Check out all of the details of this month's Patch Notes, featuring the 16th Anniversary and VIP Renewal Update! https://mabinogi.nexon.net/news/90098/16th-anniversary-and-vip-renewal-patch-notes-march-14th
[NEW MILLETIANS] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Nexon Forums Code of Conduct. You have to register before you can post, so you can log in or create a forum name above to proceed. Thank you for your visit!

So which is right?

Comments

  • JazmynJazmyn
    Mabinogi Rep: 7,595
    Posts: 1,009
    Member
    Shoog wrote: »
    Jazmyn wrote: »
    Part of the reason it is 12 pages long though is due to merges. And aparently you are able to add information on old bug topics (7 months) as my post, which I created new as it is against the rules to necro bump, but it was merged and was told if its adding new information to a bug post it is allowed to necro it. So, as of now, the rule is more confusing then a necro bump.

    The Bug and Glitches forum section has always been an exception to the necro rule. When GM Tasket was in charge of that section, he requested that threads of the same topic be merged together in order to help keep it organized for his reports and he allowed bumping if it added more information to a report or if it helped to complete an existing one. He was pretty meticulous lol. It's just been continued for Katherz after she took over.

    I can't remember if the old forum had this stated or not in that forum section's rules/guidelines, or if it was just a request to the VFMs from the GM.

    The thing is, this is the new forums and if the rules are to be followed ONLY marketable threads can be bumped, so when you merged my topic with a topic from April, you didn't follow the guidelines properly.

    You guys don't seem to realize, what Helsa and I are saying, is that you need to expand necro bumping allowed to bugs, glitches, feedback, and suggestions at the very least, which would have allowed me to post on the post that you merged my post with in turn, causing you no trouble what so ever.
  • AquasolAquasol
    Mabinogi Rep: 5,465
    Posts: 442
    Member, Volunteer Forum Moderator
    For the record, the revised guidelines and definitions have only recently been put into place, and are not retroactive.

    I understand that there is a lot of confusion over specific, rare(but not unheard of) posting and commenting situations. We’ll inquire about whether BG, Feedback, et al posts are exempt from necrobumping, since, evidently, a lot more needs to be spread out and explained in great detail.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 23,380
    Posts: 5,764
    Member
    I do want to respond to the last several posts. But I'd rather do so after giving thought to the matter instead of posting quickly fueled and possibly betrayed by emotion. I think it may be important, before going further, if I ask perhaps a stupid question, so that we are certainly all on the same page: what is the precise definition of "Necrobumping"?
  • JazmynJazmyn
    Mabinogi Rep: 7,595
    Posts: 1,009
    Member
    edited November 24, 2018
    Aquasol wrote: »
    For the record, the revised guidelines and definitions have only recently been put into place, and are not retroactive.

    I understand that there is a lot of confusion over specific, rare(but not unheard of) posting and commenting situations. We’ll inquire about whether BG, Feedback, et al posts are exempt from necrobumping, since, evidently, a lot more needs to be spread out and explained in great detail.

    I wouldn't go as far as to say confusion... more along the lines of... miscommunication. It's actually rather simple to understand that, as a rule, only marketable threads are to be necro-bumped... It's not simple to understand why only marketable threads are allowed to be necro-bumped, which is the whole point of this thread. It's also not simple to understand why a new topic would get merged with an old topic that was referred to in the new post showing that the new poster did their research and followed the rules and neither of those topic were, in-fact, marketable topics.
    Helsa wrote: »
    I do want to respond to the last several posts. But I'd rather do so after giving thought to the matter instead of posting quickly fueled and possibly betrayed by emotion. I think it may be important, before going further, if I ask perhaps a stupid question, so that we are certainly all on the same page: what is the precise definition of "Necrobumping"?

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=necrobump

    "verb: (internet) To revive a long dormant forum thread by adding a new post, thus bringing it to the top of the forum list."

