Jump to content

Reviving old threads


Chupi
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Anonymous

We weren't referring to just old questions that have already been answered, but discussion threads. Some of the newer members haven't been involved in the old discussions. It was more about reviving points of discussion and getting fresh perspective and new angles.

 

The forum isn't just a tulpa creation guide and a FAQ list. It is a currently active discussion forum with new members arriving every day.

 

EDIT: If necroposting old threads is discouraged, and repeating or revising old topics is discouraged, what you will have is a dead discussion forum in quick order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...
  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 9/21/2012 at 2:12 AM, Melete said:

By the way, somebody make a note of necroing this thread for the sheer irony.

 

Yes!

 

We actually thought a discussion years ago resulted in an agreed-upon ruling about "recreating ancient threads instead of necroing them, at your discretion", but no such thing exists in the rules. Necroing is currently up to the individual's preference, which is fine, most of this forum's discussion is long in the past and it wouldn't make sense to rule against replying to old threads. However, Ranger thinks that "duplicate" threads are against the rules, and/or at least that they should always be merged into older existing threads. We had a discussion somewhere at some point working out the kinks in this idea, but I don't know where it is now {Wait, I found it, but for some reason the thread was deleted so we can no longer view it - https://community.tulpa.info/topic/15590-necroposting-versus-making-a-new-thread/?do=findComment&comment=273413}. So we can just re-clear it up now!

 

First, there is no rule against creating duplicate threads (nor necroposting): https://community.tulpa.info/guidelines/

Second, there is a board-specific thread for Q&A that recommends checking for existing threads before creating a duplicate, but allows it if you don't feel your question was answered: https://community.tulpa.info/topic/505-read-this-before-posting/

 

Vos said this in the deleted thread:

Quote

As long as you have something worthwhile to contribute (more than just posting something like "cool post"), it's fine to revive an older thread. And while we'll sometimes allow duplicate topics, making threads on things that have come up multiple times before like the tulpas in media threads will be merged into a megathread.

 

The point of this post then is that we should clarify "we'll sometimes allow duplicate topics" officially. What we propose is that, at a user's discretion, if they feel an old topic is too unwelcoming (like say, the fact that every single post in it is from someone who hasn't visited the forum in years), won't promote new discussion, or say has out-of-date information they don't want to bump - that they are free to create a new thread covering the same topic. (Linking to the old thread is optional, as the last reason I listed would be invalidated if that was forced)

 

And, that moderators may at their discretion decide whether a duplicate topic is potentially-productive enough to warrant being remade, or if it's a repeat topic that only serves to burn out or annoy users, and may merge if they feel it shouldn't be its own new thread. However, as we already see with the Q&A-specific thread, this is almost exclusively a necessity for merging duplicate questions that have been answered countless times before - General Discussion threads and the like should only really be merged if there's an existing and fitting Megathread for them. Though even then, some Megathreads simply fall under the "too old" category for us. I think this would be a case by case "talk it out with Staff" thing, if a user felt their thread shouldn't be merged.

 

 

But anyways - the main point here is that General Discussion threads (and perhaps other threads in other boards) sometimes legitimately benefit from recreating an old thread to be discussed or weighed in on again, by a newer userbase. Can we get confirmation from an admin that this is or can be the case?

 

Hi guys, plain text is just me now! We've each got our own accounts: me, Tewi, Flandre, and Lucilyn. We're Luminesce's tulpas.

Here's our "Ask Thread", and here's our Progress Report (You should be able to see all of our accounts on the second page if you want)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Reisen said:

First, there is no rule against creating duplicate threads (nor necroposting): https://community.tulpa.info/guidelines/

 

When I moderate duplicate posts, I point to this rule to explain why duplicate posts are against the rules:

 

Quote

GENERAL RULES

No spamming. Spamming is posting repeated unnecessary, unconstructive, meaningless messages. Trolling falls under spam.

 

I specifically look at the "repeated unesessary," part. A duplicate thread fits under that description.

 

However, this rule is more about spamming with a bot or trolling than duplicate posts. It doesn't seem very intuitive to use a rule that normally results in a ban for something as inoffensive as duplicating a post (given it's not relentless). I think it would help to have another rule clarify this, especially if there are conditions where the duplicate threads are okay.

 

59 minutes ago, Reisen said:

Second, there is a board-specific thread for Q&A that recommends checking for existing threads before creating a duplicate, but allows it if you don't feel your question was answered: https://community.tulpa.info/topic/505-read-this-before-posting/

 

I'm glad you pointed that out, that may be creating a lot of confusion. That page is outdated, I don't see any mention of the BQG thread or its purpose. The current policy is you either do your homework and make sure your question isn't a duplicate or you can post in BQG.

 

59 minutes ago, Reisen said:

{Wait, I found it, but for some reason the thread was deleted so we can no longer view it - https://community.tulpa.info/topic/15590-necroposting-versus-making-a-new-thread/?do=findComment&comment=273413}. So we can just re-clear it up now!

