Web Bumping/necroposting

[littlemoose1609]

How bout’ we just allow necro-posting considering how dead the forum is

ok i can see how it wasn't meant to be an argument.

I wouldn't say the forum is dead lol. I got 21 notifications within the time period of 1-2 days.

But after all, i didn't try to start the argument either as it was only a response not a challenge to an arguement.

You make 20 posts a day

Here we are at the start of the arguement, where YOU made the assumption i'm very "ACTIVE" which im not.

dude i havent been active for as long. i made this post and got 20 notifications. Next time i wouldnt assume. even if it was true, look at the amount of messages you have. Around 700 messages in your account. So i would assume you make 35 posts a day.

Another response and i guess you could also say where I did fight fire with fire, but i wouldn't say it was the start of the arguement.

theres literally no way you got 20 notifications from this post


Not everybody is as active as you and even then, less than 5 of the 20 notifications could even spark a response

i could agree but huh? do you even know what i do in my life? But seriously, most players are more active than my such as YOU.

dude have you heard of reactions? clearly you didnt because i got another 7 reactions to this post and 2 of them were messages. Also look at the amount of reactions i got.

Also, active is like being on for 4-6 hours every day 24/7/365

also assuming is not a very nice way to do to people. Next time know that a person has a life too when you say their "active" or posts 20 msgs a day.

I tried to explain, not really, that reactions are a thing and what I think active means. Then I continue to explain further that assuming someone doesn't have a life and is on forums for most of their time. I don't mean mods have no life as they actually do things on here like make the community better. So i guess you could say they have a job.

1) You made 6 posts and only got 7 reactions…
2) Active does not mean 4-6hrs everyday 24/7

The active part can mean multiple things, usually it would mean what you would think but in this arguement, yeah no. Also,any proof of the other 5 posts? That DOES NOT include the posts in this one.

dude i made one post and overnight and got many more then 7 reactions. Do you even know how to navigate the forums and how it works? Maybe i was over exagerating on the active part but active is being on every day for a few hours.

Of course i responded again with asking you, if you knew how the forums worked which was kind of rude.

You started the argument

And here we are, so who was the real one that started the arguement? Im pretty sure it wasn't me.

 

[AM71113363]

...

1. The user has 3 weeks after the last comment to add more information to his thread, which is more than enough.

2. if after 3 weeks the user want to add more useful information(is staff that decides if the info is useful or not).
2.1 you can't necropost but you can edit comment #1.

3 add your useful info to your first comment.
3.1 ask to staff member if you can "Revive" the thread and explain what you added to your thread.

4. if the STAFF gives you OK
4.1 comment your thread
#example
/*
bump.
thanks to THE_STAFF_MEMBER_NAME.
*/
●if staff deny your request, then create a new thread.

 

[littlemoose1609]

1. The user has 3 weeks after the last comment to add more information to his thread, which is more than enough.

2. if after 3 weeks the user want to add more useful information(is staff that decides if the info is useful or not).
2.1 you can't necropost but you can edit comment #1.

3 add your useful info to your first comment.
3.1 ask to staff member if you can "Revive" the thread and explain what you added to your thread.

4. if the STAFF gives you OK
4.1 comment your thread
#example
/*
bump.
thanks to THE_STAFF_MEMBER_NAME.
*/
●if staff deny your request, then create a new thread.

Honestly most cases, in which i suggested this, is where i run into a thread ive NEVER seen before, and the problem isnt solved, even though i found a way or an explanation that solves the explanation.

 

[ATouchscreenPlayer]

ok i can see how it wasn't meant to be an argument.

But after all, i didn't try to start the argument either as it was only a response not a challenge to an arguement.

Here we are at the start of the arguement, where YOU made the assumption i'm very "ACTIVE" which im not.

Another response and i guess you could also say where I did fight fire with fire, but i wouldn't say it was the start of the arguement.

i could agree but huh? do you even know what i do in my life? But seriously, most players are more active than my such as YOU.

