Encyclopedia SpongeBobia
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Encyclopedia SpongeBobia
Encyclopedia SpongeBobia
15,595
pages
in: Archived proposals

ESB:Proposals/Necroposting rules

< ESB:Proposals
View source

Wiki
Proposal Archive
The following proposal has been discussed and is now marked as resolved. The page has been protected and now serves as an archive. Do not edit this page.
Date Resolved: May 13, 2015


Result: Passes at 71% support.


Introduction

We've had a spike of necroposting (users replying to really old threads in messages walls or forums) recently, and it has gotten to be a headache for the admins. We have no official policy on necroposting yet, which is why I'm suggesting that we amend the User Conduct section of the general policies to address it. This is what the rule should look like:

  • Don't reply to forums threads, messages on other user's walls, or blog posts that haven't been replied to in three months or more without an administrator's permission.

The wording of the rule can be changed, of course, but that's pretty much the gist of it. If you think three months are too harsh, you can still support the proposal by typing {{Support|Amount of time you want}} instead of just {{Support}}.

Proposal

Add an amendment to the policy about necroposting.

This discussion will end on Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:15 p.m., eastern time. ~JCM 02:15, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  • Oppose Strong Oppose - I don't see too much wrong with replying to old threads and haven't you ever heard of the quote "Sooner or later, everything old is new again." My grandpa says that quote a lot. - Jensonk
  • Er..that doesn't make much sense here in this case. My theory for why you opposed this is that feel that this discussion is in response to your actions. Honestly, I believe this discussion should pass since there is no point in replying to old threads as it annoys others. You tend to do this a lot and no matter how many warnings at the time, you kept doing it. You were even block on a few occassions for doing that. This discussion is to prevent any future conflicts such as the one recently. My only fear is that if this discussion doesn't pass, other users may go back to replying on old threads to their hearts content. It also seems like they're trying to do something to maintain badges or something like those day editing badges. Again, this will help prevent conflicts in the future. It doesn't matter if it doesn't seem like a big problem visibally. If other users are annoyed by that kind of action, then it make sense to have a rule like this to prevent that. It will only help, not hurt. ZeoSpark  Talk  Contribs  Edits  02:33,5/6/2015 
  • Annoyance is a matter of opinion. It doesn't annoy me. I barely pay attention to the dates of thread posts when reading and responding to topics. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 12:46, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - First, if this was about not replying to old things with useless/unhelpful comments, I would be in favor, but it's not. It's about getting rid of the freedom to post things that, if helpful, would be good for the wiki. Sometimes, resparking a conversation is a good thing. Second, I have not had any problems with people responding to old threads, so you should not generalize JCM.  120d  Talk  Contribs  120d 02:31, May 6, 2015 (UTC) 
  • Oppose Extremely Strong Oppose - 120d has some great points. This rule would actually prevent a user from responding to their blog post, say, after a period of inactivity. Also, you absolutely cannot generalize "every post." Some posts should allow this type of posting based on the topic that it is. It's a case-by-case basis. You cannot generalize it. If a topic is complete, it should be closed, not forbidden to post. What if a new user comes and responds to an old post to get a feel for community atmosphere around here? There is also added controversy if someone is blocked for replying to a post that is 2 months and 20 days old, which adds drama. Blocking new users also would scare them away when they were just simply trying to integrate themselves in the community. Just because you don't like it when someone does something, doesn't mean you should forbid it. We don't have a rule barring users from editing certain articles. We protect those articles for administrators only. The same concept can be used for threads. Simply close a thread when the topic is complete. By keeping a topic open that is complete, you are inviting users to respond. And to bring up more on 120d's points about the types of comments. If someone responds to say, a 4 month old post with very useful/helpful comments, this rule would prevent them from doing so (or rather not; they would simply be warned/blocked for a helpful comment, which doesn't make any sense). Then there is the freedom of speech thing. My main point: If the topic is done, close the thread. I think we are making too big a deal over "necroposting" and considering it negative when it is rather harmful. It seems we are just trying to look for a reason to tell someone they are violating the rules just because they responded to a post. How ridiculous is that? — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 12:41, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, let me address everything you've said:
    • 1. "This rule would actually prevent a user from responding to their blog post, say, after a period of inactivity."
    • 1. It wouldn't prevent the user from doing anything. He'd just need to ask for an admin's permission first, and if it's that an important that users be able to respond to their own blogs regardless of how old it is, I can easily add an exception for them just like I do with message walls.
    • 2. "What if a new user comes and responds to an old post to get a feel for community atmosphere around here?"
    • 2. It's the same thing as a user accidentally vandalizing a page to get a feel for editing. We'd warn them, and they'd hopefully stop doing it.
    • 3. "There is also added controversy if someone is blocked for replying to a post that is 2 months and 20 days old, which adds drama."
    • 3. Admins can misinterpret any rule, and the user would just unblocked in that case and the admin warned. I don't see how there would be controversy.
    • 4. "Blocking new users also would scare them away when they were just simply trying to integrate themselves in the community."
    • 4. They wouldn't be immediately blocked. They'd just be told to ask for an administrator's permission next time. I don't see how that would scare them away.
    • 5. "Just because you don't like it when someone does something, doesn't mean you should forbid it."
    • 5. That's the entire reason we have a policy, though. To discourage behavior most people find unacceptable. That's the same reason we ban profanity and correcting other people's grammar. Saying we shouldn't forbid necroposting is the same thing as saying we shouldn't ban those behaviors.
    • 6. "We don't have a rule barring users from editing certain articles. We protect those articles for administrators only. The same concept can be used for threads. Simply close a thread when the topic is complete."
    • 6. If a user vandalized or edit warred on several different pages, though, causing those pages to get protected, it would be reasonable to warn them, wouldn't it? That same concept can also be used for threads. Admins shouldn't have to close every thread that is older than three months just to make sure users won't necropost, nor should necroposting users make them.
    • 7. "If someone responds to say, a 4 month old post with very useful/helpful comments, this rule would prevent them from doing so (or rather not; they would simply be warned/blocked for a helpful comment, which doesn't make any sense)."
    • 7. No, it wouldn't. Like I said before, it would just require them to get an administrator's permission first.
    • 8. "If someone responds to say, a 4 month old post with very useful/helpful comments, this rule would prevent them from doing so (or rather not; they would simply be warned/blocked for a helpful comment, which doesn't make any sense)."
    • 8. I haven't seen any cases where a necropost had any tangible benefit to a discussion. Generally, all that needs to be said about a discussion is said within the first few months, and if a user does have something to add outside of that few months, it wouldn't be hard for them to get an admin's permission first.
    • 9. "Then there is the freedom of speech thing."
    • 9. Our policy has many restrictions on what you'd consider "freedom of speech", like the profanity and grammar correcting rules I cited above. There's nothing wrong with exercising your freedom of speech, but there's also nothing wrong with telling users how to exercise that freedom to speech to avoid adverse effects, which these rules do.
    • 10. "I think we are making too big a deal over "necroposting" and considering it negative when it is rather harmful."
    • 10. We're not saying users shouldn't necropost at all. We just want to set limitations so it doesn't get out of control. Those limitations aren't going to hurt anybody. At worst, it'll inconvenience users who might want to necropost in the future, but necroposting already inconveniences admins, so this rule will help us a lot more than it'll hurt us. ~JCM 21:09, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

