Old Topics and Responding to Them

[Chuck Anumia]

Thanks Chris
I said it before and I will say it again, I believe that those people who make up our Citizens of the Imperium forum are some of the most intelligent and articulate Game players I have seen on the internet anywhere.

I feel privaledged to know ya'll in a cyberspace kind of way. everyday I feel that this is more like a global family. We tend to all have something in common (our love for the Traveller game) and sometimes uncle Rufus seems a bit more obnoxious than he normally does but hey...we are still related and this is still a fun way to spend our time.

(The Reverand Chuck slips while stepping off the soap box. He falls flat on his face and considers if he should sue the soap box manufaturer for making faulty soap boxes?

)

 

[Shadowdancer]

I reserve the right to respond to this thread in 2007.

 

[kaladorn]

I have one point about "thread necromancy" (which, btw, is a neat term). The idea of starting new threads which rehash old threads to me is silly. For instance, "Best Sci Fi book". Well, seems to me, if we've done that once, and someone has something to add, adding it to the prior list (thus allowing others to revisit it or new people to see it when they hadn't seen it) isn't a bad thing. Why reinvent the wheel? For those that recognize a thread as an old thread (usually quickly apparent), just hop out and carry on your business. What's the fuss about?

I don't quite see the argument against 'thread necromancy' as a valid one. If a thread can be revived, one of two things happens. People get interested again and it becomes alive again, in which case it is as valid as any other 'current' thread, or it isn't of general interest and dies off again.

So, I come back to my question: What is the big deal? It seems to me like thread necromancy is a perfectly valid action and furthermore well within the tenants of good netiquette, unlike dragging people over the coals for mistakes that aren't necessarily universally seen as such.

I'm not trying to cause a fuss, but I do wonder why anyone would find the revival of an old thread annoying, given how easily they can hit 'back' and move along...?

 

[flykiller]

I did not know that it was against the rules to comment on subjects that were not in today's paper, as it were.

it isn't.

I SINCERELY AND HUMBLY APOLOGIZE FOR THE DISRUPTION I CAUSED, AND HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO ENSURE THAT IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

no apology necessary. you're ok. hope you stick around.

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by cweiskircher:
And I stand with Sigg and casey.
I have mentioned somewhere around here that new people to the boards may have relevant information or questions that relate to OLD Threads.

That's nice and all and it's good that you want to post on CotI but if you reread my posts carefully that's not quite what I'm saying. Researching and using a post isn't the same as posting to it and reviving it IMO. I have already stated my views elsewhere and reiterate that this does not mean I would have you not post on CotI.

[edit] clarification at the end [/edit]

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I have one point about "thread necromancy" (which, btw, is a neat term). The idea of starting new threads which rehash old threads to me is silly.

While I listed types of old threads that might be good candidates for still being open it seems I didn't provide examples of the opposite, not thinking it needed. As an aside search CotI for how many BSG, B5, Star Trek, etc. threads there are. Almost all of them are slightly different topics, usually due to something happening between topics or a different view, etc. though not all, and of differing dates.

In general it’s best to respond to the latest thread related to a topic and IMO if there’s been enough time or change or a new idea a new thread should be started to focus on that. It’s similar to thread-drift warranting the need for a new thread. I do try to point posters to an earlier thread if I feel it helps answer their questions or has relevance though.

I don't quite see the argument against 'thread necromancy' as a valid one.

I believe you mean for not against here.

So, I come back to my question: What is the big deal? It seems to me like thread necromancy is a perfectly valid action and furthermore well within the tenants of good netiquette

Have you Googled (or your other favorite search engine) the term? Offhand I’m not finding a good authoritative definition of the term as posts with the term in it are skewing the results. My google fu is weak this am.