    They also go on to say "Often a tactic of trolls attempting to control a forum." Which doesn't make sense here due to how little activity the forums actually have. Plus, on these forums, it seems necro-bumping a topic draws the trolls in just so they can yell at you for necro-bumping instead of properly reporting the post/topic instead, adding to the "necro".
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 23,380
    Posts: 5,764
    Member
    Jazmyn wrote: »
    "verb: (internet) To revive a long dormant forum thread by adding a new post, thus bringing it to the top of the forum list."

    So, a post being labeled as such is done independent of it's content and context? That it is done is all that matters?
  • JazmynJazmyn
    Mabinogi Rep: 7,595
    Posts: 1,009
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Jazmyn wrote: »
    "verb: (internet) To revive a long dormant forum thread by adding a new post, thus bringing it to the top of the forum list."

    So, a post being labeled as such is done independent of it's content and context? That it is done is all that matters?

    Yup.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 23,380
    Posts: 5,764
    Member
    Jazmyn wrote: »
    Helsa wrote: »
    Jazmyn wrote: »
    "verb: (internet) To revive a long dormant forum thread by adding a new post, thus bringing it to the top of the forum list."

    So, a post being labeled as such is done independent of it's content and context? That it is done is all that matters?

    Yup.

    Do the folks "minding the store" here concur?
  • AquasolAquasol
    Mabinogi Rep: 5,465
    Posts: 442
    Member, Volunteer Forum Moderator
    These forums are privately owned and operated by Nexon, and as such all rules and terms of use are set by them. This has been repeated and noted several times, so what about the concept of the rule or its intent is left unclear?

    To reiterate:
    Except in cases where the rule is inapplicable, posting to a thread that has been inactive for an amount equal to or greater than thirty(30) days* shall be considered necrobumping, an action contra to the forums Code of Conduct, which will result in actions being taken by the moderation team (as determined by the staff), and any possible further disciplinary actions deemed necessary, carried out.

    *= A day being defined not by exact 24-hour counts, but by the calendar listing. This is becaus post-midnight, the forums remove any prior timestamps and proceed by datestamps instead.
  • JazmynJazmyn
    Mabinogi Rep: 7,595
    Posts: 1,009
    Member
    edited November 24, 2018
    Aquasol wrote: »
    These forums are privately owned and operated by Nexon, and as such all rules and terms of use are set by them. This has been repeated and noted several times, so what about the concept of the rule or its intent is left unclear?

    To reiterate:
    Except in cases where the rule is inapplicable, posting to a thread that has been inactive for an amount equal to or greater than thirty(30) days* shall be considered necrobumping, an action contra to the forums Code of Conduct, which will result in actions being taken by the moderation team (as determined by the staff), and any possible further disciplinary actions deemed necessary, carried out.

    *= A day being defined not by exact 24-hour counts, but by the calendar listing. This is becaus post-midnight, the forums remove any prior timestamps and proceed by datestamps instead.

    To reiterate:
    Necro- Bumping

    Marketable threads (Selling items in-game, art threads, etc) are allowed to be necro-bumped. This reduces players needing to make a new thread whenever they have an update to a shop.
    If a thread is necro-bumped after 30 days of the last activity and it is not a marketable thread, this will result in the thread being closed and the user being sent a PM as to why the thread was closed and reminding them of the rule in the Code of Conduct. (This will not count as a verbal warning.)


    http://forums.mabinogi.nexon.net/discussion/18399/moderation-guidelines

    ^ This is what is unclear. For example, my thread was a BUG not a MARKETABLE thread. You acting out and getting frustrated because your actions on certain rules that ARE unclear is rather unprofessional. We want to know why ONLY marketable threads are allowed to be necro-bumped yet you guys, as moderators, get to pick and choose to your liking which posts get merged, regardless of the poster following the rules. It clearly states "Marketable threads" and it should NOT be only marketable threads ESPECIALLY if you guys merge them or lock them anyways.

    EDIT: There are fifty pages of "necro" topics in the feedback and suggestions forum right now. FIFTY. These people who came up with suggestions or gave feedback are now completely discredited and no one apparently cares at all about their ideas, because guess what, if they post on their topic, it's necro'd and gets locked; if someone else creates a new topic, it gets merged with a necro topic (which necros a topic which is against the rules) or locked because it's a repeat. This rule, as it stands, just doesn't make sense. That is all. It needs to be expanded to include other areas of the forums, otherwise you guys will continuously break the rules, yet we are the ones who are at risk of our accounts being banned for doing the exact same thing you guys do eventually.
  • AquasolAquasol
    Mabinogi Rep: 5,465
    Posts: 442
    Member, Volunteer Forum Moderator
    edited November 24, 2018
    Jazmyn wrote: »
    Aquasol wrote: »
    These forums are privately owned and operated by Nexon, and as such all rules and terms of use are set by them. This has been repeated and noted several times, so what about the concept of the rule or its intent is left unclear?

    To reiterate:
    Except in cases where the rule is inapplicable, posting to a thread that has been inactive for an amount equal to or greater than thirty(30) days* shall be considered necrobumping, an action contra to the forums Code of Conduct, which will result in actions being taken by the moderation team (as determined by the staff), and any possible further disciplinary actions deemed necessary, carried out.

    *= A day being defined not by exact 24-hour counts, but by the calendar listing. This is becaus post-midnight, the forums remove any prior timestamps and proceed by datestamps instead.

    To reiterate:
    Necro- Bumping

    Marketable threads (Selling items in-game, art threads, etc) are allowed to be necro-bumped. This reduces players needing to make a new thread whenever they have an update to a shop.
    If a thread is necro-bumped after 30 days of the last activity and it is not a marketable thread, this will result in the thread being closed and the user being sent a PM as to why the thread was closed and reminding them of the rule in the Code of Conduct. (This will not count as a verbal warning.)


    http://forums.mabinogi.nexon.net/discussion/18399/moderation-guidelines

    ^ This is what is unclear. For example, my thread was a BUG not a MARKETABLE thread. You acting out and getting frustrated because your actions on certain rules that ARE unclear is rather unprofessional. We want to know why ONLY marketable threads are allowed to be necro-bumped yet you guys, as moderators, get to pick and choose to your liking which posts get merged, regardless of the poster following the rules. It clearly states "Marketable threads" and it should NOT be only marketable threads ESPECIALLY if you guys merge them or lock them anyways.

    EDIT: There are fifty pages of "necro" topics in the feedback and suggestions forum right now. FIFTY. These people who came up with suggestions or gave feedback are now completely discredited and no one apparently cares at all about their ideas, because guess what, if they post on their topic, it's necro'd and gets locked; if someone else creates a new topic, it gets merged with a necro topic (which necros a topic which is against the rules) or locked because it's a repeat. This rule, as it stands, just doesn't make sense. That is all. It needs to be expanded to include other areas of the forums, otherwise you guys will continuously break the rules, yet we are the ones who are at risk of our accounts being banned for doing the exact same thing you guys do eventually.

    I'm neither acting out nor frustrated, nor was I responding directly to you--rather, to Helsa's continued inquiry on the definition of necrobumping and its application-- in my previous post. I already discussed bringing it to the staff and asking for further clarification if any is possible earlier.

    Though you're providing a rather hyperbolic situation; I can say with confidence that if we do merge a new thread to a much older one(say, in bugs/glitches), the OP of the additional thread(s) would not be in trouble over that(and there's an automatic merger notice that precedes it), and the action itself is logged on top of that. We are fully capable of reading and understanding a note that a thread's merging is okay. It is also stated in the revised guideline that the reminder PM sent after a necrobumped thread is closed, will not count as a verbal warning.
    Veylaine
  • BronzebreakBronzebreak
    Mabinogi Rep: 3,940
    Posts: 489
    Member
    I'm just surprised there isn't an auto-lock feature on older threads (that are not applicable for non-necroing, if that makes sense).

