D&D 5E Why do people care when threads get necro'd?

[DEFCON 1]

This seems to be a big deal for some people... someone here on the boards gets an old thread in their mentions and then read it and respond, not noticing the thread is "old". And invariably there are other who then show up to say "Necro'd thread!"... as if that is actually a problem.

Why exactly? Why is responding to an old thread such a big deal? Quite frankly I think a lot of concepts and ideas would be better off if the person who created a new thread had actually gone back and reread the old ones that had already gone over the same exact ground. Because they'd save themselves a lot of time and energy and seen exactly what everyone had already come up with for an answer. I mean, it seems like ever several months there's a brand-new thread asking why there isn't a Warlord or an Arcane Half-Caster in the game, or how do people run the Stealth rules... despite the fact that we've had three, five, nine, a dozen previous threads about them over the years.

Personally, I think if people are going to keep pointing out "Thread necromancy!", it's only right and fair that when a new thread is made regarding a topic that has clearly been created many times before, that someone immediately post 'Thread conjuration!"

** In the spirit in which this thread was created, I hope and expect someone to please do a search on this exact same topic, then post the link to that thread that also decries the continued castigation of thread necromancy, and follow it up by a "Thread conjuration!" response. Thank you. You do the Arneson's work.**

 

[Eubani]

Their unimportant selves have to feel important somehow. Some cannot grasp the simple idea that new information comes to light over time or thoughts on topics shift.

 

[payn]

Dead horse conversations and likelihood posters are gone and wont be responding anymore. Not sayin; just sayin.

 

[Oofta]

You mean like this one? You're welcome.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's not so much thread necromancy, which can be good. Recycling is always a good thing, which is why I personally am an advocate for cannibalism. But vegan cannibalism. Hufu- tastes just like human!

Where was I? Oh yes, it's more the unwitting necromancy. Considered, intentional necromancy- actually finding the corpse, digging it out of the cold ground, and breathing life into it? That's okay!

But when you're just stumbling around, and you can't remember the words, and you're all like, "Klaatu Barada N... necktie... nectar... nickel... noodle. It's an 'N' word, it's definitely an 'N' word ..." and then you unwittingly raise the thread and the hordes of people come into tell you, "Nope, this has been dead since 2003" that's when you've done some real Evil.

 

[Laurefindel]

I secretly love necro'd threads. I like picking up a conversation where it was left off years ago. New information and ideas can contribute and give new insight, hindsight observations can be made, experiences can be shared.

What I don't like, and my bet on why people despise thread necromancy, is being caught in a conversation I didn't notice was 2 years old. Then someone point it out and I feel foolish. But well-identified necro'd thread are great as far as I'm concerned. I'd love a forum/boards function flagging or highlighting threads that were started more than X months ago (whatever X months is considered old enough to be considered necromancy) [edit] as suggested in the thread conjuration...

 

[Morrus]

I find it slightly amusing when somebody replies to somebody 16 years in the past, but it doesn't bother me any.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This seems to be a big deal for some people... someone here on the boards gets an old thread in their mentions and then read it and respond, not noticing the thread is "old". And invariably there are other who then show up to say "Necro'd thread!"... as if that is actually a problem.

Why exactly? Why is responding to an old thread such a big deal? Quite frankly I think a lot of concepts and ideas would be better off if the person who created a new thread had actually gone back and reread the old ones that had already gone over the same exact ground. Because they'd save themselves a lot of time and energy and seen exactly what everyone had already come up with for an answer. I mean, it seems like ever several months there's a brand-new thread asking why there isn't a Warlord or an Arcane Half-Caster in the game, or how do people run the Stealth rules... despite the fact that we've had three, five, nine, a dozen previous threads about them over the years.

Personally, I think if people are going to keep pointing out "Thread necromancy!", it's only right and fair that when a new thread is made regarding a topic that has clearly been created many times before, that someone immediately post 'Thread conjuration!"

You're mixing things. Looking to see if a topic has been addressed is not the same thing as engaging in an argument from 12 years ago with people that likely aren't even on the board anymore. You've made it so that pointing out to someone that they've engaged in an old discussion is the same thing as requiring a detailed search for all previous topics -- it's a poor argument that's not well connected. Generally, people who necro old threads are new posters, and I typically toss them some welcome XP and let them know they've posted to an old thread so that they can understand why they're getting no responses from the people they've quoted.

And, then there's the threads that are about prior editions that are responded to with current edition, which is common enough as well.

There's no rule against necro'ing threads, and I think that's peachy. There's also no rule that prevent someone from pointing out that the new responses are to decade old posters quite often.

** In the spirit in which this thread was created, I hope and expect someone to please do a search on this exact same topic, then post the link to that thread that also decries the continued castigation of thread necromancy, and follow it up by a "Thread conjuration!" response. Thank you. You do the Arneson's work.**

Heh, good luck with that -- the insistence that people agree with your take or do the homework you insist on isn't really something people are actually beholden to.

 

[Morrus]

Dead horse conversations

Eh, every conversation is new to somebody. I don't habitually walk into rooms and complain that there are people present talking about something I spoke to somebody about last week.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Eh, every conversation is new to somebody. I don't habitually walk into rooms and complain that there are people present talking about something I spoke to somebody about last week.

I do.

They should've been there last week. Or at least read the memo. Sheesh, the nerve of those people.

Remember- there are no dumb questions. Just dumb people that ask questions.