Building on recent posts of mine on this with some basic examples of the top of my head:

Case in point, CotI no longer allows political threads except in the political forum and there have been several other forum changes. So a thread could be revived but be in the wrong spot.
example of a political post in Random Static pre-Political Forum (link)
T20 errata thread in Random Static (link)

Also an old thread could involve people who no longer post here and who can't respond. Or the issue in question is resolved.
paging Bruce thread (link)
Bowling for Columbine thread (link)
Now what if someone stumbles across this thread or otherwise digs it up and responds directly to the post by someone who's not posted since 2003? It will go unanswered by that person and might get picked up by others; clutter either way. IMO much better to start a new thread fresh along the lines of "Hey I just saw movie <fill in the blank> and think". That way people respond directly to your opinions instead of continuing a now dated thread.

Thirdly if you get a slew of revived threads they start pushing current "fresh" topics down the list of well current topics and there are instances of people “spamming” boards by filling the first page with nothing but short repeated posts. I could demonstrate an example of a slew of revived threads and the other points in this post but I have better things to do today and don't like courting tempbans, esp. not over matters like this. As is I’ve provided a few links above.

As for newbies and others catching up on topics etc. one thing I would suggest is making up a list of questions etc. as they go and starting a new thread(s) based on forum divisions listing specific questions and/or comments. That way they could be answered directly en masse to the poster. Note this is a general comment.

Finally as a general example I’ve been recently reading MTJ#4 and related material and come up with some questions about the Wanderers and the Droashav. I can respond to threads from 2003 or earlier that mention the Wanderers and the Droashav (the only ones it seems) or I could compose my thoughts (taking into account the older threads) and start a new thread directly addressing my questions. IMO the later better serves my purposes and focuses discussion on my points better than reviving a thread.

As always, HTH and YMMV.

 

[kaladorn]

My comments particularly pertain to old threads that have been revived because:
A) Someone cares enough to post to them
B) The material they are posting is pertinent to the thread (this should always apply, but this is more honoured in the breach than the observance)
C) The thread is not inappropriate for the board

I come back again to the point of not seeing why another thread with fundamentally the same content (except not having the content, it encourages people to repost the content posted before in the original thread) as a preceding one is a good thing to start.

Yes, there are incidences where it makes sense to start a new thread, primarily new insights or a new topic that are tangential or right off course for the original thread.

But there are perfectly just reasons to perform thread necromancy (raising a thread from the dead and giving it some life). And if it isn't interesting, it'll die out. This isn't any different than someone starting a new thread, getting no support/interest, and it dying out.

When you go OT, you should in fact start a new thread, but you should describe that in the old thread to alert readers to the threading fork.

One thing I think that is not always so good here on COTI is clarifying what types of post go where - some of the topics are a bit vague or seem to overlap or some thread topics seem to have no logical home other than Random Static. If there was some FAQ, getting in details about what types of posts should go in what forum divisions would make sense.

I'm not against thread necromancy, as long as it revives a thread in a fashion pertinent to the thread and new. If it does so, and is interesting, the thread will reanimate. If not, it will quickly die again.

 

[Malenfant]

I'm kinda surprised that people need to have what is bad about Thread Necromancy explained to them. All of the points that Casey made above (and that I made elsewhere, but got yelled at about ) should be pretty self-evident with a little thought.

What I would ask is why anyone would WANT to spend all their time going through old threads looking for long-dead topics to resurrect. If you have a question, what would you do - go all the way to the back of the archives and trawl to see if it's already been answered and then post to that thread, or just post a new thread to get peoples' attention? Doing the former is a waste of your time and everyone elses' (who have to read the thread again to get up to speed on it). Doing the latter cuts to the chase and allows you to frame your question in a much more relevant way.

And again, it doesn't matter whether it's "allowed" or not - the fact that very very few people resurrect threads as a matter of habit shows that such behaviour is generally not the norm on this board. This is a fact. And behaviour that is different from the norm stands out and is disruptive, no matter what you think of it.

As it is, one of the threads that blackirish56 resurrected was a 9/11 thread (and although he then deleted his post, this did nothing to move it back to the archives where it belonged) that hunter has now had to move to the politics board. Was it better to dig up that old chestnut because he felt he had something relevant to say (now deleted, so that was really useful) that led to its politicisation and moving to the other board, or start a fresh new post on the topic in the politics board?

