Necroposting... what's the big deal?

[Nerfed]

Seriously, is it really an issue? When someone brings back an old thread, someone (usually a mod) takes issue with it and the thread gets locked.

Here's an idea... if you aren't going to delete old threads, why not put a lock on them after a certain amount of time if you don't want people posting in them again?

:P

[Half Life]

I dont see the problem. I brought that Age of Conan post back from the dead. Sometimes a topic needs to be revisited or something else added on to. Maybe Krypto didnt want to get teased again?

[Krypto]

Cause by the time it needs a lock, it's already buried on the 10th page. We take issue with it because necroposting doesn't really add anything to a thread that's been dead for over a year, and is usually done for no reason other than to annoy people. There are exceptions, like threads about other videogames that say, won't be released until a year after the thread's been made or something like that.

[Gold Rush]

Yeah, Nerfed, get "with it".

Let the Ewok win.

Err, that would be wookie, except for the size thing, Krypto. ;)

(Okay, that's my addition to the dead insult thread :) )

[Bitter Babe]

Because honestly many of the threads that have been necro'd lately honestly didn't need to be revisited. If a thread is over a year old it's pretty obvious the thing is dead. Some people do it just to make a game of it, so I'm sure that annoys the mods/admins as well. Trust me, they don't have an easy job on these boards sometimes so try to cut them some slack :)

[Dynamo-Man]

By that logic, one could argue that those threads should never have been made. Just saying...

And as to the "Take a swing at Krypto" thread, by him agreeing to it at the beginning and then locking it because it annoys him now, it makes him look like he's using mod powers based on his own personal feelings. "You can insult me when I say it's ok to insult me." No offense Krypto (cuz I got nuthin' but luv for ya), but that does come off as a bit childish. At least as childish as those who necropost for amusement. And two wrongs don't make a right. Right? Or Wrong? :look:

Unless someone else locked it. I dunno. You mods and admins are a secretive, and sometimes illogical lot... :eyebrow:

...

BANANA HAMMOCK! O_o

[Bitter Babe]

I'm not saying the posts should have never been made, obviously at one point in time there was a discussion about [insert thread title here]. But lets say I go to page 59 or so on and decide I want to rehash something that no one has said in a year in a half is it really necessary? It's open to interpretation.

[Blackbat]

It's the Spam/Asylum forum, who cares if people make silly posts and commit necroposting? I didn't see anything in that thread that needed to be moderated, and especially not locked.

[Bitter Babe]

Bats this is mostly about other threads that have been brought up from the dead, usually by Widdy and then locked.

[The Widowed]

We take issue with it because necroposting doesn't really add anything to a thread that's been dead for over a year, and is usually done for no reason other than to annoy people.
But by whose judgement? Why do you assume that the poster is reviving an old thread just to annoy people? Is it somehow impossible that the poster did, in his or her mind, have something worthwhile to add to an old thread? Just because it annoys Krypto or Burbs does not mean that annoyance was the necromancer's intent; it's not the necromancer's fault if he goes back to rekindle an old flame and inadvertently trips an admin's mental tripwire. There's no accounting for random psychological landmines. :rolleyes:

Because honestly many of the threads that have been necro'd lately honestly didn't need to be revisited. If a thread is over a year old it's pretty obvious the thing is dead.
Again, by whose judgement? Is the thread dead or is it merely hibernating? Has the thread truly been forgotten (except by the omnipresent spiders), or has one of the thread's posters remembered the thread even after so many months or years, just waiting for the right thing to add to it?

Just because some random mod or admin for some reason bristles at thread necromancy doesn't mean that every admin, mod, green-name commoner or blue-name commoner will bristle at it. Some may bristle, some may not care and some may even be delighted at seeing an old friend of a thread. "Hey, there's that automotive thread again! I forgot all about that witty post that Xan made on European transmissions...."

