Website/Forum Why Is Necroposting A Rule?

Why is the "No necroposting" rule a thing? It is stupid. If people see a thread they want to comment on, why tell them off if no-one has posted on that thread for a month or more? Why lock it? That person has just put that thread back on Page 1, so it's now relevant and will be seen by more people.

Especially in "Forum Games" and "Trade Market" where a lot of games are last to post win, so people will leave it for a while. When Trading, some people might go looking for old threads because people have forgotten they exist, so they might be able to get deals done or cheaper purchases.

I just think it's a stupid rule and could (should) be scrapped and no-one would care if it wasn't a rule anymore.

TLDR; No Necroposting is a stupid rule and should be scrapped.

Have a good day, thanks for reading about my rant.

 

The main reason why the rule against Necroing exists is that it brings back old irrelevant threads to the top, such as a discussion about Relic Shrines in like 2015 and it getting bumped back to the top, despite it being removed since 1.17. You can also request a thread to be unlocked by Convoing a Moderator and say 'Please unlock the thread' and they probably will.

The last post to win stuff relies around necroing, and if no one has visited it in over 30 days, then it can be pretty easy to tell who won. If there was no deadline, then it would last forever for the 'last to comment wins' with there being no winner. As per old threads in the Trade Market section, they get locked because chances are, someone already purchased the item, or the OP took the item down for sale.

 

As @Da_Dernicboi said, it's to prevent old, dead threads from being brought up repeatedly. Look at some of the samples, most of them are threads from months or years ago that someone found God-knows-how and decided to reply to, despite it no longer being relevant. In the event that there really is a legitimate reason to address a thread that's sat untouched for over a more than a month, there is already an exception that is baked into the rule for it being allowed if it starts a new discussion and another for if you want your post unlocked to revive it.

 

There shouldn't be a blanket ban on all necroposting; just make a rule against reviving outdated content.

Some threads made in 2017 can still very much be relevant to this day in 2021.

Except mini-mods don't care about that. When they see a thread getting bumped after a long time, context matters not. Their imperative is to yell "necropost!!1!!1!!1".

 

''why shouldn't i be allowed to revive a thread from 2014?''

 

agreed if you go through the work of funding a thread that old you deserve to keep the post going

 

perhaps increasing the time to 40 days? and or 50? i understand hoe the rule works and is very useful for keeping the forums organized. but it seems the issue here is the timestamp for a necropost

 

Something that preplexes me is that mods don't take into account whether a thread is still useful even past the 30 day threshold, instead putting it in the same group as a thread that has a clearly outdated discussion

An example is the thread of documenting guild level xp requirements (1st lock), you can't tell me that the thread is either a. old/outdated or b. irrelevant, since the list is still incomplete and people are still finding the missing gaps in the list

I find locking a (still) useful thread prematurely without asking the OP unnecessary