Necrobumping - A Conversation

[mrswdk]

Maybe we can clear up a question from QQ in this thread - do public forum rules also apply to the private forums or not?

[thegreekdog]

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.

Yes, there needs to be forum moderation; there does not need to be a necrobumping offense when there is already a spamming offense. Clearly there also needs to be more restraint from moderators given what people are allegedly being banned for.

[TeeGee]

we still issue forum bans???

[TeeGee]

Maybe we can clear up a question from QQ in this thread - do public forum rules also apply to the private forums or not?

No, not at all

In fact moderators in QQ have no moderation powers in that forum

[TeeGee]

triple post (oh noes)

[Dukasaur]

Maybe we can clear up a question from QQ in this thread - do public forum rules also apply to the private forums or not?

No, not at all

In fact moderators in QQ have no moderation powers in that forum

WTF is QQ?

In any case, I disagree. The fact that moderators cannot go into private forums does not give them carte blanche. They are still expected to maintain CCs standards. Their clan leaders have limited mod powers and are expected to use them.

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.

Yes, there needs to be forum moderation; there does not need to be a necrobumping offense when there is already a spamming offense. Clearly there also needs to be more restraint from moderators given what people are allegedly being banned for.

How much more restraint do you want? How many people have you seen banned in the last year? Three? One for porn and two for extreme flaming?

Not counting spambots, who are banned regularly, of course.

[TeeGee]

Maybe we can clear up a question from QQ in this thread - do public forum rules also apply to the private forums or not?

No, not at all

In fact moderators in QQ have no moderation powers in that forum

WTF is QQ?

In any case, I disagree. The fact that moderators cannot go into private forums does not give them carte blanche. They are still expected to maintain CCs standards. Their clan leaders have limited mod powers and are expected to use them.

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.

Yes, there needs to be forum moderation; there does not need to be a necrobumping offense when there is already a spamming offense. Clearly there also needs to be more restraint from moderators given what people are allegedly being banned for.

How much more restraint do you want? How many people have you seen banned in the last year? Three? One for porn and two for extreme flaming?

Not counting spambots, who are banned regularly, of course.

QQ is a social group and i dont think either leader is active anymore, but it is up to the group leaders to moderate how they choose and it was part of the reason as to why CC introduced private groups in the first place (as a token gesture to the community for the removal of flame wars)

[2dimes]

Maybe we can clear up a question from QQ in this thread - do public forum rules also apply to the private forums or not?

No, not at all

In fact moderators in QQ have no moderation powers in that forum

Ha ha mrswdk, I can't believe you fell for that just because he was persistent enough in claiming it.

The point of private forums are they are private, sort of so you can have a more casual experience. They may need moderation if someone takes the freedom to be casual too far but it is up to the group leader to decide if they want a very high standard such as most of the public forums, a slightly relaxed standard such as Off Topics. Or an even more relaxed standard with flaming, nipples or what have you. If a member disagrees they can leave the group.

Except Metsfanmax, he has to stay against his will.

As Dukasaur states, it does not mean we get to have carte blanche. There are plenty of places on the Internet for whatever you might be missing here. This is a casual game site with no age restrictions. Not a venue for you to share your amitycher horse pr0n videos.

Most people don't need a moderator; they have internal filters. Some people just don't.

I don't have filters, I just self moderate because the moderators have been so much better in the last five to eight years or however long it has been since the ridiculous oppressive regime has been gone.

I laugh when people complain about nightstrike. That guy was pretty weak compared to Twill and a few others that were not around for long but wanted to make a name for themselves, clean up this town, or something. There was none of this "warning" business. The ban hammer swung swift and hard. Shutting down the first signs of dissent.

I agree with Serbia and would like to see necro bumping and general spammy activities being treated with less restraint in Off Topics

[thegreekdog]

How much more restraint do you want? How many people have you seen banned in the last year? Three? One for porn and two for extreme flaming?

Sounds like good restraint to me. Perhaps serbia can address.