    Surely that could be coded and not require the VFMs to babysit threads?
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 23,380
    Posts: 5,764
    Member
    Draech wrote: »
    I assume the reason behind that rule is that it allows for more constructive discussions. Replying to a year-old thread, or suggesting something in relation to that thread, will more likely cause confusion when the main idea that is replied to (not necessarily the original post) is buried within many pages. For example, the Dark Skintone Options for Elves thread is 12 pages long. As such, people have been going in circles repeatedly (some saying it's against the lore, others proving them wrong). A new thread, however, would "clean" the thread, and will allow the OP to rewrite the idea differently, often making it more polished and detailed. This cleaning process, however, does not remove the comments from the previous thread; it only archives it, and the new thread may reference it.

    This is known as topic derailment: when a post is made that makes the discussion turn 90º from the original post. This can lead to a tangent where the thread takes on two or more embedded topics at the same time. But this can happen in a thread even before it has aged out and often does. This goes back to something I said earlier: if something is okay to post before a topic has aged out then why should it not be afterwards. This statement can lead to the following one: if something is not okay before a topic has aged out of course it won't be afterwards therefore the aging out is irrelevant. So, although this sounds like the kind of reason I was looking for, and I do thank you for your contribution, it doesn't justify the rule since the relationship between this scenario and the rule it's self is non sequitur.

    Let me give a silly example of what I'm trying to find out here. Suppose you live in a county that has a law stating: "Every time you see an old lady in the street, throw soup on her." Some folks will ask, "What if I pass an old lady in the street and I don't have soup? Am I obligated to go get some immediately and come back quickly with it to the best of my ability?" Or, "What if I have soup and I see an old lady but she's not in the street? Can I throw soup on her anyway or should I force her into the street first?" Or,"What if I am an old lady and I need to go to the store? Should I throw soup on myself before I leave?" I'm the person asking,"Why are we throwing soup on old ladies in the first place." So far, the answer I've gotten is: "Because it's the law. The law is clearly stated, I don't see what your problem is." When I ask what the justification for the law is, the answer I've gotten is "All the neighboring counties also have this law."

    I think this is actually the entirety of the reason why these forums have the rule; that is: that it's just because other ones do. Someone had to be first enacting it, why did they do so? If the answer from the powers that be here is, "How should we know?" then that would be sad since it would mean that a rule was blindly enacted without thinking about the original intent of it. Going back to our example, to be fair I've only heard from a policeman, we really need to hear from someone down at city hall.
  • DraechDraech
    Mabinogi Rep: 4,390
    Posts: 355
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Draech wrote: »
    I assume the reason behind that rule is that it allows for more constructive discussions. Replying to a year-old thread, or suggesting something in relation to that thread, will more likely cause confusion when the main idea that is replied to (not necessarily the original post) is buried within many pages. For example, the Dark Skintone Options for Elves thread is 12 pages long. As such, people have been going in circles repeatedly (some saying it's against the lore, others proving them wrong). A new thread, however, would "clean" the thread, and will allow the OP to rewrite the idea differently, often making it more polished and detailed. This cleaning process, however, does not remove the comments from the previous thread; it only archives it, and the new thread may reference it.

    This is known as topic derailment: when a post is made that makes the discussion turn 90º from the original post. This can lead to a tangent where the thread takes on two or more embedded topics at the same time. But this can happen in a thread even before it has aged out and often does. This goes back to something I said earlier: if something is okay to post before a topic has aged out then why should it not be afterwards. This statement can lead to the following one: if something is not okay before a topic has aged out of course it won't be afterwards therefore the aging out is irrelevant. So, although this sounds like the kind of reason I was looking for, and I do thank you for your contribution, it doesn't justify the rule since the relationship between this scenario and the rule it's self is non sequitur.

    Let me give a silly example of what I'm trying to find out here. Suppose you live in a county that has a law stating: "Every time you see an old lady in the street, throw soup on her." Some folks will ask, "What if I pass an old lady in the street and I don't have soup? Am I obligated to go get some immediately and come back quickly with it to the best of my ability?" Or, "What if I have soup and I see an old lady but she's not in the street? Can I throw soup on her anyway or should I force her into the street first?" Or,"What if I am an old lady and I need to go to the store? Should I throw soup on myself before I leave?" I'm the person asking,"Why are we throwing soup on old ladies in the first place." So far, the answer I've gotten is: "Because it's the law. The law is clearly stated, I don't see what your problem is." When I ask what the justification for the law is, the answer I've gotten is "All the neighboring counties also have this law."