And fact is, starting a new thread takes up no resources - you have nothing to lose by starting a new topic, and you gain peoples fresh opinions on the matter.

 

[Jame]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Was it better to dig up that old chestnut because he felt he had something relevant to say (now deleted, so that was really useful) that led to its politicisation and moving to the other board, or start a fresh new post on the topic in the politics board?

This is just to give a kick where one is not only unnecessary, but a waste of space, but - YES!

Seriously, though, I've resurrected old topics before, such as one on Naval Terminology - sometimes, as in that case, a discussion sparks up among newer people who haven't seen it and might find it useful. So it's really a mixed bag, with good shoved in with bad...

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
If you have a question, what would you do - go all the way to the back of the archives and trawl to see if it's already been answered and then post to that thread, or just post a new thread to get peoples' attention?

I've been avoiding posting here for a number of reasons but this opens the point(s?) I've most wanted to bring up on it.

I'd hope and think that most often the way to answer your "what would you do" question is to do a search to see if the question/topic has already been done. If so that may answer the issue, and then if not by all means post a new thread to ask, and if an old topic had some bearing then include an embedded link. That'd be the ideal I think.

I think there are legitimate times to awaken old topics though and that's why most of those choose "allow it" in answer to the question.

To answer your question Malenfant I don't think anyone is deliberately spending hours combing every old post in the archives. Though it is one way to find some lost treasures I hope instead that the topics were resurrected because the poster did a search for interest or answers and found something worth resurrecting. I find it hard to say having missed the posts that brought them back from their rest since the poster deleated his posts. THAT I do find a tad annoying.

As you say for the most part it's (resurrection) not done and I agree that's generally a good thing. I'd argue some of the specifics but why? The real problem seems to have been it becoming more of an issue of two personalities with quite opposite and extreme opinions arguing the point when really the whole thing would have been less disruptive if you had simply stated your position and let it drop.

I mean here you are still arguing it long after you alienated the poster to the point of their leaving and your main issue is that such resurrection clutters the board and pushes current topics down? I'd have thought at the very least that when Hunter himself said it was fine on his board that you could have just conceded the argument as moot.

Now you even have me adding to the noise

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by far-trader:
I mean here you are still arguing it long after you alienated the poster to the point of their leaving and your main issue is that such resurrection clutters the board and pushes current topics down?

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't see a "Malenfant can't post on the thread specifically discussing the raising of old topics" sign anywhere.

And I didn't alienate him at all. He was clearly incredibly thin-skinned to stomp off like that just because someone asked them to stop resurrecting old threads (and really, given his posting habits it seemed very much as if he WAS deliberately going through the back end of the archive and raising them).

I'd have thought at the very least that when Hunter himself said it was fine on his board that you could have just conceded the argument as moot.

And why should that stop me from point out that even though he's said that, very few people still resurrect old threads in practise? That's the point I've been trying to make here - that even though Hunter's fine with it and that poll about it was been supportive of it, people generally still don't resurrect year-old threads even though they're free to do so. Why is this the case? I'd imagine it's because most people can't be bothered to go back through years of material looking for threads similar to ones they want to start, or that people generally want to make their mark by starting new threads or commenting on a relevant thread. But you cannot deny that regardless of whether or not it's allowed, resurrecting long dead year-old threads is simply not the done thing around here.

 

[clementk]

I posted again earlier because a near 2000 post long time CotI member asked a question.

(waves to kaladorn; I hope to answer your post when I have the chance but that's not now; maybe PM is better? dunno)

And with one of the revived threads going political I'm not certain it's a moot point. <shrugs> Honey with the stick though.

So who wants to write the CotI faq?

[edit] fast edits; break over! [/edit]

 

[Sifu Blackirish]

(from the poster formerly known as blackirish56)

Who pulls the string that allows Malenfant to speak?

