Celestia Forums

Okay, I had clearly noticed that forum user Joey P is doing a long series of necromancing posts, and we should make a rule against necromancing.
First, lets talk about what necromancing is:
- Necromancy stands for reviving the dead, which translates to reviving topics that are a year old or more.

Now, for the story. Joey P - a 17-year-old from Vladivostok, Russia - has been necromancing posts since he first joined, in 2017, but his necromancing has become more frequent this month. In fact, it has been soo frequent that it has reached a point where this can no longer be accepted.

And because of the entire Joey P situation, i now suggest a anti-necromancing ruleset.
Here is the proposed ruleset, suggested by pedro_jg over on the discord server:

"Do not bump old topics (a.k.a. necromancing) if they didn't receive new replies for over a year [or whatever time period], unless:
1. You are the original poster of the topic;
2. You state clearly in your post its reason, showing why it wouldn't be better as a thread of its own"

I hope that this situation is solved as soon as possible, as this would not only make a protection against the revival of old topics from the 2000s/early 2010s, but it would also add a layer of protection against spam.

I AGREE TO THIS. Though we must wait for the other mods and Alexell to give their agreement

Something clearly has to be done as all recent posts are by Joey P recently. Although I would suggest loosing rule 1 a bit, I've found myself abandoning certain threads for years until working on the subject again, see Whole Earth Views

Although I might have been responsible for some necromancy myself I have to admit so take it as you want. Maybe make it either 2 years or have it be if you were involved into the original discussion (instead of just author). I guess depending on how you see Rule 2 this might not be an issue tho.

FarGetaNik wrote:Something clearly has to be done as all recent posts are by Joey P recently. Although I would suggest loosing rule 1 a bit, I've found myself abandoning certain threads for years until working on the subject again, see Whole Earth Views

I dunno. Although rule 1 is reasonable enough, I mean, no one normally responds to a year-long post. But if you apply rule 2 to your latest post on Whole Earth Views, then it should be fine.

Fair enough.

Yeah, I think this is a good idea. I do try to be helpful when Joey P. asks a question on a very old thread, but it is definitely very annoying.

There is also this...

"Necromancy" does not annoy me. But I am not against the new rules.

OK, I'll stop. But why don't we just automatically protect old threads that haven't been answered over six month periods? The same goes with news articles on Wikinews.

Added after 14 minutes 5 seconds:
Of course, all of the necromancing posts I make are done in good faith; i.e. current discoveries and the status of objects.

Joey P. wrote:OK, I'll stop. But why don't we just automatically protect old threads that haven't been answered over six month periods? The same goes with news articles on Wikinews.

Well, I think what we can do is that we wait for as you suggested, 6 months of no reply, and then we lock it down. That should prevent necromancy

Joey P. wrote:Of course, all of the necromancing posts I make are done in good faith; i.e. current discoveries and the status of objects.

I can tell. But it's preferable if you make a new post instead. Also, make sure it's related to the stuff in Celestia.

Lafuente_Astronomy wrote:

Joey P. wrote:OK, I'll stop. But why don't we just automatically protect old threads that haven't been answered over six month periods? The same goes with news articles on Wikinews.

Well, I think what we can do is that we wait for as you suggested, 6 months of no reply, and then we lock it down. That should prevent necromancy

There's no need to lock all old threads; it would be better to implement the rule proposed in the OP.

Joey P. wrote:Of course, all of the necromancing posts I make are done in good faith; i.e. current discoveries and the status of objects.

Joey P. wrote:Sorry if I'm necromancing, but I'm just informing you that Gangnam Style is no longer the world's most viewed YouTube video... the new horrible song "Despacito" has 5 BILLION views and it's driving me crazy!

Joey P. wrote:Of course, all of the necromancing posts I make are done in good faith; i.e. current discoveries and the status of objects.

Uhh no. Not all of then are. One time, you necromanced a post only to say that there are better neutron star textures now. That's a big no-no.

OK, now I know.

SevenSpheres wrote:There's no need to lock all old threads; it would be better to implement the rule proposed in the OP.

I agree. There are several threads that I want to revisit after I've taken a hiatus, like my Populating galaxies thread.

SevenSpheres wrote:

There is also this...

I don't do that anymore; I was just super obsessed with Martha Speaks and was angry that Wikipedia wasn't putting much emphasis into it as they would South Park (which I hate), Danny Phantom, and The Fairly OddParents, due to its relatively low notability (because obviously Martha Speaks is a bad, overrated show and PBS Kids is only available in the USA). I hate Martha Speaks now and am no longer obsessed with it.

I was also influenced by another Wikipedia sockpuppeteer from 2007, "Simulation12", who also had the same motives as me. I made a video mocking Martha Speaks and obsessions here.