Thread Necromancy -

Rupture Farms · #31 10-05-2007, 10:35 PM

:

You give up too easily, Starscream.

"Starscream"?

Are you saying I should 'keep on going'?

Strike Witch · #32 10-05-2007, 10:38 PM

Might as well, You've already made such a big fuss, and most of the mods were agreeing with you.

One Final push is all that remains.

Rupture Farms · #33 10-05-2007, 10:43 PM

Well, I've said everything I need to say.

Strike Witch · #34 10-05-2007, 10:46 PM

Eh, whatever.

Wazzzpinator, Terrorizzze!

Rupture Farms · #35 10-05-2007, 10:50 PM

:

Starscream, Wazzzpinator, Terrorizzze, Ikahodo

You're going to have to explain..

Strike Witch · #36 10-05-2007, 10:58 PM

But that would take the fun out of it, Dondake.

and with that, I've gone off-topic far enough.

Hmm, I think, personally, that old threads are often weighed down with old stagnant opinions and the weight of years. I prefer just creating new threads to get fresh opinions.

Rupture Farms · #37 10-05-2007, 11:03 PM

:

But that would take the fun out of it, Dondake.

Okay, you do that. I'll just remind you that no-one's laughing.

:

Hmm, I think, personally, that old threads are often weighed down with old stagnant opinions and the weight of years. I prefer just creating new threads to get fresh opinions.

Isn't "creating threads that still exist" another one of these stupid rules?

Strike Witch · #38 10-05-2007, 11:13 PM

Ah, but if the thread is inactive, it's not being used anymore, and sinks down into the oblivion of the Forum, while threads that are active, and do not need duplicates because people post in them regularly, remain at the top of the heap, keeping things fresh, yet organized.

Rupture Farms · #39 10-05-2007, 11:18 PM

:

Ah, but if the thread is inactive, it's not being used anymore, and sinks down into the oblivion of the Forum, while threads that are active, and do not need duplicates because people post in them regularly, remain at the top of the heap, keeping things fresh, yet organized.

So this is a confirmed rule: You can create duplicate threads if the original was put to sleep ages ago?

The only problem with that is that sometimes, people who already posted in the old ones, are hesitant about posting again.
But then again, the people who posted in the oldies, have probably left the forums..

Strike Witch · #40 10-05-2007, 11:24 PM

Pretty much, but if the thread is like,less then 30 days old, it's probably still on the precipice, but anywhere after a month or 2 is probably fair game.

Ask teh mods.

***Nate*** · #41 10-06-2007, 05:52 PM

It's a context thing. A thread like the one in GD for Glitches should be revived, so that all the glitches are collected in one place. Something like "What's your favourite movie?" should be created anew.

Strike Witch · #42 10-06-2007, 06:00 PM

Quoting Rupture Farms in my sig, I show my opinion

But seriously, this whole thread is pretty intelligent, but I feel like it's...not right. I don't know why. Perhaps stigma from past Threadcromancy is having a negative effect on me.

Rupture Farms · #43 10-06-2007, 06:07 PM

How's it intelligent?

Strike Witch · #44 10-06-2007, 06:34 PM

........

Eh, fuck it all. Don't dig up old topics that haven't been posted in in forever, especially if they're only relative to when they were made.

Rupture Farms · #45 10-06-2007, 08:58 PM

You're saying The Simpsons was only relevant up until 07-14-2006, 08:19 AM?!
Idiot, wake up! The Simpsons is still alive, and there's no end in sight!
The same goes for Family Guy!

Seriously, look up on that stuff before you accuse me of shit like, "especially if they're only relative to when they were made." (I think you meant to say, "relevant".

)

Not only are they relevant at the moment, but currently, they are easily the two most popular animated TV series' on Earth!

Strike Witch · #46 10-06-2007, 09:04 PM

1. It was Family Guy, not the Simpsons.
2. The opinions expressed in that thread were atleast a year old, and probably weren't up-to-date with current thinking, besides, if people kept digging up and posting in the same old threads, then we'd get nowhere except cluttered.

Rupture Farms · #47 10-06-2007, 09:13 PM

:

1. It was Family Guy, not the Simpsons.
2. The opinions expressed in that thread were atleast a year old, and probably weren't up-to-date with current thinking, besides, if people kept digging up and posting in the same old threads, then we'd get nowhere except cluttered.

Yeah, because people a year earlier had different thinking systems..

If we dug up old ones, and ceased making new ones, then there'd be about half of the threads we have cluttered up in the forums now!

:

Dude, cut out the Thread Necromancy

Explain that..

Strike Witch · #48 10-06-2007, 09:18 PM

*sigh* I retracted that statement, because I agreed with you, on the page before.

At any rate, yes, peoples' opinions DO change in a year or less. I know several posters from last year who haven't even been active this year. That alone is a change. We have different people, with different opinions. And since the original thread has drifted off into Oblivion, where nobody cares anymore. Might as well start off on a fresh slate.

Rupture Farms · #49 10-06-2007, 09:22 PM

:

*sigh* I retracted that statement, because I agreed with you, on the page before.

At any rate, yes, peoples' opinions DO change in a year or less. I know several posters from last year who haven't even been active this year. That alone is a change. We have different people, with different opinions. And since the original thread has drifted off into Oblivion, where nobody cares anymore. Might as well start off on a fresh slate.

Of course people's opinions change, (e.g. I used to think you were a good user.) but their thinking systems don't!

And for gods sake, it's not like we have to abide by what they said a year earlier..
Just ignore what they had to say, and post what you have to say.
Why on earth would that ever matter? I mean, it's obvious you don't read the posts before yours anyway..

And it's not "into oblivion"; have you heard of the "Search" tool?

Strike Witch · #50 10-06-2007, 09:25 PM

:

Just ignore what they had to say, and post what you have to say.

Exactly. Make a new thread, so we don't have old rotting topics filled with baggage all over the first page, which is where most posters go to.

Rupture Farms · #51 10-06-2007, 09:28 PM

:

Exactly. Make a new thread, so we don't have old rotting topics filled with baggage all over the first page, which is where most posters go to.

Or, ...or, ...ready? ............Keep the old one!
It's like throwing away a dog, because it's not a puppy anymore.

And anyway, aren't there mods who can delete the "rotting" posts?

Strike Witch · #52 10-06-2007, 09:47 PM

But it's not a dog, it's a pile of old text some guys wrote about a topic that hasn't been updated in a year or more.

Rupture Farms · #53 10-06-2007, 10:03 PM

I know it's not a dog. I never said it was a dog. I said it's "like throwing away a dog because it's not a puppy anymore".
Although not immediately, or immensely noticeable, there's a huge difference.

Strike Witch · #54 10-06-2007, 10:04 PM

My point still stands.

And why are you arguing with me? I'm not in charge.

Rupture Farms · #55 10-06-2007, 10:13 PM

I don't know, because this thread is for discussion...

Hobo · #56 10-07-2007, 01:53 AM

Seriously. Stop digging up threads. The occasional one is ok but this is stupid. Just make a new damn thread.