| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO - when the previous participants in the conversation have stopped posting at paizo.com or are unlikely to remember that conversation then it's better to start another thread than to revive an old one. If you don't know anything about those particular people then three years is enough (as a rule of thumb) to call a given thread solidly dead. Two years is iffy.
Back when rules were still being written for PF1 there was another issue (rules you're bringing up may not have existed during the previous discussion), but that's mostly past now. Unless you're bringing up a thread which should be dead anyway for the above reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one's able to smack you down short of the moderators (who won't for thread necromancy, no matter what you do). And bumping a thread that's spent a few months quiet isn't likely to irritate anyone anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, unless the thread is recent (last 6 months) and very on topic to what I want to ask (like I want to build a specific kind of character and someone else already had asked that question) I tend to create a new thread then revive an inactive one.
But it's personal preference.
I think after a year, people who had been involved in the thread are likely to not actively be participants anymore (except for regulars) and likely may have forgotten about the question at all. So that's my personal cut off, unless it's super specific to my question and then it could be better to still continue the same thread of discussion.
Ultimately, there are no hard and fast rules.
And honestly, most of the time we probably don't even notice when posts were previously made.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on the topic and time passed. Threads about ideas or more general topics (e.g. "what if" threads like "how could one fix class X") are usually fine to revive even after months. Threads about specific rule questions, or situations that occured in play/in a group, usually become irrelevant within days.
For new questions/discussions, the established forum etiquette is to when in doubt not revive threads - not the least because the inability to edit older posts prevents the (on other boards) widespread practise of having constantly updated opening posts.
There're mainly two issues with old posts: For one, they're often irrelevant. FAQs, errata, and new options often completely change things. Making people read through such old posts is purely detrimental to a constructive discussion. Meanwhile, it would often be necessary to make correcting statements about multiple posts in old threads (lest someone reading through the whole thread gets a completely wrong impression), which is just a big hassle and a waste of time for everyone.
Second, either because they're used to the board etiquette, or maybe because they are simply inattentive, many users don't check post dates, so when necroing a thread, there's a pretty high likelyhood of people respondong to posts from years ago without realizing it. Not only is that not really helpful, as those other people are often inactive and thus no discussion can grow, but it also distracts from the new question/discussion.
As long as the post is actually on the topic of the thread, and the thread is not outdated, and the thread is pretty short*, I think it's fine to revive a thread - rarely are all conditions fulfilled, however. Updating threads for the benefit of people searching for the topic only works for very short threads, as few people read an entire multi-page thread.
When pondering whether to revive an old thread, one should ask themself what the gain of doing so is. If the posts in the thread don't actually help for the new post, it's better to make a new thread. If the old posts clarified or established something relevant for the new post, e.g. a certain interaction between rules, than reviving the thread saves the need to redo that part, and the necro makes sense.
Basically, ask yourself this: "Would I want to read all the posts in that thread?"
*) The exception being threads about one very specific topic, like a certain guide, or a succubus in a grapple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like all Necromancy, Thread Necromancy is always appropriate and encouraged. We need more Thread Necromancy, not less.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like all Necromancy, Thread Necromancy is always appropriate and encouraged. We need more Thread Necromancy, not less.
This wins the internet's comment of the week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We consider ourselves to be a community building organization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel since the game has reached end of life, that almost any thread started in 2020 going forward should be fair game. Even if those people are gone in 10 years, their thoughts should still be relevant and worth addressing.
Consider that if one person gets to an old thread through searching, that other people will also get to an old thread through searching. You don't have to be responding to specific people. You can be responding so that future searchers will see your input.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I need to come to your thread, it was too old and you unduly disturbed the dead. Otherwise, carry on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel since the game has reached end of life...
Death is just the beginning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the oldest necro I spotted: ~10 years.
I consider adding an sought answer to an old thread a valid reason to necro. For example an old thread whose question was finally addressed by a faq or eratta.
How long before this thread can be necroed?
/cevah