Necrobumping - A Conversation

[Serbia]

I'd like to start a discussion on necrobumping. I propose that in this particular forum, it's unnecessary to have a "no necrobumping" rule. This forum is essentially a spam forum, in that nothing posted here has anything to do with Conquer Club. There are already rules against being "intentionally annoying", so rules against necrobumping aren't necessary. But I'd like to get some mods to weigh in on this, and start an actual conversation.

[riskllama]

necrobumping is wrong because the holy scriptures of CC say it's wrong. what else is there to discuss?

[apey]

I agree serb! And if you are doing it to continue or restart a conversation who cares

[Serbia]

Yes, you should stay on topic. But even if you bump something without being on topic, the infraction shouldn't be for necrobumping; the infraction should be for spam, or more specifically, posting off topic. And even that can be difficult to enforce consistently in this forum. I just think that having a "no necrobumping" rule in this forum, the Spam Forum, is really just symbolic of lazy moderation.

[notyou2]

It has always been an asinine rule. I want my conviction stricken from my record and a complete amnesty as well as a public apology.

[TeeGee]

I do not enforce it , although I do not promote it either

[Dukasaur]

Yes, you should stay on topic. But even if you bump something without being on topic, the infraction shouldn't be for necrobumping; the infraction should be for spam, or more specifically, posting off topic.

It already is that way. Necrobumping was from the beginning just a subset of the Spamming offense.

When Night Strike wrote the forum guidelines, he felt obligated to provide examples of each offense. These are the examples he provided of Spam:
Subject: Community Guidelines

Spam is posting for the sole intention of being annoying.
There are a million ways you shouldn't be annoying, but ones worth mentioning:
spoiler=Spamming Specifics]

• Double/triple/multiple posting.
• Quoting just for the sake of quoting.
  
  • "QFE", "QFT" etc. do not qualify as "a meaningful post", add why you agree with the quote.
• Posting only, or lots of, smilies.
• Posting about yourself in a forum topic that is not specifically about you.
• Posts that add nothing to the current topic.
• Posting rapidly in a short time.
• Posting the same thing over and over in the same or other forum topics.
• Posting "parody" forum topics that aren't meant for an actual discussion.
• Necrobumping (bringing dead forum topics back to life) if no new meaningful content is being added.

These are not, nor were they ever meant to be, separate and distinct offenses. They were just provided as illustrative examples of what constitutes spam.

And actually, almost none of them are punished. About the only thing we still punish is "pure" spam... posts that are great in number and lacking meaningful content. But none of the others are really punished any more. Doubleposts are common and I don't know of anyone in my time here who's been punished for it. Responding with "QFT" or "+1" or nothing but smileys is common and I don't remember the last time someone was cited for it. Parody topics are not just allowed but sometimes encouraged. As for "posting about yourself in a forum topic that is not specifically about you" -- hell, I do that one regularly.

I don't know if it was a good thing that NS provided examples of spam, instead of just saying Spam and leaving it at that. I know sometimes it's best to just give a general guiding principle and leave specifics for future evolution.

So, your point is sound, but also unnecessary. Necrobumping never was a distinct offense. It was just an illustrative example of a type of spam.

My attitude towards spam is pretty tolerant. I would only punish someone who creates enough spam to obstruct the normal flow of conversation. Small quantities of spam are harmless, as long as they don't make it difficult to find the meaningful posts.

[mrswdk]

I agree that photos of male and female nipples should both be permitted in OT.

[Serbia]

I don't know if it was a good thing that NS provided examples of spam, instead of just saying Spam and leaving it at that. I know sometimes it's best to just give a general guiding principle and leave specifics for future evolution.

I agree with this 100%. There are times when rules need to be spelled out down to the minutest detail, and other times when it's better to have generally vague guidelines.

So, your point is sound, but also unnecessary. Necrobumping never was a distinct offense. It was just an illustrative example of a type of spam.

I wish this were completely true. Notyou2 claims to have been banned for necrobumping, which is not something I've independently verified. But I did witness Raz publicly warning apey "not to make a habit" of the necrobump a month ago when she was bumping about a thread a day. And the topics she was resurrecting were all on point as well. So my point is, especially given they were all brought back "on topic", who cares if a spam thread within the Spam Forum is bumped, even if it is on a daily basis?

I definitely appreciate the responses, TG and Duk. I'm also seeking out consistency; that's always the goal, not just in forum moderation, but any officiating, whether it's sports, business, or what-have-you. And perhaps an edit of the Guidelines could be in order. If the forums survive another couple years, and we've got new, more literal mods, it's not inconceivable to slip back to issuing forum bans for any violation of the written code. If it's on the books, someone at some point will enforce it. Make sense?

[tzor]

But I'd like to get some mods to weigh in on this, and start an actual conversation.

You want an "actual conversation?" Next thing I'm going to hear is that it is going to rain on my memorial day parade (oh wait, it is).

