DescentBB

Every time someone replies to a thread that's more than two weeks old, Ferno instantly decides to close it.

Moderating an old, bumped thread is perfectly reasonable if, say, someone bumped it with a useless comment (in which case, simply deleting the comment would be the better option, as that would put the thread back where it was), but in the case of someone just wanting to continue a conversation, what the hell? Why should anyone start a new thread on a subject they want to talk about just because the other one is old? Can someone explain the logic in that? (Is there any?) I visit many forums where people add to threads after two or more years of no activity in them, as if they had never stopped. Old conversations can be resumed, even if they don't have the same people picking up on it. I read somewhere (not exact wording, but very similar), "stop making new threads on the same damn thing over and over -- use an old one. Except if the thread went off-topic, it's fine."

I'd also like to know what the magical cut-off date is. Is it 10 days? 20? "Gosh darn, I've been away from the board for a while, and I see this old topic I want to contribute to, but I'm one minute over the deadline, so now I can't post in it or I'll be given a warning!" From what I've seen, it seems to be less than 30.

If someone explains why resuming an old thread to continue talking about the subject is a bad thing (which, practically by default, advocates more clutter by needlessly having more threads on the same subject), then I won't be a further pain in the ass about this.

Oddly, I've seen a few cases where threads have been replied to after 25 or so days of inactivity, but no one instantly locked the thread. Is that case special because he simply admitted to it being a "necropost"? When are there exceptions?

"So then, people who want to ★■◆● about people not playing in decent levels should just reply to an old one?" Not if they don't want to. If they want to start a new thread, that's their choice. If they harmlessly wish to contribute to an old one (rather than, for that case, make a new thread called "Hogzilla Update"), then that should be fine, also. A lot of times I have seen that people who have started new threads on a subject were afterward informed of the more comprehensive old one and went to that one.

Closing someone's thread because of some guy's innocent continuation just because it was old annoys the hell out of me. Funny, because I'd bet money that if Trackball had been the one to update it, he would've gotten a free pass.

I appreciate that you're sticking up for me, even if I am a raving moron most of the time.

1. I'm a newb, duh.
2. I thought it was a very cool topic, not even close to being exhausted. This is the reason I came here in the first place.
3. The topic was on the second page of the list... most boards I frequent have active topics 3+ pages deep.
4. I think Skyalmin's right in that there is no specified time limit. Where do you draw the line? Do you really need one?

If I'm out of line, that's fine, and I'm sorry. Didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings.

As a side note, I post at www.flatearth.com, working on a co-op storytelling effort. I've been in it for over 4 years, and occasionally I'll take a few months off from it, then jump right back in. Time is relative.

Sky, welcome to the DBB Nazi board where the MOD's do as they feel.

all you had to do was make a new thread and link to the old one.

Ans sky if you checked the date you would see it was six months old. If I closed threads that were ten days old as you claim, you would see ten times the locks.

If you want to talk to me about something, do it in PM. don't try and drag me through the mud here.

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warr ... mancer.htm

The mods had to institut some sort of controls after Klub Marcus and his spammathon/necroposting went a bit to far. I agree with some of their actions disagree with some. In the end though we are all human and they take whatever actions they feel they need to. Mistakes are made I am sure but its them taking their time to help the board along. I visit some boards with more rules some with less this one seems to be a nice balance. If we really want to get out of control we can play in the NHB. But calling them Nazi mods is just a bit overboard IMHO.

Ans sky if you checked the date you would see it was six months old. If I closed threads that were ten days old as you claim, you would see ten times the locks.

I'm guessing you're referring to this one, in which case, February 11 to May 18 is not 6 months old, but barely over 3 months.

If you want to talk to me about something, do it in PM. don't try and drag me through the mud here.

Yeah. I have nothing against you, but the asinine policy that you've unfortunately been the one to enforce the most.

---
Determining which category a "necropost" falls in is a subjective matter, but in most instances, useless comments vs continuers are very easy to figure out.

Skyalmian wrote:Moderating an old, bumped thread is perfectly reasonable if, say, someone bumped it with a useless comment ... but in the case of someone just wanting to continue a conversation, what the hell?

If you wake up a year-old thread, the conversation is already long gone. The original participants have long since forgotten about it. You're not "continuing" conversation if nobody else still has it in their head; you're starting a new conversation based on some year-old material. In that case, it's usually best to just start a new conversation and reference the year-old material. Link to the old thread, quote anything critically important, and go from there.

Why should anyone start a new thread on a subject they want to talk about just because the other one is old?

Simple: when a thread is old, people have stopped thinking about it. People no longer remember what's been said or what they've read. If you suddenly wake up a thread nobody has been participating in for a decent amount of time, most people will reread the whole thing (or at least a significant part of it) before they realize they've already read it. Often, they'll have to reread several posts anyway, just to figure out the context of the latest remarks. Then they'll begin an entirely new conversation based on that old material.