Some old adage about feasts and poisons comes to mind. :eyebrow:

Some people do it just to make a game of it, so I'm sure that annoys the mods/admins as well.
Hey, I wasn't making a game of it until your boyfriend went off his leash for no apparent reason. :rolleyes:

Wids: "Hey, it's been a while since I had a little fun with my leet (albeit very limited) mod powaz. I'm going to dust off this hibernating 'Me edit u 4 the lulz' thread again and see what random nonsense the peeps and me can come up with."
Burbs: "Grrrr, you are in violation of Burbs Regulation FU-1234, necromancy without a license! Prepare to have your thread locked!"
Wids: "WTF, mate?" :look:

So then I made a duplicate thread about the exact same thing, and Burbs was perfectly cool with that. Why? Aside from driving up the forum thread count, what purpose did that serve? How many duplicate threads can we create in order to skirt around Burbs' "No necromancy" rule before he starts to get annoyed with that too? Why can't I find this mysterious "No necromancy" rule anywhere in here (http://www.cohguru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=2)? And how does necromancy qualify as a hammer-worthy offense in the same company as spamming, flame wars, white supremacist bile and warez offers?

Trust me, they don't have an easy job on these boards sometimes so try to cut them some slack :)
They can start making their job easier by reducing their own workloads and not jumping at otherwise benign stuff just because they don't like the smell of it. I don't like every comment that gets posted under my YouTube videos, but I'm not going to go about deleting every annoying comment and blocking every annoying commenter. Who has the time and obsessive-compulsive-level dedication for that?

By that logic, one could argue that those threads should never have been made. Just saying...
/signed :think:

[Bitter Babe]

You know Widdy, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you and if you have a ****ing problem with my boyfriend then ****ing take it to PMs. He's not personally attacking you but you take it that way.

Edit: So when does this get moved to debates because it's not really a rant anymore :P

[Blackbat]

Bats this is mostly about other threads that have been brought up from the dead, usually by Widdy and then locked.

Point taken. But the act we are talking about isn't against forum rules, therefore unless some other act was commited in the thread taking actions to moderate it wouldn't be justified.

Necroposting doesn't bother me at all but obviously others see it differently. Of course, this is all my opinion.

Edit: So when does this get moved to debates because it's not really a rant anymore :P

Well, I could just lock it and be done with it. :P

[The Widowed]

It seemed like he was attacking me after every old thread I revived got locked, but every old thread that everybody else revived didn't. Why shouldn't I think that he had an axe to grind with me after that? O_o

Hell, I've been wanting to go back and finish Ashes to Orchids for months. But now I'm worried that the next chapter I add would end up being the last. How is that right?

P.S. ****, ****, ****itty ****itty ****! Let it all out, Beebs. >:]

[Bitter Babe]

Haha well it is a rant thread so I thought some ****ing and **** would fit in perfectly :P But trust me he's not personally attacking you, he just happened to be around when you did it probably and well you see his feelings on necroposting, but as you see Bats up there (and nice to see you again Bats it's been a while) thinks different.

Don't feel like you can't go back and add that chapter, but if you feel that way then say something to him personally instead of this way. He's super busy with work but I'm sure at some point he would respond to you.

[Grae Knight]

Why not just update the Forum Rules to make Nerco posting a violation? It is on the main boards, I got put in time-out by cuppajo for doing it.

[Krypto]

It's the Spam/Asylum forum, who cares if people make silly posts and commit necroposting? I didn't see anything in that thread that needed to be moderated, and especially not locked.

Because spam belongs in spam threads. A thread that's been dead for over a year usually has nothing that could be added to it that hasn't already been added.

Point taken. But the act we are talking about isn't against forum rules, therefore unless some other act was commited in the thread taking actions to moderate it wouldn't be justified.


· No Spamming
Your post count - no matter how impressive a high number might look - is irrelevant here. Therefore, please do not spam these forums, or such posts will be deleted. If you're unsure what is, and isn't spamming - a good general guideline is to look at what you're posting and ask yourself: "Does this add to or advance the thread in a constructive way?" If you answered 'Yes', then you're probably good to go.

Necroposting is spamming, and annoying spam at that.

[The Widowed]

Yeah, well, better not tell him that I edited his "I'm locking this thread" post in the thread that started it all in the first place. I still wonder about his reasons for apparently coming down on me like that, and I worry for the old boy's sense of humor sometimes.... :think:

[Bitter Babe]

Why not just update the Forum Rules to make Nerco posting a violation? It is on the main boards, I got put in time-out by cuppajo for doing it.

I bet you liked that :naughty::P

[Sebastian Kain]

Well at least you all are talking about something.

[Bitter Babe]

Quick lets start talking about nothing :P

[Blackbat]

Because spam belongs in spam threads. A thread that's been dead for over a year usually has nothing that could be added to it that hasn't already been added.