I tried to explain, not really, that reactions are a thing and what I think active means. Then I continue to explain further that assuming someone doesn't have a life and is on forums for most of their time. I don't mean mods have no life as they actually do things on here like make the community better. So i guess you could say they have a job.

The active part can mean multiple things, usually it would mean what you would think but in this arguement, yeah no. Also,any proof of the other 5 posts? That DOES NOT include the posts in this one.

Of course i responded again with asking you, if you knew how the forums worked which was kind of rude.

And here we are, so who was the real one that started the arguement? Im pretty sure it wasn't me.

1) Nobody said you didn’t have a life, I only said you are online more than most people.
2) You started the argument by disagreeing with my message, you legit challenged my idea by saying you got 20 notifications in a day which makes it an argument.
3) Nobody is active for 4 hours a day not even staff.
4)

 

[littlemoose1609]

1) Nobody said you didn’t have a life, I only said you are online more than most people.
2) You started the argument by disagreeing with my message, you legit challenged my idea by saying you got 20 notifications in a day which makes it an argument.
3) Nobody is active for 4 hours a day not even staff.
4)

1) ok i am sorry i took it that far, but you still assumed that i am active then most people which i absolutely disagree with. Like you honestly dont know what i do in my life so mind your own buisiness.
2) I did not challenge your message, i was simply stating that most people are more active then me, because in one suggestion post i get more then enough reactions (21) in the period of a few hours. you calling me more active then most people? yeah still nah.
3) You'd be suprised....
4) ???

 

[betty's oldies]

All right, I will step in. I've posted some comments in a past thread (courtesy of two detailed explanations from MIT regarding necroposting) in July. First of all, I agree with this suggestion for reasons below.

• Some threads outside of feedback/suggestions are QnA or discussion threads that often contain useful information. Many times I've seen threads ask common questions that have been answered many times before. If new or relevant information comes in, then it creates more clutter due to having more threads and having them reference each other rather than being in one thread. Instead, that mess can be prevented by compiling all that information into one place (either on the parent/current thread or on a sticky thread). Would you want to search through HUNDREDS of threads for every bit of information or would you want all of it under ONE thread?
  • Tower Defense sub-forums is a good example of this. Many pieces of (obscure) information are buried in the sub-forum. If people want to add more information, they have to create more threads which repeats the same problem of creating clutter. As of writing this, there is currently no comprehensive thread containing every piece of information known about the game (the pinned posts give only a decent amount of information).
• Sometimes there's a gray area, but most of the time it's easy to tell if a necropost is spam or not. On the other hand, if it adds another question to the existing question, that's fine.
• By itself, time is not a very good measure of necroposting. Again, see points #1 and 2. Also, there was this case that happened last year on my end (I was wrongfully punished for necroposting and it was a mess to resolve it due to time zone difference), so there's clearly some ambiguity for enforcing the current rule. Hypixel has a very good example of the necroposting rule, quoted below.
• If this were to be implemented, a warning message at the bottom of old threads would have to be in place to warn people before they post.

Necroposting, as it is commonly known, is the act of reviving an old thread. This means that we consider a post to be a necropost if it is made on an older and irrelevant thread. Typically threads will stop being relevant after a month of inactivity, and as such, you will need to confirm that the thread is still relevant before posting on it.

Necroposting is against the rules, as when a thread gets necroposted, it will be bumped to the top of the forums section, leading to the section becoming cluttered for other users who are looking for more recent discussions.

 

[AM71113363]

• The only reason that an User would have to "revive" a thread after 3 weeks is to use the number of the actual "AGREEs" by adding new info to his/her thread with the hope to get more AGREEs.

MY SUGGESTION:
Only the owner can "necropost" his/her thread after 3 weeks, with the result of deleting of all thread Reactions.
This way the owner does not have to create a new thread for the same content.

 

[littlemoose1609]

• The only reason that an User would have to "revive" a thread after 3 weeks is to use the number of the actual "AGREEs" by adding new info to his/her thread with the hope to get more AGREEs.

