| written by Voumtak on Apr 02, 2004 07:48 |
 | |  | | ![]() I am a newcomer, not only to this site but also to the notion of internet communities, thus my knowledge of the mores and manners remains a bit vague...I have recently and ironically discovered a concept with the rather sinister name of "thread necromancy" and I am a bit perplexed as to why it is frowned upon..I mean, new to this place, I sampled and trawled through the existing threads, discovering a few strange things along the way...why would it have been ill-considered to answer or participate in one of these threads? I mean, is that not the point of threads? Is there some fixed time limit? If so, why are they not simply removed? I am not challenging this idea of "necromancy", just trying to get a firmer take on it... | |  | |  |
|
| written by Overtilt on Apr 02, 2004 10:22 |
| | | | Heh. I wholly understand what you're saying. This necromancy deal must seem pretty strange for someone from the outside ("a stranger! from the outside! ooooooooh!")
Allow me to try to shed some light on this issue. Sometimes, a thread dies. Maybe because of lack of interest at the current, or maybe because the subject of the thread is just plain played out. There's nothing more to add. Dying should not be confused, however, with lying dormant. My BulbSquad thread, for example, lies dormant for the time being, as there are no news to tell of the Bulbsquad at the current time.
Now, back to the necromancy. Sometimes, someone comes along and ressurects a thread that had NO will left to live, like Ees33 did yesterday, in that thread that hadn't been posted in since august. He didn't add anything new to the discussion or even ask any questions regarding the content of said thread. This makes Ees33 a dreaded Necromancer Of Threads. However, if one were to ask something directly related to what has been discussed (be it something directly on topic, or just something that was mentioned that seems odd) I wouldn't call it necromancy. At least not the Bad kind.
In other words, what you did, when you asked about the whole necromancy deal, is not frowned upon. At least not by me. What Ees33 did was pointless and stupid. Witness the furrowing of brows. | | | | |
|
  | written by Kalliope on Apr 03, 2004 02:37 |
| | | | ![]() *furrowfurrow*
Yeah, in a community like this, I guess reviving a thread with something actually useful and on topic can't really be called necromancy. Not like there's a bajillion threads and at least one more recent, for one thing. That said, yes, what Ees did was a Bad Thing (TM). Not exactly out of line with his past behavior either, regrettably. | | | | |
|
| written by Voumtak on Apr 07, 2004 04:23 |
| | | | ![]() I am almost afraid to ask what Ees did...indeed, I am afraid to ask...so basically, if I understand this correctly, threads have a somewhat habitual lifespan and after that they should be let alone to peacefully die off...unless they are "sticky" evidently...isn't there some technical way of making threads available to read and peruse, but no longer interactive, as it were? Isn't this "locking"? Why not lock older, duller threads and thus erase all chance of necromancy and other dubious activities? crap, am I necromancing again? | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]() No, you aren't, and sometimes its okay to resurrect a thread, if you have something to add that is of meaning. | | | | |
|
| written by Explorer on Apr 07, 2004 04:33 |
| | | | ![]() no no. It is fine to post in an old thread if you have something productive to say. You are doing nothing wrong! Don't worry! It's just generally bad to post some inane garbage that does nothing for anybody.. especially in an old thread. | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]()  | Explorer said: | | no no. It is fine to post in an old thread if you have something prfuctive to say. You are doing nothing wrong! Don't worry! It's just generally bad to post some inane garbage that does nothing for anybody.. especially in an old thread. |
Innane garbage, or something thats already been said in it. | | | | |
|
| written by Mr.fop on Apr 07, 2004 19:20 |
| | | | ![]() If you like strict rules, write them down.
*shakes his head and leaves* | | | | |
|
| written by Vib rib on Apr 07, 2004 19:48 |
| | | | ![]() Its not a strict rule, its a COMMON SENSE rule, but just for you Fop I am writing up a list of rules, including ones that are common sense. | | | | |
|
| written by Vib rib on Apr 07, 2004 20:02 |
| | | | ![]() Wait. Hold up.
"MR. Fop"??? | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]() Mr. Fop is Fop, as in the fop we all knew.... the one who made a bunch of noise then left. | | | | |
|
| written by Vib rib on Apr 07, 2004 20:09 |
| | | | ![]() I thought he got married or something. | | | | |
|
| written by Overtilt on Apr 07, 2004 20:27 |
| 