You could say the same thing about 60% of all threads after the first 3 posts. If someone wants to bring back an old spam thread to add (wait for it) more spam, then who cares? It was a mindless thread to begin with, it's not ruined by one more mindless post.

This would be different if it were a more CoH related sub-forum where informative posts were being pushed aside.


Necroposting is spamming, and annoying spam at that.

By your definition? I don't automatically consider necroposting spamming. If I bring a thread back from 3 years ago to update it with thread related info or even somewhat on topic (note that adding banter and silliness to a thread full of the same is in fact on topic) then I have just contributed to that thread.

[Krypto]

By your definition? I don't automatically consider necroposting spamming. If I bring a thread back from 3 years ago to update it with thread related info or even somewhat on topic (note that adding banter and silliness to a thread full of the same is in fact on topic) then I have just contributed to that thread.

By the definition I quoted above.

[The Widowed]

Why not just update the Forum Rules to make Nerco posting a violation? It is on the main boards, I got put in time-out by cuppajo for doing it.
That's just because Cuppa, adorable as she was, didn't have any skin. Neither do the Mystery Mods. I think it's something to do with NCSoft policy or something. :think:

She put me in the pokey after I satirized America's outlook towards the rest of the world, comparing it to the conquest over the Americas. "Well, if Dubya keeps it up, I imagine we'll eventually just kick them off their land and herd them into reservations." So Cuppa deemed my post offensive to Native Americans and nuked my post.

What a harlot. :p

Necroposting is spamming, and annoying spam at that.
Hello, Krypto. This is the Internet. Allow me to introduce you to what real spamming is. >:]


"Impress your girlfriend! Buy V!agra cheap!"
"Go to our online casino, make big bucks!"
"Home morgtage approval! Free estimates! Click here."
"You are already approved for a $500,000 limit on a Visa Grande credit card!"
"Save $100 when you buy our office supplies online! Click here."


Remember that the term "spamming" was coined from that Monty Python skit with the singing goons trying to "persuade" the guy to eat Spam by basically getting in his face and singing "Spam! Spam! Spammitty spam!" every chance they got.

Mere repetition is not truly spam. Spam is overly aggressive advertising. And necromancy isn't advertising...unless you're reviving some old spam thread, perhaps.

[Grae Knight]

I have to agree with Blackbat. Necroposting is not always spamming.

Unless I do it. If I do it you can count on it being spamming.

[Grae Knight]

That's just because Cuppa, adorable as she was, didn't have any skin. Neither do the Mystery Mods. I think it's something to do with NCSoft policy or something. :think:


Not intentional threadjack, the Mystery Mods are no longer mysteries on the main boards. NCSoft hired actual people to mod with names and personalities. I think their full time job may be to surf the forums and community service. I believe there are 3 new forum mods now. Two of them are named Koschej and Niviene.

[Bitter Babe]

I have to agree, it's not always spamming, sometimes it is however. If it's relevant and on topic with the thread it's not spamming.

[Blackbat]

By the definition I quoted above.

The definition you quoted on the last page is vague at best, and nowhere in said definition does it reference necroposting. It's entirely subjective, which at some point should be clarified to avoid situations exactly like this.

[Seadevil]

This thread is stupid. That is all.

[The Widowed]

Not intentional threadjack, the Mystery Mods are no longer mysteries on the main boards. NCSoft hired actual people to mod with names and personalities. I think their full time job may be to surf the forums and community service. I believe there are 3 new forum mods now.
So I guess I can finally drop my grudge against Moderator_8, huh?

Good. I hope the bastard got fired. >:]

[TopHat]

This thread is stupid. That is all.

Agreed.

[Bitter Babe]

This thread is stupid. That is all.

What? No obligatory chair throwing? You DD are losing your touch! *throws chair into the crowd* :chuckle:

[Grae Knight]

So I guess I can finally drop my grudge against Moderator_8, huh?

Good. I hope the bastard got fired. >:]

lol, yeah. Now they actually post a warning in a thread before locking it and sometimes post a reason for locking it. The new crew of Lighthouse, Koschej, Niviene and Ex_Libris are actually doing a good job there.

[The Widowed]

This thread is stupid. That is all.
So's your mother. You're living proof of that. :P

[TopHat]

What? No obligatory chair throwing? You DD are losing your touch! *throws chair into the crowd* :chuckle:

/e concussion

[Grae Knight]

This thread is stupid. That is all.

Lies! This thread is full of win!