MY SUGGESTION:
Only the owner can "necropost" his/her thread after 3 weeks, with the result of deleting of all thread Reactions.
This way the owner does not have to create a new thread for the same content.

Only owner can necropost? I can see where you're going, but at times the owner may not be active, or not even have their account anymore. This is a rare scenario, but it could happen. Most of the time the owner just forgets a thread a few weeks later. So all summed up, Even if a thread is really useful, there could be times, WILL BE times, where an owner of the thread stops being active, deletes their account, or just forgets about their thread.

 

[littlemoose1609]

All right, I will step in. I've posted some comments in a past thread (courtesy of two detailed explanations from MIT regarding necroposting) in July. First of all, I agree with this suggestion for reasons below.

• Some threads outside of feedback/suggestions are QnA or discussion threads that often contain useful information. Many times I've seen threads ask common questions that have been answered many times before. If new or relevant information comes in, then it creates more clutter due to having more threads and having them reference each other rather than being in one thread. Instead, that mess can be prevented by compiling all that information into one place (either on the parent/current thread or on a sticky thread). Would you want to search through HUNDREDS of threads for every bit of information or would you want all of it under ONE thread?
  • Tower Defense sub-forums is a good example of this. Many pieces of (obscure) information are buried in the sub-forum. If people want to add more information, they have to create more threads which repeats the same problem of creating clutter. As of writing this, there is currently no comprehensive thread containing every piece of information known about the game (the pinned posts give only a decent amount of information).
• Sometimes there's a gray area, but most of the time it's easy to tell if a necropost is spam or not. On the other hand, if it adds another question to the existing question, that's fine.
• By itself, time is not a very good measure of necroposting. Again, see points #1 and 2. Also, there was this case that happened last year on my end (I was wrongfully punished for necroposting and it was a mess to resolve it due to time zone difference), so there's clearly some ambiguity for enforcing the current rule. Hypixel has a very good example of the necroposting rule, quoted below.
• If this were to be implemented, a warning message at the bottom of old threads would have to be in place to warn people before they post.

This is EXACTLY why we need this addition. Everyone is disagreeing, but don't even know how USEFUL this addition could be. If all the disagreers see what you wrote here, this thread will be forwarded. Thanks for writing this, because this completely sums up the whole thread alone.

 

[AM71113363]

where an owner of the thread stops being active, deletes their account, or just forgets about their thread.

I don't want others to revive my threads without my permission.

 

[littlemoose1609]

I don't want others to revive my threads without my permission.

That's probably the worst logic ever. You're basically saying that only YOU should post. What I mean by this, is when someone posts on your thread, it bumps it up to the "top active" threads. So basically when people post, they are bumping/"reviving" your thread.

 

[AM71113363]

This thread is about necroposting, and I'm talking about necroposting.

That's probably the worst logic ever. You're basically saying that only YOU should post. What I mean by this, is when someone posts on your thread, it bumps it up to the "top active" threads. So basically when people post, they are bumping/"reviving" your thread.

your comment has nothing to do with necroposting.
reviving a thread within 3 weeks is not necroposting.

 

[betty's oldies]

This thread is about necroposting, and I'm talking about necroposting.

your comment has nothing to do with necroposting.
reviving a thread within 3 weeks is not necroposting.

He means after the 3 week deadline.

I don't want others to revive my threads without my permission.

Technically speaking, creating a thread does not grant you ownership of that thread. The words are yours, but the thread itself isn't as CubeCraft owns the thread. It becomes open to the public and anyone can then discuss on it. (If we want to get more specific, forum accounts are NOT ours to begin with as they're also owned by CubeCraft. When we use a forum account, we are privileged to use an account, and that privilege can be revoked.)

I have two examples that show that threads are never owned by users, especially when the OP is replaced.

Example 1: This thread was initially created by Commissioned (who was banned in July 2, 2018) before it was taken over.

