alanmatillab16_ESO wrote: »

Reviving an old thread = bad.
Creating a new thread when there are already threads about the subject on the first couple of pages = Bad (for example, there are plenty of players that should have asked themselves if another thread crying about Update 35 was neccessary when there are already existing threads.

Both of the above are reasons why there is a pinned thread regarding overland difficulty for example.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Currently, we are not specifically going through and closing threads by a certain date. Hence the thought behind an auto-close function. Rather, closing a thread currently depends on the thread topic's benefit to the community and the time between activity, when determining if it should be closed. (There are exceptions to this and are addressed individually.) But for a rough estimate number, about a year of inactivity would warrant a thread to be closed. Again, we want to stress that this is not a strict rule, as many of these situations could change depending on context of the conversation.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Currently, we are not specifically going through and closing threads by a certain date. Hence the thought behind an auto-close function. Rather, closing a thread currently depends on the thread topic's benefit to the community and the time between activity, when determining if it should be closed. (There are exceptions to this and are addressed individually.) But for a rough estimate number, about a year of inactivity would warrant a thread to be closed. Again, we want to stress that this is not a strict rule, as many of these situations could change depending on context of the conversation.

From last time this was discussed.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think the reason it's unwritten is because they haven't committed to a particular timeline fully yet, guidelines to which threads get to stay and which don't, etc. It's an excellent point you've raised though. Perhaps @ZOS_Kevin could add that post to the coc?

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think the reason it's unwritten is because they haven't committed to a particular timeline fully yet, guidelines to which threads get to stay and which don't, etc. It's an excellent point you've raised though. Perhaps @ZOS_Kevin could add that post to the coc?

Destai wrote: »

Zuboko wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Currently, we are not specifically going through and closing threads by a certain date. Hence the thought behind an auto-close function. Rather, closing a thread currently depends on the thread topic's benefit to the community and the time between activity, when determining if it should be closed. (There are exceptions to this and are addressed individually.) But for a rough estimate number, about a year of inactivity would warrant a thread to be closed. Again, we want to stress that this is not a strict rule, as many of these situations could change depending on context of the conversation.

From last time this was discussed.

At least that is an answer to one of the questions. A year is a good rule of thumb. I still have more.
One of the reasons I am concerned about this is that I have several autistic friends and I know that they do not do well with unwritten rules, and I would love for places like the ESO forums to become more friendly to my autistic friends.

Well as for unwritten rules, it's hard to say. You'd have to look at the many threads that are closed, moved, etc. and see if it aligns cleanly with the rules given to us. In my time here, how many rules subjectively interpreted - like baiting or bashing - seems pretty arbitrary. Like if a release is particularly contentious - like Greymoor was - there'll be a lot of threads that are curtailed or outright suppressed. I'm sure it's some internal drive or initiative driving that, but it does happen and sometimes rather aggressively.

If your autistic friends are sensitive to criticism and need very clear rules on how to speak, I don't think their experience here will be positive. Personally, I'd suggest writing @ZOS_Kevin as he's the manager and convey your concerns around to the appropriate channels.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hey All, just wanted to chime in here. First, thank you @Zuboko for asking the questions. Always happy to clear things up, especially because this is a nuanced topic.

Also, thanks to everyone who assisted in helping to answer the question.

Alright, so we'll answer this the best we can. And if there are any questions or added feedback, happy to take those as well to help make this stance more clear. This is to build on the comment @spartaxoxo posted from the last time we chatted about this.

So to actually address the questions, commenting in a necro thread is generally frowned upon. This is mostly because often times, threads that come up after a year of inactivity have outdated information. We don't want information resurfacing that may be out of date. That can confuse players and also have us chasing things that may no longer exist. For example, let's say there is a two year untouched old thread about the balance of a dungeon boss. Going into the thread and noting the current balance doesn't make sense there. You are better off making a new thread.

However, context matters here. Things like a housing thread you may come across 4 years later can still holds relevancy. And if your comment is related to the OP's content, then you should be good. I will note, this is more for evergreen content that tends to stay consistent. So for example, let's say there is a four year old untouched thread about a housing set up. You happened to like how the living room was set up. Even though starting a new thread and referencing the old on in your post makes sense, asking in the existing thread still is relevant. The OP of that thread could still be around and answer your question.

As stated previously, there are exceptions to everything and we can chat those out individually.

With all that said, here are some rules to follow if the question comes up around a necro thread.

• You can always reach out if there is a thread you are curious about.
• Rule of thumb, if the last activity in a thread is older than a year, take a look and consider if you need to resurrect that thread. Ideally, we would like you to just start a new thread. However as stated previously, there are exceptions to everything. If you are still on the fence, it's probably better to start a new thread and reference the older thread in your post.
• If you do comment in a necro thread and a moderator closes it, please don't take offense. They are doing their job in closing down the necro threads. Instead, please message the mod or message me. We can chat about the circumstance and reopen the thread if need be. Remember, this can be a conversation. Some of you have reached out in the past and we have reopened the closed thread.

