Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RexMundi]

First, in the other games fourm, I want to talk about the game Achron, but the thread has been dead for 6+ months at least. Necro or new?

[nenjin]

Personally, I prefer bumps than new threads.

That said, bumping an old, old thread means you should have something worth saying. So like, "What's up with this game?" isn't a good reason to bump. A paragraph or two about your experience with it? Totally fine.

About the only time I prefer a new thread over an existing one, is when the previous OP was of a lesser quality. Good OPs that categorize information and links about the game and are fun to read are good reasons to start a new thread. One sentence OPs like "Old thread was old, new thread for x game" are really a play for ownership of the discussion, not an actual desire for discussion.

Lastly, anyone that's actually subscribed to the thread will see it when it gets reactivated, and may come back to say something. A new thread means it will only get seen as long as it's on the first few pages.

[Lectorog]

If it's only 6 months, necro it.

If it were, like, 2 years old, you wouldn't want to. Half a year is fine.

[lue]

I personally have never understood forums where they would much rather you start a new thread on the exact same topic than contribute to an existing one (going so far, in cases, to auto-lock inactive threads). That said, I'm with nenjin that you should have something to contribute. I think in general, the longer it's been since the last post, the more substantive your new post needs to be.

[Naryar]

If it IS a relevant, on-topic post, then bump all you want.

People who criticize you merely for bumping and not for the quality of your post should be safely ignored.

Though...

That said, bumping an old, old thread means you should have something worth saying. So like, "What's up with this game?" isn't a good reason to bump. A paragraph or two about your experience with it? Totally fine.

This.

[Lectorog]

Is your post ironic?

[Zangi]

Its not even half a month.

I much prefer the necroing of really old threads rather then having new ones made, but yes... relevancy does also play a role in the acceptance of calling on the power of necromancy.  Of course, if the OP is worthy of being an OP.... go ahead.

People have all sorts of differing opinion on what is appropriate and not appropriate. 
I support necromancy of the highest levels, but you must understand, the dark arts are not to be taken lightly.

[GlyphGryph]

I much prefer the starting of new threads to the necroing of old threads. Necroed threads also necro old bullshit, new threads provide an opportunity for a much better OP and allow people to get in on the "ground floor" of the discussion.

It means as people decide to rejoin the discussion over the next several days, they have a clear point of "Oh. THIS is where it started back up again!" instead of having to dig through a hundred pages, and they can actually stay up to date. It means that the reason for the necro, perhaps some relevant change, is right at the top. It means the person maintaining the OP and updating the thread title (if needed) is actively around, or at least was recently.

There are lots of great reasons to start a new thread and...

Actually, I can't think of any reasons to necro a thread, unless your post is a response to something that was in it. If it's simply about the same topic, but not directly referencing anything that happened before, why the hell would you WANT to necro it instead of starting a new one?

[Lectorog]

Maybe if it has a really beautiful OP and you don't want the responsibility of handling the thread.

[nenjin]

Actually, I can't think of any reasons to necro a thread, unless your post is a response to something that was in it. If it's simply about the same topic, but not directly referencing anything that happened before, why the hell would you WANT to necro it instead of starting a new one?

Maybe I'm an alien here, but aside from 4,000 reply behemoths, most threads that fell off are readable, and I like to track the course of the discussion about games, in particular. There's a lot to be found in game discussions that have gone on for a while. Fixes, strats, knowledge. Even...opinions. Why retread it and bury it further? Again, quality OP is quality and I always respect that. But when it's not....?

I much prefer the starting of new threads to the necroing of old threads. Necroed threads also necro old bullshit, new threads provide an opportunity for a much better OP and allow people to get in on the "ground floor" of the discussion.

It means as people decide to rejoin the discussion over the next several days, they have a clear point of "Oh. THIS is where it started back up again!" instead of having to dig through a hundred pages, and they can actually stay up to date. It means that the reason for the necro, perhaps some relevant change, is right at the top. It means the person maintaining the OP and updating the thread title (if needed) is actively around, or at least was recently.

Although this is totally true too. And I admit at least some part of necroing ethics is "bro, do you EVEN search?"

[lue]

Maybe it's just me, but having duplicate threads is an annoying enough thought for me to recommend necroing when preferable (using the rule of "The more time passed since last post, the more substantial your new post must be."). Although I definitely see the arguments for preferring new topics.

[Naryar]

If it's simply about the same topic, but not directly referencing anything that happened before, why the hell would you WANT to necro it instead of starting a new one?

So we don't have 5 threads about the exact same topic. Simple enough.

[GlyphGryph]

Except we're talking necro-ing here, so it's not about "having" 5 threads, it's about "had" 5 threads.

Why do you care if we had even a dozen threads in the distant history of the board that no one reads or posts in anymore? Why does it matter?

We're not talking about having duplicates of active threads here.