On Necroposting

[Integrity]

I think mods just shouldn't follow the 1 month/2 pages rule too strictly, because there's stuff like projects or playthroughs on hiatus where there's no need to lock them just because someone posts. There's no problem with locking year-old threads though.

there's a special rule in the necroposting rules for project threads yo, 5.2.2, examples of exceptions

You have a project thread, and you must bump it to alert people to an update you just did.

we're not robots, we evaluate things on a per-case basis

[Crazycolorz5]

signal boosting this bitch, if you just ask one of us and have a modestly good reason to want to necro instead of making a new thread we'll usually say yes lol

That's a bit of an issue though -- If the default answer is generally "yes", then should it really be a rule in a first place? What I'm suggesting is to catch the cases you'd say "no" to under a different rule, such as off-topic posting. From what I'm gathering, you're generally fine with necroposting when it adds to the conversation, so why have a rule specifically restricting necroposting?

I'd also like to emphasize that it's also about accessibility. Having to PM a mod before posting, when expecting a "yes" anyway, is a barrier to posting.

I just found it noticeable to see topics about the same content quite recently.

I mean it's too late anyways since FE14 has multiple hundred of topics already and it'd be way too time-consuming to add them together.

It was just an idea of myself for an upcoming FE game to pin topics like Promotion thread which deals with all specific questions about this topic instead of having like 30 own topics.

Yeah, I'm hoping having a mindset slightly less encouraging to always start a new thread would help with this.

[Integrity]

From what I'm gathering, you're generally fine with necroposting when it adds to the conversation,

then you're gathering wrong, my friend. we're not "generally fine" with it unless there's a good reason. contributing to a conversation that was ongoing but stopped like two months ago is generally not a good reason, unless it's some wildly new information. popping into a "why is corrin bad" topic that's three months dead to give your hot take on why corrin is bad is something that i would deny somebody if they pmed me about it. on the other hand, if there was some news thread that would be a necro to bump with new news, that's a modestly good reason and i'd OK it.

[Crazycolorz5]

So instead, a new thread about "why corrin is bad" would have to be created? Despite the existing thread having (assumedly) many good points/viewpoints? Many of those who read the new thread may not have been following the old one, and thus may just be reconstructing things already said, and the ones who have seen it would be thinking "I already know all of these points". The is instead of being able to start where the old thread left off. I find this wasteful and counterproductive.

[Integrity]

yes, unironically exactly that. if you're really excited to give your hot take on why corrin is bad - and we're not going to debate the merits f that thread in particular - make a new thread. it's a hell of a lot more respectful than people calling out users for views they don't even hold anymore, and it's a hell of a lot easier to enforce an overarching rule with a simple cutoff than something wishy-washy.

EDIT: think of it this way: if you're having a conversation with someone (a really slow one, you're ents i guess) you don't want people walking into the room and going "hey remember that thing you said a month ago? i think its wrong." especially after nobody in the room has even talked about the subject for a month. it's just dumb.

i'm sorry you don't agree fundamentally with necroposting rules but them's the breaks my friend.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Integrity

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Is the rule against Necroposting possibly the dumbest in the Code of Conduct? Yes

Was there ever really any reason to create the rule? Yes

Is the enforcement of the rule a problem? No. The biggest problem with the rule is that people do not read carefully and become sensitive about it after receiving their first warn because of it. It isn't the first time someone's brought this into question and have brought up exceptions that already exist. It is not a complicated rule at all.

It's a dumb, but threads like this and the fact that it's been a problem in the past (and probably still is today) keep it relevant enough that it needs to be explicitly stated as a rule.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Sirius