Lastly, it was raised that we should add this to community guidelines or have it noted somewhere to make sure this is highlighted. We can work on doing that so there is a written reference point somewhere. We wait to get some additional feedback from everyone here and then go back and talk about how we want to formally write this out, incorporating feedback and your viewpoints.

This was a long answer, but hopefully helps to address the initial question at hand.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I would personally word it as such

Necroposting: Posting in a thread that is a year or more old should generally be avoided. This is because old threads may contain outdated information, including, but not limited to: old opinions, debates, and/or outdated gameplay information. Rather than posting in a thread that is over a year old, create a new thread that links back to the old thread. In instances where information in the old thread is not out-of-date and does not contain old debates e.g. photo repositories, special exceptions may be made. In order to request a special exception, please note the reason for necroposting in your initial reply. Failure to do so may result in the thread being closed. If you believe an old thread has been closed in errors, contact a moderator or submit an appeal.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hey All, just wanted to chime in here. First, thank you @Zuboko for asking the questions. Always happy to clear things up, especially because this is a nuanced topic.

Also, thanks to everyone who assisted in helping to answer the question.

Alright, so we'll answer this the best we can. And if there are any questions or added feedback, happy to take those as well to help make this stance more clear. This is to build on the comment @spartaxoxo posted from the last time we chatted about this.

So to actually address the questions, commenting in a necro thread is generally frowned upon. This is mostly because often times, threads that come up after a year of inactivity have outdated information. We don't want information resurfacing that may be out of date. That can confuse players and also have us chasing things that may no longer exist. For example, let's say there is a two year untouched old thread about the balance of a dungeon boss. Going into the thread and noting the current balance doesn't make sense there. You are better off making a new thread.

However, context matters here. Things like a housing thread you may come across 4 years later can still holds relevancy. And if your comment is related to the OP's content, then you should be good. I will note, this is more for evergreen content that tends to stay consistent. So for example, let's say there is a four year old untouched thread about a housing set up. You happened to like how the living room was set up. Even though starting a new thread and referencing the old on in your post makes sense, asking in the existing thread still is relevant. The OP of that thread could still be around and answer your question.

As stated previously, there are exceptions to everything and we can chat those out individually.

With all that said, here are some rules to follow if the question comes up around a necro thread.

• You can always reach out if there is a thread you are curious about.
• Rule of thumb, if the last activity in a thread is older than a year, take a look and consider if you need to resurrect that thread. Ideally, we would like you to just start a new thread. However as stated previously, there are exceptions to everything. If you are still on the fence, it's probably better to start a new thread and reference the older thread in your post.
• If you do comment in a necro thread and a moderator closes it, please don't take offense. They are doing their job in closing down the necro threads. Instead, please message the mod or message me. We can chat about the circumstance and reopen the thread if need be. Remember, this can be a conversation. Some of you have reached out in the past and we have reopened the closed thread.

Lastly, it was raised that we should add this to community guidelines or have it noted somewhere to make sure this is highlighted. We can work on doing that so there is a written reference point somewhere. We wait to get some additional feedback from everyone here and then go back and talk about how we want to formally write this out, incorporating feedback and your viewpoints.

This was a long answer, but hopefully helps to address the initial question at hand.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

This was a long answer, but hopefully helps to address the initial question at hand.

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

This was a long answer, but hopefully helps to address the initial question at hand.

I have had both new threads on an old topic closed because "they were already in another thread" (one that would fit the necro definition) and had replies to an old thread get the thread closed off when the situation had not changed at all.

Hopefully the mods can investigate a bit deeper and make sure the base information really has changed, which is often not true.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi All, thank you for the additional context to some of the examples you have come across. We'll have a chat internally and see if there is a better way to handle these based on the feedback presented. We'll note that there will still be situations in which conversations need to be had, but the goal will be to reduce the friction within the process. We'll also work on getting something more official written to make the process clear.

Thanks again, @Zuboko for raising the question.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi All, thank you for the additional context to some of the examples you have come across. We'll have a chat internally and see if there is a better way to handle these based on the feedback presented. We'll note that there will still be situations in which conversations need to be had, but the goal will be to reduce the friction within the process. We'll also work on getting something more official written to make the process clear.

Thanks again, @Zuboko for raising the question.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi All, thank you for the additional context to some of the examples you have come across. We'll have a chat internally and see if there is a better way to handle these based on the feedback presented. We'll note that there will still be situations in which conversations need to be had, but the goal will be to reduce the friction within the process. We'll also work on getting something more official written to make the process clear.

Thanks again, @Zuboko for raising the question.