Perhaps you should call "Championing" something more like "Protecting" or "Supporting". What you have is pretty far from how I think of the word "Championing". I think of it as challenging, battling and crusading, not necessarily supporting and standing up for people. But that's just my opinion.
Perhaps you should call "Championing" something more like "Protecting" or "Supporting". What you have is pretty far from how I think of the word "Championing". I think of it as challenging, battling and crusading, not necessarily supporting and standing up for people. But that's just my opinion.
It's all the same to me. Call it what you will; I believe it'll work as long as it fits personal belief. I personally have a more... honorable definition of "champion".
I have updated the thread with my personal take on necroing a thread. I wish to receive feedback from admins on the legitimacy of this section.
It is correct.
A necro-bump in any section is also hard to moderate, to be honest, due to overlapping with another rule. Repeat threads.
They directly compete with each other, but generally if you add content to the thread, and it is not incredibly outdated (OP is still full of relevant information), then it is not considered a necrobump.
If you follow the rules, search, and find a thread on the subject that you are talking about, there are some things to think about before posting.
1) Check the OP. If a decent amount of it is outdated (no longer relevant at the time you are looking at it), proceed.
2) What you are posting is unique. (If you make something that is basically the same thing in your own words, it'll be locked because the expected path is the same, and you are not adding a completely different view on the subject)
3) Your post is of equal or greater quality. (Most subjective part of all of this. If you find something of good quality, but died out for some reason, there probably isn't interest in it. Posting again in poor quality wont change that)
If your thread works with all of the above, then post it. Otherwise, you are just going to end up with your thread being locked.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
Thanks for that Beltir. I have edited the section to include the points you have mentioned. I did a more "my own words" type of deal to it to maintain personal perspective.
Send me a PRIVATE MESSAGE about your personal definition of "honor". (don't post your definition here or your post WILL be deleted, preemptive* apologies.) I want to know what the word means to you, and how you feel about it in relation to work, life, family, and play. How does it affect you while playing against others? With others?
Don't textbook me either. I know where to find dictionary.com, merriam-webster, and wictionary, I want your definition; in your own words, and how the word affects you.
Here's the baseline expectations:
I will not use your name in the quote. That is private and personal.(I will if express consent is provided).
I will not judge or debate, I will only send a reply back with receipt confirmation.
It must be under 1000 words (sorry!)
You CAN use a predefined definition as long as you state how that definition works for you.
To ensure that I read it quickly say something about "honor" and "definition" in the subject head.
*preemptive - ahead of time.
Quotes below:
My view on honor in combat:
It is said that to hide behind a shield is cowardice? How so? How does improving one's survival in a battle among equals promote the fleeting sign of dishonorable combat?
Is it not my shield which repels your weapon? Is it not my shield which shatters your bones? Is it not my shield which smashes you into a wall as my other weapons finish you off.
Who is more honorable? The one who has killed a score of you? Or the one whose great strength of honor has lost to my simple act of cowardice?
In a world where honor can be lost by a simple errant slip of the tongue, it is much more honorable to return home to your family and those you love; savoring the fruits of victory. Or is it more honorable to be broken, your righteous innards strewn over the pikes of the victor which skewered you alive as you watch your already dead brethren picked apart by vultures? Surely, death is honor.
Quote from llama66613 »
For me, honor is all about how pepole can rely on you, can be safe know that you will be fair and will preform your duties and followthrough on your responsibilities. If you don't, it's unhonorably.
This is sort of a long shot of a connection, but in minecraft, I think that to be honorable means to follow the rules of a server, especially when the rules are ones that cannot be enforced well or at all. Don't fly on a survival server, don't grief on a build server. It's simple stuff that build honor, and being honored (to me) is very similar to being trusted and respected.
All people liked to be honored, but sometimes the need for other things (wealth, revenge, lulz) can be come so great that they out weighed that desire to be honorable. They steel, murder, and destroy. In real life, police and prisons discourage crimes with more punishment then being disgraced, but in minecraft, and anywhere online, your identity is hidden, you cannot be punished, and the lack of honor dose not spread to elsewhere easily. This is why I belive honor has such less context on the internet, that the online world is such a chaotic world that it is: People lose their prospective on honor, and only those who care the most uphold the rules and responsibilities of the internet communities.