 

That's a really weird thread to delete, I guess it got scooped out with the anonymization of that user for some reason.

 

59 minutes ago, Reisen said:

The point of this post then is that we should clarify "we'll sometimes allow duplicate topics" officially. What we propose is that, at a user's discretion, if they feel an old topic is too unwelcoming (like say, the fact that every single post in it is from someone who hasn't visited the forum in years), won't promote new discussion, or say has out-of-date information they don't want to bump - that they are free to create a new thread covering the same topic. (Linking to the old thread is optional, as the last reason I listed would be invalidated if that was forced)

 

That isn't consistent with what I was told in private by the staff. It's possible the context of my discussion with the staff didn't warrant bringing this up or the discussion was too short for it to be brought up at all.

 


 

59 minutes ago, Reisen said:

What we propose is that, at a user's discretion, if they feel an old topic is too unwelcoming (like say, the fact that every single post in it is from someone who hasn't visited the forum in years), won't promote new discussion, or say has out-of-date information they don't want to bump - that they are free to create a new thread covering the same topic. (Linking to the old thread is optional, as the last reason I listed would be invalidated if that was forced)

 

And, that moderators may at their discretion decide whether a duplicate topic is potentially-productive enough to warrant being remade, or if it's a repeat topic that only serves to burn out or annoy users, and may merge if they feel it shouldn't be its own new thread. However, as we already see with the Q&A-specific thread, this is almost exclusively a necessity for merging duplicate questions that have been answered countless times before - General Discussion threads and the like should only really be merged if there's an existing and fitting Megathread for them. Though even then, some Megathreads simply fall under the "too old" category for us. I think this would be a case by case "talk it out with Staff" thing, if a user felt their thread shouldn't be merged.

 

I'm a little confused because that's essentially what I do? If I think the thread is different enough to stand as it's own thread (especially if it's really personal), then I leave it alone. General Discussion threads are usually general enough that duplicates don't add anything to the conversation. You usually get the same discussion from different people. Sometimes a new spin can be introduced, but a slightly different perspective doesn't warrant its own thread. It would add just as much fresh content if that one person necro'd the old thread, and that perspective won't get lost or buried once the original thread is found.

 

I'm not opposed to having a defined statutes of limitations for old threads, that's easier to understand then judging what should and shouldn't be duplicated solely on opinion. While this would hurt searchability in the long run, I think it's understandable to not post in a thread where all of the other posters are nowhere to be found.

 


 

I am not opposed to allowing duplicate threads to exist for a short period of time, but afterwards I would want to merge them. I agree with Nobilis' point that several duplicate threads can get lost and are redundant when you can have one mega thread. It's also more helpful for people researching the topic to find a mega thread instead of several duplicates. However, I understand people not wanting to post in an old thread. If the thread is left alone for a week, I think we get the best of both worlds: all of the active people who would post would have posted and then it can get merged with the original thread so it doesn't get lost.

 

My main concern with this approach is then remembering to merge the new thread in the first place. I convinced myself there was a forum tool that allowed me to do this, but that doesn't seem to be a thing. If I could have the forum remind me to close a thread in a week somehow, that would be incredibly helpful.

Edited by Ranger

I'm Ranger, Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's tulpa, and I love hippos! I also like cake and chatting about stuff. I'm undecided on Rosalind or Rosalin, and my male name is Ronan. You can call me Roz but please don't call me Ron.

My other headmates have their own account now.

 

If I missed seeing your art, please PM/DM me!

Temporary Log | Switching LogcBox | Yay! | Bre Translator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is a megathread last posted in say 3 years ago any easier to find than 3 threads created over 3 years? I get the concept - it can be annoying to have to look through three different threads on "tulpa romance" to find all the discussion - but it's also useful and interesting to see the different dates on those threads. 2012, 2014, 2017 and 2020 posts about "tulpa romance" are likely to differ greatly, and of course, merging all four of those creates 17 pages of "ancient" posting that draws away from current discussion before getting to the most recent posts, or tempts people into replying to posts of users who are gone. 

 

I feel like the best solution is only merging into similar threads that were made within a certain timespan - either 3 months, or 1 year sound good to me. Maybe the forum moves slow enough these days 3 months is too infrequent, you could almost see both threads on the same page maybe. One a year sounds good, though? Meaning if someone makes a "What are your thoughts on Tulpa romance?" thread in december of 2020, it shouldn't be merged with a "Tulpa Romance" thread from late 2018, but should be merged with any similar threads made more recently. But.. I don't think getting super specific on this is necessary, it should just be a general feel thing really.

Edited by Reisen

Hi guys, plain text is just me now! We've each got our own accounts: me, Tewi, Flandre, and Lucilyn. We're Luminesce's tulpas.

Here's our "Ask Thread", and here's our Progress Report (You should be able to see all of our accounts on the second page if you want)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Reisen said:

Why is a megathread last posted in say 3 years ago any easier to find than 3 threads created over 3 years?

