Did I just subliminally plagiarize or what?

[Picpak]

What confused me is that Rkolter questioned the relevance of my post. Shouldn't the thread creator be the judge of that?

I didn't see anything wrong with your post; I've bumped threads on this forum with even less to say with no problems. Don't worry about it.

[McDuffies]

By the way, all I meant by the "different forums" statement was that this is not a fast-paced forum. Our fastest moving forum, OT, has several active threads that are very close to two years old, without coming close to the 100 lock. Check it out. The Youtube thread, the quotelist thread, and the naked thread are all just about two years old. It's nuts!

That's because those are examples of threads that are ressurected from time to time. We have our reasons to treat them differently, they have very broad topics but it's not worth starting a new thread every time you want to, say, post a new youtube link. But if that was allowed for every thread, that would be mess.
Better measure of how fast forum is going are threads like "Doodles", which are constantly posted at.
Addmitedly, forums has had faster days. But still, two months is quite in forum days.

I don't want to fight, and I'm not making a big deal out of this, McDuffies.

Yeah, I'd rather discuss this subliminal plagiatrism.

Hey guys. As Bustertheclown, I did not know the 1 month rule.
What confused me is that Rkolter questioned the relevance of my post. Shouldn't the thread creator be the judge of that?

Don't take it as criticizing or something, take it as a sort of well-intended "hey, this guy maybe doesn't know the rule, we better warn him before he steps on someone's toes".

[Rkolter]

Let's see if I can clean this up:

Moder - When a thread goes idle for a month or more in these forums, it is considered "dead". When it's dead, the only time that it can be "ressurected" is if there is new information related to the discussion. That doesn't include just someone's opinion, but a new example, an update of some kind, or so on.

There are a few specific exceptions to this rule (like the ones Buster pointed out) and there is an exception for slowly-updating threads. Sometimes, if an author is very clearly in control of a thread, that author can bring it back up without it being necromancy. But really, all the exceptions amount to less than 1% of all the threads we have.

You brought up a thread that was six weeks idle, and just added your own opinion. That's thread necromancy, and it is not allowed. Please don't take any moderation personally - that's like getting upset at a stop-light. I don't dislike you; nobody is mad at you. You just broke a rule, and my job in this case as a moderator was to point it out and tell you not to break it again.

[Bustertheclown]

You guys might want to put the necromancy rule in writing for the GD forum. It's in the OT rules, but not GD.

[Moder]

Let's see if I can clean this up:

Moder - When a thread goes idle for a month or more in these forums, it is considered "dead". When it's dead, the only time that it can be "ressurected" is if there is new information related to the discussion. That doesn't include just someone's opinion, but a new example, an update of some kind, or so on.

There are a few specific exceptions to this rule (like the ones Buster pointed out) and there is an exception for slowly-updating threads. Sometimes, if an author is very clearly in control of a thread, that author can bring it back up without it being necromancy. But really, all the exceptions amount to less than 1% of all the threads we have.

You brought up a thread that was six weeks idle, and just added your own opinion. That's thread necromancy, and it is not allowed. Please don't take any moderation personally - that's like getting upset at a stop-light. I don't dislike you; nobody is mad at you. You just broke a rule, and my job in this case as a moderator was to point it out and tell you not to break it again.

Hello Rkolter. I understand Thread Necromancy. I just didnt know 1 month was considered old. Now I know. Thanks!

Not that this bothers me, but to make It clear: the reason your first message can be taken personally Is because you said my reply did not add to the discussion (a judgment of value made by you), which has nothing to do with the Necromancy criteria (a formal, undisputable rule).

[Rkolter]

Not that this bothers me, but to make It clear: the reason your first message can be taken personally Is because you said my reply did not add to the discussion (a judgment of value made by you), which has nothing to do with the Necromancy criteria (a formal, undisputable rule).

Your opinion may be quite worthy. You may feel that your opinion is so great that puppies will bark and kittens will fall from the sky upon its merest utterance. Your opinion may have come from the combined wisdom of every diety that has ever been worshipped, and be sealed in an envelope made of purest silk and dusted with diamonds, hand delivered by cupid and sealed with a kiss. This may be THE opinion - the one that shakes nations and changes the world.

Your opinion may be closer related to the discussion at hand than egyptian royalty were related to each other. It may be as close to the discussion as hair on an ant, butter on bread, and superglue on your fingers after you painfully pull them apart. It could well be an opinion that is one with the conversation.

As good as an opinion that it was, it didn't add anything but itself to the conversation, and simply adding an opinion to a six-week old converation is not enough to justify thread necromancy.

Better?

[Moder]

hehe.. Never mind. I guess I wasn't able to get my point across to you.
But let's leave It to that since It's not really a big deal and you must have dozens of more important things to deal with In the forums!
Thanks!

[Terotrous]

Sorry, but I think C&H's punchline works a little better.

Still, you do see this kind of thing happen fairly often. It's quite concievable that two people might even come up with the exact same joke, especially since what is considered funny is reasonably consistent across a given society.