• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

Rules of the site - Necromancy

Rinn said:
There's an easier solution: Follow the rules and DON'T NECRO.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

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.


magic9mushroom said:
Hey Xryuran, thanks for your necromancy. I wouldn't have found that otherwise.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Your Welcome. Always happy to help a Friend/Potential Friend/Acquaintance/Enemy find a good story.
 
Xryuran said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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.)
 
january1may said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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.
 
Xryuran said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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.
 
Rinn said:
Laziness isn't an acceptable excuse, guys.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do you truly wish to take this path? It may be more treacherous than you think.

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.
 
magic9mushroom said:
Do you truly wish to take this path? It may be more treacherous than you think.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're cute.

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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

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 took me less than a minute to come up with those.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

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.
 
Rinn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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.
 
*Finally notice this*

I don't remember this being up to debate.

Starfox5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Are you asking to be hit? Because it looks like to me you're asking to be hit.
 
Starfox5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Guys... necromancy rule is not for debate... wanna post in something old? You can do that, you just gotta add something substantial to it...

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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Starfox5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually contributing posts are still allowed, though. Just short, simple posts aren't allowed. So unless your "discussion" is just a bunch of "wowee, the MC sure is coolio, I can't wait for the next update, gee whiz," you should be fine. And if you really want to restart discussion of a story that's dead, make an omake. Authors tend to love that shit.

Whining about "b-but we're bein' oppressed!" doesn't have any effect when there aren't any punishments for it, unless you act like a petulant child that continues to break rules even after they're scolded for it.
 
Biigoh said:
Guys... necromancy rule is not for debate... wanna post in something old? You can do that, you just gotta add something substantial to it...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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?
 
sunspark said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But simply posting a response to a necromantic post just means you're ALSO a necromancer who has also done thread necromancy.
 
Megaolix said:
Are you asking to be hit? Because it looks like to me you're asking to be hit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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.
ultima333 said:
Actually contributing posts are still allowed, though. Just short, simple posts aren't allowed. So unless your "discussion" is just a bunch of "wowee, the MC sure is coolio, I can't wait for the next update, gee whiz," you should be fine. And if you really want to restart discussion of a story that's dead, make an omake. Authors tend to love that shit.

Whining about "b-but we're bein' oppressed!" doesn't have any effect when there aren't any punishments for it, unless you act like a petulant child that continues to break rules even after they're scolded for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Analysis and discussion has been rejected by Megaolix and tehelgee as a significant contribution.
 
Last edited:
magic9mushroom said:
Analysis and discussion has been rejected by Megaolix and tehelgee as a significant contribution.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Do I need to point at the actual rules page and not just quote the section on when necromancy is allowed again?

https://forum.questionablequesting.com/threads/rules.1/

tehelgee said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
magic9mushroom said:
Are you saying it's part of the "etc."? If so, great.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It is... do note that tehelgee and megaolix have stated that they're against people asking if the quest or story is dead or alive or going to be continued.

An actual discussion post or omake that is not a single line thing would go under the etc.
 
Biigoh said:
It is... do note that tehelgee and megaolix have stated that they're against people asking if the quest or story is dead or alive or going to be continued.

An actual discussion post or omake that is not a single line thing would go under the etc.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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!"
 
Starfox5 said:
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!"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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.
 
gibbousmoons said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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.
 
Starfox5 said:
And you should tell people that. This thread shows they did not know what was allowed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
sunspark said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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.
 
gibbousmoons said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top