    I think this is actually the entirety of the reason why these forums have the rule; that is: that it's just because other ones do. Someone had to be first enacting it, why did they do so? If the answer from the powers that be here is, "How should we know?" then that would be sad since it would mean that a rule was blindly enacted without thinking about the original intent of it. Going back to our example, to be fair I've only heard from a policeman, we really need to hear from someone down at city hall.

    I understand your query, though I nonetheless believe the rule was set to avoid discussions that repeat themselves, or in the case of your example, to avoid people throwing more dangerous things than soup. On the other hand, I completely agree that the rule needs to be revised and adapted to our forums, and have it enforced according to the way it's written rather than the way it's interpreted by any "policeman." And honestly, a set time before a thread is "outdated" is the wrong approach to dealing with necro-bumps. Instead, a thread should be considered "old" when it becomes irrelevant, rather than when a certain time has passed. However, I believe the rule of bumping threads of certain categories should be revised, described and enforced as well, because some posts in Feedback and Suggestions are bumped every so often without anything being added to it, and someone started doing that in Bugs and Glitches (that one amazes me).

    Jeremy Crawford, writer for D&D's Sage Advice column, has written this in one of his articles:
    Link to article

    When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.

    RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

    Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we published.

    RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but fail with another.

    When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.

    RAF. Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to his or her players. Such DMs aim for RAF, “rules as fun.”

    In this case, I believe we're seeing too much of RAW, not getting enough answers for RAI, and not enough leniency for RAF. Though with this in mind, I believe rules should be revised on a regular basis, and explanations given officially as to what the intent was, so that there is no misinterpretation of a rule.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 23,380
    Posts: 5,764
    Member
    edited January 8, 2019
    Draech wrote: »
    I assume the reason behind that rule is that it allows for more constructive discussions. Replying to a year-old thread, or suggesting something in relation to that thread, will more likely cause confusion when the main idea that is replied to (not necessarily the original post) is buried within many pages. For example, the Dark Skintone Options for Elves thread is 12 pages long. As such, people have been going in circles repeatedly (some saying it's against the lore, others proving them wrong). A new thread, however, would "clean" the thread, and will allow the OP to rewrite the idea differently, often making it more polished and detailed. This cleaning process, however, does not remove the comments from the previous thread; it only archives it, and the new thread may reference it.
    Helsa wrote: »
    This is known as topic derailment: when a post is made that makes the discussion turn 90º from the original post. This can lead to a tangent where the thread takes on two or more embedded topics at the same time. But this can happen in a thread even before it has aged out and often does. This goes back to something I said earlier: if something is okay to post before a topic has aged out then why should it not be afterwards. This statement can lead to the following one: if something is not okay before a topic has aged out of course it won't be afterwards therefore the aging out is irrelevant. So, although this sounds like the kind of reason I was looking for, and I do thank you for your contribution, it doesn't justify the rule since the relationship between this scenario and the rule it's self is non sequitur.

    Let me give a silly example of what I'm trying to find out here. Suppose you live in a county that has a law stating: "Every time you see an old lady in the street, throw soup on her." Some folks will ask, "What if I pass an old lady in the street and I don't have soup? Am I obligated to go get some immediately and come back quickly with it to the best of my ability?" Or, "What if I have soup and I see an old lady but she's not in the street? Can I throw soup on her anyway or should I force her into the street first?" Or,"What if I am an old lady and I need to go to the store? Should I throw soup on myself before I leave?" I'm the person asking,"Why are we throwing soup on old ladies in the first place." So far, the answer I've gotten is: "Because it's the law. The law is clearly stated, I don't see what your problem is." When I ask what the justification for the law is, the answer I've gotten is "All the neighboring counties also have this law."

