The Org Rules & FAQ

[Proserpine]

From my perspective, a thread never is truly "dead" and "bumping" an old thread right to the top of the forum isn't always entirely wrong if you think the discussion could be expanded or you have something related to the subject to say. I wouldn't say that you should just directly continue the discussion though as if the thread were any other though. Bumping for the sake of bumping, just to say, "hey, this is the oldest thread in this forum" or "wow, this thread is very old", for example, is not advisable.

Regardless of this, I personally that it's advisable to provide bit of justification as to why you've bumped the thread (just going straight into your speech often looks a little silly from my perspective) or just give an indication that you are aware of you're thread bumping (not doing so may get a barrage of comments from other users).

Note that this is just my personal view - the ideas of others may, and probably will, be different

FactionHeir says (repeatedly) thread necromancy, i.e. reviving dead threads, is bad. I think it would be good if the criteria for determining when a thread is dead were to be published.

[Caius]

FactionHeir says (repeatedly) thread necromancy

Thread necromancy is not good. If you want to talk about the thread in question, either
a_ You want to write in it and explaining why you do this(give a good reason)
b_ Create a new thread.

[PBI]

I believe the guideline in the Citadel is anything with no new posts in the last two months is considered dead. I don't think it's an exact rule though, and I'm not sure if the same guideline applies for the whole Org.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

FactionHeir says (repeatedly) thread necromancy, i.e. reviving dead threads, is bad. I think it would be good if the criteria for determining when a thread is dead were to be published.

Generally moderator policy varies greatly across forums due to the high degree of autonomy we are often provided - the basic forum rules must be used as a guide for all actions, but a lot of things are not actually mentioned in the document, including thread bumping. These are the areas we can be flexible in and choose our own stances. There would probably be advantages to a more extensive set of rules and higher levels of consistency, although, as a member of a moderation team, I like running things my own way (to an extent).

If I had to say when I would consider a thread to be past the point of just continuing the conversation as normal, I would say either after it was no longer on the first page and/or was over two weeks - three weeks old. As long as the input were constructive, I would tolerate it though, regardless of it not being how I personally would behave. Obviously a different stance may be/is being taken elsewhere.

[Martok]

Personally, I feel that reviving any thread that's been inactive for more than 3 months or so usually qualifies as necromancy, and definitely if it's been more than 6 months. This is especially true if (as Omanes pointed out) a person posts something inane like "great thread!" -- if you're going to revive an older thread, then you should be making a substantive contribution to it.

[Proserpine]

Thanks to Martok and Omanes for replies giving the Moderators viewpoint. Personally I would agree that anything unposted for say 3 months can be regarded as dead. As for "bumping", well it happens and every thread can't be stickied, but it probably is open to abuse. I would however argue, notwithstanding a certain degree of autonomy for mods and recognising that there can be exceptional cases either way, that this is an area where a greater degree of transparency and consistency of policy would be appropriate.

[pevergreen]

I support it if it is needed, but too many times recently a certain member has been resurrecting 2-3 year old threads for no reason.


I take the approach of: If in doubt, contact the local moderator with the thread and your suggested post.