A Suggested Modification of Rule 7

I think there's a good argument for permitting readers of stories older than one month to leave notes of appreciation for the author's work in the thread.

Firstly, it's a nice thing for people to do that they want to do fairly frequently. There's little enough niceness on the internet. We should foster it where we can.

Secondly, there are more serious issues for moderators to spend their limited time and attention on. Freeing them up from unnecessary intervention is a good thing.

I think this is a potential net benefit to the forum's atmosphere that doesn't cause anyone any harm.

 

It's an option, but why shouldn't commenting on the actual story in question be an option as well? Why is it so terrible it deserves moderator time spent policing it?

It's spending a precious resource to prevent people from doing something nice for someone. As a policy it doesn't make any sense.

 

A large chunk of QQ gets mad at anyone "necroing" threads, and rather than spend time changing this culture the staff have decided to whack anyone doing it.

I don't like it myself - it stinks of heckler's veto - but at least one moderator has outright declared that he'll continue whacking it as long as he's a mod regardless of how many complaints he gets and how solid the counterarguments are, and LG doesn't appear to want to fire him.

 

Why do people even care about how old a thread is if people want to continue a discussion, anyway? Perhaps I don't understand the whole basis to the thread necromancy rule in the first place. It never made sense to me.

 

It sounds like the thread necromancy rule is a patch on the the watch code missing an option to only update people if the OP posts something, like the OP e-mails feature but applied to alerts. If that was changed then people could filter out the stuff they don't want and everyone would be happy. It'd save moderator time, too. Since it's already implemented for e-mails it would be an easy fix.

 

People who don't check the forum every day, or just want to read a chapter as soon as it's out.

 

Except that some authors don't allow profile posts.

Also, I've seen authors (both on QQ and elsewhere) continuing stories because they were reminded of them by an appreciative post in the thread, while I've never heard of anyone continuing a story because they were reminded by a profile post. (Though I'd be happy to see an example.)

Except... I'm pretty sure such an option already exists?

I suppose one problem with it is that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no "OP only" option, only an "OP or new post" option. So if you were caught up with the thread when somebody posts, you'd be alerted even if that somebody is not the OP.
But I was under the impression that the "OP emails" worked the exact same way.

Huh. Didn't know. That would explain why it's still enforced (even in many situations where I wouldn't say it applied at all).

 

I too think a change to the rule would be good. Praise for a story or questions about it are on topic for the story thread, and should go there imo, unless the thread is locked for some reason. Especially since some stuff that is considered minor might still be relevant to all the people who watch the thread, and not just the author. Those that only want to see updates from the author can enable OP alerts, and just ignore all others.

 

It's not a "QQ Culture" thing, it's a most of the internet thing. Rules against necroing exist in the vast majority of forums, suggesting that either A. Most people don't like getting their hopes up and then have that spat on because one person couldn't use a PM to send an incredibly short message or B. It's a legacy issue from a time when there was either a software or hardware problem involved.

Personally, I'm in the camp of it's really fucking annoying to have a complete random throw out a one-liner, drawing activity to the thread and getting everyone's hopes up.

 

It sounds like we're trying to apply a social solution to a technical problem. If whenever someone watches a thread there's a radio button for 'Alert On OP Posts Only', that'd solve the issue completely.

Which staffer(s) handle board coding?

 

I don't think many people passionately care about what appears in their unread watched threads page to the point that moderators should be spending time on this.

If it's really an issue for a lot of people (and I really doubt it is, because unlike alerts it's so minor) it might be possible to code the unread watched threads page to only insert into the table on OP posts for people who select an 'Alert On OP Posts Only' radio button when they watch a particular thread.

 

At that point though, you're asking for quite a few changes just so that people can avoid being punished for posting in an old dead thread.

The current system is simpler, avoids annoying or angering anyone and the only cost is that people don't get to make no content posts in long dead threads.

Any potential gain from the proposed change is significantly lower than the effort required to implement it

 

Quite the opposite. A technical change is a one and done. No more work is necessary. The current social solution requires constant moderator work, representing a constant drain on time.

A solution that eliminates that drain and leaves people freer to use the forum to communicate in positive ways is an unambiguous improvement.

 

For example I care.

And why I dislike necros? Abandoned stories are sad, getting reminded about them is sad.

And note that responding to an old thread with substantial content AFAIK is OK.

I do not want to get notifications because somebody posted +1 post. Leave like in such case.

Contentless appreciation has solution, use likes.

 

Except no content posts aren't really positive interaction for the forum and all reactivating dead threads will do is increase the workload of the mods as they now have to police exponentially more threads to make sure it's "just" no content posts relating to the story and not people turning dead threads into their own private chat room. Workload will remain about the same, if not increase.

The current situation requires the mod's to occassionally hit someone who was unaware of the rule, your proposed situation will increase the number of threads needing policed dramatically.

 

...I do not recognize the problem with this, at least as long as there aren't any outright complaints/reports?

In addition, I've seen far too many users and threads being punished (up to and including thread locking) because someone happened to post an insufficiently long (and/or insufficiently obviously relevant) omake 20-25 days later.
...OK, that might be overstating things, but if you have a rule of "30 days, and only if it's not an omake", you should darn well follow it. I've seen threads dinged for posts after 24 days, I've seen threads dinged for obvious omakes (that presumably weren't too obviously relevant, or long enough or something), and I'm pretty sure I've seen threads dinged for posts that were both.

 

You sure that you're over 18? Anyone who's been on the internet for a while should be able to easily see the problem with turning dead threads into private chatrooms. Do you want QQ to become the SB of the bad old days when everything is dying?