My first thought is that when people quickly glance at posts they don't often notice that the previous post occurred in the far distant past, often involving people who may no longer be active in the forums.

This brings me to my second thought. Why? Historical context? Why not start a new thread and have the link to the old one in the first post?

This brings me to my third thought, what's this tree doing in the middle of the garden? No, I mean, if we agree necrobumping is bad, why do we allow the possibility? We probably should look into an automated mechanism for locking threads that haven't been updated in the last say month. If necessary mods can manually unlock threads.

[Serbia]

But I'd like to get some mods to weigh in on this, and start an actual conversation.

My first thought is that when people quickly glance at posts they don't often notice that the previous post occurred in the far distant past, often involving people who may no longer be active in the forums.

So? Does that matter? If you think it does, why?

This brings me to my second thought. Why? Historical context? Why not start a new thread and have the link to the old one in the first post?

So, instead of posing in the thread that involves people who may no longer be active in the forums, you want someone to create a new thread and LINK to the original thread involving people who may no longer be active in the forums. In what possible way does that make any sense?

I mean, if we agree necrobumping is bad, why do we allow the possibility? We probably should look into an automated mechanism for locking threads that haven't been updated in the last say month. If necessary mods can manually unlock threads.

We do NOT agree that necrobumping is bad. And by "we", I think I can add TeeGee and Dukasaur to that based on their comments above. In fact the whole POINT of this thread is based on my opinion that necrobumping is not bad. And this also points right back to my opinion that the rules should be edited to remove necrobumping from the list of possible infractions.

[mrswdk]

Worst forum campaign ever.

[tzor]

So? Does that matter? If you think it does, why?

I don't know. I've heard that argument on other sites.

So, instead of posing in the thread that involves people who may no longer be active in the forums, you want someone to create a new thread and LINK to the original thread involving people who may no longer be active in the forums. In what possible way does that make any sense?

Active vs Passive. New thread starts with post 1, those who want to see context can go to the original thread. Note some old systems used to crash and burn when page counts got high.

(Another example of old fart syndrone, I've heard too many arguments from too many places on systems that had to manage lots of thread problems.)

We do NOT agree that necrobumping is bad. And by "we", I think I can add TeeGee and Dukasaur to that based on their comments above. In fact the whole POINT of this thread is based on my opinion that necrobumping is not bad. And this also points right back to my opinion that the rules should be edited to remove necrobumping from the list of possible infractions.

That's why I said "IF" ... If we agree that necrobumping is not bad then we don't need to do anything. But if we think, in the end, that it is, why allow the temptation? Forums that frown on such actions often actions also put in auto thread locking measures as opposed to "OMG you necrobump, off with your head!"

[riskllama]

I agree that photos of male and female nipples should both be permitted in OT.

wtf, mrs???

[Bernie Sanders]

The author of this thread has been guilty of his own crusade against necrobumping or spamming and being annoying.

Why is Serbia changing his avatar and mindset? What the heck is going on?

[muy_thaiguy]

Well, it's either necrobumping or necrophillia, mods. Take your pick!

Was it necrophillia or necromancy? I can never remember which.

[Serbia]

Worst forum campaign ever.

Stop with teh butthurt, chicky.

So? Does that matter? If you think it does, why?

I don't know. I've heard that argument on other sites.

Useless contribution.

So, instead of posing in the thread that involves people who may no longer be active in the forums, you want someone to create a new thread and LINK to the original thread involving people who may no longer be active in the forums. In what possible way does that make any sense?

Active vs Passive. New thread starts with post 1, those who want to see context can go to the original thread. Note some old systems used to crash and burn when page counts got high.

(Another example of old fart syndrone, I've heard too many arguments from too many places on systems that had to manage lots of thread problems.)

Being stuck in old fart logic is fine for somethings, but not so much forum moderation. Your arguments only make sense if they are relevant now, and they clearly aren't.

We do NOT agree that necrobumping is bad. And by "we", I think I can add TeeGee and Dukasaur to that based on their comments above. In fact the whole POINT of this thread is based on my opinion that necrobumping is not bad. And this also points right back to my opinion that the rules should be edited to remove necrobumping from the list of possible infractions.

That's why I said "IF" ... If we agree that necrobumping is not bad then we don't need to do anything. But if we think, in the end, that it is, why allow the temptation? Forums that frown on such actions often actions also put in auto thread locking measures as opposed to "OMG you necrobump, off with your head!"[/quote]

That is an example of logic which should have been followed years ago, yet never is.

[tzor]

As I thought, you don't really want a conversation, you want people to compliment your on your thoughts. Whatever.

[Dukasaur]

So, your point is sound, but also unnecessary. Necrobumping never was a distinct offense. It was just an illustrative example of a type of spam.

I wish this were completely true. Notyou2 claims to have been banned for necrobumping, which is not something I've independently verified. But I did witness Raz publicly warning apey "not to make a habit" of the necrobump a month ago when she was bumping about a thread a day. And the topics she was resurrecting were all on point as well. So my point is, especially given they were all brought back "on topic", who cares if a spam thread within the Spam Forum is bumped, even if it is on a daily basis?

