Necrobumping - A Conversation

[Serbia]

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.

Legitimately active? There are 12 threads on the first page of this forum that have 5 or fewer replies. Those threads are not being held to that standard. Why are they more legitimate as threads than a necrobump would be? Remember, and I cannot stress this enough, we're talking about the Spam Forum. Is a thread legitimized through responses, or how long it stays active? I doubt you believe that.

But I also agree that it shouldn't be mandatory to search for an original thread before posting "what puppy should I get?" In fact, literally no one has ever suggested that. And don't offer up owenshooter as an example; he always suggested that in other forums. This Spam Forum is a completely different subject, and owen rarely ventured into the Spam Forums.

[tzor]

Looking at the current off topic forum, I see 8 threads updated today, 8 threads updated yesterday, 5 from the 31st, 8 from the 30th, 2 from the 29th, 5 from the 28th and the remaining 10 from the 27th. (Note when I post this will change to 9 today and 7 yesterday since your post was from yesterday.) That is, all in all less of a week spanning on page 1. The lack of active threads in this forum is another issue for another day. The ones that are not active will filter down.

[Serbia]

You have a talent for not answering questions. Are you, in fact, a politician? If not, have you ever considered it?

Back to the topic at hand, let me ask you a second time. You say that "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." If they receive no responses, or fewer responses than whatever arbitrary number you'll come up with in order to designate the bumped thread "legitimately active", then, based on your own words, you could potentially see a reason to be against it. And my question, again, is why aren't NEW threads held to the same arbitrary reasoning? This thread. 0 responses. It's 5 days old. Are you going to lock it, and warn ronc8649 that he shouldn't start threads that won't become "legitimately active"? Or do you agree that would be a nonsensical and heavy handed response? And if we wouldn't do that for a new thread, why do you feel it should be done to a bumped thread, that may or may not have been "legitimately active" when it was first created?

[Serbia]

Secondly, I'll also point out that all of the threads that I stole over the past month were posted without a "sincere reason to really revise the subject". I didn't care if they received responses or not. I posted them because I can, not because I cared about them. Even after confessing, I have yet to receive any type of warning. Had I simply bumped the old posts, I cannot say that I would have been warned, but you definitely seem as though you'd be taking issue with it, tzor, based on your responses in this thread. And again, that is inconsistent moderation, and when argued, difficult to defend, as well.

[mrswdk]

Why don't you bump an old thread that you'd like to restart and see what happens?

[Serbia]

Why don't you bump an old thread that you'd like to restart and see what happens?

TeeGee has already said he's cool with it, and bumped one himself, remember? Keep up girl.

[tzor]

This thread. 0 responses. It's 5 days old. Are you going to lock it, and warn ronc8649 that he shouldn't start threads that won't become "legitimately active"? Or do you agree that would be a nonsensical and heavy handed response? And if we wouldn't do that for a new thread, why do you feel it should be done to a bumped thread, that may or may not have been "legitimately active" when it was first created?

First of all, I think it is a good thing I'm not an active forum mod. Of course off topic tends to be treated nicely, so the fact that the post is STUPID, SPAM, TOO SHORT, and a DOUBLE ENTENDRE for a sexual reference which makes the whole female nipple discussion seem minor. IMMEDIATE LOCK AND WARN.

[Serbia]

Are you going to actually answer my questions? Or are you conceding my point, and indirectly telling me that trying to have an adult conversation with you is a waste of my time?

[Dukasaur]

Are you going to actually answer my questions? Or are you conceding my point, and indirectly telling me that trying to have an adult conversation with you is a waste of my time?

Sounds to me like he did answer the question pretty clearly.

Back to the topic at hand, let me ask you a second time. You say that "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." If they receive no responses, or fewer responses than whatever arbitrary number you'll come up with in order to designate the bumped thread "legitimately active", then, based on your own words, you could potentially see a reason to be against it. And my question, again, is why aren't NEW threads held to the same arbitrary reasoning? This thread. 0 responses. It's 5 days old. Are you going to lock it, and warn ronc8649 that he shouldn't start threads that won't become "legitimately active"? Or do you agree that would be a nonsensical and heavy handed response? And if we wouldn't do that for a new thread, why do you feel it should be done to a bumped thread, that may or may not have been "legitimately active" when it was first created?