But more than that, the simple fact is that it's against the rules. And the "It's fine so long as nobody complains or reports" is insanity. That mentality has caused issues for a very long time across many different sites. If it's rule breaking, it's still rule breaking if nobody complains or reports it and all it'll do is get harsher punishments handed out when the staff find out.

This is a forum, not a chatroom. There's probably a Discord or IRC around if you really want to just chat. Might even be an actual chat topic somewhere.

 

I've never seen the SB of the bad old days (at least, as far as I'm aware), and for that matter I was never particularly active on SB in the first place, so I'm not sure what exactly you're describing.
(Besides, a regularly-posted-into thread would hardly be a private chatroom, because everyone could easily see it.)

As far as not seeing the problem goes... um, necromancy aside, that sort of thing would presumably fall under rule 5? Which does pretty much sound like "as long as nobody complains or reports" to me.

I'll try to do so for the 24-day dings (at least, unless it's you doing them), but now that I've checked, the wording for rule 7 doesn't actually provide any exceptions for omakes (of whatever length or quality) when they aren't written by the story's author, so anything regarding that part might be tricky.

(As a side note: would new votes in ongoing quests count as significant contributions per rule 7? I don't do quests much, so can't think of any specific examples offhand, but it sounds like the sort of thing that probably should be permitted but almost certainly wouldn't.)

 

100% no. That's the sort of worst offender.

Also, adding my two cents. I don't use author alerts, or email alerts, or subscribe to threads. My browsing is entirely based on the new posts button, since it lets me keep up with old threads that update and catch new threads simultaneously. It let's me know where interesting discussion is happening.

Necromancy wrecks that system. I very much experience the rising and falling hope.

As for letting authors know you appreciate their work and reminding them of its existence in hopes of revival, commenting on the author page or PM works just fine. Or just like their posts. I can assure you authors notice when a person goes through and likes their posts one after another in an old thread.

 

So any quests that did not receive any votes for 31 days should be considered finished unless the original author explicitly petitions to revive them? Is this correct?

(For the record: there are currently eight SFW quests that would fit within this 31-day window. I admit that for NSFW quests this number is far higher.)

 

QMs update when they update, but VOTING should be finished within a 31 day period. By this point, contentions are long settled, and discussions have been had. A person adding a number to a bandwagon adds nothing to the thread.

It's not even 31 days after the last QM post. It's the 31 days after the last vote, or discussion, or ANYTHING. Thread necromancy for voting is massively egregious.

And yes, QQ has very few SFW quests, because those can easily be hosted on other sights with more SFW participation. In NSFW questing, there have been 40 threads updated TODAY alone. 208 threads are within rule 7 limits. Read and vote for one of those, instead of getting people's hopes up.

We already have a permissive necromancy rule that is designed to allow mods to give leniency rather than carte blanche ban posting. We already have multiple methods to show appreciation that are not necromancy: profile posts, private messages, and likes (which get sent to posters as notifications).

I think you are greatly overestimating how much rule 7 adds to mod work. Mods don't need to trawl every post to confirm they fit within neat time windows. They respond to reports.

And the fact somebody is willing to report means they are upset enough about the necromancy that they are willing to call to action. Necromancy rules are not imposed from the top by curmudgeonly administrators that want their database neat and tidy. They are a result of forum users deciding that they don't want the practice.

The rule is not designed for the poster OR for the author. It is designed for the numerous readers of a thread. That is the perspective one must look from to evaluate whether content is necromancy.

I fully understand that not everyone hates thread necromancy, but you should understand that some people honestly do.

 

The concrete reason for getting upset about posting in older threads that I've heard here is that people don't want to see alerts for something unless it's the OP posting something new. That's an easy technical problem to solve, it should absolutely be added as a watch option.

Reading between the lines a bit, if what's really going on is a small number of people are somehow compulsive about not seeing anyone revive old threads, then why should we let their weird hangup dictate policy to everyone else? They can learn to live and let live instead of demanding that others be censored. Forums are for communicating. People using them to communicate in a civil manner about a thread topic is a feature, not a bug.

 

Dude. The post that you made that got dinged for Rule 7 has no substance and communicates no information. Asking that you do not make low substance posts to threads that have laid dormant for a considerable amount of time shouldn't be an imposition, its basic netiquette. They happen to be codified in rules to prevent people from piling on asking you to stop.

If you like something and it has been dead long enough for the necro rules to set in, is it really that hard to just send the author PM? If I'm lurking a thread on the off chance an author comes back to it, I really don't need to see your 'attaboy' post polluting my inbox from a thread that hasn't seen an update in seven months.

I also don't see why anyone should have to update the forum software just because you are feeling inconsiderate of the other posters. If you had produced something substantive (an omake, an analysis, etc) that actually added to the discussion of the thread, I doubt you'd have been dinged.

 

It's the other way around. The vast majority of people fall into the category of either vaguely supportive of rules on thread necromancy or don't give a shit one way or another. It's a small amount of people who want a rule change and have a weird hangup regarding a pre-existing and widespread rule and rather than learning to live and let live they demand it be changed.



You've not really offered up a convincing reason for why a change should be made, nor for why it might be necessary to be made. When you then take into account that the forum already has methods for showing appreciation in the forms of likes, profile posts and PM's it just becomes clear that your reasons are already covered and so the change is completely unnecessary.

But in the end it's the site's staff's decision. If they want to make a rule change they will, if they don't then they won't.