My definition of honor would be: something you automatically achieve by being exposed to a society where honor is given to you. But i think it can also be created if you are exposed to a society where almost no honor occurs. Of course, each and every one of us has their own view of honor, and i think that is great, because i also believe that our sense of honor is a part of what defines who we are.
To me personally (my sense of honor), honor is to achieve my goals in the "right" or "honorable" way. In my case, my only goal is knowledge.
Honor in combat: I guess that depends on who/what you are fighting for. I do not think it is honorable for a soldier to fight in a war if his reason simply is because he likes to fight or kill. Also, i do not think it is honorable to war over religion or beliefs. You have no right to kill people simply because they have a different belief than you. However, if you fight for your loved ones, your rights, or simply to stay alive, i think that is one of the most honorable things you can do.
Honor in politics: In countries with dictatorship and communism, i think there isn't much honor to politics, since the average man/woman cant really make a change. But even in the democratic governments we have today in the western world, honorless-nes is a factor. For example, the so-called "global warming" seems to fit perfectly with the governments wallet. Also, those governments "muffle" other theories and factors,for example cosmic rays (the government cant seem to tax cosmic rays, can they?) Honor in politics could do allot better.
gonna say that honor starts after a lot of other virtues, and is related to how consistently and in which way those other virtues manifest.
So a slave owner may kill his slave for disobeying him, and may not be dishonorable because he doesn't know any better. In such a case he is ignorant and confused as far as I'm concerned.
Honor is upheld when one acts in accordance with one's sense of right and wrong on a deep level. Watching someone get beat and refusing to aid them out of fear of being hurt can be dishonorable, but if one avoids jumping into the fray because he or she knows that he cannot get hurt so that he may later complete his job successfully to get money and feed his child . . . Poor man, his soul might be tormented, but I think it is a better choice to not get involved. Is it the honorable choice? At this point I don't know. I think then maybe I would not call him dishonorable, but he upholds a practicality that is more important than honor.
In our more mundane forum world, honor manifests as evidence of self-mastery. Those who are useful are honorable, though not particularly so. Those who are useful but are only useful in exchange for merit are not honorable.
I don't know if it vexes you to hear it, but I find you honorable and consistently so, and progressively more so.
My definition of honor is not like a knight or a samurai, but a definition of how good (moral/ethic-wise) a person is. The aim is not to "defend" what he has or believes in, but to condone others and their needs. This isn't to say that an honorable person has no beliefs, but it is important that he allows others to believe what they want as well.
This person should always be honest, amicable and tolerant. Even if he disagrees with another person's actions, beliefs, or lifestyle, he will remain tolerant and treat them as another human being, refraining from openly insulting their views. He avoids getting angry, as that would make him lose control of his actions and words.
The main goal of an honorable person is to not harm another person (emotionally or physically), or do anything that could result in harming another.
It certainly added some more stuff to my knowledge of the forum, but not that much, I already knew most of it, and I'll try to improve myself with these suggestions towards being a critic.
I'm clearly missing something. How is this thread useful in anyway at all?
It's not necessary for beings of complete perfection, such as yourself. However, for those whom wish to improve themselves, this acts as a guideline on not only WHY the rules exist; but common sense rationale on how following the rules positively affect the forum and content that is processed through it.
It's not the holy grail to improve the forum, it is only a tool. Considering the state of this forum (and the constant attempts to improve it), we need as many tools as possible.
I'd appreciate it if you made attempts to understand that. Thanks.
On necroposting, I think that it is fine to resurrect with a mere "I think this is a good idea."
If a person wants to share an idea they had, has located a previous such thread, and has nothing to add to it, is it so wrong that they merely revive it so that others may see it? Is that not the original goal of creating such a thread in the first place? I don't think it necessarily needs critical discussion; sometimes support and viewership is significant and enough. "Here was a good idea, there has been discussion on it, points made, points refuted, points upheld, revisions made . . . Come see if you like it as well!"
