# Is Thread Necromancy Ok?



## Mokona

I admit it, I'm a thread necromancy hound.  Do you practice thread necromancy?  Do you like thread necromancers?  Do you feel suckered when you post in an resurrected thread?


----------



## Crothian

As long as you or whomever adds something to the old discussion so its not like a bump 3 years later, I don't care.  I don't do it as I'm likely to just start a new thread on the topic.


----------



## BOZ

maybe i shouldn't comment.


----------



## Nightcloak

I'm with Crothian. It really depends on what was added to the subject.


----------



## jgbrowning

Necromany is [Evil].

joe b.


----------



## Rabelais

I think I might go and add to the 1000 Non-RPG website thread now...


----------



## ThirdWizard

I'm not likely to reply to a _raised_ thread. It's unlikely that the old participants in the thread are going to start the debate up again, as they've already stopped for whatever reason, making your points kinda... pointless in that regard. Without back and forth, there's not much reason to contribute. A new thread with new participants coming at it their own way would be much better, IMO. Also, if its really long, changing subjects a few times perhaps, then not too many people are going to sit through it (especially once they figure out the year is 2004 or some such thing). Again, best to just start up your own thread on the subject instead.


----------



## MonsterMash

Depends on the thread, I prefer that really long ones on subjects have a new thread rather than 10 pages of posts being resurrected, but some deserve to live on.


----------



## Hand of Evil

I am a linker, there are always topics that come up and linking to the old thread is a good think.  I have also started to put a few in my sig.


----------



## Gold Roger

I think it should at least be allowed to either raise old threds for new people or make theads to a topic that's been discussed before. I think it's frustrating for a newbe to not be alowed to talk about a certain topic just because, it's been diskussed by "us" already.


----------



## Kanegrundar

I don't really care as long as the new poster has something interesting to add rather than a simple "me to" bump.  Even then, it's easy for me to simply not read the thread.

Kane


----------



## Darkness

Site-/posting-, not RPG-related. Moved to Meta.


----------



## Michael Morris

:bookmarks the thread for ressurection midway through 2009:


----------



## diaglo

Other.

tired old topics which get recycled every three months don't need threadomancy. people don't bother to look to see if the topic was posted even just 1 week ago much less a couple months ago.

so bumping old threads forward with basically the same title still won't get people to read them. thus why the expression rtfm is wasted on them.

but digging up a unique old thread for a question that is not exactly the same can help someone get some ideas. or one with a link to another site with the answer can be helpful too.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian

It depends on the thread. Some threads are worth bringing back for particular reasons, like the 1000 non-RPG websites or Piratecat's GenCon Sleep Advice thread that I bring back every year. Other threads could easily be started over to bring in a new round of participants, and a post with a link to the old thread for reference is all that is needed.


----------



## der_kluge

Guilty as charged. Usually some other thread will remind me of a really old one, and I'll go hunt it down for nostalgia's sake.


----------



## Len

Mokona said:
			
		

> Do you feel suckered when you post in an resurrected thread?



If that's why you do it, then NO I don't like it.

I also don't see the point in resurrecting a discussion about what an upcoming product might be like, years _after_ the product is released.


----------



## BSF

So long as something new has been added I am fine with it.  The silly ones are the threads in Rules for 3.0 where the discussion was about a problem fixed in 3.5.  

I have raised threads myself.  But not very often and I try to make the post relevant.  Otherwise, I try to link to older threads for reference.


----------



## Feathercircle

...I probably shouldn't comment either.

::runs off to revive the Monster Names and Critter Bits projects::


----------



## BOZ

i wouldn't complain.


----------



## Cheiromancer

I suppose it makes a difference whether you are _raising_ the thread to new life - the topic is still a "live" one, and there are useful contributions to be made - and _animating_ the thread to an unholy mockery of life, in which case it just goes "Argh" and eats people's brains.

The former is fine, the latter should be avoided.


----------



## Jdvn1

In general, I don't see what's wrong with threadcromancy.


----------



## Angel Tarragon

Is it possible to take levels in the PrC True Threadcromancer?


----------



## RangerWickett

I recall, way back in the days before EN World, when we were just hanging out at Eric Noah's 3rd Edition News & Rumors site, the forums weren't quite as grandmother friendly sometimes. One night, in a fit of evil, I tracked down four threads that had caused _huge_ flame wars, but which had died out months earlier.

And I bumped them.


----------



## Plane Sailing

As a general note for anyone considering thread necromancy:

1) bear in mind that some older threads will be in 3.0 land rather than in 3.5 land.

2) I think it is polite to mention in your posting that you are raising this thread from the dead (so people notice - sometimes they don't!) and it might be nice to mention *why* you are raising it from the dead.

Cheers


----------



## Henry

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I recall, way back in the days before EN World...I tracked down four threads that had caused _huge_ flame wars, but which had died out months earlier.
> 
> And I bumped them.