[tzor]

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.

Depending on the situation, a warning perhaps. Depends on how long the thread has been dead (months, years). I certainly can't think of it as bannable without at the same time invoking the no spamming rule.

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?

That's one of the biggest questions of the ages.

[tzor]

WTF is QQ?

Qomedy Qlub - Moderator is AoG

In any case, I disagree. The fact that moderators cannot go into private forums does not give them carte blanche. They are still expected to maintain CCs standards. Their clan leaders have limited mod powers and are expected to use them.

[mrswdk]

Maybe we can clear up a question from QQ in this thread - do public forum rules also apply to the private forums or not?

No, not at all

In fact moderators in QQ have no moderation powers in that forum

Ha ha mrswdk, I can't believe you fell for that just because he was persistent enough in claiming it.

The point of private forums are they are private, sort of so you can have a more casual experience. They may need moderation if someone takes the freedom to be casual too far but it is up to the group leader to decide if they want a very high standard such as most of the public forums, a slightly relaxed standard such as Off Topics. Or an even more relaxed standard with flaming, nipples or what have you. If a member disagrees they can leave the group.

I figured as much, but then people like DY and ny2 started joining in with Symmetry's nonsense so I thought it'd be good to hear it from a mod.

[mrswdk]

And f*ck you, I'll share all the horse porn I want.

[thegreekdog]

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.

Depending on the situation, a warning perhaps. Depends on how long the thread has been dead (months, years). I certainly can't think of it as bannable without at the same time invoking the no spamming rule.

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?

That's one of the biggest questions of the ages.

So you think discipline for necrobumping depends upon the length of time the thread has been abandoned? I think this is where we part ways in our opinion. I don't think necrobumping, in and of itself and regardless of length of abandonment, should be a disciplinable offense unless there is something else involved (like spamming). Frankly, I think it's silly.

[muy_thaiguy]

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.

Depending on the situation, a warning perhaps. Depends on how long the thread has been dead (months, years). I certainly can't think of it as bannable without at the same time invoking the no spamming rule.

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?

That's one of the biggest questions of the ages.

So you think discipline for necrobumping depends upon the length of time the thread has been abandoned? I think this is where we part ways in our opinion. I don't think necrobumping, in and of itself and regardless of length of abandonment, should be a disciplinable offense unless there is something else involved (like spamming). Frankly, I think it's silly.

If it's bumping for the sake of bumping, or just bumping a ton of dead threads, then I could see an issue. But if it's actually to get people to post in it, I don't really see the problem.

None shall know of the Pika Clan or post races!

[Serbia]

How much more restraint do you want? How many people have you seen banned in the last year? Three? One for porn and two for extreme flaming?

Sounds like good restraint to me. Perhaps serbia can address.

If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it, then my opinion is that this is excellent.

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.

Depending on the situation, a warning perhaps. Depends on how long the thread has been dead (months, years). I certainly can't think of it as bannable without at the same time invoking the no spamming rule.

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?

That's one of the biggest questions of the ages.

So you think discipline for necrobumping depends upon the length of time the thread has been abandoned? I think this is where we part ways in our opinion. I don't think necrobumping, in and of itself and regardless of length of abandonment, should be a disciplinable offense unless there is something else involved (like spamming). Frankly, I think it's silly.

This post here is exactly why I want to have this conversation. All due respect to tzor, this is exactly what is going on; you state your opinion, I state mine. That's how this works, sir. It's interesting if you pay attention.

Tzor clearly believes that necrobumping should still be punishable, depending on the how long a thread has sat. I'd like to know, from tzor, the logic behind his decision. Let's say there is a thread discussing Game of Thrones. It's a relatively new thread, and has been active. JimBoy posts in this active thread:

OMG GOT PWNZ!!1

...adding nothing to the conversation. This could be considered a spam post, but this entire forum is literally full of these types of posts. In fact, the entire thread can be considered spam, but that is what this forum is; Off-Topics, or, Spam, as it has nothing to do with CC. The post does nothing to further the discussion, it's useless, it's a throw-away comment, yet that's what we get, and I doubt anyone would issue even a warning for it.

