# Regarding the Life of Threads



## mrpopstar

If you post regarding a topic that has been discussed in recent memory, you can anticipate a response that goes something like, "this has been discussed here <link inserted>," but if you perform your due diligence and use the search function to find where a topic has been discussed and contribute to that thread, you can anticipate a response that goes something like, "thread necromancy!"

What is the etiquette? How long must a dead thread lie before it's inappropriate to resurrect? How long must a topic go undiscussed before it's no longer appropriate to point to it as the place to continue discussion? Is it only necromancy if you respond to a dead thread like it's been alive all along? Are paladins or gnomes involved?

Asking for a friend.


----------



## SkidAce

I've seen the same behavior you speak of.

My opinion and the method I use?

Do as I see fit...if I like adding to an existing thread for reasons, I do it.  If I feel a new thread is better served as a fresh start, I do it.

DEFY THE ETIQUETTE!


----------



## Morrus

Here's my thought on the topic: it's like entering a room and starting a conversation with some folks, and then having a third person walk up to you all and demand that you stop having that conversation because *they* had that conversation with somebody yesterday.

If somebody is having a conversation you've already had, or are bored of, or whatever, then just move on and have a different conversation. The fact that something has been discussed before doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to discuss it again.

The concession I make to this is that if there is an identical topic currently active on the first page, then we'd probably merge them for convenience. 

So, yeah, do what you want. There's no rules about it. Whatever makes sense to you at the time.


----------



## oreofox

Personally, if the first post of a thread is more than a month old, and there hasn't been any recent posts made, I say make a new one if the topics are similar. That's how I would do it, anyway.


----------



## Mistwell

I'll state my preference in case it's helpful to someone who is trying to decide if they should revive an older thread or post a new one on a similar topic.

For me, it's really useful to see a larger array of responses all in one place.

I'll offer an example. Let's say as a DM I want to know people's thoughts on whether a feat is overpowered, and suggested changes to it to make it more balanced. 

And let's say over the past year we've seen 10 different arguments for why the feat is not overpowered, 10 different arguments for why the feat is overpower, and 10 different variations on the feat to alter it for different preferences.

If all of that were in one thread, then one of the 10 of a particular category might speak best to my gaming preferences. However, if it's split into two different threads, there is a decent chance (a 50% chance in this rather simplistic example) I will miss out on that.

So, from a utility perspective, it's far better for my needs if it's all to be found in one place. 

And I do think that is one of the most powerful things about a message board as opposed to places like Reddit or social media. The ability to refer back and collect opinions on the same topic over a longer period of time is highly powerful for a game discussion where people are coming to look up thoughts about a rule over a period of years. And I think a lot of that powerful utility is lost if that topic is always spread over a half dozen different threads which are much harder to gather and analyze in one place. 

So, if you're trying to decide if you should revive an old thread or create a new one on an older topic, for me at least I would encourage you to revive the old one. Future readers may thank you.


----------



## iserith

Hmm, I'll think about this and respond in about 6 months.


----------



## jaelis

I would start a new thread rather than necro one that is like 6 months old. But I'm also happy if someone points out the old thread, so I can see what people said there.

I would feel a little bad if I started a new thread and then found out there was an existing one on the same topic that was only a week old.

Between a week and six month, I wouldn't feel bad either way.


----------



## jgsugden

My best practice suggestions:

1.)* Search First:* If the underlying material is something that may have been discussed in the past, do a search.  If you have questions, they may already be answered.  Old posts may already have comments relative to your discussion.  If you decide that the thread is useful and you are going to Necro it, start your 'Raise Dead' post with something that acknowledges that you're necroing the thread, such as, "Mordenkainen's Tome puts a new spin on this old thread ..."  Even better, if you started the old thread, consider tweaking the title to show that it has been necroed.

2.) *Referencing is ok:* If you think the situation has evolved and it'd be better off to leave the old thread dead and start a new one, it isn't a bad idea to reference the other thread and provide a link.  That will reduce the chances of an (annoying?) one sentence post telling you it was already discussed with a link to the old thread.  Odds are someone will reply to the old thread, however, so you may end up with parallel discussions on your new thread and the old one, so this is a judgement call.

3.) *Don't take offense:* If someone comments that you're necroing a thread, don't assume you're being chastised.  It may just be someone noting their surprise to see a topic reinvigorated - not a reprimand.  I remember not too long ago where I started off my reply in a recently necroed thread by saying something like, "Wow... this is a really timely thread necro."  I meant to convey that the changes from Mordy's made the topic relevant again and I was glad someone brought it up.  The Necromancer was offended because he assumed I was chastising him.  (On the other hand, some of us are insensitive and rude louts that may be giving you the efinger unjustly.  $#@! them.  They're not worth your worry. There is a wonderful block function on this forum.)