Your point remains about how moderators react to necroed threads, and so, it would be prudent to, at the very least, feign discussion. Ideally, mods should properly discriminate such situations and accept that support that keeps a thread bumped is support that mitigates duplicate ideas in a duplicate thread. To determine a worthwhile bump is an excruciating task with the multitude of responsibilities, but, what're you gonna do. Mods have taken on a difficult job to do well.
The rules don't cut it, as they're unreasonable to reasonable people, and serve like many laws in the U.S.A: when a situation arises that needs mod intervention, they can cite the rules and derive righteousness from them for their decisions and actions, but if they were constantly enforced to the letter, the forum would be some kind of pathetic.
On necroposting, I think that it is fine to resurrect with a mere "I think this is a good idea."
Then at least explain why. The thread died a long time ago, "This is a good idea" looks simply like a bump.
If a person wants to share an idea they had, has located a previous such thread, and has nothing to add to it, is it so wrong that they merely revive it so that others may see it? Is that not the original goal of creating such a thread in the first place? I don't think it necessarily needs critical discussion; sometimes support and viewership is significant and enough. "Here was a good idea, there has been discussion on it, points made, points refuted, points upheld, revisions made . . . Come see if you like it as well!"
Support is good if the thread is living on its own merit. If people have to post "This is a good idea" long after it dies, it generally died for a reason.
Your point remains about how moderators react to necroed threads, and so, it would be prudent to, at the very least, feign discussion. Ideally, mods should properly discriminate such situations and accept that support that keeps a thread bumped is support that mitigates duplicate ideas in a duplicate thread. To determine a worthwhile bump is an excruciating task with the multitude of responsibilities, but, what're you gonna do. Mods have taken on a difficult job to do well.
We try to look for what necro's might spark discussion, and which are just bumps. "This is a good idea" does not look like it could spark discussion. If you are adding significant information to a dead thread, I'm not going to do anything. If you are just bringing a thread back from the grave, it deserves to go back.
The rules don't cut it, as they're unreasonable to reasonable people, and serve like many laws in the U.S.A: when a situation arises that needs mod intervention, they can cite the rules and derive righteousness from them for their decisions and actions, but if they were constantly enforced to the letter, the forum would be some kind of pathetic.
Personally, I think the rules are just fine. Most of them are be polite/don't spam. Understandably, we can't make everyone happy. There are some that want loose enforcement, and there are some that want strict enforcement. Following the rules to the letter allows us to be unbiased, though it does irritate some people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
"This is a good idea" is simply a bump, and my argument is that that's okay sometimes. Threads die off for lots of reason and sometimes it's simply because all of the people involved in it have said their piece and so let it die. Floods of duplicate threads dominate the front page often, and someone who posts a thread at the wrong time can see their thread die off without discussion, but if they bump it, people who were not present or simply missed it before may be present to see it and offer their bit to the discussion. Similarly, different members have their own unique input and perspective which may be valuable, and so, a thread that resurfaces at a later date has a different viewership.
Letting an old thread stay dead may invite threads of duplicate ideas which may or may not be conducive to discussion, since many people are unwilling to read through the discussions of old threads. At the same time, it's not surprising when members get frustrated and derisive against other members who bring up arguments that have been repeatedly and consistently refuted in previous, now inactive threads.
So the question to me becomes what is the difference between making a new thread and reviving an old one? The enthusiasm of the new posters who have a discussion that is new to them but old to the forum? Is that discussion valuable because it occurs, or is a discussion valuable because there are new ideas appearing and rebounding between people?
And what is the difference between sharing an original idea and sharing an old idea that belongs to someone else? Does that person not simply want the idea to be known to others? If they find such an idea that is well-written so that they can find no fault in it, cannot think of a way to enhance it, is it then not okay for them to bump that thread? Let others see it as it may be new to others, and then perhaps they may have something to add to it? Again, with such an intention, I do not see much difference between a new and an inactive thread.
That a thread is deemed old does not negate these things, but I recognize there is a correlation between inactive threads and threads that shouldn't be revived. But it is a correlation only.
The problem is if we allow people to randomly necro suggestions, the front page can easily be spammed with old/mostly decomposed ideas and we cannot stop it. As I said, if you add significant information to the thread, I'll let it live. Simply bumping is not enough.
The options are:
1) Let people necro. Yeah, some old, good ideas might be dug out of their shallow graves, but the horrible ones that should have been encased in cement will also return.