Now, let us say that during the first season of GoT, there was a thread created which fell inactive at the end of the season. Season 1 was back in 2011, so this imaginary thread hasn't been posted in since 2011. BrainGuy loves the show, but wants to do a forum search before creating a new thread, and finds this original thread. He reads through it, is intrigued by the discussion, and decides to resurrect it by posting in it. He writes a three paragraph in-depth commentary on the evolution of the series. It's on topic, it's well thought out, and certainly adds more to the conversation than simply writing "PWNZ!1!"; but he just necrobumped a thread which had lied inactive for 5 years.

My question to you, tzor, is this: Why do you consider the first post to be more worthy of being accepted, and the second post more worthy of a warning? Let's take it a step further; instead of the 3 paragraph intelligent post, let's say FanGirl necrobumps the thread with:

OMG have you been watching this season?! SO GOOD!

It's still on topic, it adds to the discussion more than what JimBoy wrote, but according to you, it's an actionable offense simply because the thread hadn't been posted in for 5 years. That's the logic I don't understand, and the logic I'd like to see you explain.

[2dimes]

...The point of private forums are they are private, ...

I figured as much, but then people like DY and ny2 started joining in with Symmetry's nonsense so I thought it'd be good to hear it from a mod.

DY tried to explain that regular mods were unable to use the fancy buttons in the private Forums.

To be fair though, it was getting buried in a barrage of noise.

[tzor]

DY tried to explain that regular mods were unable to use the fancy buttons in the private Forums.

What "fancy" buttons? They are just ordinary plain buttons.

[Dukasaur]

Don't you be pushing my buttons!

[tzor]

Tzor clearly believes that necrobumping should still be punishable, depending on the how long a thread has sat. I'd like to know, from tzor, the logic behind his decision.

First of all, I've never said "should" ... more like "could." Necrobump a Wicked thread for no apparent reason, for example, and you should get a firm "STOP THAT." It's more of a question of not opening up old threads as the question of opening up old wounds. The chance of that happening increases with age and those who would want to deliberately do such a thing would deliberately choose the oldest threads.

[Serbia]

Good of you to respond, but you have completely dodged the pointed question. Read again, sir:

Tzor clearly believes that necrobumping should still be punishable, depending on the how long a thread has sat. I'd like to know, from tzor, the logic behind his decision. Let's say there is a thread discussing Game of Thrones. It's a relatively new thread, and has been active. JimBoy posts in this active thread:

OMG GOT PWNZ!!1

...adding nothing to the conversation. This could be considered a spam post, but this entire forum is literally full of these types of posts. In fact, the entire thread can be considered spam, but that is what this forum is; Off-Topics, or, Spam, as it has nothing to do with CC. The post does nothing to further the discussion, it's useless, it's a throw-away comment, yet that's what we get, and I doubt anyone would issue even a warning for it.

Now, let us say that during the first season of GoT, there was a thread created which fell inactive at the end of the season. Season 1 was back in 2011, so this imaginary thread hasn't been posted in since 2011. BrainGuy loves the show, but wants to do a forum search before creating a new thread, and finds this original thread. He reads through it, is intrigued by the discussion, and decides to resurrect it by posting in it. He writes a three paragraph in-depth commentary on the evolution of the series. It's on topic, it's well thought out, and certainly adds more to the conversation than simply writing "PWNZ!1!"; but he just necrobumped a thread which had lied inactive for 5 years.

My question to you, tzor, is this: Why do you consider the first post to be more worthy of being accepted, and the second post more worthy of a warning? Let's take it a step further; instead of the 3 paragraph intelligent post, let's say FanGirl necrobumps the thread with:

OMG have you been watching this season?! SO GOOD!

