Necroposting

[Koir]

Originally Posted by ThirdSight

I'm not sure what's worse: arguing over clear-cut forum etiquette or intelligent people arguing over clear-cut forum etiquette.

Either way, it makes for great theatre.

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by Aniki

Did you read my post in the first page? If not, read it, and you'll see that there is something good in it.
Not everyone here has lots of time on their hands, they don't bother to spend it by browsing through the old pages looking for an interesting topic, they just look and post in the most active ones. But If someone who has more time brings back the old threads to them, then I don't care what they wrote, all that matters to me is to see the forum being alive again even if it's for a short time.

So they have time to spend on arguing on that topic, and not to browse old pages?

If a thread has become inactive, it came to a point nobody has to add anything anymore... or nobody needs. If that someone has something so special to say, he should browse, search or whatever and not expect Necroposters to bring inactive threads to life.

Contrary to you, when I see an inactive thread being revived, and I had posted in there, and I check out and the last post is just 'I agree'... it just pisses me off. No contribution is just plain useless. Bumping a thread is prohibited in most big forum communities and you should be aware of that.

[Aniki]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

Your argument failed when you said you don't care what people post. Why bother wasting 3 seconds of your life on a dead thread that nobody cares about, and in turn wasting everyone else's time. If you have something valid to add, then great, if you don't then it's just a waste, like in any other thread. Are you just disagreeing for the sake of it now? Common logic says that asking people to make posts meaningful is a good thing.

This post just proves that you didn't bother reading my and noodles posts in the beginning, otherwise you'd understand what I meant by saying that I don't care what they write. Just because you don't care about the dead threads, it doesn't mean that everyone here has the same opinion as you.

Common logic? You can ask them, hell, you can create a thread or make a rule asking people to make meaningful posts, but this is a forum, in case you forgot, people join everyday, but if they don't bother to read the rules when they join, then why do you think they'll bother to read something that asks them to do something they might not/don't like.

Originally Posted by iPhantom

So they have time to spend on arguing on that topic, and not to browse old pages?

Oh, not you, please don't jump into conclusions.

Originally Posted by iPhantom

If a thread has become inactive, it came to a point nobody has to add anything anymore... or nobody needs. If that someone has something so special to say, he should browse, search or whatever and not expect Necroposters to bring inactive threads to life.

Contrary to you, when I see an inactive thread being revived, and I had posted in there, and I check out and the last post is just 'I agree'... it just pisses me off. No contribution is just plain useless. Bumping a thread is prohibited in most big forum communities and you should be aware of that.

I take it as your opinion, but I don't agree with it. Like I stated in first post, if a thread isn't closed it's still active no matter how old it is. To me reviving an old thread with the 'I agree' post is the same as posting 'I agree' in an active one that is in the first page.



I gave a good example of how necroposting is might prove useful, but I don't see any good examples of why is it bad besides the 'I pisses me off when I see a revived thread with a pointless post' and MMM's silly argument that necroposts push the active threads into the second page.

[MMM]

Anytime you use the "I don't have time" argument on JF the argument is a fail. Japan Forum itself is a time filler. If you don't have time to do things properly on Japan Forum, what are you doing here in the first place?

Originally Posted by Aniki

I don't see any harm if somebody revives an old thread no matter how pointless his/her post is, for all we know, that might attract others who got more to add than "i think so too".

For instance, take the global warming thread. It's dead right now and somebody revives it by posting something like "Global warming is bad". Sure the post doesn't contribute much, but the thread is back in the first page and somebody else might notice it and contribute with a much better one that will bring the discussion back, thus making the thread alive again.

This is your "good example" argument from the first page. You yourself said those posts are pointless. I am afraid anything beyond that is moot, because you are making the argument FOR pointless posts, which just simply doesn't fly.

Originally Posted by ThirdSight

I'm not sure what's worse: arguing over clear-cut forum etiquette or intelligent people arguing over clear-cut forum etiquette.

Sadly, I am starting to see the answer to this question.

[Naoko]

There were some good arguments...and some extreme cases of trolling either way...this thread has started to look something like this:

[Aniki]

[quote=MMM;675582]This is your "good example" argument from the first page. You yourself said those posts are pointless. I am afraid anything beyond that is moot, because you are making the argument FOR pointless posts, which just simply doesn't fly.