Agreed.

Sheep. :chuckle:

[Grae Knight]

Now we are spamming.

[Seadevil]

So's your mother. You're living proof of that. :P

You're trying too hard, but, sure. Whatever.

[The Widowed]

lol, yeah. Now they actually post a warning in a thread before locking it and sometimes post a reason for locking it. The new crew of Lighthouse, Koschej, Niviene and Ex_Libris are actually doing a good job there.
You don't think one of these guys used to be Moderator_8, do you? :eyebrow:

Ah, well. I'm still not going back. Besides, my CoX account's inactive. :p

[Krypto]

Mere repetition is not truly spam. Spam is overly aggressive advertising. And necromancy isn't advertising...unless you're reviving some old spam thread, perhaps.

Your definitions are a bit old. Welcome to the Internet, where things change on a daily basis. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spamming


And like I said, which some people have passed over, some threads are fine to necro. Threads about videogames are a good example. Necroing threads about X Issue changes or other spam threads that have been dead for over a year that really don't add anything other than your post count isn't.

[The Widowed]

Now we are spamming.
No, this is spamming!

"Buy an evening with Krypto's Mom! 1 in 1,000 wins a free bottle of C!ali$ to make the evening better! Click here (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)!"

:lol:

[The Widowed]

Your definitions are a bit old. Welcome to the Internet, where things change on a daily basis. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spamming
Urban Dictionary? Surely you don't mean to suggest that you're using that juvenile and mercurial drivel as source material! :eyebrow:

[Krypto]

The definition you quoted on the last page is vague at best, and nowhere in said definition does it reference necroposting. It's entirely subjective, which at some point should be clarified to avoid situations exactly like this.

And my point is that necroposting is spamming. This isn't the only forum that takes issue with necroposting, take a look around the internet. :)


No, this is spamming!

"Buy an evening with Krypto's Mom! 1 in 1,000 wins a free bottle of C!ali$ to make the evening better! Click here (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)!"

:lol:
And Wids, you're not funny.

Urban Dictionary? Surely you don't mean to suggest that you're using that juvenile and mercurial drivel as source material!

Of course. If there's a slang term you don't understand, Urban Dictionary is the best source to find out what it means. Spam is a definition created by internet users, what other source are you going use to look it up?

[The Widowed]

Oh, is that so? Then allow me demonstrate your pet definition of spamming, Krypto...the IM variety. Maybe soon you'll start to see that necroposting isn't spamming. >:]

How u mine 4 fish?

[The Widowed]

And so you see, that is spamming. Casting Raise Dead on an old thread is not spamming by any definition, especially if no verbal repetition takes place. And I daresay you are grasping at straws with that judgement.

Furthermore, how u mine 4 ****in fish? :P

[Bitter Babe]

You two stop it or Grae will put you in a time out and you won't like it!

[The Widowed]

Tell Krypto to stop deleting my posts just because he's a poossy and he doesn't like being wrong. >:]

Also, how u mine 4 fish dammit?

Do you concede yet, Mister Krypto? >:]

[Krypto]

Are you done yet?

Oh, is that so? Then allow me demonstrate your pet definition of spamming, Krypto...the IM variety. Maybe soon you'll start to see that necroposting isn't spamming. >:]

How u mine 4 fish?

Spamming is something that can take place in many different ways, not just one, so your argument is pointless. Posting several messages in a row, is one example. Other things, like completely useless posts that add nothing of value, is considered spamming too. Necroposting in a thread that's been dead for over a year is just another example.

[The Widowed]

No, that's necroposting. Just because it's unwanted and annoying (at least in your eyes) doesn't make it spam. By that logic, every religious goon who proselytized at my front door, at the shopping mall or at the airport would be a Jehovah's Witness. Nevermind that I've been approached by Born Agains, Hare Krishnas, Mormons and Scientologists as well.... :p

Are you done yet?

How u mine 4 fish?

Nope. :P

[Gold Rush]

Okay, voice of reason here (although few folks listen to it).

Bats is right about the generalities. Necroing is cool.

But I tend to start a new thread myself, without searching, on a subject already covered. Now, that also could be considered offensive, especially by the person who brought up the subject in the first place. I have been guilty of this in recent history (sorry Melts).

