Resurrecting Threads: New Accounts, Please Read

[Zaffre]

I know this is not the right category but it is the one that will get the most attention so I put it here. I thought the forum needed this.

As of late I have seen a lot of old threads brought back from the dead by newer accounts. People may have said that you have "resurrected" a thread. This means that you have posted on an old thread. As this is not officially on the rules thread, confusions may occur. Bumping (bringing to the front page) an old thread is highly looked down upon and it is encouraged to not do so. To figure out whether a thread is old or not, look at a person's avatar, then look downward and you will see a date. Today is December 4th, 2012. If it were January 23rd, 2013, and this thread was brought back up, this would be resurrecting a thread.

I've noticed a big problem lately and have come up with a single way to counteract it. Look for the date. If the post is, at a minimum, one month old, this is considered a "dead" thread. You should not post in this thread. There is an exception for certain dicussions. Members will then get angry for starting a new discussion thread instead of posting in the older but still existing thread.

tl;dr - If the post is a month old or longer, do not post in it unless you have something to contribute. Do not purposefully bring back an old thread with nothing to add to it.

Hopefully this helps with some of the confusion regarding older threads, and maybe the resurrection rates will decrease?

[Bridge]

You might as well change the title to "Resurrecting Threads: UnseenLegend ( NL ), Please Read".

[Statyk]

It's okay to resurrect a thread, so long as it is on topic. It IS usually done by newer accounts because I assume they have google searched the topic and, wanting to respond to the thread they discovered, made an account to post. Another idea is they have gone on the profile of someone and checked out their created threads or posts, read it, then feel the need to respond.

Resurrecting isn't a big deal, as long as you are on topic. It IS strange to see someone revive a conversation months or even years later, but it's better than them making a new topic and using unnecessary space.

[Bridge]

It's okay to resurrect a thread, so long as it is on topic. It IS usually done by newer accounts because I assume they have google searched the topic and, wanting to respond to the thread they discovered, made an account to post. Another idea is they have gone on the profile of someone and checked out their created threads or posts, read it, then feel the need to respond.

Resurrecting isn't a big deal, as long as you are on topic. It IS strange to see someone revive a conversation months or even years later, but it's better than them making a new topic and using unnecessary space.

It's not really a problem but it is strange to see people like UnseenLegend ( NL ) necro threads from 2006 with confusing posts that contribute nothing to the topic at hand. It kind of disrupts the forum's balance to have really old threads promptly and uselessly resurrected, IMO.

[Danny Boy]

Darn Hipster necromancers! Bring on the gunz! we got fresh meat on the loose ready to be slain!

[Cranky Old Man]

People who hate thread ressurrections are stupid.
What are the alternatives?
Should I make another thread?
Should I never discuss topics that has already been discussed, again?
Yes, I ressurrected an old thread - what of it? It was either that, or clutter the Random thread with a lengthy discussion about Prometheus.

[Zaffre]

People who hate thread ressurrections are stupid.
What are the alternatives?
Should I make another thread?
Should I never discuss topics that has already been discussed, again?
Yes, I ressurrected an old thread - what of it? It was either that, or clutter the Random thread with a lengthy discussion about Prometheus.

Like I said, it isn't a problem if it's sensible. However, some things are better left dead. I.e. pointless threads, or demo threads for custom stories.

[Kein]

Forum isn't a chat, threads being saved here for a reason and people come back to them later (that is the whole point). There is nothing wrong to bump them unless it is a junk post without value.

[peckinpah1976]

It's also considered 'good etiquette' on most Internet forums to use existing threads where possible, rather than create new ones.

People are only following this principle.

[Bridge]

It's also considered 'good etiquette' on most Internet forums to use existing threads where possible, rather than create new ones.

People are only following this principle.

This doesn't always apply. For example: if there's any kind of official thread that maybe doesn't get a lot of posts and isn't a sticky, like "the Penumbra thread" or something, it would be frowned upon if you made a new thread dedicated to the same subject. If the topic is about something more general or temporary, for example: "What are your favorite movies?" then it would be unacceptable to necro it, because none of the original posters are talking about it anymore and it isn't a serious thread dedicated to film; it's just a casual discussion. Posting in a thread that's called "What's your favorite Amnesia monster?" that dates back to 2010 just in the interest of "conserving space"* would just disrupt the forum's balance. It's like if you were reading a conversation in a book and decided to partake in it all of a sudden. It doesn't make sense because the people in question can't hear you and so if you're going to be talking to anyone, it's going to be new people viewing the thread again, so why not make a new one?

* This really makes no sense, because blank threads really don't take up that much space at all. What does take up space are all of the characters you are posting in the thread, but the forum software would've had to allocate memory for that if you posted in old threads anyway…