Wait, don't go! This isn't the same old thread about whether undead can ever be good. This is about thread necromancy.

I've come to forums as a new member and been excited to see a thread I was interested in. Or maybe I came here from a search result or social media post that went viral a second time. So I reply without checking the date of the OP.

Often, someone will come in with a gentle slap that thread necromancy is uncool. But is it? I mean I know just because I saw one guy on the internet say something was true, doesn't mean I'd believe it. And if you think thread necromancy is poor netiquette, ask yourself, how did you come to that conclusion? Was it just because a regular of the site put you down for a post they didn't like?

Not that I have a need to necro any posts, or am trying to make excuses for any necroing I've done in the past. I just wonder if we're all depriving ourselves of something enjoyable and harmless.

Depends on the thread.

If the original thread is still relevant (eg, there haven't been any new rules released in the mean time that renders what has been said false or irrelevant) and it's a decent topic, then it's a good thing. Better to have the context of what's already been said and add to it than to rehash old ground. I'd rather a necro than yet another thread on it.

On the other hand, if the aforementioned conditions about new rules etc exist, or if it's a super niche question that was never answered and someone posts an opinion or tries to answer a question no one is asking anymore, then that's just silly. I don't want notifications coming to me in five years about a question I'd asked and long figured out either. Granted though, thread necromancy isn't the terrible thing it's sometimes portrayed as. It ranges from really good to mildly annoying. At least on other forums.

I'm probably the one you've seen doing the slapping.  Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person on this entire website that hates thread necromancy.  Blugh T_T

Since we're discussing it, I'll throw out why I just do not approve of it.  Primarily?  The discussion is dead.  Most of the original participants have moved on, and many won't even be available anymore.  Responding to something someone said two, three, or even more years ago is confusing for anyone who's still here and pointless for anyone who's not.  I've had people do that to me, I get a little alert saying "So-and-so has responded to your post in Thread X", and I have to remember what the thread was about, try to figure out which ancient post they were responding to, and then sort out whether it's even worth answering their reply.

As well, many people necro old threads with "Didn't read the rest of the thread, but..." and then proceed to start rehashing all of the same discussion/argument that already took place months or years before.  They're not adding anything new to the discussion, they're just responding to an OP they found somehow with a bunch of junk that's already been discussed to death and prolonging the pain.

It's almost always better to just start a new thread with a new perspective.  Even if the new thread is on the same subject, you may end up coming at it from a new direction.  You can reference older threads, even link to them for extended reading, but you also have to remember that the more posts there are in a thread, the less likely you are to see anyone but a handful of the longtime regulars post in it.  Twenty-page threadnoughts are intimidating to a lot of people and they just skip them by; a brand new thread with only a few replies is a different matter entirely.

Have a new discussion, with new people, who are still there to have a discussion with.  Don't try and horn in on an old discussion that's already done and everyone has moved on from.  You can't go backwards in time and insert yourself into it no matter how hard you try.

For me, I do not really mind thread necromancy in itself, but necros overall tend to be low effort and/or off topic, or they will be questions that have been answered literally in the first or second post. I do not think necromancy needs to be banned, but I think it is a good idea to have a system in place that automatically prevents new users from necroing a thread, and giving them a reminder that it is annoying to create low effort/off topic posts, and that they should at least read the thread before posting.

Once a new user has made five to ten posts and have been on the forums for about a month or two, I think it is fine for the necro restriction to be lifted.

I think if you want to discuss a topic again, you should bring it up afresh. It might retred tired ground, but just because something was said first doesn't make it sacrosanct.

Quote from Verenti >>

I think if you want to discuss a topic again, you should bring it up afresh. It might retred tired ground, but just because something was said first doesn't make it sacrosanct.

 I like this middle way, along with linking to the original thread, which I think is also a good way to deal with tangents and flamewars.

Quote from XXXGammaRay >>

For me, I do not really mind thread necromancy in itself, but necros overall tend to be low effort and/or off topic, or they will be questions that have been answered literally in the first or second post.

