If I have something I want to discuss, then do a search and find there's already a thread about it in the forums, doesn't it make more sense to bump that thread and keep the conversation going instead of starting a new thread? I don't understand why a necrobump is considered so bad on forums (and not just this forum, I know ... it's quite common).
Doesn't starting a new thread to talk about the same thing just take up more space?
Specifically in the Rulings forum, due to the fact that rule changes can happen every couple months, the rulings given previously may not currently be correct.
W may only be paid with white mana. U may only be paid with blue mana. B may only be paid with black mana. R may only be paid with red mana. G may only be paid with green mana. C may only be paid with colorless mana. 1 may be paid with white, blue, black, red, green, or clolorless mana.
Specifically in the Rulings forum, due to the fact that rule changes can happen every couple months, the rulings given previously may not currently be correct.
This is correct. More generally, we do it because often times the OP is asking a question or the users in the thread are no longer active, rendering the response moot. For threads that are more timeless in nature, we will often times look past the necro, but we leave the handing of thread necro to each local moderator.
Specifically in the Rulings forum, due to the fact that rule changes can happen every couple months, the rulings given previously may not currently be correct.
This is correct. More generally, we do it because often times the OP is asking a question or the users in the thread are no longer active, rendering the response moot. For threads that are more timeless in nature, we will often times look past the necro, but we leave the handing of thread necro to each local moderator.
I always figure if it's bumped, new users will see it in the forum and maybe want to respond as well.
I've had that happen to me on other forums where I bump a thread, new people start posting and the conversations gets going again, and then the mods lock it just because it's necro, and that seems silly to me.
Actually, Cryogen, it seems you locked the thread I was thinking of (about Worst Mythic Rares) in just this way:
Someone bumped it, but then others posted, and the conversation was going again, but then you locked it just because it was old. I think this thread probably could keep going, given that there are always new mythics coming out and people will want to complain about them.
I totally understand about this in the Rules forum, though.
I always figure if it's bumped, new users will see it in the forum and maybe want to respond as well.
I've had that happen to me on other forums where I bump a thread, new people start posting and the conversations gets going again, and then the mods lock it just because it's necro, and that seems silly to me.
Actually, Cryogen, it seems you locked the thread I was thinking of (about Worst Mythic Rares) in just this way:
Someone bumped it, but then others posted, and the conversation was going again, but then you locked it just because it was old. I think this thread probably could keep going, given that there are always new mythics coming out and people will want to complain about them.
I totally understand about this in the Rules forum, though.
In that example thread, sure it could have been left open, but to what potential? It was over four years between the last post and the one which necroed the thread. What we typically see is that users don't notice a thread like that was necroed, and there would have been the usual comments like, "no mention of Card X?", "Card Y is so good, why would you list that one?", etc., because most users don't notice the post dates and would respond to very old posts by users who might not even be active anymore. With over four years of new mythics having been printed, it would be better to just create a new thread and start over.
I realize that a lot of the time this may just seem arbitrary, but because necro is something we generally would prefer to avoid, it is simpler to enforce it whenever possible for the sake of uniformity.
So, what would happen if I went and necro-bumped this thread in a few years?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
On the topic of necroposting, I happen to see A LOT of it. Maybe not a necropost every day, but maybe once every two or three? And I only look at a handful of the forums here at MTGS. I'm not sure exactly how it happens, but my best guess is that non-community members just do a Google search for whatever it is they're interested in, and some ancient thread ends up being one of the top search results. That person then clicks into it and feels compelled enough to make an account just to post in the thread while never bothering to check how old it is.
If you want to prevent this behavior, why not just have all threads within certain portions of the forum automatically lock themselves after a long period of inactivity, perhaps six months? If you don't want threads within a certain part of the forums to automatically lock, then put some kind of mask on those sections so that they don't do so. If you want to prevent a specific thread within an auto-locking part of the boards from auto-locking, allow moderators to apply some kind of feature to that thread so that it doesn't auto-lock. You could even have an auto-locking bot post a reply in threads (a reply that doesn't bump the thread) stating why the thread was locked (inactivity) and that anyone that comes across it should just create a new thread instead.
Implementing all of those changes would reduce the amount of activity moderators would have to perform, right? Aren't the number of threads that get necroposted going to exceed the number of threads which get erroneously auto-locked and needed moderator unlocking?
EDIT: Also, if I happen to come across any recently necroposted threads, would moderators prefer that I report the post which necroposted the thread or just leave it be?