My response:

  • 1. To go through that process is a waste of the admin's time and it's really counterproductive for someone to ask if they can respond to something. They should just be able to do it.
  • 2. Intentionally vandalizing the wiki and responding to a thread are two totally different things.
  • 3. Scaring away users based on misinterpretations. We don't need to scare anyone with a bunch more rules.
  • 4. They shouldn't ask permission to speak freely.
  • 5. Profanity is different. We are talking about free speech.
  • 6. Leaving threads open infers that the thread is still open. Closing a thread infers that the thread is still closed.
  • 7. Like I said, it's counterproductive and a waste of time to ask if you can speak freely on a certain thread, blog, etc.
  • 8. You are generalizing. Also, there are posts that do not have a set end. Such include social posts and posts regarding opinions of certain aspects of the show. If someone talks about an episode and then 4 months go by and then someone else wants to add to the conversation, they have to ask an admin first.
  • 9. Those are different.
  • 10. It's not out of control. How does it inconvenience admins?
  • — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 22:18, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral Neutral - I think it should be allowed w/o permission depending on if it's just a conversation between two users or a forum topic with new information about it, etc. but I see points of both opposers and supporters. Lumoshi (talk) 12:20, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral leaning Oppose - After reading Andrew's post he does make some good points. I'm now going to be neutral for now.WolfWink L Auron ♫ ♪ Everything is Awesome!!! ♪ ♫ Cyndaquil  03:55,5/7/2015 


Comments



Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
Advertisement