4. *Consider whether you're the right person to post:* If you're going to post a topic that a lot of people care about, such as news of a new WotC release announcement, a UA article, or discussion of a popular component of a new product that just hit the shelves: Ask whether YOU should be the one to post it.  I won't post these things because when I do so, I cut out members of the community that I've blocked - and I've blocked a few members of the community that want to be involved in these discussions.  Rather than start a conversation they're either entirely excluded from or that they'll duplicate so they can talk about it, I let someone else start the discussion.  There are no points gathered by being the person to post the topics... and I think that things that will live as News Items are better posted by Enworld folks with the access to make it a news story easily when it is their post, but for which it is harder if it is someone else's post.


----------



## Eltab

If the old thread has fallen off the 'first page' then I would favor a new thread.  If the old thread is still easily visible, I favor adding to it.

Find out if the old thread was closed by a moderator (and therefore is dropping off the front page) before you do anything; some conversations go badly, and you can review what happened.


----------



## Eubani

I have noticed there are a few gatekeepers around these parts.


----------



## Jester David

I think so long as the thread is not on the first page or two of the forums it’s fair.


----------



## jgsugden

Eubani said:


> I have noticed there are a few gatekeepers around these parts.



Stop using past perfect tense, challenging the right of others to nitpick, and using vagueries like "these parts."

And don't even get me started on your letter count per post.  And this thread is about the lives of threads, so if you want to discuss people's behavior you should really start your own thread.

And your font is unimaginative.

And stuff.


----------



## Eubani

jgsugden said:


> Stop using past perfect tense, challenging the right of others to nitpick, and using vagueries like "these parts."
> 
> And don't even get me started on your letter count per post.  And this thread is about the lives of threads, so if you want to discuss people's behavior you should really start your own thread.
> 
> And your font is unimaginative.
> 
> And stuff.




Don't forget to lock up and to turn the lights off after you close up......


----------



## Shiroiken

iserith said:


> Hmm, I'll think about this and respond in about 6 months.



My first thought was how this will look when someone necro's it


----------



## Eubani

I do not expect this thread to get a gentle repose.


----------



## Henry

jgsugden said:


> Stop using past perfect tense, challenging the right of others to nitpick, and using vagueries like "these parts."
> 
> And don't even get me started on your letter count per post.  And this thread is about the lives of threads, so if you want to discuss people's behavior you should really start your own thread.
> 
> And your font is unimaginative.
> 
> And stuff.



Jgsugden, we’ve already discussed the discussion of gatekeeping before HERE, so go necro that thread if you wish to discuss the discussion of the discussion.


----------



## GameOgre

This thread is old as crap! it was made at 10 am this morning? Geez people beat a dead horse....beware Necromancers!


----------



## mrpopstar

Shiroiken said:


> My first thought was how this will look when someone necro's it



A lich of a thread from the start!


----------



## Li Shenron

Morrus said:


> Here's my thought on the topic: it's like entering a room and starting a conversation with some folks, and then having a third person walk up to you all and demand that you stop having that conversation because *they* had that conversation with somebody yesterday.
> 
> If somebody is having a conversation you've already had, or are bored of, or whatever, then just move on and have a different conversation. The fact that something has been discussed before doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to discuss it again.
> 
> The concession I make to this is that if there is an identical topic currently active on the first page, then we'd probably merge them for convenience.
> 
> So, yeah, do what you want. There's no rules about it. Whatever makes sense to you at the time.




This is what a _good_ forum should be! 

A forum is not a "knowledge repository" where conclusions are reached and truths are established, but rather a place for discussions. If someone wants static knowledge, that could better be a wiki.

Besides, one of the biggest pests in technical forums on the web is very much the habit of redirecting people to years-old answers, ignoring the fact that in the meantime the relevant technology has already changed many times and the old answers just won't work.


----------



## Seramus

Better to Necro a thread so that Google can find it more easily. It helps the entire D&D community to keep things in easily findable locations.

Unless patches or errata have changed the rules and the thread is no longer relevant.


----------



## Umbran

I agree with Morrus - if the another discussion thread is really very recent, we might merge the two.  But in general, do what you want.

I will note that not all recognition of duplication or necromancy are chastisements.  If you come in and say, "I am interested in Giant Chickens!" pointing you to a recent thread on Giant Chickens is giving you information.  It may get you at much of what you're looking for far more quickly than having the discussion over again.  It may be trying to help you to not re-invent the wheel.  

And for thread necromancy, I have seen several threads go by where it is not obvious, but there has been some major shift since the old thread died.  Like, a person is trying to discuss 5e, and revives a 3e thread on the same general topic - the previous discussion may not apply, and that is good to know before you continue.


