Guild Wars 2

so theres a thread that was locked a few posts down. the issue was still there but the thread was locked because it was “necro’ed”. 3 months ago doesnt seem like a necro especially if its an ongoing issue. ive had a post deleted because the topic was already posted upon. i know they want the information to be concise and succinct and organized. so we create a new post even if we find the same one from 3 months ago and can expound upon it?

Thanks for this clarification, Gaile, it’s been something I’ve been wondering about for a while now.

Just for further clarification, if someone posts a contribution to a thread that is considered “necro’d,” and that post/thread gets deleted/locked, then is it okay for the person to create a new thread on that same topic (assuming the topic is still relevant)?

~EW

I don’t mind necro’d posts much, it gives me a chance to tease the necrologist.

To be fair, there is a Dev Tracker in this very forum.

I would recommend that in fringe cases where one is unsure if it is ok to necro a thread or not, one make a new thread but start off with a link to the old one as reference. “I didn’t want to necro (link) but the discussion there is relevant to this current concern of mine, which is …” that sort of thing.

Then a mod can merge the threads if the old one is still relevant enough and it won’t count as necro’d since a mod did it.

Donari.5237:

I would recommend that in fringe cases where one is unsure if it is ok to necro a thread or not, one make a new thread but start off with a link to the old one as reference. “I didn’t want to necro (link) but the discussion there is relevant to this current concern of mine, which is …” that sort of thing.

Then a mod can merge the threads if the old one is still relevant enough and it won’t count as necro’d since a mod did it.

I like this idea.

Similarly it’d be really cool if when a Mod locks a thread (instead of merging it) because others like it already exist if s/he would provide a link to at least one of those threads. It’s not always clear to which thread(s) they refer to in this situation.

~EW

Gaile Gray.6029:

The difference between “constructive” and “non-constructive” can be the difference between “I’m still experiencing this issue” and "Get off your kitten, Anet, and FIX THIS!! "

Well, one will likely get you banned outright, and the other, if the subject matter isn’t totally and 100% constructive, I.E. the mere fact of identifying a problem in design or company dynamic, will still probably get you banned, anyways. cough

Onto more important matters, though, I have this feeling you actually typed out ‘kitten’ >.> One of these days, the niceness will subside, the cat will come out of the bag, Gaile! (Ifyouseewhatididthere)

Speaking of cat-chat filters, can we please get a push to just allowing the number forty five followed by an ‘s’ allowed? 133375p34k is so second-millennium :P But no, really, it’s quite frustrating when talking cooldowns and whatnot, and I’m pretty sure there are so many less-tact things to call people here that aren’t blocked that if someone really wanted to insult someone with it, they’d use other words.

Or just get reported by community members for abusing the edge-case of the filter, probably as it should be.

As far as the OP goes, talking in old topics is probably fine so long as the content is still contemporary and there isn’t a duplicate discussion on it, near the top of the boards, either. If it’s a megathread, a returning bug of olde, or suggestion you’re updating (like what’s in my signature), I doubt you’d see any penalties. If it still happened, you can appeal, and if you get rejected despite filling those criteria (as in a previously-discussed major bug that’s now a contemporary issue after returning to the game), you’re probably better off posting about it somewhere else entirely.

Threads are not yogurts which have an expiration date IMO.
For the people using the search feature it’s better to have less cluttered threads and threads that do not end mid-discussion. That was something I’ve observed here quite often. People do not check the date, a new discussion develops – whoops, “Moderator” closed it. Uh, yeah, back to the search feature/google again..