Look it's this simple. Sure, I resurrected some old threads. A slight faux-pas, to be sure. What got me so upset is your irrational attotude towards me when I repeatedly said it was an honest mistake. Examples...?

ridiculous

It's totally unecessary.

setting out do so on purpose isn't anything to be proud of either, it's just annoying. There's surely something NEW you can reply to.

Going back to the start of boards is just barmy though.

Thread Necromancy.

one would think that newcomers to a board would realise that it is not the done thing to resurrect ancient threads,

the vast majority of people do NOT do this on internet boards - it is not normal "netiquette"

this is one guy deliberately restarting threads that were YEARS old.
It is still aberrant behaviour on a board

I can't even think why anyone would want to waste their time going through the earliest threads

frankly, you've done the equivalent of repeatedly running the wrong way with the ball on a football pitch and scoring for the opposite team

it forces everyone to waste their time going through several pages of old material in order to get up to speed on the discussion again

start out on the wrong foot by behaving in a way that is fundamentally annoying

etc, ad nauseam.

Correcting someone on a point or order is not alnnoying. Repeatedly insulting them is. From now on Melenfant, I will just ignore you, and my life will be better...

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:

I mean here you are still arguing it long after you alienated the poster to the point of their leaving and your main issue is that such resurrection clutters the board and pushes current topics down?

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't see a "Malenfant can't post on the thread specifically discussing the raising of old topics" sign anywhere. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh please I think you know the point I was making. To clarify then in case this is not just dramatics, I found the repetition of the reasons against resurrection disruptive and cluttering. Popping this topic to the top again when it seemed well done, especially since the poster that so irritated you is gone, seems pointless and verging on trolling to which I have shamefully bitten, again.

Originally posted by Malenfant:
And I didn't alienate him at all. He was clearly incredibly thin-skinned to stomp off like that just because someone asked them to stop resurrecting old threads (and really, given his posting habits it seemed very much as if he WAS deliberately going through the back end of the archive and raising them).

Well someone alienated him and I thought he named you. I can't speak to his motives or methods or even hazard a guess since he deleted his posts. I can take your opinion as a fair one though, it's the response that seems over the top and the reason for him leaving. Thin skinned or not there is no good reason for personal attacks as you have said. Especially after he has left and is not (presumably) going to defend himself. You have no idea what he may be facing in his life and how hard he may have taken (perceived or real) your criticism. No doubt because I name you in the post, by your previous definition you consider this a personal attack. It's not. And that denial of course will by that previous post's reasoning convince you it is and that I'm lying.

Originally posted by far-trader:

I'd have thought at the very least that when Hunter himself said it was fine on his board that you could have just conceded the argument as moot.

Originally posted by Malenfant:
And why should that stop me from point out that even though he's said that, very few people still resurrect old threads in practise? That's the point I've been trying to make here - that even though Hunter's fine with it and that poll about it was been supportive of it, people generally still don't resurrect year-old threads even though they're free to do so. Why is this the case? I'd imagine it's because most people can't be bothered to go back through years of material looking for threads similar to ones they want to start, or that people generally want to make their mark by starting new threads or commenting on a relevant thread. But you cannot deny that regardless of whether or not it's allowed, resurrecting long dead year-old threads is simply not the done thing around here.

I didn't disagree with you (did I?)*, only that I was bothered that you continue to belabour the point. You made it clear and I didn't see why you repeated it, to the point of contributing to the disruption. I see now that my impression may be worse than the actual case since the point has been made across more than one thread and in my mind I was grouping them. So the repetion was as much illusion as actual.

* I guess I actually do since your opinion on the subject has changed over time and mine has not. Please, no need to restate your position on that, I agree it's valid.

Sure it (resurrection) is not much done, but it is done and generally accepted. My impression was you were harsh without need and I don't get that. Maybe you were having a bad week I don't know, but there was a point and oppurtuninty or two to tone it down and they were passed, and continue to be passed.

I just think the whole thing could have been handled much more diplomatically.

Or maybe my impression is badly skewed for missing the deleted posts and failing to read between the lines well enough.