 

I should have clarified; If you're doing research you get more information out of one thread and you have to do less research to find all of the other puzzle pieces. You don't have to have written down 10 different threads all saying mostly similar things and worry about another 5 threads that could hold even more information than what you have.

 

3 minutes ago, Reisen said:

but it's also useful and interesting to see the different dates on those threads. 2012, 2014, 2017 and 2020 posts about "tulpa romance" are likely to differ greatly, and of course, merging all four of those creates 17 pages of "ancient" posting that draws away from current discussion before getting to the most recent posts, or tempts people into replying to posts of users who are gone. 

 

The time stamp issue I'm not worried about. I think not immediately realizing the thread has been updated in 2020 is a bigger problem.

 

I don't know if there's a way to draw attention to the newest part of the thread in the OP. I don't look forward to the idea of leaving notes in the OPs linking to the newest year's discussion, but I also wonder how many mega threads actually exist and if this may not be as involved as I think it is?

 

7 minutes ago, Reisen said:

One a year sounds good, though?

 

I would do at least 3 years, maybe 4 or 5. While there can be a significant difference between 2020 and 2018, all of understood tulpamancy wasn't that different back in 2018. I can't think of a single thing that was radically different about 2020 in terms of how people viewed tulpamancy aside from more exploration into merging and a revived interest in parallel processing. A romance thread or vocality thread would look almost the same.

I'm Ranger, Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's tulpa, and I love hippos! I also like cake and chatting about stuff. I'm undecided on Rosalind or Rosalin, and my male name is Ronan. You can call me Roz but please don't call me Ron.

My other headmates have their own account now.

 

If I missed seeing your art, please PM/DM me!

Temporary Log | Switching LogcBox | Yay! | Bre Translator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ranger said:

You don't have to have written down 10 different threads all saying mostly similar things and worry about another 5 threads that could hold even more information than what you have.

 

Good thing Tulpa.info has only existed for 8 years and there can't be 10 threads then!

 

But okay, two years, final offer! 2020-2018, 2018-2016, 2016-2014, 2014-2012 (but honestly we won't be retroactively going back to merge threads more than they already were, so it would start ~now)

There's no way 2023 threads should be merged with 2020

 

--(LOTPW post)

1 minute ago, Reisen said:

Personally I think threads should only be merged if they're obvious repeat questions that were asked within the last couple years (can't blame someone for asking an "obvious" question asked 3 years ago IMO), or if there's a healthy megathread for their general discussion topic (and not a big 12 page thread from 2012 last posted in in 2015, because it just feels stale to tell someone that's all relevant still)

 

Basically, the core of this and why we care about it is that no forum can stay alive without retreading old ground every long once in a while with new members. Like, sorry guys, none of you will ever get to weigh in on the average ages of tulpas! 75 people already decided in 2014 that it was 18-20!

 

No, a new thread polling the same thing would be perfectly fine to make today, with an entirely new set of responses. And that's the least interesting case - General Discussion threads can go totally differently in different eras of Tulpamancy. Or they might not! Kinda why it's the User creating the thread's discretion to make a new one or not, and then a Moderator's discretion of if it's actually a stale/unproductive topic to recreate and should be merged.

 

But I'll be honest, you're not going to find anyone who's upset they got to participate in a new poll, just because one existed five years ago. It just won't happen

 

Edited by Reisen

Hi guys, plain text is just me now! We've each got our own accounts: me, Tewi, Flandre, and Lucilyn. We're Luminesce's tulpas.

Here's our "Ask Thread", and here's our Progress Report (You should be able to see all of our accounts on the second page if you want)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to propose this for moving forward on handling posts (we can officialize it as an actual rule in due time):

  • Retire the Beginner Questions General thread and create a new Beginner Questions Board either as a sub board or right next to/under the Q&A board.
    • Any topic that would normally be merged into BQG would be moved to the Beginner Questions board.
    • Duplicates are allowed.
    • Now an index of beginners questions are not forever lost in a massive thread (because nobody is going to search that).
  • Exact duplicates are allowed if:
    • the thread doesn't appear on the last 3 pages of the forum OR
    • last activity on said duplicate thread is over 1 year old
  • Necroposting is allowed unless:
    • there's an exact duplicate on the first 3 pages of the forum OR
    • an exact duplicate younger than 1 year old exists
  • Exact duplicates of discussion threads and answers alike can be linked to/referenced in the newer / older iterations to provide OP / other readers with context.
    • For example, if there's a new thread on fighting intrusive thoughts, I could say "You may find this thread from 2012 useful, it has some techniques."
    • Another example, link to a previous thread on the same question OP is asking in a questions thread.
  • If activity ends on either thread, a moderator may decide to merge them later after discussion has ended.
  • Topics that are similar but not exact duplicates (I'm going to call them "fuzzy duplicates") are allowed anywhere in any board.
    • E.g. the topics List tulpas in the media, How do you think tulpas should be portrayed in the media?, and What did you think about the Tulpa short film? should not be merged even if they exist on the same page.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...