Rules of the site - Necromancy

Why don't you ban any non-story posts right away, and refer people to PMs? I'd have thought questions about a story would be relevant anyway.

 

And how does that annoy people? Why do you cater to the kind of posters who do not use their alerts, but not to the posters who write stories, and would like more feedback - even if it happens to be posted after 5 weeks instead of 4 weeks?

 

The alert tells you who updated. That usually tells you right away if it was a necro or an update.

 

Because people watching a thread get an alert that someone's replied to it, but the alert tells them who the first new reply was; if it's not the OP, it's almost certainly not a story post. So there's no hope to dash. There's only hope to dash if you're browsing directly and recognise the name... and threadmarks and new-post/read-post flags help with that as well.

Assuming for a minute that you're right, why is that actually a problem? As I've said, there will usually be people who haven't yet read a work who get to read it because of the bump; it's not bad for them to get 30 minutes in the spotlight except in the sense of "oh I read a dead fic now I'm sad" which you're basically signing up for by reading fanfiction in the first place (I mean let's not delude ourselves here, what percentage of serial fanfic actually ends? 20%? Less?) and the theoretical sense of "well if every author constantly bumped everything they wrote that would be a problem" which is not going on here (indeed, comment bumps select for interesting works because uninteresting works don't draw comment). And the author will usually enjoy comments, so that's another plus (if it's badgering for updates the author can ask for a lock and I've no problem with them getting it).

I mean works that exist exist forevermore; relevance to them doesn't diminish with time, which is why I have that policy in the first place. Why must you stymie me?

 

And now you've exchanged a small group of people being mildly pissed off for ten seconds every week for a slightly smaller group of people being mildly pissed off for eternity.

And we just spent the last page systematically debunking the only reason that's ever been given for hating necromancy. The point is that maybe you ought to rethink your knee-jerk response rather than hiding behind a mob who shares it. Then you wouldn't be pissed off, we wouldn't be pissed off, and we would have a nice, friendly, tolerant forum.

 

I'm half considering leaving the forum before I entered it. (This is my first post. I hope it gets through.) This discussion is just silly. I think I count maybe one other poster agreeing with Megaolix, and everyone else disagrees, including what appears to be the other mod. (Should there be a poll? I think that's a good idea - we can find what group is larger and smaller directly.)
But that (leaving the forum, that is) would be very sad, because I need an account to read NSFW stories, which is what I signed up for in the first place (darn Ack for not putting updates on AO3).

So let's make a compromise: I come from AlternateHistory.com, a site with a well enforced necromancy policy. (The only reason it's not directly in the rules is because it doesn't have codified rules the way SB and SV do.)
However, the figures on it are very different: a post is considered necromancy if there had been at least 6-7 months since the last post on this thread (in which case, typically, nothing is done to the user except a warning, but the thread is locked).
So just change the 1 month figure here to 6 months, and you'll probably have the approval of much more members. (Of course, you'll get even more if you abandoned that idea entirely, but whatever.)

Way too many SB quest threads died (got locked for necromancy) just because the next vote came 15, or 16, or 25 days later. QQ has much less activity, so it should not be unreasonable to make the grace period much larger.
Maybe apply it to NSFW content only? There's little enough SFW content as it is - threads at the bottom of the second page of main Creative Writing would now be necros if posted in, and only the top 10 SFW quests (maybe 11 if that one gets a really quick reply) are now allowed to continue unless posted into by the author.

 

I've always felt that locking threads is a contributor to them dying.

Sure, the GM could contact a mod and get it unlocked, but the fact that it's locked is just one more hurdle in the way of continuing the story.

I don't care about necros, I never have. Sure, it's rude to bump a thread that's months old, but it doesn't hurt anyone, and the whole "retaliation mob" thing that shows up afterwards is far more annoying

As for the topic itself...

If there isn't a rule against it, then you shouldn't be punishing it. It doesn't matter if you just give out warnings or what, if it's not against the rules then it's not against the rules.

The solution is obvious (which is why it was mentioned in the first post) Either make a rule against it, or stop trying to enforce it.

 

Well if it's a post of some level of content (Like an Omake or art or something of the like) then I'd say it really isn't a necro.

Is my 2 cents.

 

Unfortunate, if only because I would love it if someone saw one of my stories after it being done a few months and bumped it with a question/comment so that maybe others who had never read it would see it for the first time.

On the other hand, I both understand how annoying it would be to those who have already read my completed stories to suddenly think there's been an update, and on the third hand, nobody ever actually bumps my finished stories with questions or comments anyways so that's always been mostly a pipe dream.

So in the end, necros really don't bother me and I welcome feedback on my stories no matter how old they are, but I get why the rule had to be made. Hmm, I'll add a line to my sig about PMing or profile posting me if anyone wants to talk about my past stories.

 

Now that you mention it, there are authors who disable both profile access and PMs for the general userbase. Reinhard Von Lohengramm, for example. What should I do if I want to say something to him about one of his stories?

 

I'm confused. How can you make a profile post on somebody whose profile you cannot open?

 

If someone doesn't want to be communicated with, and has gone to that level to ensure it, then that's an unhappy thing for us all, but that's their decision.

It doesn't really justify going around their privacy policy to annoy both them and everyone who dislikes necromancy. Not that it'll stop people. I know I've unwatched threads because they've been bumped long after the last time they had worthwhile content, and that always feels like chopping off a diseased limb.

So, sadly, we're all screwed in that case.

 

The same could be said in reverse. Just because it pissed you off, doesn't mean everyone feels the same way.

I've seen arguments like this before (and accidentally started one when I first found SB) and it's often more disruptive when you get five posts of "BURN THE NECRO" than when someone gives a different perspective on a story, potentially giving new life to the thread and restarting the OP's inspiration.

 

And this is why I hate thread necromancy rules. The self-righteous bullshit that gets posted every time it happens. Can we get something added to that rule that doing anything more than reporting it is also infractable?

 

Hey Xryuran, thanks for your necromancy. I wouldn't have found that otherwise.

 

There's an easier solution: Follow the rules and DON'T NECRO.

 

Better solution, people stop whining about necros.

 

Why is reporting and not posting the harder solution? (Since at that point, the necro has already happened, and I've accepted that the mods aren't going to remove the rule because of people like you.)

 

/me pats and does best Picard impression: "Aye Mr Nekraa (I'll) MAKE IT SO!"