2) Have moderators choose what threads are okay to necro. This comes with many downsides. First, we have different opinions. Something that looks good to me might look horrible to someone else, and something that looks like crap to me might look good to someone else. Second, we could look biased that way. If I generally disagree with the same users, and send his necros back to the grave, I'd look biased for doing what became my job. This is just too subjective to work.
3) Leave it as it is now. Still slightly subjective, but there are some definite rules that we can follow. If you care enough about something to necro it, you should have the ability to add significant information.
The third is the only option that does not put excessive weight on the shoulders of the mods. Its easy to tell what is significant information and what is a bump in disguise. The first would lead to worse spam than similar suggestions, and the second will lead to many disputes over what the mods leave.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
"If you care enough about something to necro it, you should have the ability to add significant information." is simply not true
I agree. Many threads die because everything that has to do with it has already been said. If an idea doesn't have a mod to go with it, it will die unless some modder comes along, simply because there is only so much information that you can add to any idea.
I agree. Many threads die because everything that has to do with it has already been said. If an idea doesn't have a mod to go with it, it will die unless some modder comes along, simply because there is only so much information that you can add to any idea.
Some ops just get unlucky and post their threads on a quiet day. I cannot tell you how many of my ideas have sunk away simply because there have been a minute amount of people online. The support I do get tends to be very positive however; in addition 'guests' annoy me beyond belief. I've had 11 guests browsing my thread and not one of them logged in and posted, it is beyond irritating.
My point with this is, if you're going to take the time to find the thread, read the replies, why not take the time to make a good reply? "I like this idea" is incredibly lazy response, and adds nothing for discussion to a presumably dead thread. If you actually care about the thread you are bringing back, why not at least try to make a good response?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
I side with Beltir on this one, even though you may not have much to contribute to what's already said, restimulating the dialogue with a point of discussion is enough to resurrect the thread.
Stating "I agree with this" or "+1" doesn't leave room for discussion. Often stating a point that needs some work or stating how people would feel it would work in version x.y is enough to get the conversation started again, leaving it open to be repopulated.
Hey guys, tell me what to post and I'll take all the credit.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
It's all the same to me. Call it what you will; I believe it'll work as long as it fits personal belief. I personally have a more... honorable definition of "champion".
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
It is correct.
A necro-bump in any section is also hard to moderate, to be honest, due to overlapping with another rule. Repeat threads.
They directly compete with each other, but generally if you add content to the thread, and it is not incredibly outdated (OP is still full of relevant information), then it is not considered a necrobump.
If you follow the rules, search, and find a thread on the subject that you are talking about, there are some things to think about before posting.
1) Check the OP. If a decent amount of it is outdated (no longer relevant at the time you are looking at it), proceed.
2) What you are posting is unique. (If you make something that is basically the same thing in your own words, it'll be locked because the expected path is the same, and you are not adding a completely different view on the subject)
3) Your post is of equal or greater quality. (Most subjective part of all of this. If you find something of good quality, but died out for some reason, there probably isn't interest in it. Posting again in poor quality wont change that)
If your thread works with all of the above, then post it. Otherwise, you are just going to end up with your thread being locked.
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
You should know this by now!
Also, social experiment time:
*preemptive - ahead of time.
Quotes below:
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
It certainly added some more stuff to my knowledge of the forum, but not that much, I already knew most of it, and I'll try to improve myself with these suggestions towards being a critic.
Thanks for writing this
- Grey
Because it tells people who post on others suggestions how to behave.
It's not necessary for beings of complete perfection, such as yourself. However, for those whom wish to improve themselves, this acts as a guideline on not only WHY the rules exist; but common sense rationale on how following the rules positively affect the forum and content that is processed through it.
It's not the holy grail to improve the forum, it is only a tool. Considering the state of this forum (and the constant attempts to improve it), we need as many tools as possible.
I'd appreciate it if you made attempts to understand that. Thanks.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
If a person wants to share an idea they had, has located a previous such thread, and has nothing to add to it, is it so wrong that they merely revive it so that others may see it? Is that not the original goal of creating such a thread in the first place? I don't think it necessarily needs critical discussion; sometimes support and viewership is significant and enough. "Here was a good idea, there has been discussion on it, points made, points refuted, points upheld, revisions made . . . Come see if you like it as well!"
