Rules of the site - Necromancy

this is the best plan

can "adore" include "cuddle"

 

Sorry. Been spoiled by SB and SV having big red don't post banners after the two week time frame. Someone on SV told me about the story and I googled it. I rarely bother looking at dates because I really don't care most of the time.

Your Welcome. Always happy to help a Friend/Potential Friend/Acquaintance/Enemy find a good story.

 

I agree, having anti-necromancy rules when there's no way other than carefully looking at timestamps (rather tiny and low-contrast ones, I must add) to even figure out you're necromancing is just silly.

(Okay, okay, AH.com did without that quite successfully for over a decade. But I'm not sure they even had the technological possibility, and their timestamps were a lot more visible, anyway; and in any case, once they switched to Xenforo, they introduced similar banners pretty much immediately.)

 

it also doesn't help if the last post is pages after the last chapter. I cant tell if people are still discussing something if the last post is 5 pages away.

 

That makes sense too. AH.com doesn't have threadmarks (still, I believe), but on SB/SV/QQ it's hard to see if the discussion still goes on if you're following the threadmarked chapters only.

 

Laziness isn't an acceptable excuse, guys.

 

Do you truly wish to take this path? It may be more treacherous than you think.

Spoiler: Reductio ad absurdum

You and all other anti-necromancy crusaders are being lazy in not wanting to have to read necros.
You are currently defending laziness in not implementing a necromancy warning.

It took me less than a minute to come up with those.

Now, me, I'm not going to attack laziness, because I'm fairly lazy and I do think it's a fairly useful attribute of humanity that's spurred many inventions.

 

You're cute.

It is against the rules to Necro. My desire not to not have to see that sort of garbage is not. Necro-posters are saying that they're too lazy to check the damn timestamp before they post. It doesn't matter if there's a banner or not, refusing to check the timestamp is laziness.

It shows, both in the quality of your arguments and in your general understanding of the debate thus far.

 

The debate is over. The people who cannot be bothered to check alerts, and are not mature enough to deal with a necro without flipping out and posting shit, won. Those among us who thought the ability to discuss older stories was a good thing lost.

 

I think I see the problem. You appear to believe that rules confer legitimacy. I believe that legitimacy originates from ethical reasoning, and that rules merely reflect the good (to varying degrees) rather than defining it. (I could wax lyrical about Kohlberg here, but attempting to define one's opponent in psychological terms is one of the most disgusting debate tactics I've ever witnessed and I won't stoop to it.)

My remarks were intended to directly challenge the rule's legitimacy - but, as you appear to hold rules to have inherent legitimacy rather than it being conditional on their effects and/or logical basis, this is meaningless to you. We appear to be in axiom conflict, which means I'm flat out of arguments; your position is logical based on your understanding of morality, and my position based on mine, so unless one of us chooses to adopt the other's viewpoint we are incapable of convincing each other and will have to agree to disagree.

 

I seem to remember asking if you could add to the rule, forbidding anything but report and move on? Is that off the table as well?

 

In what sense is he asking to be hit? We have no rule saying that members must like the rules, or that members can never have a different opinion from a moderator.

Analysis and discussion has been rejected by Megaolix and tehelgee as a significant contribution.

 

I shall remember that, and report anyone who does it.

 

Are you saying it's part of the "etc."? If so, great.

 

Yay. This rule just left my "resent" bin and entered my "eh, whatever" bin.

 

You should probably spell that out in more detail. As it is it is rather unclear, and the posters here do give off the general impression that the only acceptable necroing is another update of the story. At least they never post "Burn the necro! I thought this was another update or an insightful analysis of the story!" It's always "I thought this was an update!"

 

The rules are fine as they are. This is not SV, where sufficient lawyer roleplay can be used to excuse improper behavior. The intent of the rules matters, not the wording.

 

And you should tell people that. This thread shows they did not know what was allowed.

 

And therefore, the wording is irrelevant? If people don't understand the rule, how the hell are they supposed to know when to report or not? From the perspective of a new user of the board, clarity in the rules is a good thing.

 

7: Thread Necromancy is (very) conditionally permitted.

• Threads that have been dormant for 1 month are considered dead threads. IF you make a post to a dead thread, it must be a significant contribution; story update, new information on current events, new activity for games elsewhere, etc. Asking if a story or quest is dead or will be continued does not count as contributing.

The argument that the rules are not "clear enough" for new users has been heard before and it has also been discarded before. The wording of the rule in question is sufficient to get the point across to all reasonable people. If you do not understand a rule I suggest you consult a moderator or create a thread to ask, in which moderators and other members will elucidate the rules in greater depth.

If you don't understand what the rules mean for other reasons (I understand that not all members have English as a first language), you can either look up the unfamiliar words in a dictionary or, again, PM a mod or create a thread in this subforum.

 

"Analysis of the story" is not a clear meaning there. None of the examples even hint at that. Seriously, please add that example.

 

Yes - please do use your mod voice to ignore legitimate criticism. If I get banned for this so, be it. Being a mod does not make you infallible, and falling back on it when discussing a rule does not reflect well on you.

We are trying to make your jobs easier. We are not requesting that the rule be weakened. We are not asking for you change the spirit of the rule. We are simply asking for a few minor changes in the wording to bring it closer into alignment with that spirit.

So, if you feel that this is ban worthy, please do so. I welcome it.

 

Eh, the rule reads fine from what I get from it. Don't post stuff with no content, junk like when's the next update or a single word thing like liked. It's not necromancy if you try to restart discussion with a on topic post or write an omake to see if you could get interest back into the thread.

But that's just my two cents though.