Necroposting isn't *always* bad (see, for example, the Hogzilla thread -- which was only 5 posts long at the time I necro'd it) but it often is.

I'd also like to know what the magical cut-off date is.

Logical fallacy. There's no magical cutoff between "stubble" and "beard", and there's no magical cutoff between "young" and "old". It's a judgement call on your part and on the part of the moderators.

Factors you need to weigh:
- how old is the thread?
- how long is the thread (meaning, how much time will people have to waste rereading it before they realize they've already read it?)
- how important is it that your response be directly in the thread vs. being a new thread that links to the old one? Is the thread so unique that it doesn't make sense to start a new one?
- how many chances have you had to respond? (If you've been gone for a month, and you start your post with "sorry for coming in so late on this, I've been gone for a month" you'll probably have a little bit of leeway.)
- have you been a problem for the moderator recently? (Klubmarcus necro'd some threads that I might have tolerated had he not been causing problems in other ways.)
- is your comment legit, or is it basically a useless thread bump?

Not surprisingly, different moderators and different posters have different ideas about this, especially when your post has some positives and some negatives. I tend to give people about 2 weeks on any thread whatsoever (like the minuteman project thread you linked), and longer if the thread is short, if they'd been gone and say so, or if the update really seemed to belong there. I also go through the same consideration if I'm going to necro something.

I'm not going to follow every single one of your links, but let me give my own thoughts on Ferno's 2 most recent closings:
1) Fahrenheit 360: this would've fallen under my "uniqueness" definition, but I'd have had to consider it strongly in light of the other necropost.
2) Post your tags: no question, this one reached its limit long ago.

It's always the individual moderator's call, but this should at least give you some idea of what criteria mods use to judge.

You should give people more credit for their memory..

FunkyStickman, one thing to consider for future reference is that the DBB isn't as active as some of the larger forums you've visited. If a thread falls off the first page, it's generally because people are done discussing it. I personally like this; I hate trying to go through larger forums and reading two or three pages' worth of topics, only to get back to the main forum and realize that posts made in the meantime have reset the "New posts" icons. At any rate, I'd say that a guideline of two to three weeks since the last post is a pretty good one to follow; any older than that usually falls into the realm of necroposting, unless there are some extenuating circumstances.

Lothar wrote:If you wake up a year-old thread, the conversation is already long gone. The original participants have long since forgotten about it. You're not "continuing" conversation if nobody else still has it in their head; you're starting a new conversation based on some year-old material.

A technical fallacy on my part.

In that case, it's usually best to just start a new conversation and reference the year-old material. Link to the old thread, quote anything critically important, and go from there.

Funnily enough, when I've seen that happen (I visit a lot of forums), people tend to go to the old one, as I said in Paragraph 6.

Necroposting isn't *always* bad (see, for example, the Hogzilla thread -- which was only 5 posts long at the time I necro'd it) but it often is.

I know...I've seen plenty of bad "necroposts" around here, and I'm not complaining about those being smacked down. The ones I do have a beef with are some of the ones I linked to.

Factors you need to weigh:
- how old is the thread?
- how long is the thread (meaning, how much time will people have to waste rereading it before they realize they've already read it?)
- how important is it that your response be directly in the thread vs. being a new thread that links to the old one? Is the thread so unique that it doesn't make sense to start a new one?
- how many chances have you had to respond? (If you've been gone for a month, and you start your post with "sorry for coming in so late on this, I've been gone for a month" you'll probably have a little bit of leeway.)
- have you been a problem for the moderator recently? (Klubmarcus necro'd some threads that I might have tolerated had he not been causing problems in other ways.)
- is your comment legit, or is it basically a useless thread bump?

A good enough list of factors. Ferno was closing threads simply because they were replied to after so long, without giving the "necroposts"'s content in relation to the thread any thought.

1) Fahrenheit 360: this would've fallen under my "uniqueness" definition, but I'd have had to consider it strongly in light of the other necropost.

That one should be unlocked.

2) Post your tags: no question, this one reached its limit long ago.

Agreed.

Skyalmian wrote:

In that case, it's usually best to just start a new conversation and reference the year-old material. Link to the old thread, quote anything critically important, and go from there.

Funnily enough, when I've seen that happen (I visit a lot of forums), people tend to go to the old one, as I said in Paragraph 6.

I was going to respond to that paragraph with "those are other forums. This is the DBB." I decided against it, but since you bring it up again... here, people usually stick to the new topic.

Ferno was closing threads simply because they were replied to after so long, without giving the "necroposts"'s content in relation to the thread any thought.

Did you ever try contacting him in person and asking him about it?

We should seriously put up a sticky in this forum that asks that. Before you post a complaint about a moderator, contact them directly and privately first. They'll usually explain themselves, and you can have the discussion and suggest alternatives, and if they don't listen *then* you come complain... or start a thread without naming names, and just ask for what the board-wide policy should be.

