Print

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

[Neonivek]

Hey Neonivek can I post in that thread now please?

Yeah you could have a while ago.

[Shurhaian]

Rather than make up a whole new thread for it when it seems relevant to this one - might it be worthwhile to, at the top of this forum where the guidelines are posted, say under the "search for existing thread", note that thread necromancy is not only permitted but encouraged/expected in this forum? I've seen a number of times that people are reluctant to revive old threads - and in many forums it is considered bad etiquette to do so - but, hell, I've seen Toady himself do it, what more confirmation could you ask for that it's the way to go here?

Putting it right on the forum's index page might encourage at least a few more people to find and resurrect an existing thread rather than making a new one - it is a rather nonstandard approach to things, after all, so it's understandable that people would go with the usual and let dead threads lie. Without specific examples to the contrary, I can imagine a lot of people would interpret "Search for an existing thread" as implying that the existing thread be recently active.

[CobaltKobold]

Rather than make up a whole new thread for it when it seems relevant to this one - might it be worthwhile to, at the top of this forum where the guidelines are posted, say under the "search for existing thread", note that thread necromancy is not only permitted but encouraged/expected in this forum? I've seen a number of times that people are reluctant to revive old threads - and in many forums it is considered bad etiquette to do so - but, hell, I've seen Toady himself do it, what more confirmation could you ask for that it's the way to go here?

Putting it right on the forum's index page might encourage at least a few more people to find and resurrect an existing thread rather than making a new one - it is a rather nonstandard approach to things, after all, so it's understandable that people would go with the usual and let dead threads lie. Without specific examples to the contrary, I can imagine a lot of people would interpret "Search for an existing thread" as implying that the existing thread be recently active.

Seconded.

[Footkerchief]

Yup, that's a decent idea.

[CobaltKobold]

OH Oh something to remember...

That annoying "Has not been posted in in 120 days"warning  suggests that thread necromancy is bad.

[Footkerchief]

OH Oh something to remember...

That annoying "Has not been posted in in 120 days"warning  suggests that thread necromancy is bad.

I think that warning is okay.  It says "Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.  Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic."  And people SHOULD make sure they want to reply -- we don't want people necro'ing threads left and right just to say "I love this idea!"

I think the top of Suggestions should say something like, "Search for an existing thread.  Feel free to revive an old thread as long as you have a contribution to make."

[SirHoneyBadger]

I agree with you, Footkerchief, but CobaltKobold does a point, in that it could be a bit less off-putting. I don't know that your statement about feeling free to reviving an old thread goes quite far enough.

It would be great to have that at the top of Suggestions, but the 120 day warning could still use a little softening, beyond it.

[Shurhaian]

Even if the warning can't be toned down / altered for this particular forum - especially in that case, actually - a note at the top of the forum that thread necromancy is the way to go if you have an actual contribution to make could be a good idea.

That same warning crops up elsewhere, and carries the connotation "don't post here unless you've got a really pressing reason to do so". Assuming that forum newcomers will see that same message and get the forum-specific subtext of "and contributing to the suggestion is a pressing reason" isn't exactly fair to them.

And to argue it from another direction - what would it hurt? Tangential thread necromancy may still be less of a nuisance to sort through than the same idea being brought up 10 times because the original thread(s) went stale.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Agreed, Shurhaian. 

Maybe it should say "Please do post here unless you have a really pressing reason NOT to"

[CobaltKobold]

That's a little silly.

"I posted here 'cause I had free time!"

[SirHoneyBadger]

Something that gives more balance to the equation, anyway.

Something that embraces the new theory that necroing threads isn't necessarily a vile, sinful act to be ashamed of.

[nogibator]

Ideas about df page organisation.

Toady, why won't you post link to df wiki on download page? I know it is included in build-in help, but when people see Dwarf Fortress first time, they are confused, and finding help ain't seem that obvious.

Why(if ever, say, Stonesense could get an interface hack, and people can actually play, not just visualize df in it) won't post link to, say, Stonesense thread and screenshots on df download page? It could make df much more popular, because first impression always the biggest one and colourfull nes-like graphics impress people much more then ascii(thought i, personally, prefer ascii).

And more people means more ideas, more mods, more donations.

[SirHoneyBadger]

I think it would be a good idea to have a way to disable the posts of others, on an individual basis. So that one could go through and "turn off" trolling posts and the like, making them invisible. I think that would save some otherwise decent threads that occasionally get overwhelmed by Off Topic and other unnecessary posts.

Note that I'm not suggesting imposed moderation, only an option to self-moderate. 

[Footkerchief]

Does that just mean each person can prevent themselves from seeing certain posts?  The people with the self-control to click "Ignore" on a post are the ones with the self-control to, you know, ignore a post the normal way.  By the way, it would require major modifications to the forum software and it's probably not feasible -- from a database standpoint, the worst-case situations are heinous.

[SirHoneyBadger]

It's not about self-control, it's about cleaning up a mess to improve the appearance.

If you have the kind of "self-control" that simply makes you blind to things you'd rather pretend aren't there, you probably have a really messy house.

I don't see wearing rose-coloured glasses as a concrete or viable solution to a technical problem.


As far as it being an enormous technical hurdle, YouTube offers it, and they don't even have a real Forum. I can't imagine that whoever codes YouTube's very limited message board can outdo ToadyOne.