Serious question
Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones
Serious question
I've noticed some threads have been locked recently due to them being necro posts.
I don't understand the harm in this. I'm not saying they shouldn't be locked, I just don't understand the reasoning and I'd like to.
This forum isn't as active as some I browse and if someone comes across a post that is a few years old and it get's bumped for others to take a look at I don't think that's a bad thing.
I'm not discounting that there may be something I'm missing and maybe necro posts are harmful in some way. Just curious. Thanks!
I don't understand the harm in this. I'm not saying they shouldn't be locked, I just don't understand the reasoning and I'd like to.
This forum isn't as active as some I browse and if someone comes across a post that is a few years old and it get's bumped for others to take a look at I don't think that's a bad thing.
I'm not discounting that there may be something I'm missing and maybe necro posts are harmful in some way. Just curious. Thanks!
Re: Serious question
Said threads were locked for being necro'd for no reason other then to simply be necro'd.
"If your plan relies upon chance to succeed, then you've already failed."
"Sometimes to achieve the greatest good, one must commit great evil."
"Sometimes to achieve the greatest good, one must commit great evil."
Re: Serious question
That makes sense. So would that just be to prevent other people from doing that thinking it is funny to do? If they produce additional dialogue and posts that are relevant are they still locked?
Re: Serious question
You can always start a New Thread, with a linked to the old one, if you have real dialog to add. But as mentioned, some of the recent locked ones was because someone was intentionally necro-threading them. And others were locked, because it got to a point it was Beating a Dead Horse, resurrecting it, and beating it some more.
"No, actually, as there's that really big special rule that overrides any other rules. You know, the one where if something looks stupid or limiting or otherwise hinders game play or fun the GM is free to change or discard the rule." - Nightmask
Re: Serious question
Gotcha. Thanks for the answers! That clears it up.
- grandmaster z0b
- Champion
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:44 am
- Location: Tech-City of Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Serious question
Actually I wondered this myself, before I post a question here I usually search the forums to check if it has been discussed before however if I still have a question I'm not sure whether I should start a new thread or necro the old one.
The word "THAN" is important. Something is "better than" something else, not "better then", it's "rather than" not "rather then".
- Tor
- Palladin
- Posts: 6975
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:37 pm
- Comment: If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons. Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste.
- Location: Pyramid
Re: Serious question
I believe that if a thread already exists which is specifically about a topic we want to discuss and we have something to add to it that it makes more sense to reply to that thread rather than duplicate it, since it allows people replying to us the benefit of reading more discussion about it, it lowers thread-clutter, makes for fewer pages, unclutters searches, etc.
Some seem to disagree about that though, but I really do not see the benefit to duplicating threads. It is more efficient to reply to something that exists rather than make a new one and link back to the old. I only see that as useful if the old thread was locked. But in those cases, sometimes we are discouraged from making threads about previous locked ones for various reasons.
Can you actually prove this claim or is this merely unproven speculation as to the motives of the person who replied to them.
Some seem to disagree about that though, but I really do not see the benefit to duplicating threads. It is more efficient to reply to something that exists rather than make a new one and link back to the old. I only see that as useful if the old thread was locked. But in those cases, sometimes we are discouraged from making threads about previous locked ones for various reasons.
Slight001 wrote:Said threads were locked for being necro'd for no reason other then to simply be necro'd.
Can you actually prove this claim or is this merely unproven speculation as to the motives of the person who replied to them.
"1st edition? 2nd edition? It doesnt matter! Let's just talk" -Forums of the Megaverse
Re: Serious question
Tor wrote:Slight001 wrote:Said threads were locked for being necro'd for no reason other then to simply be necro'd.
Can you actually prove this claim or is this merely unproven speculation as to the motives of the person who replied to them.
The person stated he did so intentionally. And all threads he did so on, were locked down by the mods.
"No, actually, as there's that really big special rule that overrides any other rules. You know, the one where if something looks stupid or limiting or otherwise hinders game play or fun the GM is free to change or discard the rule." - Nightmask