Example 2: A staff member posted a thread regarding approved mods. In this example, that staff member was replaced by the CubeCraft account (notice that the timestamp of that thread is January 25, 2016; however, the CubeCraft account was created on April 4, 2017).

With that aside, please see point #1 in my response. From your suggestion, even though only the OP would be allowed to add more information, that means the other people cannot add more information (which in turn leads to the same current problem of clutter by creating more threads).

EDIT: Added concrete examples and minor edits.

 

[AM71113363]

...

lets assume that you create a thread, and you get 20 AGREES(ofcourse not enough to be forwarded).

let assume that after 1/2 years, you and all users who AGREE, are inactive, or deleted account or whatever.

/*
ASSUME THIS SUGGESTION IS IMPLEMENTED.

*/

Now I can add more info to your thread.
but the users AGREE to the initial suggestion and not to added info.
Maybe they would still agree, maybe not,,
since they are inactive, it would be unfair to count their vote.
Thats why I suggested this

MY SUGGESTION:
Only the owner can "necropost" his/her thread after 3 weeks, with the result of deleting of all thread Reactions.
This way the owner does not have to create a new thread for the same content.

 

[betty's oldies]

lets assume that you create a thread, and you get 20 AGREES(ofcourse not enough to be forwarded).

let assume that after 1/2 years, you and all users who AGREE, are inactive, or deleted account or whatever.

ASSUME THIS SUGGESTION IS IMPLEMENTED.

Now I can add more info to your thread.
but the users AGREE to the initial suggestion and not to added info.
Maybe they would still agree, maybe not,,
since they are inactive, it would be unfair to count their vote.
Thats why I suggested this

I'll follow through your post. Let's start at where I have 20 agrees in the initial suggestion.

• This necropost suggestion is already implemented.
• Prior to making a suggestion, I test Chesterton's fence. I see that I fully understand my material and then I make the thread. The thread that I created then gets 20 agrees.
  • My initial suggestion tackled an existing problem A. Problem A is now fixed.
• However, 6 months later, no one in the thread is active.
• You then add more information due to a problem B that comes up. You see that problem B may be related to problem A since the initial suggestion fixed problem A.

You now add more information to the original idea. (Are you using the new info as a suggestion or just documenting that info only?) Now this leads to other problems if your new info is used for a suggestion:

• When you add more information to a suggestion, you're effectively changing that suggestion. You may be tackling a different problem altogether at that point than what the original suggestion was trying to address.
  • Adding more information to a discussion or a guide is easy is because that information can be factual. That is, that information can be tested and is not subject to POV.
• Your added info now has to pass Chesterton's fence for it to be relevant.

EDIT 1: More about second part of the post.
EDIT 2: I misread your post and I've changed my response to tailor it toward your post.

 

[AM71113363]

Prior to making this suggestion, I test Chesterton's fence. I see that I fully understand my material and then I make the thread. This thread then gets 20 agrees and is later implemented.

NO , not your thread but this thread.


when I said this:

ASSUME THIS SUGGESTION IS IMPLEMENTED.

I meant this main thread, and not the assumed thread.

 

[betty's oldies]

Sorry about that. I misread your post and thought it was a scenario. I still address your point regarding adding new info in the second half of my post.

As I stated, adding new info to suggestions is a gray area as you may (inadvertently) tackle a different problem altogether. With the other threads like QnA or game discussion (especially on strategies or mechanics), the gray area isn't as blurry.

When it comes specifically to the suggestions subforum, I would agree with your post.

 

[littlemoose1609]

Sorry about that. I misread your post and thought it was a scenario. I still address your point regarding adding new info in the second half of my post.

As I stated, adding new info to suggestions is a gray area as you may (inadvertently) tackle a different problem altogether. With the other threads like QnA or game discussion (especially on strategies or mechanics), the gray area isn't as blurry.

When it comes specifically to the suggestions subforum, I would agree with your post.

Yeah if my suggestion was for the suggestions subforum, yeah i would agree with his point as others don't have access to other people's minds. I think.

But since my suggestion is for every forum and subforum, here we are.