6 replies to this topic

[Crystal Shards]

I was wondering if we could get that rule better explained. For instance, the rules say:

6. If a topic has not been posted in for 1 month, any non-contributing posts made in that topic will be considered necroposting, which is forbidden. Instead, if necessary, simply make another topic. This rule does not apply to art topics, hacking projects, and other threads of similar nature that need to be updated.

But then you get topics like this that get closed. And like, to me that seems like a valid, contributing post. So I'm a little confused.

I'm not saying change the rule or anything, but maybe a bit of explanation would be better, at least for me. For example, on my forum, there is no necroposting rule; any posts that don't contribute/continue the conversation are automatically considered spam, no matter how long ago the topic was last posted in. So basically something that wouldn't be covered would be to continue a fight that just kind of died. But I can't really tell from SF's rule what is considered a contribution.

Edited by Crystal Shards, 01 July 2009 - 04:49 AM.

[Meteor]

In the rule, the word "contributing" should probably be replaced with "enlightening." Such a change would be far more accurate in describing how the mods have interpreted the rule (from what I've seen).

Personally I think necroposting is better than creating a redundant topic; half of the new replies will be "this has been done before" anyway.

[Sirius]

I agree with the example given in the opening post being a valid contribution. In that situation, a non-valid contribution would be a 1 word response to something or a completely irrelevant post/spam.

I find that this is a good reason to close a topic for necroposting. It's not one of those poll/opinion topics and the necropost adds absolutely nothing new to the thread except for +1 to its post count.

Edited by Sirius, 01 July 2009 - 07:16 AM.

[Rehab]

+1 in agreement with previously stated sentiments. I've wondered who made up the necroposting rule, is there something technical that would make the staff want to encourage not posting in old topics for the sake of maintaining the site or something? Otherwise it seems like arbitrary forum anachronism # 9002, assuming the poster has something with some substance to say.

Edited by Rehab, 01 July 2009 - 08:39 AM.

[California Mountain Snake]

You seem to preclude the possibility that the mods aren't aware of how the rules work either.

[General Spoon]

You seem to preclude the possibility that the mods aren't aware of how the rules work either.

After what I've seen lately, I think there's of good chance of this.

[Crystal Shards]

I didn't preclude it, only omitted it. Why? Because likely the problem is one of consensus, which would be helped by a better understanding of the rule from both sides (members and staff).

Edited by Crystal Shards, 05 July 2009 - 03:01 PM.