This thread. 0 responses. It's 5 days old. Are you going to lock it, and warn ronc8649 that he shouldn't start threads that won't become "legitimately active"? Or do you agree that would be a nonsensical and heavy handed response? And if we wouldn't do that for a new thread, why do you feel it should be done to a bumped thread, that may or may not have been "legitimately active" when it was first created?

First of all, I think it is a good thing I'm not an active forum mod. Of course off topic tends to be treated nicely, so the fact that the post is STUPID, SPAM, TOO SHORT, and a DOUBLE ENTENDRE for a sexual reference which makes the whole female nipple discussion seem minor. IMMEDIATE LOCK AND WARN.

It seems to me he's saying that if it was up to him him we would have actual standards for pointless spammy shit like that, and in fact it would not be a "nonsensical and heavy handed response" to shut down useless threads like that. Therefore, if starting new useless threads should be prohibited, then resurrecting old useless threads should be prohibited also.

I'm not saying I agree, but I think your accusations of him not addressing the issue are starting to get not only repetitive but also very unfair.

[Serbia]

If that's the best response I'm going to get, then I'm glad that tzor isn't in charge, and I think it's even more important that the rules get rewritten.

[DoomYoshi]

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

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

This is the most brilliant conversation on the internet I have read in quite some time. First, I would love to say that I love this thread, because self-referential threads are a good sign of a healthy forum.

Now, on with the brilliance.

The ORIGINAL argument against necrobumping certainly comes from Usenet. The reasons being twofold (you will notice they have the same structure as being two separate offenses that CC uses).
a) As part of spamming, since instead of creating topics, it can be easier to drown out a conversation as part of a directed spam attack. (IF i download 100 new messages a day, but all of them are necrobumps, I will miss the actual messages that I wanted).
b) Since on Usenet you download messages daily and only have the messages that you downloaded, if a conversation started before you started downloading that group, you won't know where it started. (yes, I know you can download the whole group or go on Google Groups but pretend its the 80s and you don't get 120 GB per month.

So, after the September that never ended many of the Usenet rules started spreading around the forums etc. Eventually, both reasons stopped mattering because we aren't on Usenet. However, because people are trying to "use logic" they have to bend over backwards to come up with reasons that the rules make sense.

Here's what's brilliant. If, instead of a million different conversations on a million different forums there was only one conversation and you could see the original reasoning for the rules and the reasons they no longer apply, there wouldn't be this confusion! We need the entire story, and we need it in one place and a "No Necrobumping" rule causes people to not understand the necrobumping rule (as evidenced by tzor in this above post).

On a side note, the Community Guidelines are archived and there is no way to access them unless you hunt through the archives. Therefore, all references to them are garbage.

[Dukasaur]

On a side note, the Community Guidelines are archived and there is no way to access them unless you hunt through the archives. Therefore, all references to them are garbage.

Click on "Rules" in the top right hand corner and go to the rules page:
https://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?mode=rules
Click on the "Community Guidelines" link on the rules page and go to the Community Guidelines.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7785

If that's a hunt, it's the easiest hunt I've ever been on.

If, instead of a million different conversations on a million different forums there was only one conversation and you could see the original reasoning for the rules and the reasons they no longer apply, there wouldn't be this confusion!

Do you mean something like Global Chat, where there is no separation of topics, and people talk about different things simultaneously? It's okay, if you just want to shoot the shit and pass the time, but if you're trying to have a focused conversation about something it's not very convenient.

[DoomYoshi]

On a side note, the Community Guidelines are archived and there is no way to access them unless you hunt through the archives. Therefore, all references to them are garbage.

Click on "Rules" in the top right hand corner and go to the rules page:
https://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?mode=rules
Click on the "Community Guidelines" link on the rules page and go to the Community Guidelines.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7785

If that's a hunt, it's the easiest hunt I've ever been on.

If, instead of a million different conversations on a million different forums there was only one conversation and you could see the original reasoning for the rules and the reasons they no longer apply, there wouldn't be this confusion!

Do you mean something like Global Chat, where there is no separation of topics, and people talk about different things simultaneously? It's okay, if you just want to shoot the shit and pass the time, but if you're trying to have a focused conversation about something it's not very convenient.

No, I mean one conversation only on necrobumping*. If, anytime somebody thought of something new to add to the necrobump conversation, they could return to some theoretical first conversation and add to that, or realize that what they want to say has already been said we wouldn't be having a discussion based fully on misunderstanding. In the current system everyone has to start a new topic because a) we don't live in an internet monoculture and b)even if we did, a no necrobumping rules forbids that, and instead wants the cycle to begin afresh.

