There's this new term I'm noticing called necroposting, where posts are locked after 3 months of being "dead", but this doesn't make sense for sections like current events or religion, where most of the posts are over 3 months. I suppose one could restart the topic every three months, but that's not fostering community.

Yeah, I personally don't like the whole "necro" thing (I understand it's common on message boards/forums, but this is the only site I've used that does it) -- stuff can happen again months later, suggestions that don't actually get implemented often get re-suggested, and sometimes a more "conversational" thread just doesn't get any posts for a while. It might just be my complete hatred for having to open my own threads rather than just sneaking into someone else's, but I really don't like the idea, even if I get why it exists.

Personally I have no problem with Subeta's necro policy. It's more generous of a time than some sites I play on and as said, if you really want to carry on a dead convo then you can make a new thread on it as opposed to trying to reawaken something from like 5 years ago.

I understand the frustration when you have something to add to the topic and don't want to start it all over again in Debate, but a lot of Debate threads turn into just beating a dead horse after awhile so I do think the necro rule should still apply there. I'm pretty sure it already doesn't apply in Problems & Bugs, which is the only forum I really think should be exempt.

I do think it should be made more clear somehow that there is a necro rule, because people clearly aren't reading the rules. But I'm not sure there's anything to be done about that.

I'd rather people be beating a dead horse (of course figuratively, never literally) on the thread itself than beating a dead horse in a newer thread. A newer thread looks like a waste of space to me. Plus if the topic really is that old and dead, no one's going to respond to the necro post anyway, right? If people do respond, it's because there's still something left to contribute to the topic. The only downside is pinging users who might not be around, but if they never respond, there's not much harm in it.

I don't really understand why there isn't an automated system for boards that haven't been posted on in 3 months? Like, why isn't there a system that automatically locks those boards?

If it's impossible to do that, then why isn't there an automated system that works exactly like account inactivity? That gives a giant red warning bar at the top of every board that hasn't been posted on in 3 months saying-- "Warning: this board hasn't been posted on in 3 months, so it's considered to old to be posted on, doing so could result in a warning on your account!". Then there'd be no surprise for anyone (who's read the rules and forgot after a while, or tl;dr the rules in the first place).

Having the forum-specific rules linked at the top of the main forums page would help, I think. As it is right now, you have to kind of hunt for them. While common courtesy will keep most people from breaking those rules, the whole necro thing is one of those that isn't immediately obvious, and I see people often break it without realizing it or meaning to.

And it's not like they're spamming, either - often times the "necroed" thread is still relevant and the person who posted on it made an intelligent post that contributed to the discussion. Why punish them for that, even a little bit? That has always irritated the hell out of me. Someone new tries to participate (or someone who's been around a while accidentally misses the date of the last post) and we snipe at them for not knowing a rule that they didn't know they needed to know.

"But they can always make a new thread!" Yeah, yeah, I know. But if there's already one that's still relevant, then I really don't see why it can't still be used, just because it's older than an arbitrary three-month time limit.

But on the other hand, I can also see where having a time limit on threads is a good thing, especially if it makes things easier on the mods. As big as these forums are, I'm all for that. So basically, here's where I stand. If the three-month rule is that important, then it needs to be more visible than it is now. Again, the quickest and easiest way I can think of is to link to the forum-specific rules on the top of the main forums page, where it can be more easily seen.

Maybe also look into coding that automatically locks threads older than three months (from its last post) if possible, and give mods the option to reopen any that have good reason to stay open.

I don't see this as all that high a priority thing. Are people genuinely getting verbally-warned or officially-warned about this, or is the MM just posting something admonitory and then locking the thread?

I know that around Survival and Morostide the number of necroed (necro-ed? necrod?) threads go up. I suspect but cannot prove that the temptation to be all magicalish necromancery during the times when there really are undead hanging about is just too tempting to users. Putting the rules more obvious or large sounds to me like it's making a problem that doesn't exist, and a temptation to create a problem by specifically marking it out compared to the other Rules of Subeta.

There really should be an automated system that locks a thread at the 3 month mark to prevent necro'ing, at least in the subforums where necro'ing is prohibited.

I agree this rule really needs to be better labeled somehow. Its one I see broken quite often.

As for the rule itself, I can see both sides of the argument. Like others have said, auto-locking or a warning banner are both good ideas.

I think "necro" threads should either be auto-locked or left open for revival, especially if it's still on the first page.

I wish they would be locked after 3 months and then deleted after say... 6? We have pages and pages of empty useless threads that are probably just taking up space on the server.

I really hate the necro rule in subforums where 1) There aren't a lot of threads being made 2) There isn't a lot of activity so it's easy for a topic to go old and 3) Threads are still relevant

Take any of the suggestion subforums. I made on a suggestion topic on an elephant pet months and months ago. It's already past necroing, but it's still on the first page. I made this topic because I accidentally necroed the originally elephant pet topic, that was ALSO ON THE FIRST PAGE WHEN I NECROED IT.

Elephant pets are always relevant until they get made on site imo, but why should I make another topic when there is one still sitting there. That's just silly.

I totally agree with this, I think like others have said they should autolock after 30 months and potentially set a page cap on forums (maybe differ the cap based on the business of each forum-sub-forum) and once it reaches that capped page it's gone. Also forums need a search engine, if there was a cap/autolock system in place people could find answers they're looking for without creating posts someone else answered not so long ago.