• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On the "Necro Ban"

Status
Not open for further replies.

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,487
Reaction score
39,816
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Many (most) issues don't immediately resolve themselves, and often come back in cycles and repeat. I think there is sometimes value in referencing an old post, or bringing an older argument back up again, as it will have pertinence to something under discussion.

I'm also uncertain as to the effectiveness of what I understand to be the intent of the Necro Ban. If it is to keep threads that no one is commenting on any more from cluttering up the place.... if no one comments on it when brought back up, it will quickly sink back to the second or third page. But, if people do want to start commenting on it, well, that sort of indicates it's a worthy topic / take that people are interested in discussing debating.

Respectfully, I would like to request a re-consideration of that rule. I think we could benefit from not having it.

Yours,
Cpwill
 
I’ve seen old threads revived with new posts and if it legit adds a new perspective or resolution, it hasn’t been a problem that I’ve seen. Most of the time, though, necroing threads is done with the attitude of, “haha, look how wrong you were, asshole.”
 
How old is too old of a thread to necro? It seems subjective. And if a person is really interested in a sub forum, certain areas are not as busy as others. Breaking news is probably the busiest.
 
........Most of the time, though, necroing threads is done with the attitude of, “haha, look how wrong you were, asshole.”

Definitely something I am guilty of, so naturally I am all for it. ;)

Speaking of old threads, the one below has been alive since Aug 1st 2012.


Most recent post was this past Sunday.

Simply amazing.
 
Last edited:
Definitely something I am guilty of, so naturally I am all for it. ;)
And seriously, no hard feelings at all about necroing my poll but it did highlight another potential problem, people responded to it not realizing it was from 3 or 4 years ago thinking it was about something that it wasn’t.

Speaking of old threads, the one below has been alive since Aug 1st 2012.


Most recent post was this past Sunday.

Simply amazing.
Dang, I’d be flattered if I had a thread still active after 9 nine years.
 
And seriously, no hard feelings at all about necroing my poll but it did highlight another potential problem, people responded to it not realizing it was from 3 or 4 years ago thinking it was about something that it wasn’t.


Dang, I’d be flattered if I had a thread still active after 9 nine years.

No worries, all good......my bad there (as usual). :p

Funny, the OP has a thread I used to bump once in a while.


Guess I just don't have the dedication and/or skills to keep something like that going.
 
Respectfully, I would like to request a re-consideration of that rule. I think we could benefit from not having it.
What rule is this?
 
What rule is this?
There have been a couple of threads (the military forum was the latest incidence) where a previous thread had relevance, but, when I brought it back, got shut down for necro'ing an old thread. I assumed there was some kind of agreement within the mod staff on it.
 
There have been a couple of threads (the military forum was the latest incidence) where a previous thread had relevance, but, when I brought it back, got shut down for necro'ing an old thread. I assumed there was some kind of agreement within the mod staff on it.
So there is no rule regarding necro'd threads? I thought you said there was a rule?
 
Many (most) issues don't immediately resolve themselves, and often come back in cycles and repeat. I think there is sometimes value in referencing an old post, or bringing an older argument back up again, as it will have pertinence to something under discussion.

I'm also uncertain as to the effectiveness of what I understand to be the intent of the Necro Ban. If it is to keep threads that no one is commenting on any more from cluttering up the place.... if no one comments on it when brought back up, it will quickly sink back to the second or third page. But, if people do want to start commenting on it, well, that sort of indicates it's a worthy topic / take that people are interested in discussing debating.

Respectfully, I would like to request a re-consideration of that rule. I think we could benefit from not having it.

Yours,
Cpwill
If you post new information, you can reignite any debate you wish. What the hell are you even talking about?
 
....If there is no rule (formal or informal), why is it a basis for Mod Warnings?
Mod warnings are issued for various reasons. Closing a necro'd thread that was more than 2 1/2 years old where you quoted yourself was an easy decision. You weren't bringing anything new to the dead thread, you were bumping a long dead thread where you quoted yourself.

Since this thread has now moved into 6a territory it shall be closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom