tl'dr mod discretion
Generally, threads in the Maplestory section should not be necro'd, as Maplestory continually goes through updates and thus older posts become redundant/inapplicable.
In Tomato Island, however, I think that general topic threads (ice cream, for example) should be necro'd rather than have another thread on it. I'm not talking about time-specific threads, ie, current/recent news, or events. Those things die out after a while because they come to pass. There really is no reason to have more than 1 thread on a topic like "favorite foods" or "post your desktop". No one complained when the "post your desktop" thread was revived after like 2-3 months of inactivity; if anything, a person posting a new thread on desktop wallpapers was re-directed to the old thread...
The tl;dr is just that necro-policing should be enforced with discretion, not just an immediate lock for every necro that ever comes up.
bolt202/veil225/feint200
I still don't see how necroing them (for the purpose of reviving conversation or posting new information) is any different than making a new thread. Either way, that topic is put at the top of the thread list.
Seriously, what's the difference between a 100 new topics and 100 of the same, but older, topics in tomato island? Now we just have two of the "same" threads on the first page, which, according to you, would keep other more "popular" ones pushed down for a while.
If a thread gets to the point of being pushed out, then people probably just don't want to talk about it for the time being. However, if someone gets an inclination to share more, or wants to continue an old conversation, there really isn't anything upsetting about that.
For example, if I had a great dinner, I might take a pic and share it in the now old "food" thread. The thread would be necroed, yes, but it was not for the two "evil" reasons. I would not be necroing it just to be a dumbass and attract "omg u necroed the thread" posts, and would not be posting irrelevant, pointless, or redundant information. Either way, a "food" thread is brought back up to the top of the list, and a conversation may or may not result. By locking a reasonable thread, you just create more useless spammy threads within the section, and bring up unnecessary drama. Unless the necroing and following posts are out of hand, just let the conversation be.
F50, I don't think you really thought this one through.
Spoiler!
I oppose new threads to replace old ones. Necroing is okay so as long as you are aware if it and state the obvious to go on subject.
I'm Retired.
That would be true...except I was referring to a scenario that involved 100 unique general topic threads found in the 204 pages of Tomato Island.
If ONE person decides to post in 100 different threads 2 years or older, then that only means that one person SO FAR are currently interested in the topic (assuming the person posts relevant material). However, by posting in 100 different threads, that person has ALREADY bumped off current threads into the next page and beyond.
The main difference between a 100 new threads and 100 new posts on old threads? Less incentive. Right now, I could start from page 204 of Tomato Island with the first unlocked thread titled "What are you/were you considered" and work my way up to over 100+ unique threads by posting relevant content in them. However, I would be very less inclined to start 100 different threads that feature the same exact unique topics. So by locking necroed threads, there is less chance for people to bump current topics into the next page because they personally have rekindled interests in 100 different topics.
This isn't about moderator discretion. This is about objctivity. Discretion seems to bring about subjectiveness. "Well, you did this for person A, so why didn't you do this for person B?" etc. Analyzing the benefits/costs of allowing necros and analyzing the benefits/costs of not allowing necros, I have come to the conclusion that it would be more detrimental to allow necros. So therefore, I feel that necros should not be allowed. It would be subjective to say A thread necro is allowed for X reasons while B thread necro is not allowed for Y reasons, so I choose to not condone necroing altogether.
I think you have failed to understand my perspective. This isn't in the context of necroing the ice cream thread, the food thread, or whatever. This is in the context of necroing 100 different threads that have 100 different topics. Obviously a lot of people would find it annoying if 100 threads with a lost post date of 2 years ago or longer suddenly came up to the top of the Tomato Island thread list.
So once again, I ask the question: Where is the line drawn? Is necroing 10 threads from 2006 okay, but necroing 100 threads not okay? Is necroing 500 threads okay as long as the newly posted content is relevant? Is necroing a thread related to ice cream okay, but necroing a thread related to dogs not okay?
But being completely objective without becoming authoritarian is virtually impossible. Authoritative>Authoritarian. I would assume mods are chosen by their ability to understand different situations and treat each on as fairly, but individually as possible. Anyone with self control can just enforce set rules, but it takes someone much more socially inclined to actually work through problems
Spoiler!
If you're worried about somebody replying on-topic to a hundred old threads in a short amount of time, then that's just spam.
Butts.
213 181 178 166 165 164 162 152 147 135 134 130 125 123 123 120 120 104 100 100
So this is exactly what I'm trying to do, but apparently no one wants to help. I'm not saying my rule is absolute and that moderators have discretion. If I were, then I would've locked this thread a long time ago. I am presenting various scenarios spawning off of member feedback, and asking for the community's input on what should be done in these cases.
In this specific situation, there is no problem with necroing an individual thread since the post was relevant. However, what if by the same thinking, this type of necroing extends to 500 threads? Should 1 be treated differently from a batch of 500? What if a newly registered member decides to necro 10 threads, but post relevant information in all of them? What if a member who joined 3 years ago decides to necro in the same fashion; should the new member and the old member be treated differently or the same?
Again, I pose the question: where is the line drawn? Of course moderators have discretion and should use it without abusing it, but when discretion presents too many potential conflicts, there is still the option of objectivity.
Edit:
And I would like to know the reasoning behind this. Those 100 replies were relevant to the thread topic, so why should they be considered spam?
Questions like these will arise when moderators use discretion instead of objectivity, and I'll be honest; I don't know the answers. If I don't know the answers, how am I able to justify my use of discretion beyond the fact that it is a privilege given to moderators? I feel like for every moderating action I do, there should be some reasoning behind it.
Last edited by F50 NOS; 30th March 2011 at 07:43 AM.
I meant spam in the sense that it's flooding the forum with a lot of posts in a short amount of time.
Butts.
213 181 178 166 165 164 162 152 147 135 134 130 125 123 123 120 120 104 100 100