Thread Necromancy

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Right, I've seen a recent flurry of necroed threads, and it's painful to watch. If a topic has been bought up before, don't necro an old thread about it, start a new one for god's sake.

[Jimmie Higgins]

what does "necroed threads" mean?

[which doctor]

I think it refers to "dead" threads that have no recent posts.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 9 2005, 12:55 AM
I think it refers to "dead" threads that have no recent posts.
Yeah, that's what it sounded like.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 11:35 AM
Right, I've seen a recent flurry of necroed threads, and it's painful to watch. If a topic has been bought up before, don't necro an old thread about it, start a new one for god's sake.
when i've tried to start a new thread i got shut down and told to do a search for other threads abt the same topic. when the last post in the most recent thread was abt 6 months ago.

:(

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Nov 9 2005, 12:45 PM--> (rioters bloc @ Nov 9 2005, 12:45 PM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 11:35 AM
Right, I've seen a recent flurry of necroed threads, and it's painful to watch. If a topic has been bought up before, don't necro an old thread about it, start a new one for god's sake.
when i've tried to start a new thread i got shut down and told to do a search for other threads abt the same topic. when the last post in the most recent thread was abt 6 months ago.

:( [/b]
Shut down by who? Not me that's for sure.

[rioters bloc]

nah not you. it wasn't even in s&e.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 01:00 AM
Right, I've seen a recent flurry of necroed threads, and it's painful to watch. If a topic has been bought up before, don't necro an old thread about it, start a new one for god's sake.
I'd be interested to know the reason for this preference. I administer forums on other sites, and I encourage users there to resume use of the old topics whenever possible, to keep the information consolidated and avoid duplication.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's because Noxion is a weirdo.

[loveme4whoiam]

I concur with mikelepore, on the other sites I'm prominent on the reverse has always been true. Obviously the first emphasis is on not creating a new thread or resurrecting an old one, but in fact using the much-overlooked search function. Members are encouraged to, assuming their post is going to be pertinent and restart the thread, post in the original thread rather than making a new one. If they are just repeating something already voiced in the thread and simply doing "yeah, i agree" then its a waste of time posting.

But of course, the mods can do as they wish since it is, of course their site to run.

[dusk]

I am pretty new here.

So if I start a new thread, I don't know if somebody made the same
thread a short time ago.

[Ol' Dirty]

What does this have to do with Science or the Environment?

[Hiero]

I thought this thread was going to be about necromancy.

nec·ro·man·cy (nĕk'rə-măn'sē)
n.
The practice of supposedly communicating with the spirits of the dead in order to predict the future.
Black magic; sorcery.
Magic qualities.

You tricked me.

[TomRK1089]

He's talking about necroposting, guys. He means, don't revive a topic that's fallen by the wayside if there's a new, larger one.

[Floyce White]

Mikelepore is absolutely correct.

To start new threads on existing topics is flooding, since it pushes other threads off the page. It is disrespectful to those who already posted on the topic--it ignores their contributions to the discussion and in fact asserts that no such contributions ever occurred. So it's a way of saying "I don't like what you said, so I'm going to pretend it never happened."

Several moderators of this site use logical fallacies and debaters' tricks left and right, so we can't expect them to use standard message-board practices either.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 15 2006, 06:05 AM
Mikelepore is absolutely correct.

To start new threads on existing topics is flooding, since it pushes other threads off the page. It is disrespectful to those who already posted on the topic--it ignores their contributions to the discussion and in fact asserts that no such contributions ever occurred. So it's a way of saying "I don't like what you said, so I'm going to pretend it never happened."

Several moderators of this site use logical fallacies and debaters' tricks left and right, so we can't expect them to use standard message-board practices either.
I don't know what boards you visit, but on all the boards I have been on SOP is to do a search for a subject before posting a new topic in case it has been covered before.

[TomRK1089]

Well, personally, I'd rather hijack an existing thread than start a new one, depending on how old it is. If you're talking about something related, or want to involve a new angle, why shouldn't you use a thread that already exists?

But if your topic is only cursorily involved in the old topic, start a new one. My rule of thumb.

[Free Floating Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:07 PM

But of course, the mods can do as they wish since it is, of course their site to run.
I can't believe I'm reading this on a forum that's supposed to be devoted to Leftist theory and practice.

:blink:

Let me get this straight: This forum is supposed to be lending mutual support and encouragement to people who hope to live according to Leftist principles by taking arbitrary decisions and you sheeple just accept this as though that is the way things are supposed to be.

Am I the only one who sees what's wrong with this picture?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

*Revives dead thread*

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:26 PM
*Revives dead thread*
*Locks* :P