All Networks Necroposting

[mulala]

Why don't they just close threads after 3 weeks? so necroposting wouldn't even be a thing?

 

[Roxrock]

In my opinion, they should get rid of the necroposting rule and instead make it so that once a thread is over a month old, it gets permanently removed from the trending threads and latest threads tabs. This way, new replies on threads that are over a month old couldn’t potentially revive a thread, but the thread owners or people being replied to would still receive notifications and be able to respond.

To be honest, I don’t really see the harm in someone trying to revive an old thread. Unless they are persistently trying to get other people to react or respond to a dead discussion, I think it is reasonable for someone to want to continue an old thread. I haven’t been here the longest, but I’ve never been a part of any community where necroposting has became an issue, so maybe I just don’t understand the problem here.

 

[Salty_Shadows]

The rule is valid. Theres no point removing a thread as it can be developed further on and theres no point allowing people to just carry on any old conversation that happened on some random thread when the forums first started which could happen

 

[Mr Jii Gamer]

Why don't they just close threads after 3 weeks? so necroposting wouldn't even be a thing?

No the rule is so clear

 

[Eli]

There are some valid instances in which threads may still be of interest to the community even if they've been inactive for 3 weeks or longer, like many of the pinned threads throughout different subforums.

Also, back when I was a Moderator necroposting would be allowed if there was a legitimate reason to bring a thread back to life, for example, if someone feels like a certain suggestion thread is now relevant again, bumping it up might be justified depending on the scenario, and granted that Moderation has drifted apart from punishment tracks and rigid rules, it's only fair the necroposting rule remains flexible and case-specific.