It's still on topic, it adds to the discussion more than what JimBoy wrote, but according to you, it's an actionable offense simply because the thread hadn't been posted in for 5 years. That's the logic I don't understand, and the logic I'd like to see you explain.

I even bolded the question portions for you.

And, fair play to you, I offered up a hypothetical scenario; you responded with one of your own. I expect mine to be answered; I'll answer yours.

Tzor clearly believes that necrobumping should still be punishable, depending on the how long a thread has sat. I'd like to know, from tzor, the logic behind his decision.

First of all, I've never said "should" ... more like "could." Necrobump a Wicked thread for no apparent reason, for example, and you should get a firm "STOP THAT." It's more of a question of not opening up old threads as the question of opening up old wounds. The chance of that happening increases with age and those who would want to deliberately do such a thing would deliberately choose the oldest threads.

There are over 500 PAGES worth of threads within this forum. The vast majority of them are not "Wicked threads(s)". In fact, even some that are could be safely bumped without opening old wounds. However, let's say someone intentional bumps an old Wicked thread in an attempt to cause trouble. Or to phrase it another way, be "intentionally annoying". Hey, guess what? You've already got a rule on the books that covers that! Because, same logic: instead of bumping an old thread, what if TroubleMaker simply creates a new thread TALKING about Wicked and her antics? Still falls under "intentionally annoying" and possibly other issues. Or would you simply wave everyone merrily along because the OP has a 2016 date stamp on it?


Now, if you could do me a favor and answer my questions, I'd appreciate it.

[tzor]

Good of you to respond, but you have completely dodged the pointed question. Read again, sir:

I'll try, but when I get to the edit box it's all one blur of letters.

Tzor clearly believes that necrobumping should still be punishable, depending on the how long a thread has sat. I'd like to know, from tzor, the logic behind his decision. Let's say there is a thread discussing Game of Thrones. It's a relatively new thread, and has been active. JimBoy posts in this active thread:

OMG GOT PWNZ!!1

...adding nothing to the conversation. This could be considered a spam post, but this entire forum is literally full of these types of posts. In fact, the entire thread can be considered spam, but that is what this forum is; Off-Topics, or, Spam, as it has nothing to do with CC. The post does nothing to further the discussion, it's useless, it's a throw-away comment, yet that's what we get, and I doubt anyone would issue even a warning for it.

Now, let us say that during the first season of GoT, there was a thread created which fell inactive at the end of the season. Season 1 was back in 2011, so this imaginary thread hasn't been posted in since 2011. BrainGuy loves the show, but wants to do a forum search before creating a new thread, and finds this original thread. He reads through it, is intrigued by the discussion, and decides to resurrect it by posting in it. He writes a three paragraph in-depth commentary on the evolution of the series. It's on topic, it's well thought out, and certainly adds more to the conversation than simply writing "PWNZ!1!"; but he just necrobumped a thread which had lied inactive for 5 years.

My question to you, tzor, is this: Why do you consider the first post to be more worthy of being accepted, and the second post more worthy of a warning? Let's take it a step further; instead of the 3 paragraph intelligent post, let's say FanGirl necrobumps the thread with:

OMG have you been watching this season?! SO GOOD!

It's still on topic, it adds to the discussion more than what JimBoy wrote, but according to you, it's an actionable offense simply because the thread hadn't been posted in for 5 years. That's the logic I don't understand, and the logic I'd like to see you explain.

In both your examples of long term I see value add. There is a reason and that reason is somewhat valid. Personally I would prefer a prefix like 'Bumping this thread because ..." but that's just me. The short term isn't worth the effort if it only happened once and the long term examples seem acceptable to me.

Tzor clearly believes that necrobumping should still be punishable, depending on the how long a thread has sat. I'd like to know, from tzor, the logic behind his decision.

First of all, I've never said "should" ... more like "could." Necrobump a Wicked thread for no apparent reason, for example, and you should get a firm "STOP THAT." It's more of a question of not opening up old threads as the question of opening up old wounds. The chance of that happening increases with age and those who would want to deliberately do such a thing would deliberately choose the oldest threads.

