Rules of the site - Necromancy

[Nekraa]

It looks pretty clear to me too. Now, I'm unlikely to resurrect a thread anyway. Because it'd feel... mm, a pressure to do a greater contribution than normal? Yes. In active threads there's not an as large requirement/impetuous for a post's contribution. Be on topic, add to the topic. One-line jokes are ok in active threads. But not in a thread that is sleeping.

Stuff like that.

 

[january1may]

Reminds me of that one recent time on SV when I made a post on an active quest thread about a typo (a rather significant one admittedly)... in a years-old post, from a different thread (of the same quest), by a different QM.
If I didn't know that the thread was active, and that my post would be lost among dozens of others, I wouldn't have done that at all - even though SV doesn't technically have any rules against thread necromancy.

 

[Priapus]

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 shrink...

The minimum content requirements on a pseudo-necromantic post are laxer here than on, say, SB. (If memory serves, you basically have to be posting an update i you are posting into an old quest on SB).

All of the listed examples are much higher-content than, say, an analysis of quest events, and especially combined with the expectation many will have that requirements will be stricter, this creates the impression that the rule is more reatrictive than it is.

You could better convey the intent of the rule if you added an example that reflected somewhere around the minimum acceptable content.

Whether the reduction in clarifications, explanations and such is worth whatever hassles are involved in tweaking the wording of the rules is your call, though.