What's wrong with thread necromancy?
 

As a mod on another forum, I find it silly to not allow thread necromancy. As long as the poster who resurrects the thread has some intelligent input, why bother making them write up a new clone thread and waste forum space?

I;d answer, but that has been a rule before I was even a mod here... If Krang wants to change it, it's up to him.

I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. YOU GUYS BROUGHT THAT OLD THREAD BACK TO LIFE. WHATS THE POINT, AT THAT POINT TO LOCK IT?

http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=9741

SO WHATS YOUR OPINION ON NEWLY RESURRECTED NECROTHREADS?

The reason I dont lock all Old threads is because I just dont think about it. Personally, I tend to not care unless someone else points out to me that it should be locked.

If Krang wants to do away with the no thread bumping, I personally wouldn't care. Aslong as people actually add something to the thread instead of saying something like "I agree".

Necroposting is a kind of spamming. Sometimes, when someone has nothing to write in the current threads, he or she just bumps the older ones to increase his or her post count.

I support anti-necroposting policy on the Drome. Nevertheless, I see two major weaknesses of it:

* Let's read rule number 3: Spam of any kind is not allowed. This includes posting useless or excessively short posts just to increase your rank or post count, blatant advertising (posting a link to a website, forum, or other online resource for the sole purpose of gaining visitors or members), cross posting (starting the same thread in more than one forum), and double posting (posting twice or more in a row in the same thread unless at least one of the posts is close to the character limit or contains a relevant quote of another member with a relevant response (i.e. more than one sentence), or unless the posts were made hours apart).

You see... Necro-posting is not openly mentioned. Of course, it is spam ex definitione and I don't object it, but... well, not mentioning it may suggest to new members that answering to the old threads is not wrong at all, especially when some other disgraceful actions are stated there. People read the Forum Rules and see that bumping the old thread is not prohibited... therefore it is logically supposed to be allowed! And then they are disappointed when they see "their" threads locked and a verbal warning coming from a mod. If double-posting or cross-posting are mentioned, why not to add necro-posting there?

* Where is the limit for a thread being potentially necro-posted? When I should create a new thread and shouldn't even bother to reply in an old one? Two months after the last answer in it? Four months? Six months? Two years? I'm just curious.

YES BUT SPAM IS OBVIOUS. AND ON THIS THREAD http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=9741
IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT IT WAS NOT SPAM. THEY WERE ALL PRODUCTIVE POSTS

I definitly agree with LUCKFF on this one. The posters of that thread definitly brought that thread back. I would say locking was necessary if only one or two people just did little short posts, but they definitly had a bit of a discussion going on there.

actually. i had never even heard of necro posting until i came to this board. it is an odd and kind of weirdly worded rule. I posted a new thread about guyver in fear that if i posted in the old one that it would be necroposting and i would get another warning, but one of the mods ended up combining the threads anyway. i still dont get the necroposting.. oh well. i mean if someone is spamming then thats different, butr if they read through the forum and find a thread they like and want to add some info to it, or make a statement. then whats the problem?

Personally, I don't have a problem with bumping old threads as long as the thread is still relevant and as long as, like GK mentioned, the reply contributes to the thread (not something like "bump" or "I agree" or "lol"). I guess the reason old threads are locked in the first place is a lack of communication among the staff, since this topic hasn't been discussed that much. Anyway, I reopened the thread that LUCKFF linked to.

Thanks Krang. I Appreciate It.