Or ones where the original poster was asking for suggestions on which subclass they should take three years before the thread was necroed.

I wouldn't say that thread necromancy is evil, but it's definitely bad internet manners.

Not evil, arguably chaotic.

It's not always bad, but I rarely see anything worthwhile come from it. Posters using the Search function to look for answers is great, but if they can't find satisfactory ones or feel a need to hash something out it's better to start fresh.  

I just hate thread necromancy. It's like responding to a year old text message.

What ends up happening is just a new discussion on top of an old thread. If you want to discuss the subject, just start a new discussion and people will talk about it anyway, there is no point in using an old thread - the history there is just that, history. Facts have changed, people have changed.

What Yurei said. I see so many "what should I do in my game next week" threads resurrected years later, it's not even funny. Not to mention completely solved rules questions that nevertheless get re-solved by somebody for some reason.

Thread necromancy is chaotic, not evil. Of course, in the Gygaxian tradition, chaos is just as much a valid reason to violently purge it from existence as evil would be, but I think culturally we've moved past that a bit. Maybe we can be Good, even Lawful, without going fully medieval on thread necromancers. ;P

But if you want my real opinion, check back here in 2 years.

Interesting topic for sure, as I, too have wondered and had BOTH opinions of it.  1. The necromancer who revived this thread is annoying and should be prevented from posting on threads older than 5 days, and 2. That's an interesting view on a 2 year old discussion, and one that wasn't in any of the other 4-5 pages of discussion.

SOMEtimes, I see a necro'd thread that I like and find the reason relevant.  More often, however, I find the aforementioned "They ask a question that was answered in the 3rd post" type, which I do get a little irritated with, because there is nothing new, OR it's entirely irrelevant now.

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

What Yurei said. I see so many "what should I do in my game next week" threads resurrected years later, it's not even funny. Not to mention completely solved rules questions that nevertheless get re-solved by somebody for some reason.

Thread necromancy is chaotic, not evil. Of course, in the Gygaxian tradition, chaos is just as much a valid reason to violently purge it from existence as evil would be, but I think culturally we've moved past that a bit. Maybe we can be Good, even Lawful, without going fully medieval on thread necromancers. ;P

But if you want my real opinion, check back here in 2 years.

 The OP might find the necro reply useless, but maybe someone else has a similar scenario.

I’ll take the chaotic, not evil answer. If think good necromancy exists, but it’s the exception not the rule. Even when I’ve done it unwittingly.

Thread necromancy was removed as a site infraction because it's possible to raise a thread from the dead for constructive reasons, and to ascribe all acts of thread necromancy as bad just because the thread is old was considered short sighted.

The forums have rules against non-constructive posting, so if someone casts raise dead on a thread without adding anything constructive, that's an infraction in of itself. If they revivify a thread but add something constructive, why should that be punished?

Thread necromancy is almost always a case of thoughtlessness or inattention, not active malice.  I don't know as I've encountered a single case of "oh boy, here's an old dead thread - let's bring it back and see how much everybody hates it, tee hee!"

I have seen plenty of cases of someone necroing a thread specifically to tell someone off for something they said north of a year ago.  Usually with some manner of "you're wrong and also stupid" one-liner reply that adds actually factually no value whatsoever to the Internet.  Those are what piss me off more'n anything else.  The very least you can do if you're going to be a jerk is be a jerk to somebody who's actively there to defend themself.  Yeesh.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

I have seen plenty of cases of someone necroing a thread specifically to tell someone off for something they said north of a year ago.  Usually with some manner of "you're wrong and also stupid" one-liner reply that adds actually factually no value whatsoever to the Internet.  Those are what piss me off more'n anything else.  The very least you can do if you're going to be a jerk is be a jerk to somebody who's actively there to defend themself.  Yeesh.

Then that would be a great opportunity to use the report function, specifically "Doesn't Contribute to the Discussion".

Because you're right, casting raise dead on a thread that's been inactive for months or even years just to tell someone they're wrong (especially in an abrasive fashion) is not constructive in the slightest.