_*Henry holds thwacking club angrily*

Darned Statute of Limitations..._


----------



## 3d6

Mokona said:


> I admit it, I'm a thread necromancy hound.  Do you practice thread necromancy?  Do you like thread necromancers?  Do you feel suckered when you post in an resurrected thread?



I don't really think thread necromancy is appropriate. Once a discussion is over, isn't it better to start something new rather than rehashing some old issue?


----------



## frankthedm

Information, thoughts and opinions don't have an expiration date. Bringing up old threads lets folks save time on retyping the opinions they have kept and allows the people who have changed their opinions since that time to say such in the same thread. 

It can also be a poignant reminder to folks with less than admirable posting habits to see how big of a jerk they have been... something I'm quite guilty of.


----------



## El Mahdi

I voted "Other"...for necromantic lemon curry.


----------



## Dice4Hire

As someone who only displays threads less than a week old, I am unlikely to engage in this.


----------



## SnowleopardVK

Michael Morris said:


> :bookmarks the thread for ressurection midway through 2009:




It came a little late, but you pretty much got it...

I'd say case by case (or thread by thread as it is) basis. In most cases if a thread's long-dead enough I'll just start my own new one. If there was something really important in the old one I'd still more likely resort to linking the new one to it than reviving the old one. But despite that, necromancies can happen in some cases.


----------



## Michael Silverbane

As there has been a recent spate of people complaining about thread necromancy, I thought it would be a good idea to raise an old thread about thread necromancy, in order to complain about the people complaining about thread necromancy.

Thread necromancy is not against the rules of the forum. Further, posting in an old thread that has been raised only to complain about thread necromancy keeps it at the top of the forum, without adding anything of value to the thread. So I have to ask, what is the motivation behind complaining about thread necromancy in an old thread that has been raised?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Michael Silverbane

I am complaining about complaining, a perfectly cromulent use of a "Meta" thread.

Howzabout you?


----------



## Umbran

Michael Silverbane said:


> As there has been a recent spate of people complaining about thread necromancy, I thought it would be a good idea to raise an old thread about thread necromancy, in order to complain about the people complaining about thread necromancy.




*checks site rules*

Well, there's nothing in the code of conduct that says I can ban someone for being too meta.  I'll let it stand.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran

Michael Silverbane said:


> As there has been a recent spate of people complaining about thread necromancy, I thought it would be a good idea to raise an old thread about thread necromancy, in order to complain about the people complaining about thread necromancy.




Interestingly, this thread has been raised from the dead *twice* - it started in 2005, was raised in 2011, and then again today.

Which makes me wonder if this is a case of necromancy at all.  It may instead be a cicada-meme.


----------



## Eltab

Umbran said:


> Which makes me wonder if this is a case of necromancy at all.  It may instead be a cicada-meme.



Or one stage in the life cycle of some other electronic 'organism'.

...maybe National Geographic would fund a study...


----------



## Garthanos

If a thread is necroed and it new conversation happens because of it the new conversation has a clearer context ... all is good.


----------



## CapnZapp

Michael Silverbane said:


> As there has been a recent spate of people complaining about thread necromancy, I thought it would be a good idea to raise an old thread about thread necromancy, in order to complain about the people complaining about thread necromancy.



This is the good stuff.

Though I see the thread was previously resurrected in 2011, which detracts slightly from your achievement 


Seriously though, SOME forums consider thread necromancy an infractionable offense, so I'm not surprised to see a forumist instinctively complain about the practice.

(Notably GITP, another significant D&D site)


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Len

I have to say, it's amusing to come back to the site after a twelve-year hiatus and see a thread with the you-have-posted-to-this-thread icon.


----------



## Eltab

Len said:


> I have to say, it's amusing to come back to the site after a twelve-year hiatus and see a thread with the you-have-posted-to-this-thread icon.




Welcome (back) to EnWorld !


----------



## MNblockhead

If a forum does not want threads to be risen from the dead, can't they just set them to lock/close after a period of inactivity. 

I've never understood why some see it as an offense of netiquette. 

Actually, in most forums I participate in, the opposite is true. I'll be in a hurry and either I'm lazy or my forum-search-fu fails me and I post something only be chided that a thread on the topic already exists. 

The poll needs a new option: better to necro than to clone


----------



## CapnZapp

MNblockhead said:


> If a forum does not want threads to be risen from the dead, can't they just set them to lock/close after a period of inactivity.



Yes, but that requires more work than just telling people not to respond to threads below that threshold.



> I've never understood why some see it as an offense of netiquette.



Just a gentle reminder it is not actually forbidden here. Maybe ask over at GITP where it actually is.

(I don't mean to suggest you should question their policies since that's likely only going to get you banned. Maybe if you ask about the history of said policy, though: what led up to the decision to infract thread necromancy. Something other users might be able to answer, rather than involving the site's mod team)


----------

