Can we amend Thread Necromancy rules for handbook / index / guide threads?

[Nifft]

Hello GitP staff & concerned 'netizens,

I'd like to propose that Handbook / Index / Guide threads (hereafter "HIG threads") receive different treatment from threads with more usual discussion patterns.

In specific, I'd like to propose that in HIG threads a comment shall not be a rules violation if the comment is:
- Substantive
- Topical
- Consists of corrections / additions / augmentations

Comments like "Thanks!" or "Good stuff I used this last session" can still be a rules violation, if you wish, because they're not substantive additions to the topic.

Thanks, -N

[Psyren]

I second this suggestion. I've reached out to mods to get necromancy exceptions when my older handbooks get bumped, but it would be nice if there was a more general rule in place. After all, these things are designed to be used (and for games that are still in print, kept updated) long after the necromancy period has expired

[Bohandas]

Thirded! This makes sense!

EDIT:
Heck, it should be amended for all threads provided that the comment is both substantive and topical. Otherwise the board just gets cluttered up with the same thread being created over and over and over and over again; it's bad enough that we also have the page limit on threads, we don't need this cluttering things up as well

[Grey_Wolf_c]

From the "Why is thread necromancy a bad thing" thread:

1) The posting population is inconstant and discussions lose momentum. Reviving an old discussion is typically counterproductive because the originators have likely moved on, having lost interest in the discussion or concluded that it has run it's course.

That being said, the policy is actually *helpful* in fostering an active community -- new people can start, engage and mold their own discussions that previous posters have lost interest in (typically because they've been discussed to death) without having to defer to the conclusions of previous conversations.

But mind you, a duplicate of a recent thread will likely be nixed by the mods. But a discussion about ... the TV show Scrubs that started two years ago has little bearing on the attitude of current posters.

Azrael's explanation of the thread necromancy rules is dead on. We'd rather have new discussions start than revive old threads where many of the original posters have moved on. That being said, we also recommend linking to old threads on similar discussions, as they can provide some insight to concepts that had been raised before.

Necromancy also brings with it problems when there were technical issues in the past (such as those from the old forum software) all of a sudden appearing on page one and confusing people.

Depending on just how long ago the thread was started, many things could of changed.

The poster you are replying to may have left the boards. Everyone could have changed their opinions and no longer believe whatever was said in their posts. New books or rules/errata may have been published that make whatever was said in the thread obsolete.

The "HIG threads" are not immune to any of those issues. The people that posted on them might be gone. The topic may not have garnered enough interest to be the basis for a stable conversation. There might be issues with the formatting (especially with the tables in handbooks, in my experience).

The mods freely grant exceptions to these threads when requested. I see no reason to give them a blanket exception since most do need to die if they aren't being actively participated in.

Grey Wolf

[2D8HP]

Cool idea, but I'd also/rather see some newer threads like:

Compliance Will Be Rewarded: A Guide to Lawful Evil


and


Ultimate Optimizer's Multiclassing Guide

get moved to "Notable Threads".

[Jasdoif]

The mods freely grant exceptions to these threads when requested. I see no reason to give them a blanket exception since most do need to die if they aren't being actively participated in.

Aha, I knew this sounded familiar....

And yes, if this thread falls past the necromancy limit, just PM a moderator and they'll either bump it themselves or give permission to bump it. I just don't want to give "pre-permission" because I don't want to open a can of worms for other threads.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thanks for the suggestion. It's unlikely we'll change this policy for the reasons very helpfully collected above. If you'd like an exception in a specific instance, please reach out to the mod(s) for that section of the forum.