    I think this is actually the entirety of the reason why these forums have the rule; that is: that it's just because other ones do. Someone had to be first enacting it, why did they do so? If the answer from the powers that be here is, "How should we know?" then that would be sad since it would mean that a rule was blindly enacted without thinking about the original intent of it. Going back to our example, to be fair I've only heard from a policeman, we really need to hear from someone down at city hall.
    Draech wrote: »
    I understand your query, though I nonetheless believe the rule was set to avoid discussions that repeat themselves, or in the case of your example, to avoid people throwing more dangerous things than soup. On the other hand, I completely agree that the rule needs to be revised and adapted to our forums, and have it enforced according to the way it's written rather than the way it's interpreted by any "policeman." And honestly, a set time before a thread is "outdated" is the wrong approach to dealing with necro-bumps. Instead, a thread should be considered "old" when it becomes irrelevant, rather than when a certain time has passed. However, I believe the rule of bumping threads of certain categories should be revised, described and enforced as well, because some posts in Feedback and Suggestions are bumped every so often without anything being added to it, and someone started doing that in Bugs and Glitches (that one amazes me).

    Jeremy Crawford, writer for D&D's Sage Advice column, has written this in one of his articles:
    Link to article

    When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.

    RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

    Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we published.

    RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but fail with another.

    When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.

    RAF. Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to his or her players. Such DMs aim for RAF, “rules as fun.”

    In this case, I believe we're seeing too much of RAW, not getting enough answers for RAI, and not enough leniency for RAF. Though with this in mind, I believe rules should be revised on a regular basis, and explanations given officially as to what the intent was, so that there is no misinterpretation of a rule.

    Some sites do have rules against topic derailment. There are arguments to be made for having such things in place but even then sometimes it is the case that a discussion might need to take a detour first before proceeding. Such as in the cases when topics have far reaching consequences or are effected by a number of different conditions, and each different instance needs to be tracked down in order to discuss the whole. Where this is not the case, the admin panels of these forum sites do allow not only for topic merges but topic splitting, for those cases where the discussion does derail but the tangent is still of value and worth keeping in of it's self. But, at the end of the day, time between posts is a non-sequitur here. Topics can derail even before the time to post limit has been exceeded.

    It is very likely that the rule exists here simply because other sites have it and no further thought was given to the matter. But wouldn't it be sad if the original site that created the rule in the first place, did so for something less than noble. For example what if "the first site" was dedicated to a topic where there were already a number of already existing forum sites on the general subject and some aggressive admin adopted the rule because the consequence of it is that the total number of threads on-site increases. And that the whole point was to impress folks considering joining by inflated statistics regarding site activity.

    Regarding RA(WIF), although this is in regards to gaming, it is nonetheless worth thinking about; afterall equivalency exists in law. In countries such as France and the United States, RAW takes precedent although where ambiguity occurs then a judge can turn to RA(IF). Countries such as the United Kingdom are less reliant on RAW (what with them having an unwritten constitution and all :S ); their judges go straight to RAF. Each system has it's advantages and disadvantages. But how do we apply it in this particular case? RAW is pretty straight forward: no posting after 30 days. RAI is a bit vague but not entirely: because other sites do this too. RAF is utterly ambiguous here. Why? Because while the reason for the rule (because other sites have it) is known, the point of it is not. That is what I'm trying to find out.