I checked and you're right. In the Situational Guidelines there is a Guideline for necrobumping separate from Spamming.

(Parenthetically speaking, this is part of the problem. The mod guidelines don't always agree with what is publicly posted.)

In the end, though, what this document says or that document says really isn't the issue. Mods aren't lawyers who go to university for ten years to learn every rule and all the precedents. They are part-time volunteers, trying to get through a thankless and tedious job with as little effort as possible. They get no pay, little training, little respect, and they are not going to stay up all night writing exhaustive Opinions like judges in real courts. Given the "no pay, little training, little respect" situation, we can't really ask for more.

Most mods don't even want the job. I volunteered in order to write for the newsletter, and I swore I would never get involved in forum moderation. Yet, here I am five years later, inexorably drawn into forum moderation more and more often, just because there's not enough mods and somebody has to.

I definitely appreciate the responses, TG and Duk. I'm also seeking out consistency; that's always the goal, not just in forum moderation, but any officiating, whether it's sports, business, or what-have-you. And perhaps an edit of the Guidelines could be in order. If the forums survive another couple years, and we've got new, more literal mods, it's not inconceivable to slip back to issuing forum bans for any violation of the written code. If it's on the books, someone at some point will enforce it. Make sense?

The codes are definitely long-overdue for a rewrite. There's been some progress, but it's slow going, because it's everyone's last priority. You're welcome to ask TeeGee to put you on the committee. https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=634&t=212709#p4672775 You don't need colours.

[betiko]

As I thought, you don't really want a conversation, you want people to compliment your on your thoughts. Whatever.

well let me compliment serb on his thoughts.

he wins.

[notyou2]

I believe I got a warning for necrobumping a thread 8 or 9 months since last post. It was a thread that Woodruff was involved in and another poster asked him a question and thereabouts woodruff left for the duration. I saw that he was back so I bumped the thread to get his response. The response I got was a mod pouncing on me and slapping a rule infringement on my record. I later received an actual ban for another rule infringement. In actuality, I believe I only deserved one blemish on my record, the others were all petty and vindictive.

[thegreekdog]

As I thought, you don't really want a conversation, you want people to compliment your on your thoughts. Whatever.

Let's see if you can answer a simple question: do you think people should be disciplined for necrobumping? If yes, then explain in what context and how that would be different than spamming.

In the end, though, what this document says or that document says really isn't the issue. Mods aren't lawyers who go to university for ten years to learn every rule and all the precedents. They are part-time volunteers, trying to get through a thankless and tedious job with as little effort as possible. They get no pay, little training, little respect, and they are not going to stay up all night writing exhaustive Opinions like judges in real courts. Given the "no pay, little training, little respect" situation, we can't really ask for more.

Most mods don't even want the job. I volunteered in order to write for the newsletter, and I swore I would never get involved in forum moderation. Yet, here I am five years later, inexorably drawn into forum moderation more and more often, just because there's not enough mods and somebody has to.

Please... for the love of Thor... stop the whining. I don't want to derail serbia's thread, but how much forum moderation does there need to be?

[2dimes]

I should be much more vocal here. I really like picking up where I left off in conversations from the past even in real life.

Other times I like to find out what people have to add to a conversation that may have took a wrong turn the first time. Example I asked about Skype and morons started suggesting I have sex with my bud, instead of video chatting with him. Maybe later I could bump it and get more helpful responses like the few I got initially.

[TeeGee]

I believe I got a warning for necrobumping a thread 8 or 9 months since last post. It was a thread that Woodruff was involved in and another poster asked him a question and thereabouts woodruff left for the duration. I saw that he was back so I bumped the thread to get his response. The response I got was a mod pouncing on me and slapping a rule infringement on my record. I later received an actual ban for another rule infringement. In actuality, I believe I only deserved one blemish on my record, the others were all petty and vindictive.

I am breaking a mod rule here

Here is an extract from notyou2's paddle in 2009.. I will not name the mod or full details

Internal Note: 1st Minor Infraction, Trolling/Necrobump
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =6&t=91670
Paddle Message: notyou2,

Mod's were on a power high back in those days...Today all we want to do is keep things fun, free flowing and legal of course, but as for punishing community members, it's not what i am into and will only resort to that if you are trying to cripple or destroy the site.

[Dukasaur]

Please... for the love of Thor... stop the whining. I don't want to derail serbia's thread, but how much forum moderation does there need to be?

Yeah, I did venture into a bit of a digression, but I didn't intend for it to be whiny. I guess the basic point I wanted to convey there is that you can't expect rigorous professional standards from a volunteer workforce.

Back on topic: How much forum moderation does there need to be? Not a lot, but definitely some. Most people don't need a moderator; they have internal filters. Some people just don't.