Sign in or 
Share this|
PedroAsani |
Rule 11
Dec 5 2009, 8:55 PM EST
Reposted as suggested:Also, see rule 11, no Forum Necromancy please. -Alex, WPC RU Been through this before. You start a thread on an existing topic, you get told to use the search bar. Add to an existing thread, it's a necropost. Rule 11 is bad, because there is no real definition of what a "long-dead thread" actually is. Also, the underlined bit "when your reply adds no value to the conversation" doesn't apply, since what I said was relevant. Suggestion: Define what a long dead thread is. Maybe even lock old threads. But be consistent between the "No necroposts" and "Use the search bar" admonishments. Do you find this valuable? |
Naru2008 |
1. RE: Rule 11
Dec 5 2009, 9:13 PM EST
"Reposted as suggested:I do not believe I suggested you to re-post this. Do you find this valuable? |
|
PedroAsani |
2. RE: Rule 11
Dec 5 2009, 9:37 PM EST
You said suggestions should be made this way. This is a suggestion. It is a repost.
Do you find this valuable?
|
CaptainSpaz |
3. RE: Rule 11
Dec 6 2009, 12:26 AM EST
It is only a violation of Rule #11 if you post to an old thread of which the question has already been answered, or if you make an irrelevant reply to an old thread.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Naru2008 |
4. RE: Rule 11
Dec 6 2009, 12:35 AM EST
"It is only a violation of Rule #11 if you post to an old thread of which the question has already been answered, or if you make an irrelevant reply to an old thread."Which the thread has to be 2 weeks or older to violate rule #11. Do you find this valuable? |
CryingDove |
5. RE: Rule 11
Dec 6 2009, 12:58 AM EST
"Which the thread has to be 2 weeks or older to violate rule #11."At one time there was a moderator who was clearing out irrelevant threads. There were over 3000 threads deleted from the time frame of 2006 to early 2008. The threads that remained during that time period, were relevant to today's Wetpaint Wikis. I think that process has stopped and should be started up again. A time period for necromancy is not defined in rule 11, nor should it be, if the information in the thread is relevant and a post adds relevancy to the thread or the thread still contains an open issue. "Long dead" threads in most cases have lost any relevancy to today's wikis and should be removed. This would assure when a search is performed on the threads it will only return results that are useful. A suggestion to have threads that have been resolved, is to add a Resolved Statement as the last reply to that thread and have that thread locked. This would not only inform the members of what, how and when the content was finalized but it would also, eliminate any future replies to that thread, thus preventing necromancy violations. Do you find this valuable? |
|
CryingDove |
6. RE: Rule 11
Dec 6 2009, 1:06 AM EST
Addendum to thread suggestion.Any thread reporting a bug that has been fixed by Wetpaint should be deleted for they no longer have any relevancy. The Site Status page normally has that type of information supplied to the members. I can think of at least 10 different threads hanging around from the File Attachment Bug. It has been fixed, so delete those threads and add a paragraph on the Site Status page. Do you find this valuable? |
|
PedroAsani |
7. RE: Rule 11
Dec 6 2009, 10:51 AM EST
"Which the thread has to be 2 weeks or older to violate rule #11."And from which orifice did you pull that number? Because it is nowhere to be found on the WCR, or the forum necromancy link contained therein. New suggestion: Quit making things up. You are just being an idiot. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Naru2008 |
8. RE: Rule 11
Dec 6 2009, 11:40 AM EST
| Post edited: Dec 6 2009, 11:47 AM EST
"And from which orifice did you pull that number? Because it is nowhere to be found on the WCR, or the forum necromancy link contained therein.I believe it use to say two weeks or older is Forum Necromancy. It still is 2 weeks or older. I'm sure any one of us Wetpaint helpers can tell you that. I'm not making this up fyi. ' You are just being an idiot. ' My reply: Bite your tounge and wash your mouth out with soap. I am no idiot. I would say other things, but, I'm just going to keep my cool. -Edited part- Do not flame me. See rule 3. http://www.wetpaintcentral.com/page/Wetpaint+Central+Rules Do you find this valuable? |
awesomegamingstaff |
9. RE: Rule 11
Dec 6 2009, 11:55 AM EST
Moderator, please lock this thread.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
PedroAsani |
10. RE: Rule 11
Dec 6 2009, 12:45 PM EST
"I believe it use to say two weeks or older is Forum Necromancy. It still is 2 weeks or older. I'm sure any one of us Wetpaint helpers can tell you that."If it doesn't say that anywhere (a) how are users meant to know (b) does it still make it so? My original assertion still stands. Some kind of consistency is required because it is extremely frustrating to be alternately told "Use the search bar" and "No necroposts." Particularly ridiculous is the 2 week period (if it is true) since Wetpaint takes weeks, sometimes months, to fix an issue. Do you want multiple threads every two weeks on the same issue, or "necroposts" until the situation is resolved? Do you find this valuable? |
|
Naru2008 |
11. RE: Rule 11
Dec 6 2009, 1:20 PM EST
"If it doesn't say that anywhere (a) how are users meant to know (b) does it still make it so?Um, last time I checked, Wetpaint has solved problems in less than a week. Plus, many users will/would bump up problem threads to allow Jeremy to see it so he can report it as a bug/glitch, but, even if the 2 weeks doesn't apply anymore, it still doesn't give you the right to flame me. Btw, please edit your post, the part where you called me an idiot. Do you find this valuable? |
|
1#brave |
12. RE: Rule 11
Dec 6 2009, 1:41 PM EST
"And from which orifice did you pull that number? Because it is nowhere to be found on the WCR, or the forum necromancy link contained therein.This is your warning. Do not flame. This is a violation of rule 3. http://www.wetpaintcentral.com/page/Wetpaint+Central+Rules 1#brave Wetpaint Moderator Do you find this valuable? |