Lothar wrote:Did you ever try contacting him in person and asking him about it?

I didn't. The problem doesn't lie with him, but with the total lack of stated limitations for the moderators on enforcing the "no necroposting" rule.

Your guidelines will suffice when taking a "necropost" into account:

1. How old is the thread (date of necropost compared to previous post)?

2. How long is the thread (meaning, how much time will people have to waste re-reading it before they realize they have already read it?)?

3. How important is it that the necroposter's response be directly in the thread vs. being a new thread that links to the old one? Is the thread so unique that it doesn't make sense to start a new one?

4. How many chances has the necroposter had to respond? If the necroposter has been gone for a month, and the necroposter started his/her post with "Sorry for coming in so late on this, I've been gone for a month." he/she will probably have a little bit of leeway.

5. Has the necroposter been a problem for a moderator recently?

6. Is the necroposter's comment legitimate, or is it basically a useless thread bump?

so what's the "limit".. about 2 weeks as a rule of common sense?

For a real comment, 2 weeks is a good rule of thumb. Go beyond that only if you have good reason.

two weeks sounds good to me. if it's really special I'll let it go a month.

Other than that, use some common sense.

two weeks

Ah, so 14.0 days is the answer to the "What is the magical cut-off date?" question that Lothar called a "logical fallacy". I see.

Other than that, use some common sense.

Yep, such as taking in his guidelines into account, too, instead of just going "it's over 2 weeks" and closing it.

...and here's a "necropost". What are you going to do? Close it?

1. Little over 30 days.
2. Quite short.
3. Didn't need to start a new one.
4. Jesus Freak isn't around often, for one (post directly prior to that one was on Sat Mar 26, 2005). Another is that that is his first post in that thread.
5. No.
6. A bit of both.

I'd leave it open.

Sky, there's a reason certain people are moderators and others are not. It's because they've been determined to have good judgement in maintaining active conversation in the forums they moderate. You may not agree, that's fine. But it's totally their judgment as to what constitutes good discussion and what doesn't. Topics in the cafe tend to last about a week before becoming stale and pointless to resurrect. Topics in the Coder's Corner can last over a month, simply because nobody visits the place, and when they do, it usually involves a lot more than a knee-jerk post. What the Cafe mods would consider without a doubt to be necroposting would most likely be regular discussion in my forum.

In short, it's entirely subjective and entirely up to the moderators. There is no need for a blanket restriction on what qualifies as necroposting.

Another thing you have to consider is how lively a thread is. If there's a response every three days or so, then it's a stale thread which will run out of steam soon enough. I usually don't close this type of thread when it's been revived down the road simply because it dies on it's own pretty fast.

But if a thread gets a new response every half hour or so, and suddenly there are no more replies, then it has served it's purpose. When this type of thread is revived down the road it does warrant a close because as lothar said, people will realize they've just wasted about twenty minutes to a half hour reading what they already know.

Topics in the cafe tend to last about a week before becoming stale and pointless to resurrect. Topics in the Coder's Corner can last over a month, simply because nobody visits the place, and when they do, it usually involves a lot more than a knee-jerk post. What the Cafe mods would consider without a doubt to be necroposting would most likely be regular discussion in my forum.

I thought of that on the way out earlier. If I applied the 14.0 day blanket rule applied a blanket rule to the D3kBB, virtually every thread replied to would have to be closed due to "necroposting".

So, "7. Activity level of the forum?"

Skyalmian wrote:

two weeks

Ah, so 14.0 days is the answer to the "What is the magical cut-off date?" question that Lothar called a "logical fallacy". I see.

Way to quote half a sentence... that's the sort of thing I expect out of AceCombat, not you.

If you quote the whole sentence, you'll find people said things like "two weeks is a good rule of thumb"... if you pay attention to whole ideas, instead of just looking for a number to quote to make people look bad, you'll find that everyone who's said "two weeks" has held the same idea that judgement is involved and that sometimes things can go a lot longer. There's no magical cutoff date of 14.0 days, but that as you approach and then pass that mark, you should be aware that you're starting to move into necropost territory and should only post with good reason.

Noted.

While I was a mod of the Cafe, I generally went by my own rule of thumb:

If someone replied to a one month old thread, and if it actually contributed to the topic, I left it alone. Two months would be really pushing it, but anymore than that got an insta-close. Given the traffic in the Cafe, I felt this was more than reasonable, and I honestly think that worked pretty well.

from a database point of view it has less of an affect on the performance of the board to add to an old thread than to create a new one, however the performance hit is minute.

As far as how important Necroposting is? I guess on this board its higher than most. As far as fair treatment goes, on the boards that I admin and on the ones I am a mod of I call it as a I see it, and I miss stuff too. I can see how that can be percieved as favoritism.