Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've always been confused about the locking of threads that are raised from the dead and the general rules against threadomancy most forums have.

When looking for a topic I find it much easier to have one thread on that topic that contains all the information about said topic as further rules evolve or come to light rather than 120930128930 different threads each with 3 replies to look through...most of which just end up repeating the same material. It makes for a much cleaner and more organized forum and doesn't force the same topic to be created over and over with the same people having to repeat themselves in replies.

I honestly haven't ever heard a single reason why threadomancy is frowned upon, other than it's been frowned upon since forums first existed as if it's some archaic tradition.

what do you guys think about threadomancy, is there some detriment i'm just missing or do you agree that it's a silly rule that almost 100% of forums online have but no one knows why other than to give mods something to tell people not to do.

and no this isn't directed specifically at dakka, I've actually only seen a hand full of posters get told not to threadomancy (usually by other posters not mods) around here but most of the other forums I've visited people get banned from posting new topics as punishment if they raise an old thread back.

Because half the time the thread is old enough for the OP to think it's over and moved on. If there commenting on an army list or some tactics then barely any people from the original discussion will see, also It may be necroed from older editions of the rules.

But so many topics move away from the OP so quickly anyway, doesn't that just become irrelevant? Should topics just auto-delete if the OP does not visit them for one week then?

I feel the topics are there to inform others. If I were going to start playing a new army, I would look back to as many threads as possible for info. New people join these forums all the time and read past the first page of forum sections.

I agree.

Incidentally, has anyone seen the drop in share prices?

Fearspect wrote:But so many topics move away from the OP so quickly anyway, doesn't that just become irrelevant? Should topics just auto-delete if the OP does not visit them for one week then?

I feel the topics are there to inform others. If I were going to start playing a new army, I would look back to as many threads as possible for info. New people join these forums all the time and read past the first page of forum sections.

This is kinda how I feel. I don't see the threads as discussions between the OP and someone else. I see it as an open forum for gathering information that many people can read to learn from even at a later date.

Here is a real life example. There is for instance a thread in these forums about how to work with tau in 5e. I just recently started tau so that kind of topic is very interesting to me and a great place to learn. But the topic is referencing things I don't understand....come to find out it's actually a continuation of the same discussion from another thread on the same topic but when someone tried to post in that thread he was told to start a new thread on the topic instead of threadomancy. So he started another thread on the exact same subject that has a bunch of posts in it. So me running across both these topics after one is well under way and the other is declaired dead despite being about the exact same topic has to click back and forth, reading disjointed information referencing things that are in another thread or that were already talked about more than once instead of one clear all together thread on "how to compensate for tau in 5e"

Mortified Penguin wrote:Incidentally, has anyone seen the drop in share prices?

Yes. Cringe-worthy.

TheDiffidentOne wrote:

Mortified Penguin wrote:Incidentally, has anyone seen the drop in share prices?

Yes. Cringe-worthy.

Speaking of cringe worthy, everytime I see the new Robin Hood movie commercial, it reminds me that Kevin Cosner was once the man in tights....and his movies are just terrible. There, side track achieved in record time

Thread necromancy is annoying because people start reading the thread, only to realise half way through that it's an old thread, and most of the posters in it are dead or stopped posting here or something.

If you want to comment on an old thread just start a new thread, and link to the old one. Problem solved.

One problem with thread necromancy is that the offending post almost always falls into one of these categories: (1) does not contribute anything useful to the original topic or (2) responds directly to the first post without taking any of the intervening discussion into account. (Don't ask me why, but this is a fact.) In both cases, it would have been better just to start a new thread.

You should just probably start a new topic so as not to generate lots O Mod Alerts.

G

Long threads get very unwieldy, and people stop reading the posts before it because there is so many.

Another thing to notice is that there are forums out there that would prefer you to post on an existing thread than start a new one, like ATT. The difference between ATT and Dakka is that at ATT, every post counts. They fully expect you to have something meaningful to contribute before you post, and so thread necro is not so bad. Here, we've got so many people talking on so many topics that we'd prefer it if you brought up your points in a new thread where you clearly define what the thread is about, so people don't have to revisit a three year old thread that was brought back from the grave just to read a new user's post: "Great paintjob man i love the way you did the highlights did you use greenstuff on that cape?"

What the hell is att..

Its a secret. We allowed it to be discussed on a thread back in October 2008, but of course, it'd be necronmancy to open that back up...

sebster wrote:...most of the posters in it are dead...

This. Because everyone in the original post is dead. It's irreverent.

Shaman wrote:What the hell is att..

Not entirely sure, but I believe he means Advanced Tau Tactica.

CadianXV wrote:

Shaman wrote:What the hell is att..

Not entirely sure, but I believe he means Advanced Tau Tactica.

An Interwebs cookie to CadianXV!

CadianXV wrote:

Shaman wrote:What the hell is att..

Not entirely sure, but I believe he means Advanced Tau Tactica.

Oh, I thought he was talking about the phone company and just forgot the ampersand...

Why is it bad? I'll tell you next year.

George Spiggott wrote:Why is it bad? I'll tell you next year.

i think george spiggott wins this thread...

I agree.

You waited almost three years for this joke. Well done, whoever you sockpuppet for.

edited.

locked for extreme thread necromancy.