There are over 500 PAGES worth of threads within this forum. The vast majority of them are not "Wicked threads(s)". In fact, even some that are could be safely bumped without opening old wounds. However, let's say someone intentional bumps an old Wicked thread in an attempt to cause trouble. Or to phrase it another way, be "intentionally annoying". Hey, guess what? You've already got a rule on the books that covers that! Because, same logic: instead of bumping an old thread, what if TroubleMaker simply creates a new thread TALKING about Wicked and her antics? Still falls under "intentionally annoying" and possibly other issues. Or would you simply wave everyone merrily along because the OP has a 2016 date stamp on it?

Generally I would probably wave people along if it had a 2016, 2015, or 2014 stamp on it. I generally think of necrobumping as the long departed threads, not the recently departed (as per my Wicked example which would be a necrobump of a thread from possibly around 2008 or eight years ago).

[Serbia]

Generally I would probably wave people along if it had a 2016, 2015, or 2014 stamp on it. I generally think of necrobumping as the long departed threads, not the recently departed (as per my Wicked example which would be a necrobump of a thread from possibly around 2008 or eight years ago).

And that's fair enough. For sake of enforcement or argument, all things must have a definition, regardless of how arbitrary they may or may not be. I'll be generous and place your cap, for the sake of discussion, at 3 years. Within 3 years, good; 4 years or older, necrobump.

I don't know if you've seen my Confession yet, but it's relevant. Point being, if I were to bump a thread titled "If you could ask 3 questions..." from 2007 with an on-topic post, that generates further on-topic discussion, is that bad, just because of the date of the OP? As long as it's generating on-topic discussion, who really cares? Even some of the sillier ones that I copied, what difference does it make, in this, the Spam Forum? We want activity, right? Who cares if the thread that is currently active started back in 2007? Does it even matter?

This brings up an interesting side point: WELCOME TO SPAMALOT, THE FEW, THE PROUD, THE SPAMMY!!!!!!!!! dates back to 2007, while the longest thread, thread - Occasionally NSFW is from 2006. Both are over 2,000 pages long. How many times do you reckon page 873 has been viewed in either thread in the past 3 years? An argument could be made to cut each of those threads annually and let the old bits go, since they are 9 to 10 years old. Yet, I doubt there has ever been any discussion on that front.

[2dimes]

Spamalot was much longer once and someone cut several thousand pages to make it shorter than the longest thread thread.

I kind of doubt there is anything in the mod notes about that.

[tzor]

I don't know if you've seen my Confession yet, but it's relevant. Point being, if I were to bump a thread titled "If you could ask 3 questions..." from 2007 with an on-topic post, that generates further on-topic discussion, is that bad, just because of the date of the OP? As long as it's generating on-topic discussion, who really cares? Even some of the sillier ones that I copied, what difference does it make, in this, the Spam Forum? We want activity, right? Who cares if the thread that is currently active started back in 2007? Does it even matter?

I know I certainly wouldn't have any problems with it. If there is a sincere reason to really revise the subject and the topic is potentially one which can be legitimately active, I see no reason to be against it. On the other hand, it shouldn't be mandatory either. You shouldn't get into trouble for not searching the forum to see if somebody in the past had brought up the topic.

This brings up an interesting side point: WELCOME TO SPAMALOT, THE FEW, THE PROUD, THE SPAMMY!!!!!!!!! dates back to 2007, while the longest thread, thread - Occasionally NSFW is from 2006. Both are over 2,000 pages long. How many times do you reckon page 873 has been viewed in either thread in the past 3 years? An argument could be made to cut each of those threads annually and let the old bits go, since they are 9 to 10 years old. Yet, I doubt there has ever been any discussion on that front.

Every place that I have seen where threads were trimmed or capped was because of the limitations of the forum software and the potential for system crashes. This doesn't happen here, so I don't see any reason why we should do any extra work in this area.