And Krypto is right, sorta. This is basically like polite conversation, which can be hard to do on a text-board forum like the net. The analogy here is, there are three people. The subject of convo is about politics, then as convo do, they go onto other subjects, say baseball. Two of the Three speakers are active talkers, while the third tends to be quiet and listen and polite (he does not want to stop the convo). However, he has something to say. Then the convo goes on to climate change and then there is a lull in the convo; the third party speaks up about the previous topic that occured HOURS ago. It's a "WTF" moment that is not really entertaining. In this case, it is just best to start a new post; although you can link to the old post. It is also easier for new people to jump on the topic and not feel alienated while reading pages of previous posts and posters who may not be active in GURU anymore. Maybe you don't feel this way, but I do.

And Wids is right to be concerned, net-etiquette is not a precise science.

And DD is right. :p

[Dynamo-Man]

You're all nuckin' futs! O_o

[The Widowed]

And DD is right. :p
No, he's not. His Mom is stupid, this thread's not and I'm a comic genius. Ask Vendel. >:]

[Bitter Babe]

You just noticed that now D-Man? :)

[Seadevil]

This is basically like polite conversation, which can be hard to do on a text-board forum like the net. The analogy here is, there are three people. The subject of convo is about politics, then as convo do, they go onto other subjects, say baseball. Two of the Three speakers are active talkers, while the third tends to be quiet and listen and polite (he does not want to stop the convo). However, he has something to say. Then the convo goes on to climate change and then there is a lull in the convo; the third party speaks up about the previous topic that occured HOURS ago. It's a "WTF" moment that is not really entertaining. In this case, it is just best to start a new post; although you can link to the old post. It is also easier for new people to jump on the topic and not feel alienated while reading pages of previous posts and posters who may not be active in GURU anymore. Maybe you don't feel this way, but I do.

This.

And DD is right. :p

Also this.

[The Widowed]

Also, Krypto, your Mom thinks I'm plenty funny. We got to talking about you...okay, it was mostly your Mom cracking all the jokes then, but still.... :P

[Seadevil]

And Wids, you're not funny.

...

Also this.

[The Widowed]

This.

Also this.
Come now, Wannabe Death...we all know that you're in the habit of being a contrary smart-ass just to get attention. :p

Here, let's try this:

Vladimir Lenin was the most influential advocate of Communism in the early 20th Century.

*waits*

[Sebastian Kain]

Lay off the personal insults.

That's the only warning.

Thanks

[The Widowed]

Also, only the lame people quote themselves. :P

Lay off the personal insults.

That's the only warning.

Thanks
Isn't that taking it a little too seriously, SK?

[Krypto]

How about we stop spamming the thread, and start, you know, actually having a discussion about it, like I've been doing the past X pages.

[The Widowed]

Ah, so you admit that repetition in and of itself could be considered spamming! And therefore, if necromancy is not repetition by the letter of the law...?

Bear in mind that you yourself admitted that sometimes, something new can be added to an old thread, which would be necroposting. But something new cannot be repetitive by definition. Your move. >:]

*still waiting on DD's follow-up, BTW* :p

[Seadevil]

Ah, so you admit that repetition in and of itself could be considered spamming! And therefore, if necromancy is not repetition by the letter of the law...?

Bear in mind that you yourself admitted that sometimes, something new can be added to an old thread, which would be necroposting. But something new cannot be repetitive by definition. Your move. >:]

Are you genuinely missing what he's saying or are you just trying to be funny at this point?

[Krypto]

Ah, so you admit that repetition in and of itself could be considered spamming! And therefore, if necromancy is not repetition by the letter of the law...?


Wow. Just wow. *facepalms*
You're suggesting that repetitive posts are spam, therefore anything that isn't repetitive, isn't spam? Your logic is so twisted that I really don't even want to bother correcting you.

Spam includes more than just posting several times in a row. It's also posting useless junk that doesn't add any value to a thread, like posting "WHO LIEKS BANANANAS" in a thread about Issue 12. It also includes creating topics that are silly in nature, hence the SPAM forum that we had a while ago, where you could post such things.

Spam is not just relegated to repetitive posts. Therefore just because something isn't repetitive, doesn't mean it isn't spam. Necroposting, while a term in its own right, can also be considered a form of spam when it adds nothing to a thread that's already dead, or is only done in spite of the moderaters and admins. The threads that fall under that criteria get closed.


Bear in mind that you yourself admitted that sometimes, something new can be added to an old thread, which would be necroposting. But something new cannot be repetitive by definition. Your move. >:]

*still waiting on DD's follow-up, BTW* :pMy move, eh? If this is a chess game, I'd imagine it looks something like this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/SVTBert/Yahoo/Chesswin.jpg). (Hint: You're black)

[Dynamo-Man]

WHO LIEKS BANANANAS
I do...


...


Wait....what were we talking about? :look:

[Half Life]

This is easily the funniest thing ive seen all week.

[The Widowed]

Are you genuinely missing what he's saying or are you just trying to be funny at this point?
You shut up, Captain Cantankerous. I'm still waiting on your answer to that Lenin assertion. >:]

Wow. Just wow. *facepalms*
You're suggesting that repetitive posts are spam, therefore anything that isn't repetitive, isn't spam? Your logic is so twisted that I really don't even want to bother correcting you.
No, you're missing what I'm saying. Necroposting isn't any more repetitive than replying to a thread which is less than five minutes old. Therefore, necroposting isn't spamming...unless you and your pals over at Urban Dictionary added the duration of a thread into the "spam" definition just so you could win this argument. :p

Also, you suck at chess. Rule of Thumb: Never move the Queen in the first five moves. If Joe had known what he was doing, you'd have been in for some butt-hurt. Shall we play chess sometime? :P

[Dynamo-Man]

Also, you suck at chess. Rule of Thumb: Never move the Queen in the first five moves. :P
Yeah, but he won..."never" seems like a strong word... :eyebrow:

[The Widowed]

Edited. :p

[Dynamo-Man]

Edited. :p
I'm just saying that "never" is an absolute, and therefore doesn't apply in this situation. It should read "Rule of Thumb: Try to avoid moving your Queen within the first five moves". Clearly, sometimes it works.

[The Widowed]

Oh, okay, I suppose you're right. At least I can concede or compromise...isn't that right, Krypto, you silly necrophobe...? :P

[Krypto]

You shut up, Captain Cantankerous. I'm still waiting on your answer to that Lenin assertion. >:]


No, you're missing what I'm saying. Necroposting isn't any more repetitive than replying to a thread which is less than five minutes old. Therefore, necroposting isn't spamming...unless you and your pals over at Urban Dictionary added the duration of a thread into the "spam" definition just so you could win this argument. :p

Which is why I made a clear distinction between necro posting being perfectly fine in certain threads, and not in others.

Would you prefer we be post nazis and lock threads when a question is answered, or additional posts in a thread don't add anything else to it? Plenty of other forums do that.

Also, you suck at chess. Rule of Thumb: Never move the Queen in the first five moves. If Joe had known what he was doing, you'd have been in for some butt-hurt. Shall we play chess sometime? :P

That's why I did it, clearly.

[Dynamo-Man]

Vladimir Lenin was the most influential advocate of Communism in the early 20th Century.
When I was in the Army, my unit was the OPFOR (OPposing FORce) and simulated being a Communist nation for two weeks a month, ten months a year. I received the Order of Lenin three times for bravery.

That's all I'm saying here.

[Seadevil]

You shut up, Captain Cantankerous.

:rolleyes:

It was an actual question.

[The Mystic]

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/internet-24591.jpg





Really, what the hell guys?! These necro-ed threads are in the "SPAM forum". Who gives a rat's ass?!

and Krypto, by your own definition, Tark's post necroing the "Take a swing at Krypto" thread is not spam. It was on topic and it contributed to the point of the thread.

and it's completely not true that just because a thread is old there is likely nothing to add to the conversation...

dear god why am I even bothering to write this?

...and you guys wonder why this place is so dead. There's barely a drop of fun to be had here.

[Dynamo-Man]

...and you guys wonder why this place is so dead. There's barely a drop of fun to be had here.
QFT

[Bitter Babe]

Just an FYI that thread was reopened.

[suburbanhell]

Hey, I wasn't making a game of it until your boyfriend went off his leash for no apparent reason. :rolleyes:

Wids: "Hey, it's been a while since I had a little fun with my leet (albeit very limited) mod powaz. I'm going to dust off this hibernating 'Me edit u 4 the lulz' thread again and see what random nonsense the peeps and me can come up with."
Burbs: "Grrrr, you are in violation of Burbs Regulation FU-1234, necromancy without a license! Prepare to have your thread locked!"
Wids: "WTF, mate?" :look:

So then I made a duplicate thread about the exact same thing, and Burbs was perfectly cool with that. Why? Aside from driving up the forum thread count, what purpose did that serve? How many duplicate threads can we create in order to skirt around Burbs' "No necromancy" rule before he starts to get annoyed with that too? Why can't I find this mysterious "No necromancy" rule anywhere in here (http://www.cohguru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=2)? And how does necromancy qualify as a hammer-worthy offense in the same company as spamming, flame wars, white supremacist bile and warez offers?

It seemed like he was attacking me after every old thread I revived got locked, but every old thread that everybody else revived didn't. Why shouldn't I think that he had an axe to grind with me after that? O_o
Yeah, well, better not tell him that I edited his "I'm locking this thread" post in the thread that started it all in the first place. I still wonder about his reasons for apparently coming down on me like that, and I worry for the old boy's sense of humor sometimes.... :think:


I shouldn't even breathe a response to any of this but I'm finally going to say something about this because I'm honestly kind of tired of this "I'm not Widz0rs friend anymore, I'm a mother****ing necronazi" bull****, so I'm just going to put this out there finally:

1)I wasn't attacking you, any other necro-threads would've been treated the exact same way. The ONE thread I didn't touch that was "necro'd" by Gold Rush was because his post was ON TOPIC with the conversation at hand and kept the discussion going. Naturally though, I could see how you would think I was targeting the one and only Widz0rs here since you were the ONLY OTHER PERSON who necro'd anything in that roughly 2 week span that I was clamping down on necroing.

2)I haven't said **** to you about necroing anything in about a month, nor was I planning to ever discuss forum necroing with you ever again since I decided I had more important things to deal with and you were the only one necroing things around here and it wasn't a rampant ridiculous amount of them, but yet you continue to tell the world what a mean and awful person I am for telling you to cool it with the reviving of discussions no one has cared about in quite some time.

[The Widowed]

No, I'm pretty sure that it was more than two weeks. I've necroed a few threads well outside a two-week timeframe. They got the noose too. I can go spelunking and dig up a bunch of necroed threads which didn't get the noose, if you like. :think:

And you were getting pretty vehement with me for a while there; I was at one point considering the instigation of a "Forum Necromancy Day" next Halloween just to overdose you into acceptance.

At least you had started to cool off, though, if the lack of ALL CAPS was any indication. But hey...if you're making progress, you're making progress. One day, you'll have cast off the necronazitude entirely. :p

Also, have I ever revived a thread with an irrelevant post...spammy, as the K Man would conclude? Surely not. I'm an on-topic necromancer, see. I save the off-topic banter for fresh young threads like this one. :P

[The Widowed]

When I was in the Army, my unit was the OPFOR (OPposing FORce) and simulated being a Communist nation for two weeks a month, ten months a year. I received the Order of Lenin three times for bravery.

That's all I'm saying here.
You were guuuud leettle Communist soldat...da, tovarisch? :cool:

Which is why I made a clear distinction between necro posting being perfectly fine in certain threads, and not in others.
And here I was so sure that you threw out "necro = spam" as an umbrella statement, with that Urban Dictionary rubbish and whatnot. Silly me.

Would you prefer we be post nazis and lock threads when a question is answered, or additional posts in a thread don't add anything else to it? Plenty of other forums do that.
But wouldn't that be even more work for you poor, overworked mods? You wouldn't have any time in your schedules to play CoX, challenge Joe to rounds of chess and hassle Beebs about her Boston accent. :P

That's why I did it, clearly.
Give me a break. As if you set up that "smother mate" gambit because you knew for a fact that just because Joe's your silly bitch in so many other ways, there was no way on Earth that he was any good at chess. He could have been a chess player of Kasparov magnitude, for all you knew...unless you beat Joe at chess before, perhaps. :shinner:

:rolleyes:

It was an actual question.
Silence, Judge Justification. Or would that be Father Face-Saver? O_o

Really, what the hell guys?! These necro-ed threads are in the "SPAM forum". Who gives a rat's ass?!

and Krypto, by your own definition, Tark's post necroing the "Take a swing at Krypto" thread is not spam. It was on topic and it contributed to the point of the thread.

and it's completely not true that just because a thread is old there is likely nothing to add to the conversation...
Thank you, Mystic. Trés eloquent. :)

dear god why am I even bothering to write this?
Because you care. :D

...and you guys wonder why this place is so dead. There's barely a drop of fun to be had here.
True. Remember the days right after the OGaming exodus, when we were pretty much ripping **** up and having a blast because we had finally told OGaming and their tyrannical corporate bull**** to get lost, confident that things would never become anywhere near as oppressively joyless as they had under those mongoloids?