On the topic of necroposting, I happen to see A LOT of it. Maybe not a necropost every day, but maybe once every two or three? And I only look at a handful of the forums here at MTGS. I'm not sure exactly how it happens, but my best guess is that non-community members just do a Google search for whatever it is they're interested in, and some ancient thread ends up being one of the top search results. That person then clicks into it and feels compelled enough to make an account just to post in the thread while never bothering to check how old it is.
Yeah this is usually what happens.
If you want to prevent this behavior, why not just have all threads within certain portions of the forum automatically lock themselves after a long period of inactivity, perhaps six months? If you don't want threads within a certain part of the forums to automatically lock, then put some kind of mask on those sections so that they don't do so. If you want to prevent a specific thread within an auto-locking part of the boards from auto-locking, allow moderators to apply some kind of feature to that thread so that it doesn't auto-lock. You could even have an auto-locking bot post a reply in threads (a reply that doesn't bump the thread) stating why the thread was locked (inactivity) and that anyone that comes across it should just create a new thread instead.
Implementing all of those changes would reduce the amount of activity moderators would have to perform, right? Aren't the number of threads that get necroposted going to exceed the number of threads which get erroneously auto-locked and needed moderator unlocking?
The only problem with that is there isn't an easy way to code this without making it a blanket rule across the board. An different forums have different standards of what constitutes necro (I like to cite Magic Rulings, which is in the months timeframe).
EDIT: Also, if I happen to come across any recently necroposted threads, would moderators prefer that I report the post which necroposted the thread or just leave it be?
If you wish. This isn't one of those forum rules which we go out of our way to enforce. It is something we just notice causes less confusion if it can be avoided.
Doesn't starting a new thread to talk about the same thing just take up more space?
I'm confused about this.
This is correct. More generally, we do it because often times the OP is asking a question or the users in the thread are no longer active, rendering the response moot. For threads that are more timeless in nature, we will often times look past the necro, but we leave the handing of thread necro to each local moderator.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I always figure if it's bumped, new users will see it in the forum and maybe want to respond as well.
I've had that happen to me on other forums where I bump a thread, new people start posting and the conversations gets going again, and then the mods lock it just because it's necro, and that seems silly to me.
Actually, Cryogen, it seems you locked the thread I was thinking of (about Worst Mythic Rares) in just this way:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/opinions-polls/334137-worst-mythic-rares?page=2
Someone bumped it, but then others posted, and the conversation was going again, but then you locked it just because it was old. I think this thread probably could keep going, given that there are always new mythics coming out and people will want to complain about them.
I totally understand about this in the Rules forum, though.
In that example thread, sure it could have been left open, but to what potential? It was over four years between the last post and the one which necroed the thread. What we typically see is that users don't notice a thread like that was necroed, and there would have been the usual comments like, "no mention of Card X?", "Card Y is so good, why would you list that one?", etc., because most users don't notice the post dates and would respond to very old posts by users who might not even be active anymore. With over four years of new mythics having been printed, it would be better to just create a new thread and start over.
I realize that a lot of the time this may just seem arbitrary, but because necro is something we generally would prefer to avoid, it is simpler to enforce it whenever possible for the sake of uniformity.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
I'd lock it, then kick a puppy in a fit of rage.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
You monster!
If you want to prevent this behavior, why not just have all threads within certain portions of the forum automatically lock themselves after a long period of inactivity, perhaps six months? If you don't want threads within a certain part of the forums to automatically lock, then put some kind of mask on those sections so that they don't do so. If you want to prevent a specific thread within an auto-locking part of the boards from auto-locking, allow moderators to apply some kind of feature to that thread so that it doesn't auto-lock. You could even have an auto-locking bot post a reply in threads (a reply that doesn't bump the thread) stating why the thread was locked (inactivity) and that anyone that comes across it should just create a new thread instead.
Implementing all of those changes would reduce the amount of activity moderators would have to perform, right? Aren't the number of threads that get necroposted going to exceed the number of threads which get erroneously auto-locked and needed moderator unlocking?
EDIT: Also, if I happen to come across any recently necroposted threads, would moderators prefer that I report the post which necroposted the thread or just leave it be?
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Yeah this is usually what happens.
The only problem with that is there isn't an easy way to code this without making it a blanket rule across the board. An different forums have different standards of what constitutes necro (I like to cite Magic Rulings, which is in the months timeframe).
If you wish. This isn't one of those forum rules which we go out of our way to enforce. It is something we just notice causes less confusion if it can be avoided.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg