Why is "Necro" Bad

[Diche Bach]

Someone recently "necroed" a thread from 2013 

Which I actually thought was kinda interesting in multiple respects. For one, it was interesting to see what people were saying about the game back in 2013 and for another, I found the topic interesting. I was just gonna respond to it; I had read down to the end and between the time I spotted it and started reading and that point it had been locked.

Now, please don't get me wrong. I am not questioning any moderators decision; that is not my place, and ultimately I don't care one way or the other; ban me and every user if you want, I don't care!  I have no desire to change anyone's behavior on this forum, much less any moderators, and even less desire to question, critique, or 'correct' anyone's behavior. Nor do I have any desire or intent to suggest any changes to how the volunteers who do such a great job as moderators on this forum do their work. This board is exceptionally good and I think a big part of that is the wise and well-organized policies and procedures the moderators of this board follow. You guys/gals do a great job!

So please mods, don't get your panties in a wade . . . 

I'm just curious to know if there is an actual reason, or a really good reason that necroing should be discouraged.

What I'm really curious about here is this seemingly ubiquitous notion among "moderator culture" (and by ubiquitous I mean, it seems to be the norm in nearly everyone of the hundreds of gamer bulletin boards I've ever participated in . . . with some exceptions noted), which is exemplifed in Sal Vager's closing comment before it was locked

Quote

Old thread is old, please check the dates before posting, thanks.

 Like thi

So by this I gather that . . . old = "any thread that has not had activity in it for a certain period of time" and not simply "a thread with an opening date that is a long time ago?

What is it about a thread being "old" that leads so many moderator groups across so many online communities to regard that thread as "off limits" for new posts?

You see this constantly, and yet . . . I cannot explain why anyone would regard opening up an old thread as somehow "bad" or potentially detrimental to the community. In fact, I've always thought that the results of "necro" posts were generally rather interesting and instructive and I almost wonder if this philosophy that "Necroing is bad. Good moderation = discourage necroing and lock any and all necro posts that do not somehow clearly justify their need to necro . . " is just a sort of 'urban myth' that somehow has spread through the cultural norms of moderator communities?

Please, again, don't take this the wrong way. I'm just curious to learn more about the underlying philosophy and expect there is some good reason to discourage users from "recycling" old threads or "restarting" old dialogues and thus facilitating an examination of the historical continuity between an old issue and its modern form/analogues, else otherwise engaging in any form of communication that can best be accomplished by "necroing" an old thread.

[Vanamonde]

We don't generally close an old thread unless the information in it refers to outdated features from previous versions of the game. In this case, though, there's an additional issue, which is that Squad does not like to discuss sales numbers and their income. Many businesses don't. And sometimes we like to keep our closing messages short and to the point by not listing all the reasons for closing the thread, so Sal_vager only mentioned one. 

[Diche Bach]

Ah cool. So in this case, it was not actually so much that it was necro, as it was a topic that (particularly here lately) a bit sensitive. So you guys don't really have an "anti-Necro" policy? If so, I applaud that. I find a lot of moderation groups just seem to have this idea that once no one has posted in a particular thread for a certain time, it becomes inherently poor form to post in it and revive the conversation. I can think of situations where this could be a very bad thing (if it is reopening old wounds or something) but other situations where it is a actually a very good thing for a community.

Any idea what the logic behind a generalized "anti-Necro" policy might be among those groups who follow it? Just curious if you guys, as moderators have any experience with how that sort of policy might develop in a moderator community.

 

[Vanamonde]

Quote

So you guys don't really have an "anti-Necro" policy? 

See: 

Quote

 

2.5 Necroposting and Necromoaning

Posting in a thread that has not received a new message in a defined span of three months is known as “necroposting". Necroposting is often frowned upon but not forbidden provided that your post does not break the other rules in this post, most notably rule 2.3a. These threads may be closed at the discretion of the staff.

 

Additionally, methods that draw attention to a necropost in such a manner as to shame the poster are also frowned upon and this is known as Necromoaning, Necromoaning posts are also subject to removal under rule 2.3a.

 

Here.

[legoclone09]

1 hour ago, Diche Bach said:

Ah cool. So in this case, it was not actually so much that it was necro, as it was a topic that (particularly here lately) a bit sensitive. So you guys don't really have an "anti-Necro" policy? If so, I applaud that. I find a lot of moderation groups just seem to have this idea that once no one has posted in a particular thread for a certain time, it becomes inherently poor form to post in it and revive the conversation. I can think of situations where this could be a very bad thing (if it is reopening old wounds or something) but other situations where it is a actually a very good thing for a community.

Any idea what the logic behind a generalized "anti-Necro" policy might be among those groups who follow it? Just curious if you guys, as moderators have any experience with how that sort of policy might develop in a moderator community.

 

The anti-necro is mainly if it's not worth it, like asking for a mod update for a mod that is two years old, and the thread has been dead for a while.

[Padishar]

6 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

The anti-necro is mainly if it's not worth it, like asking for a mod update for a mod that is two years old, and the thread has been dead for a while.

Or posting in an old support thread for a very old KSP version because your symptoms look slightly similar.  It's usually much better to start a new thread.  You can always include a link to the old thread you think might be relevant...

[Tex]

On 10/18/2016 at 8:05 PM, Diche Bach said:

  I can think of situations where this could be a very bad thing (if it is reopening old wounds or something) but other situations where it is a actually a very good thing for a community.

Yes, sometimes it is good to talk about old topics, in which case it's often left open. A recent example involved a thread being technically "necro'd," and was actually reported for being such, but by that time a conversation/discussion had already erupted in the thread and it seemed to be relevant, so a fellow moderator that was handling the reports left it open.

There are still many ways that a "necro" might be worthwhile, but like @Vanamonde said, most times if the information is clearly outdated then there isn't much point to talk about it further. As a rule of thumb, just open a new thread.

[Diche Bach]

Kewl.

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Maximus97 said:

As a rule of thumb, just open a new thread.

And mention the old one as a link. Let the mod have his piece of fun, if he decides, he'll join them..

Edited October 21, 2016 by kerbiloid