I miss those days. :(

[suburbanhell]

Also, have I ever revived a thread with an irrelevant post...spammy, as the K Man would conclude? Surely not. I'm an on-topic necromancer, see. I save the off-topic banter for fresh young threads like this one. :P

Well...yes, to an extent... I mean...that's the whole reason I started closing down those threads to begin with. Like the old drama ones that you'd be like "hey whatever happened to <insert person here>" as if to start a discussion about why they aren't around anymore and re-hash old wounds. There's no place for that here, but that's all I'm going to say on it at this point before someone else considers this place "not fun" even though they stick around and post here anyway. :rolleyes:

[Seadevil]

Also, have I ever revived a thread with an irrelevant post...spammy, as the K-Man would conclude? Surely not.

Here (http://www.cohguru.com/forum/showpost.php?p=278888&postcount=34) and here (http://www.cohguru.com/forum/showpost.php?p=284616&postcount=70). The latter of which involved you openly provoking an admin, you know, those guys that maintain the board.

Silence, Judge Justification. Or would that be Father Face-Saver? O_o


Are you serious?

Fine. You know, for a bit there, I genuinely thought you were confused as to what Krypto was trying to say. I was thinking, "Surely Wids isn't THAT big of a tool that he'd keep instigating this to go on and on." I guess I deserve to get insulted for that.

I don't, nor have I ever, feel/felt the need to save face or justify anything I have ever said on this board or any other. I have never tried to hide my feelings towards anyone for the sake of how I am viewed by others here. But, hey, in case you still for some reason think I'm trying to 'save face' for whatever I've said thus far I'll lay it out for you.

I don't think you're funny. I think you're annoying as ****. I think you're entire attitude is 'I must be right all the time or else'. I think you are intentionally combative. I think your entire 'forum freedom fighter' schtick is tired. I think you intentionally go and try to start arguments. I think you are one of the problems with this board as a whole. You were told (by multiple mods) that needlessly (a word I would emphasize, but really, I think it'd be lost on you at this point.) necroposting qualifies as spamming and to stop. The difference between what contributes and what doesn't has been spelled out for you. The fact that you think it is unfair or 'it's a spam forum so WTF?' is irrelevant.

I think that about covers everything.

That may warrant an infraction point or whatever. I'm really not sure I care at this point.

[Joe Schmoe]

I don't think necroing is that bad. I mean, they're dead, do you think they care? I dug up this fine little number the other night, that I could have NEVER gotten while she was alive.

As long as the family never finds out, people tend to look the other way.

Edit: OHHHH! Nevermind.

[Seadevil]

Thank you Joe. :lol:

[Krypto]

Wids, SK warned you about personal insults. Let it go, this arguing is absolutely pointless. Someone shows a post showing that you intentionally antagonize admins while necroing threads, and you resort to cheap insults? At that point it no longer becomes a debate, and becomes something that just doesn't need to be posted.

Knock it off already and act a little more mature.

[The Widowed]

Wids, SK warned you about personal insults. Let it go, this arguing is absolutely pointless. You're trying to defend against a post showing that you intentionally antagonize admins while necroing threads, and yet you resort to cheap insults? This thread has gone far beyond debating.

Knock it off already and act a little more mature.
I'm not allowed to defend myself from "tool" charges, then? DD took it up to the next level, not me. Read it again if you don't believe me. :eyebrow:

And SK warned everyone, Krypto. Remember that.

[Blackbat]

At this point, it's less of a debate and more about throwing insults. The thread has lived out its usefulness and has gone off topic, it will only deteriorate from here.

[Krypto]

<--- Sneaking in something useful. :P

Regarding necroposting, some take issue with it, others don't care. But the truth is, on nearly any forum you visit, necroposting is treated the same. Some threads are fine, like a thread about a TV show or a game. However, in a lot of cases, it can be very confusing and annoying reading a thread title from 1-2 years ago, while thinking it's recent. I know there've been more than a few times where I've gone "Wtf?" at a thread, only to see that the last post was from 2006. If it doesn't need to be done, don't do it. If you're posting in a thread and going "Hey, I just got around to seeing this movie, and here's what I think about it", it's fine.