Your point remains about how moderators react to necroed threads, and so, it would be prudent to, at the very least, feign discussion. Ideally, mods should properly discriminate such situations and accept that support that keeps a thread bumped is support that mitigates duplicate ideas in a duplicate thread. To determine a worthwhile bump is an excruciating task with the multitude of responsibilities, but, what're you gonna do. Mods have taken on a difficult job to do well.
The rules don't cut it, as they're unreasonable to reasonable people, and serve like many laws in the U.S.A: when a situation arises that needs mod intervention, they can cite the rules and derive righteousness from them for their decisions and actions, but if they were constantly enforced to the letter, the forum would be some kind of pathetic.
Then at least explain why. The thread died a long time ago, "This is a good idea" looks simply like a bump.
Support is good if the thread is living on its own merit. If people have to post "This is a good idea" long after it dies, it generally died for a reason.
We try to look for what necro's might spark discussion, and which are just bumps. "This is a good idea" does not look like it could spark discussion. If you are adding significant information to a dead thread, I'm not going to do anything. If you are just bringing a thread back from the grave, it deserves to go back.
Personally, I think the rules are just fine. Most of them are be polite/don't spam. Understandably, we can't make everyone happy. There are some that want loose enforcement, and there are some that want strict enforcement. Following the rules to the letter allows us to be unbiased, though it does irritate some people.
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
Letting an old thread stay dead may invite threads of duplicate ideas which may or may not be conducive to discussion, since many people are unwilling to read through the discussions of old threads. At the same time, it's not surprising when members get frustrated and derisive against other members who bring up arguments that have been repeatedly and consistently refuted in previous, now inactive threads.
So the question to me becomes what is the difference between making a new thread and reviving an old one? The enthusiasm of the new posters who have a discussion that is new to them but old to the forum? Is that discussion valuable because it occurs, or is a discussion valuable because there are new ideas appearing and rebounding between people?
And what is the difference between sharing an original idea and sharing an old idea that belongs to someone else? Does that person not simply want the idea to be known to others? If they find such an idea that is well-written so that they can find no fault in it, cannot think of a way to enhance it, is it then not okay for them to bump that thread? Let others see it as it may be new to others, and then perhaps they may have something to add to it? Again, with such an intention, I do not see much difference between a new and an inactive thread.
That a thread is deemed old does not negate these things, but I recognize there is a correlation between inactive threads and threads that shouldn't be revived. But it is a correlation only.
The options are:
1) Let people necro. Yeah, some old, good ideas might be dug out of their shallow graves, but the horrible ones that should have been encased in cement will also return.
2) Have moderators choose what threads are okay to necro. This comes with many downsides. First, we have different opinions. Something that looks good to me might look horrible to someone else, and something that looks like crap to me might look good to someone else. Second, we could look biased that way. If I generally disagree with the same users, and send his necros back to the grave, I'd look biased for doing what became my job. This is just too subjective to work.
3) Leave it as it is now. Still slightly subjective, but there are some definite rules that we can follow. If you care enough about something to necro it, you should have the ability to add significant information.
The third is the only option that does not put excessive weight on the shoulders of the mods. Its easy to tell what is significant information and what is a bump in disguise. The first would lead to worse spam than similar suggestions, and the second will lead to many disputes over what the mods leave.
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
"If you care enough about something to necro it, you should have the ability to add significant information." is simply not true
I agree. Many threads die because everything that has to do with it has already been said. If an idea doesn't have a mod to go with it, it will die unless some modder comes along, simply because there is only so much information that you can add to any idea.
Pipes
My point with this is, if you're going to take the time to find the thread, read the replies, why not take the time to make a good reply? "I like this idea" is incredibly lazy response, and adds nothing for discussion to a presumably dead thread. If you actually care about the thread you are bringing back, why not at least try to make a good response?
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
Stating "I agree with this" or "+1" doesn't leave room for discussion. Often stating a point that needs some work or stating how people would feel it would work in version x.y is enough to get the conversation started again, leaving it open to be repopulated.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)