    In this discussion, we've already heard from the folks who enforce the rules. I thank them for their input. Since they did not set the policy and were likely not present in the action when it was set, but merely inherited the rule after obtaining their roles here, I think they actually don't know why the rule is so here at this site. Please understand, I don't mean this as an insult. I think they are trying their best to do their jobs and to be as transparent as they can, but I think, they don't have the answer that I'm looking for. What we really need is for the folks who set the policy to join this discussion.
  • DraechDraech
    Mabinogi Rep: 4,390
    Posts: 355
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    Draech wrote: »
    I assume the reason behind that rule is that it allows for more constructive discussions. Replying to a year-old thread, or suggesting something in relation to that thread, will more likely cause confusion when the main idea that is replied to (not necessarily the original post) is buried within many pages. For example, the Dark Skintone Options for Elves thread is 12 pages long. As such, people have been going in circles repeatedly (some saying it's against the lore, others proving them wrong). A new thread, however, would "clean" the thread, and will allow the OP to rewrite the idea differently, often making it more polished and detailed. This cleaning process, however, does not remove the comments from the previous thread; it only archives it, and the new thread may reference it.
    Helsa wrote: »
    This is known as topic derailment: when a post is made that makes the discussion turn 90º from the original post. This can lead to a tangent where the thread takes on two or more embedded topics at the same time. But this can happen in a thread even before it has aged out and often does. This goes back to something I said earlier: if something is okay to post before a topic has aged out then why should it not be afterwards. This statement can lead to the following one: if something is not okay before a topic has aged out of course it won't be afterwards therefore the aging out is irrelevant. So, although this sounds like the kind of reason I was looking for, and I do thank you for your contribution, it doesn't justify the rule since the relationship between this scenario and the rule it's self is non sequitur.

    Let me give a silly example of what I'm trying to find out here. Suppose you live in a county that has a law stating: "Every time you see an old lady in the street, throw soup on her." Some folks will ask, "What if I pass an old lady in the street and I don't have soup? Am I obligated to go get some immediately and come back quickly with it to the best of my ability?" Or, "What if I have soup and I see an old lady but she's not in the street? Can I throw soup on her anyway or should I force her into the street first?" Or,"What if I am an old lady and I need to go to the store? Should I throw soup on myself before I leave?" I'm the person asking,"Why are we throwing soup on old ladies in the first place." So far, the answer I've gotten is: "Because it's the law. The law is clearly stated, I don't see what your problem is." When I ask what the justification for the law is, the answer I've gotten is "All the neighboring counties also have this law."

    I think this is actually the entirety of the reason why these forums have the rule; that is: that it's just because other ones do. Someone had to be first enacting it, why did they do so? If the answer from the powers that be here is, "How should we know?" then that would be sad since it would mean that a rule was blindly enacted without thinking about the original intent of it. Going back to our example, to be fair I've only heard from a policeman, we really need to hear from someone down at city hall.
    Draech wrote: »
    I understand your query, though I nonetheless believe the rule was set to avoid discussions that repeat themselves, or in the case of your example, to avoid people throwing more dangerous things than soup. On the other hand, I completely agree that the rule needs to be revised and adapted to our forums, and have it enforced according to the way it's written rather than the way it's interpreted by any "policeman." And honestly, a set time before a thread is "outdated" is the wrong approach to dealing with necro-bumps. Instead, a thread should be considered "old" when it becomes irrelevant, rather than when a certain time has passed. However, I believe the rule of bumping threads of certain categories should be revised, described and enforced as well, because some posts in Feedback and Suggestions are bumped every so often without anything being added to it, and someone started doing that in Bugs and Glitches (that one amazes me).

    Jeremy Crawford, writer for D&D's Sage Advice column, has written this in one of his articles:
    Link to article

    When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.

    RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

    Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we published.

    RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but fail with another.

    When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.

    RAF. Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to his or her players. Such DMs aim for RAF, “rules as fun.”

    In this case, I believe we're seeing too much of RAW, not getting enough answers for RAI, and not enough leniency for RAF. Though with this in mind, I believe rules should be revised on a regular basis, and explanations given officially as to what the intent was, so that there is no misinterpretation of a rule.

    Some sites do have rules against topic derailment. There are arguments to be made for having such things in place but even then sometimes it is the case that a discussion might need to take a detour first before proceeding. Such as in the cases when topics have far reaching consequences or are effected by a number of different conditions, and each different instance needs to be tracked down in order to discuss the whole. Where this is not the case, the admin panels of these forum sites do allow not only for topic merges but topic splitting, for those cases where the discussion does derail but the tangent is still of value and worth keeping in of it's self. But, at the end of the day, time between posts is a non-sequitur here. Topics can derail even before the time to post limit has been exceeded.