Thank you for 'jumping on my neck' just because I tried to say it politely instead of using the word 'pointless' again. You want so much I can go and edit my post by changing the second bolded line in the the word 'pointless'. But even if I change it now, my argument does not. But if you say that my argument is pointless, yours is even more pointless. In fact I'm starting to believe that this whole thread was just your way to nag just because someone revived six old threads, and all this arguing is because you don't want to admit that you're wrong. Sadly, even now, I was hoping to see a good argument from you or somebody else that would change my opinion about necroposting, but all see is people picking on every word I wrote, while excluding the main point I'm trying say.
So tell me MMM, who really did fail?

PS: You didn't tell me about your attempts at improvements.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Aniki

Thank you for 'jumping on my neck' just because I tried to say it politely instead of using the word 'pointless' again.

Jumping on your neck? I made no personal attacks, Aniki.

Originally Posted by Aniki

You want so much I can go and edit my post by changing the second bolded line in the the word 'pointless'. But even if I change it now, my argument does not. But if you say that my argument is pointless, yours is even more pointless.

I never said your argument was "pointless". I said it was "moot" because you are advocating for pointless posts. For your argument to work one must agree that pointless posts are not pointless. I cannot agree to that.

Originally Posted by Aniki

In fact I'm starting to believe that this whole thread was just your way to nag just because someone revived six old threads, and all this arguing is because you don't want to admit that you're wrong.

It was a pattern of behavior I saw more than once. Enough times, I felt, to merit a thread.

All this arguing is me beating a dead horse while I put off doing more important things.

Originally Posted by Aniki

Sadly, even now, I was hoping to see a good argument from you or somebody else that would change my opinion about necroposting, but all see is people picking on every word I wrote, while excluding the main point I'm trying say.
So tell me MMM, who really did fail?

The point of the thread was not to win or lose, it was to open discussion about a phenomenon I thought was worth addressing.

But if the logic that posting pointless posts on dead threads is not a good idea wasn't made clear enough, then I guess I failed.

Originally Posted by Aniki

PS: You didn't tell me about your attempts at improvements.

I don't tell you a lot of the things I do, Aniki.

[burkhartdesu]

This is totally blown out of proportion.

If you feel the need to argue about such a simple concept, you have some issues you need to argue within yourself.

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by Aniki

I take it as your opinion, but I don't agree with it. Like I stated in first post, if a thread isn't closed it's still active no matter how old it is. To me reviving an old thread with the 'I agree' post is the same as posting 'I agree' in an active one that is in the first page.

Wrong, closed and inactive are two different terms. Threads get closed because of massive SPAM, flaming or off-topic. Inactive is when a thread is open but hasn't been replied for a long time... but you can still reply. The problem is what to reply there. Necroposting won't help. If someone wants so much to talk about something, he/she will post a new topic and then will find that and older post exists (it happened to me), then giving his argument on that post.

I gave a good example of how necroposting is might prove useful, but I don't see any good examples of why is it bad besides the 'I pisses me off when I see a revived thread with a pointless post' and MMM's silly argument that necroposts push the active threads into the second page.

By your way of thinking, we need members who only necropost and contribute none of their opinions to the community... just to go around and bump old threads because they like to. Those threads became inactive for a reason, if someone is so interested to share his argument and revive it yea, but in no way should someone bump a topic and WAIT for others opinions... I don't get the point in all this.

[Aniki]

Originally Posted by MMM

Jumping on your neck? I made no personal attacks, Aniki.

No, but you attacked my post (by saying attacked I mean you attacked the structure of my sentences, not the meaning of the post itself).

Originally Posted by MMM

I never said your argument was "pointless". I said it was "moot" because you are advocating for pointless posts. For your argument to work one must agree that pointless posts are not pointless. I cannot agree to that.

I'm not trying to convince people that pointless posts are not pointless. I'm trying to show that not all posts can be pointless no matter how pointless they be to others. Just like life, laws, behaviour, etc. has some exceptions, JF is no different, and my argument is a perfect example of an exception, which might prove of some small benefit to others.

Originally Posted by MMM

It was a pattern of behavior I saw more than once. Enough times, I felt, to merit a thread.

Yes it might be right, you've been here for more than a year, but from the time I joined not once I saw a person reviving six dead threads in a small amount of time. Three dead thread was the maximum, and that happened once or twice.

Originally Posted by MMM

All this arguing is me beating a dead horse while I put off doing more important things.

I admit I started arguing, but I only did that because I didn't see any good arguments from you or others. This is one of those times when I must stand up for what I believe is better.

Originally Posted by MMM

I don't tell you a lot of the things I do, Aniki.

I not asking you to tell everything you do. I just want to know what the those improvements about necroposting you were talking about. It's not a big secret is it?