----------



## Ancalagon

Thread necromancy is always thread necromancy.   

But unlike "real" necromancy, it's not always bad!  In some case it's actually quite justifiable to raise a thread from the dead and keep it going.  It's going to be a case by case basis.


----------



## MarkB

The problem with thread necromancy is that people don't always realise you've revived an old thread - so they're reading through and responding to some comment made years ago by someone who isn't even on the boards anymore, and then wondering why there's no reply.

If you find an old thread on the subject, it may be better to start a new one, but include a link to the old one in your first post, along with a summary of the point you wish to address.


----------



## Gadget

I think it is nice if there is some acknowledgement on the initiating post, whether it is necromancy or a new post.  Something like: "I know this topic has been discussed a lot but I want to discuss this aspect of this topic..." or "Sorry for the thread necromancy, but I have something new to add to this discussion, such as...".

Many people, especially the thread necromancy ones, seem to be random drive by posts on a subject that was discussed a year or more ago and the poster has no idea they're even necro-ing a thread.  Likewise if you are posting about a topic that is still very recent (front page or so).  

That being said, I think some topics are better off with a fresh, from scratch, take.  I would be hesitant to necro a thread from more the five or six month ago, for instance.  But that is just me.


----------



## jgsugden

While I agree with the idea that commenting that a thread necro is taking place, remember that many people will just click on the thread when they see the topic and will start reading from the start... without noting that it is 2 years old... and may feel like replying to the post noting the lack of a Charm Monster spell (which was posted in 2016) by saying that Charm Monster is in Mordy's. They'll never see your 'This is a thread necro' post at the end of the thread.

It might be interesting if there were a shading system for posts that allowed us to identify older posts by the shade of the post.


----------



## Blue

One additional thought:

I _despise_ when people open up a thread for a long time ago where rules have been errata'd or clarified since and call the original poster all sorts of unpleasant named because "that's not how it works".

Sorry, even in a contemporary thread calling someone names is ungood and just to make yourself feel superior.  When it's also because you are ignorant of what the situation was back at that time, it really comes across that you were just looking for an argument to feed your own ego.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote

Arise, Dark Thread!

I call on you to grant me your great powers over impermanent death and terrify my enemies with dark and potent words from the distant past.


----------



## MarkB

To be fair, 2018 feels like it was another epoch at this point.


----------



## Seramus

AntiStateQuixote said:


> Arise, Dark Thread!
> 
> I call on you to grant me your great powers over impermanent death and terrify my enemies with dark and potent words from the distant past.



Being able to easily find things in Google is a huge advantage, so I think thread necromancy is good most of the time. The obvious exceptions are when notable things have changed, like errata or major patches in a video game.

The downsides of thread necromancy are negligible and sometimes even humorous!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

What I find remarkable about the necro'd threads is how stable the commentariat on this forum is.

Yes, the names change. But not as much as I'd expect!


----------



## TwoSix

Snarf Zagyg said:


> What I find remarkable about the necro'd threads is how stable the commentariat on this forum is.
> 
> Yes, the names change. But not as much as I'd expect!



Depends on the time frame.  Sometimes, I see old threads from 15 years ago and am amazed at how many regular posters I remember but haven't posted in years.  

Then I get morbid and wonder since I've spent 21 of my 42 years reading this forum, how many of those posters I've interacted with have failed their last saving throw.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

TwoSix said:


> Depends on the time frame.  Sometimes, I see old threads from 15 years ago and am amazed at how many regular posters I remember but haven't posted in years.
> 
> Then I get morbid and wonder since I've spent 21 of my 42 years reading this forum, how many of those posters I've interacted with have failed their last saving throw.




Your forum experience could buy you a beer.....


----------



## The Green Hermit

jgsugden said:


> It might be interesting if there were a shading system for posts that allowed us to identify older posts by the shade of the post.



I like that idea, but it would probably be fairly difficult to implement.


----------



## Seramus

Snarf Zagyg said:


> What I find remarkable about the necro'd threads is how stable the commentariat on this forum is.
> 
> Yes, the names change. But not as much as I'd expect!



Apparently, I said the exact same thing in this very thread in 2018!


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mistwell said:


> I'll state my preference in case it's helpful to someone who is trying to decide if they should revive an older thread or post a new one on a similar topic.
> 
> For me, it's really useful to see a larger array of responses all in one place.
> 
> I'll offer an example. Let's say as a DM I want to know people's thoughts on whether a feat is overpowered, and suggested changes to it to make it more balanced.
> 
> And let's say over the past year we've seen 10 different arguments for why the feat is not overpowered, 10 different arguments for why the feat is overpower, and 10 different variations on the feat to alter it for different preferences.
> 
> If all of that were in one thread, then one of the 10 of a particular category might speak best to my gaming preferences. However, if it's split into two different threads, there is a decent chance (a 50% chance in this rather simplistic example) I will miss out on that.
> 
> So, from a utility perspective, it's far better for my needs if it's all to be found in one place.
> 
> And I do think that is one of the most powerful things about a message board as opposed to places like Reddit or social media. The ability to refer back and collect opinions on the same topic over a longer period of time is highly powerful for a game discussion where people are coming to look up thoughts about a rule over a period of years. And I think a lot of that powerful utility is lost if that topic is always spread over a half dozen different threads which are much harder to gather and analyze in one place.
> 
> So, if you're trying to decide if you should revive an old thread or create a new one on an older topic, for me at least I would encourage you to revive the old one. Future readers may thank you.



I think perhaps the best compromise, and maybe best solution even disregarding compromise, is to link the old thread in the OP of a new thread.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Seramus said:


> Apparently, I said the exact same thing in this very thread in 2018!




You know what's better?

When you've been on a forum for a long time. And you post a comment in a necro'd forum.

And then you look back, and you realize ... that you took the exact opposite position several years ago.


...um, not that this has ever happened to me. Speaking for, you know, a friend.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Snarf Zagyg said:


> You know what's better?
> 
> When you've been on a forum for a long time. And you post a comment in a necro'd forum.
> 
> And then you look back, and you realize ... that you took the exact opposite position several years ago.
> 
> 
> ...um, not that this has ever happened to me. Speaking for, you know, a friend.




I've seen the opposite, too, where I looked at an ancient post on a topic in a necroed thread and went "I didn't think that all the way through, did I?"


----------



## was

I'd say about 2-3 months is good before starting a new thread


----------



## J.Quondam

I'm always vaguely creeped out when I spot my own extinct user/avatar commenting years ago in a necro'd thread.


----------



## amethal

Did we ever resolve whether you could use a lance in two hands when mounted? Maybe I ought to necro the thread and find out.


----------



## aco175

2 points.
1, I wish the forums thread page showed when a thread was started instead of just the last post time.
2, I hate when I give a like to someone only to realize the last time they were even on the site was like 5 years ago.


----------



## Rune

aco175 said:


> 2, I hate when I give a like to someone only to realize the last time they were even on the site was like 5 years ago.



Why? The poster’s current status has no bearing on whether or not future internet generations find value in the post. Respect is respect. The respectee doesn’t need to know about it. 

For example, folk are (probably?) still giving XP to Gary Gygax and he _definitely_ hasn’t been active in the last 14ish years. In fact, these boards didn’t even _have_ XP when he was!


----------



## Hex08

I say let anarchy reign!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Rune said:


> For example, folk are (probably?) still giving XP to Gary Gygax and he _definitely_ hasn’t been active in the last 14ish years. In fact, these boards didn’t even _have_ XP when he was!




Gygax would completely disapprove.

If coffee is for closers only, then XP is for survivors only. DMG, p. 85. 

Rules are rules.


----------



## jgsugden

I feel obligated to necro this thread.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote

jgsugden said:


> I feel obligated to necro this thread.



You've stolen my schtick AND necro'd this thread 2.5 years early. Damn you! 

Now my plans for world domination are set back by 6 months!


----------



## darjr

Threads are ALIVE!?!?


----------



## Blue

A couple of cases that I use to discuss.

1. Some posts are meant to be references, like character guides.  Random posts asking X, Y and Z when X and Z are already answered in a previous one, and knowing the answer to Y could be useful to anyone using that reference, then I would definitely add it there.

2. Replying to someone's post from a year or more ago makes assumptions they are still around and have the same opinion.  Or worse, I've seen people necro a thread to correct someone, using errata, sage advice, or just new books that were not out at the time the thread was active.

3. If you are asking a question and didn't search, a link to the older thread that answers it in detail is appropriate. Don't take it personally.

4.  If the most recent thread is actually recent, say last post within the last month or perhaps even active - then continue that instead of creating another.

5. Between these a fuzzier area.  If your topic has a unique spin, create a new one.  If the most recent is six month or older start a new one - if it's newer you'll probably just get the same people giving the same answers.


----------



## Thomas Shey

Blue said:


> 2. Replying to someone's post from a year or more ago makes assumptions they are still around and have the same opinion.  Or worse, I've seen people necro a thread to correct someone, using errata, sage advice, or just new books that were not out at the time the thread was active.




I've seen this elsewhere to threads that had run their course five years before.

(Of course this can be complicated; someone pops up a thread with search and posts in it (with a post that isn't especially necro-ish other than being an old thread; the thread pops to the top of the new list, someone who wasn't even around when it was originally posted reads it (without looking at the date) and responds to earlier posts, then someone responds to them, and essentially rekindles a half-decade old argument).


----------