*Imagine if forum threads were arranged by Dewey Decimal system or some such system

[Dukasaur]

Agreed.

It's theoretically possible to allow writers to use keywords with their posts, to allow cross-connection of related topics in threads. Hell, it's the reason HTML was invented. And here we are, 30 years later, and the most potentially useful function of internet fora is almost never implemented.

[Woodruff]

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.

Sorry about my part in that. Not surprising though, since the complete lack of moderator integrity is why I've basically left the site.

[Woodruff]

If that's the best response I'm going to get, then I'm glad that tzor isn't in charge, and I think it's even more important that the rules get rewritten.

When I tried to make that happen, oh so long ago, I was essentially told that my points regarding the rules not being enforced were going to be ignored. Has that attitude changed?

[Serbia]

If that's the best response I'm going to get, then I'm glad that tzor isn't in charge, and I think it's even more important that the rules get rewritten.

When I tried to make that happen, oh so long ago, I was essentially told that my points regarding the rules not being enforced were going to be ignored. Has that attitude changed?

Not sure if I'm understanding you fully yet. They have gotten much more lax on enforcing the "no necrobumping" rule, but I'm in favor of striking it altogether.

[Woodruff]

If that's the best response I'm going to get, then I'm glad that tzor isn't in charge, and I think it's even more important that the rules get rewritten.

When I tried to make that happen, oh so long ago, I was essentially told that my points regarding the rules not being enforced were going to be ignored. Has that attitude changed?

Not sure if I'm understanding you fully yet. They have gotten much more lax on enforcing the "no necrobumping" rule, but I'm in favor of striking it altogether.

I wasn't speaking specifically of the necrobumping rule, but rather your statement about it being important that the rules get rewritten (which I took to mean "in general").

[DirtyDishSoap]

To me it seems the mods are more "laxed."

Least to me, I only came back recently to annoy the latest batch of folks.

[tzor]

When I tried to make that happen, oh so long ago, I was essentially told that my points regarding the rules not being enforced were going to be ignored. Has that attitude changed?

As far as I know, the answer is NO. This is sort of an example in miniature of Washington D.C. ... you see we have these rules on the books (Constitution for Washington, the World Filter as a CC Example) but it's so difficult to change those rules so let's just flatly ignore them. That attitude can be contagious.

[tzor]

Least to me, I only came back recently to annoy the latest batch of folks.

Welcome back,
Your dreams were your ticket out.

[Serbia]

If that's the best response I'm going to get, then I'm glad that tzor isn't in charge, and I think it's even more important that the rules get rewritten.

When I tried to make that happen, oh so long ago, I was essentially told that my points regarding the rules not being enforced were going to be ignored. Has that attitude changed?

Not sure if I'm understanding you fully yet. They have gotten much more lax on enforcing the "no necrobumping" rule, but I'm in favor of striking it altogether.

I wasn't speaking specifically of the necrobumping rule, but rather your statement about it being important that the rules get rewritten (which I took to mean "in general").

You'll find that it's best, typically, to ignore tzor, who tries to make even the obvious confusing. My statement wasn't speaking generally about the rules, but rather specifically about the necrobumping rule. Right now it's on the books but unenforced, mostly. I don't want the current mods to be replaced by stricter mods who go back to punishing people for bumping an old topic in this, the spam forum, and then being banned for it. tzor essentially stated that he would ban people for it, which is why I responded that it's even more important to change this specific rule, so that he would have to get the "no necrobumping" rule reinstated before he, or anyone else, could start issuing bans for something that I view as ridiculous as a stand alone charge.

[tzor]

Once again, I never said that I would ban people for it. But then again, I'm used to forums with a more stricter ban philosophy and getting a week time out ban was somewhat commonplace at one time in those forums. I think stricter is sometimes better, as long as stricter is fair. (That also means moderation by committee so that you need at least a few mods to agree on a short term time out ban.) That's not going to happen here. But this is actually a red herring and you know it.

[Serbia]

tzor, I don't know nor care what you wrote, fyi. If you want to converse with me, you may also go create a multi.

[tzor]

tzor, I don't know nor care what you wrote, fyi. If you want to converse with me, you may also go create a multi.

Forum rules are generally ignored. Multi rules are strictly enforced. Frankly, I don't want to "converse" with you.