Regarding the Life of Threads

[aco175]

2 points.
1, I wish the forums thread page showed when a thread was started instead of just the last post time.
2, I hate when I give a like to someone only to realize the last time they were even on the site was like 5 years ago.

 

[Rune]

2, I hate when I give a like to someone only to realize the last time they were even on the site was like 5 years ago.

Why? The poster’s current status has no bearing on whether or not future internet generations find value in the post. Respect is respect. The respectee doesn’t need to know about it.

For example, folk are (probably?) still giving XP to Gary Gygax and he definitely hasn’t been active in the last 14ish years. In fact, these boards didn’t even have XP when he was!

 

[Hex08]

I say let anarchy reign!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

For example, folk are (probably?) still giving XP to Gary Gygax and he definitely hasn’t been active in the last 14ish years. In fact, these boards didn’t even have XP when he was!

Gygax would completely disapprove.

If coffee is for closers only, then XP is for survivors only. DMG, p. 85.

Rules are rules.

 

[jgsugden]

I feel obligated to necro this thread.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

I feel obligated to necro this thread.

You've stolen my schtick AND necro'd this thread 2.5 years early. Damn you!

Now my plans for world domination are set back by 6 months!

 

[darjr]

Threads are ALIVE!?!?

 

[Blue]

A couple of cases that I use to discuss.

1. Some posts are meant to be references, like character guides. Random posts asking X, Y and Z when X and Z are already answered in a previous one, and knowing the answer to Y could be useful to anyone using that reference, then I would definitely add it there.

2. Replying to someone's post from a year or more ago makes assumptions they are still around and have the same opinion. Or worse, I've seen people necro a thread to correct someone, using errata, sage advice, or just new books that were not out at the time the thread was active.

3. If you are asking a question and didn't search, a link to the older thread that answers it in detail is appropriate. Don't take it personally.

4. If the most recent thread is actually recent, say last post within the last month or perhaps even active - then continue that instead of creating another.

5. Between these a fuzzier area. If your topic has a unique spin, create a new one. If the most recent is six month or older start a new one - if it's newer you'll probably just get the same people giving the same answers.

 

[Thomas Shey]

2. Replying to someone's post from a year or more ago makes assumptions they are still around and have the same opinion. Or worse, I've seen people necro a thread to correct someone, using errata, sage advice, or just new books that were not out at the time the thread was active.

I've seen this elsewhere to threads that had run their course five years before.

(Of course this can be complicated; someone pops up a thread with search and posts in it (with a post that isn't especially necro-ish other than being an old thread; the thread pops to the top of the new list, someone who wasn't even around when it was originally posted reads it (without looking at the date) and responds to earlier posts, then someone responds to them, and essentially rekindles a half-decade old argument).

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

And so it came to pass that on the 14th day of the on the 3rd month and 6th year after the birth of this unholy thread did I, AntiStateQuixote, threadnecromancer extraordinaire, bend the laws of nature to once again cause the undying beast to tread forth from the depths of time and threaten the sanity of nerds everywhere.