    It is very likely that the rule exists here simply because other sites have it and no further thought was given to the matter. But wouldn't it be sad if the original site that created the rule in the first place, did so for something less than noble. For example what if "the first site" was dedicated to a topic where there were already a number of already existing forum sites on the general subject and some aggressive admin adopted the rule because the consequence of it is that the total number of threads on-site increases. And that the whole point was to impress folks considering joining by inflated statistics regarding site activity.

    Regarding RA(WIF), although this is in regards to gaming, it is nonetheless worth thinking about; afterall equivalency exists in law. In countries such as France and the United States, RAW takes precedent although where ambiguity occurs then a judge can turn to RA(IF). Countries such as the United Kingdom are less reliant on RAW (what with them having an unwritten constitution and all :S ); their judges go straight to RAF. Each system has it's advantages and disadvantages. But how do we apply it in this particular case? RAW is pretty straight forward: no posting after 30 days. RAI is a bit vague but not entirely: because other sites do this too. RAF is utterly ambiguous here. Why? Because while the reason for the rule (because other sites have it) is known, the point of it is not. That is what I'm trying to find out.

    In this discussion, we've already heard from the folks who enforce the rules. I thank them for their input. Since they did not set the policy and were likely not present in the action when it was set, but merely inherited the rule after obtaining their roles here, I think they actually don't know why the rule is so here at this site. Please understand, I don't mean this as an insult. I think they are trying their best to do their jobs and to be as transparent as they can, but I think, they don't have the answer that I'm looking for. What we really need is for the folks who set the policy to join this discussion.

    Here's my thought on it: the rule is in place to avoid irrelevant additions to old discussions merely to bump it, or so that the poster attracts attention. Considering this option, it becomes possible the rule is not there because other forums have it, but rather because such a rule has been used for many things, from forums to legislative debates to police cases.

    Closed Cases
    I'll expand on the latter, since that's what I'm most familiar with, and compare it to the concept of the rule (not RAW, but RAI). Say a case is solved; in such a case, adding anything once all pertaining evidence has already been recorded would not only be pointless, but could affect the integrity of the case. Although it is true some new evidence for closed cases can appear some time after (such as new testimony), it is exceptional and, more often than not, falsified evidence.

    In terms of forum rules, adding anything to, say, Dark Skintone for Elves after a certain amount of time would be either:
    - irrelevant, (a comment such as "Yay! Finally")
    - inadequate, (a new and seperate suggestion, such as "Let Humans have beards")
    - or baiting. (a comment like "Elves shouldn't have dark skin 'cause it's against the lore," which has been proven false many times)

    Cold Cases
    A cold case refers to a case that has not been closed due to a lack of a definite culprit. A cold case is put aside if no more information is available at the time, and pursuing it further would hinder other cases. As such, although no conclusion was reached, the case is closed for all intents and purposes. However, the case can be reopened if new evidence is added, and that evidence could make the case move forward. For example, the case of Cédrika Provencher (a missing 9-year-old from 2007) became a cold case because evidence was scarce. The case was reopened in 2015, when her remains were found, and the case was reopened (with a lead suspect being heavily investigated).

    Regarding the forums, certain discussions (such as Dan tests being RNG) have been discussed at length. New discussions, or new posts added to the previous discussions are often just people saying "Yeah, that's true." As such, while nothing new is added, the discussion would keep popping up on the first page of Feedback & Suggestions; and if many subjects are as such, then the first page will be littered with "cold cases" and no attention will be given to other, newer discussions.

    What I'd suggest is closing the discussion (i.e. cold case), yet allowing someone to "appeal" by posting on it, and their comment would be reviewed before a decision is made on unlocking the thread again due to new ideas, or keeping it locked due to irrelevent "bumping."


    Ultimately, I don't think the rule is just a "they did it, we do too" kinda thing, but more of a social agreement that beating a dead horse brings nothing to the userbase, and tries to maintain a functional and well-balanced environment. And though it is true that time between posts can be irrelevant, the rule does not kill a topic, but rather locks it as a preventive mesure (for closed cases) and allows for unlocking, if the discussion can progress further (for cold cases).