 

[Malenfant]

Er, I haven't insulted you at all, and there aren't any insults in the bits you quoted either... and frankly, you haven't addressed any of the points you raised above either. Or are you going to claim that pointing out the normal situations on internet boards is an "insult"?

Now I'm wondering why you started another account just to go through old threads when you already had this one.

And I was discussing your actions with other people, not setting out to "insult" you all the time. You're the one that's taken it so damn personally, not me.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Popping this topic to the top again when it seemed well done, especially since the poster that so irritated you is gone, seems pointless and verging on trolling to which I have shamefully bitten, again.

Except it seems he's not gone - see a couple of posts above.

Thin skinned or not there is no good reason for personal attacks as you have said. Especially after he has left and is not (presumably) going to defend himself.

Where exactly have I "personally attacked" him? OK, I said he was acting like a stroppy 5-year old at one point, but that was pretty justified.

You have no idea what he may be facing in his life and how hard he may have taken (perceived or real) your criticism.

Sorry, but why the hell should anybody care what problems people may be having outside the board? And why should anyone be justified in hiding behind that excuse here? Or are we supposed to tread on eggshells around people just in case they may be having a bad week or month?

Sorry if that sounds unsympathetic, but that sounds like a really flimsy excuse for any kind of behaviour on a public board.

No doubt because I name you in the post, by your previous definition you consider this a personal attack. It's not. And that denial of course will by that previous post's reasoning convince you it is and that I'm lying.

I don't even have a clue what you're going on about now.

Sure it (resurrection) is not much done, but it is done and generally accepted. My impression was you were harsh without need and I don't get that. Maybe you were having a bad week I don't know, but there was a point and oppurtuninty or two to tone it down and they were passed, and continue to be passed.

No, I was just fed up with someone who kept ressing old threads while at the same time acknowledging that he shouldn't be doing it (he'd usually preface his thread resurrections with "I know I shouldn't be doing this" or "shows how bored I am to be doing this again"). Heck, all I did was to say "can you please stop doing this, it's annoying". Then someone decided that they'd dig up an ancient poll saying that I shouldn't have that opinion because I didn't have it before, and it went fom there.

And even then I wasn't particularly harsh at all. He took it personally, is all, and then people started jumping on saying I was an ogre and that I scare people off the boards and that I had no "people skills". And now you're prolonging it by going on about what I did. I'd be quite willing to drop the subject if people stopped poking at me.

But then it seems like it's OK here for people to defend themselves, so long as they're not me .

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

People up old posts for various reasons all the time, on this forum and others. Get over it.

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Sorry if that sounds unsympathetic, but that sounds like a really flimsy excuse for any kind of behaviour on a public board.

So what's your excuse?



Hunter

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Malenfant:
[qb]Sorry if that sounds unsympathetic, but that sounds like a really flimsy excuse for any kind of behaviour on a public board.

So what's your excuse?


</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, so I'm supposed to be psychic and think everyone is having a bad day now am I? This gets better and better.

But fine. I get the hint. I'm fed up with being "tolerated" here (funny how it's nice to have me around when you want help with planetary and astronomy stuff, isn't it?), with people who are WAY too triggerhappy on the 'report post' button, and with being accused of being the bad guy all the damn time.

And to be quite honest, I'm fed up with wasting my time doing things for a game I don't even play, with a community that seems to be becoming less focussed and less interesting to me, and more and more full of people that just plain get on my nerves.

CotI stopped being fun for me months ago, and it's high time I left. Have fun, kids.

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Oh, so I'm supposed to be psychic and think everyone is having a bad day now am I? This gets better and better.

But fine. I get the hint. I'm fed up with being "tolerated" here, with people who are WAY too triggerhappy on the 'report post' button, and with being accused of being the bad guy all the damn time.

And to be quite honest, I'm fed up with wasting my time doing things for a game I don't even play, with a community that seems to be becoming less focussed and less interesting to me, and more and more full of people that just plain get on my nerves.

CotI stopped being fun for me months ago, and it's high time I left. Have fun, kids.

And that is that.


Hunter