makes continuing the subject in a new thread better than reviving the old topic and having exactly the same effect on what's visible on the front page?

    I do see the point about not reviving topics that truly are dead. But ones that become interesting after having laid dormant for awhile are ones I'd consider merely to come out of hibernation, and it would seem marginally preferable to recycle an old thread about the subject than to create a brand new one, as the older, presumably newly relevant posts are available to be read by the new contributors.

    As far as spambots digging up old garbage, I have to say this
    * Spambots are too stupid to discern whether an old subject is even worth bringing up in the first place, whether in the old thread or a brand new one.
    * Spambots are already on the blink by posting spam that isn't even relevant to begin with.

    So personally I think that's a bad example.

    I think that thread necromancy is mostly just a forum taboo. The only thing I've seen in favor of prohibiting it is that it's commonly prohibited already. I don't have a problem with following the rule, since creating a new thread neutralizes any practical downside to outlawing it.

    Having said that, I've never known any forum worth visiting that just made up a silly rule just for amusement. There's probably a good reason for thread necromancy to be outlawed, or it wouldn't be...I just don't know why yet.

    Additionally, since we're going to upgrade to a new forum system soon, this entire thread may very well become moot.



Sign In or Register to comment.