Might that result in lots of newbies making 10 fatuous posts just to get that requirement out of the way, filling up threads with worthless (err…more worthless than usual, anyway) text?
A lot of the complaint is against newbies resurrecting zombie threads, which by definition are old threads by someone else. Limiting starting new threads would not prevent that at all.
I know how y’all are about new rules, but how about a general ban on “zombie” and “braiiiins” type responses? I can see politely mentioning to newbies that try to argue with ancient viewpoints about the appropriateness of doing so, but anything beyond that should be handled by the mods, in my humble opinion.
So, how about somewhere during the sign-up process, provide this information to the new user (vs. simply having it available and suggesting they read FAQ before posting)? It could be a link (Please click here to view the policy on ZOMBIES), or a page to read and acknowledge.
This gently educates them, and at the same time won’t scare off anyone who still wants to participate.
I will say though, that this discussion bring up valid points about zombies not being all that bad, in the grand scheme…I’ll try to remember to pay attention to the dates myself, to avoid getting sucked into the trap.
Maybe we all just need to get over it for now and think about getting riled up again in a month. That’s the schedule, right?
This place is elitist enough as it is. No, there should not be a waiting period before posting.
Zombies are only a big deal if you make it a big deal.
Don’t know about “lots” but certainly “more than zero”. The boards at IGN don’t allow PMs until after 10(?) posts and I have seen someone making a series of posts on a dead board just to be able to send PMs.
I like all the one time posters. I always wonder what search terms they were using to come upon that old SD column they are commenting on, bitch.
preposition, sentence end, women who design things …
The thing is, most posters who just drop by to make one comment won’t end up sticking around. But at the same time, most posters who do end up sticking around originally just dropped by to make one comment. Looking back into the mists of prehistory, for instance, there was about a month between my first and second posts. So, yeah, most of the people we’d turn away with a waiting policy wouldn’t be any loss, but those few who are would be a very significant loss indeed.
What a fantastic new idea. Suggesting they read the FAQ has never been tried before! :rolleyes:
I sorta think anyone who makes a ‘braaaaaains’ or ‘stupid zombies’ comment after an initial ‘FYI, this is a zombie’ post should get a warning. We know, children, you don’t all need to run to teacher to tattle.
My ideal solution would just be an alert on a new post saying you’re posting to an old thread, but that functionality doesn’t exist natively on the boards.
Hell no. If we banned the zombie jokes that some people found annoying, we’d have to ban the zombies since some people find those annoying. If we ban them just because it might scare off a newbie, we’d have to ban all snark towards newbies. Do you seriously a “Brains” post is more likely to scare someone off than a post that actually implies they are stupid for even asking any questions?
And while it has no bearing on the above, I do want to point out that, while I have no problem with zombies amd don’t like the basic zombie jokes, I do love the more creative ones.
And, honestly, it’s not as if the idea of calling necro-posts zombies is something anyone who has used the Internet shouldn’t be aware of. In a way, we’re fighting ignorance by letting them know the term, even if some boards don’t give a crap.
No. But if somebody bumps an old thread to ask a question and gets a couple of zombie jokes and no answers to the actual question, I think that can leave a bad impression. That doesn’t always happen, but it does happen sometimes.
Isn’t that exactly what I said? Rather than simply suggest that they read FAQ, make the caveat about zombies an explicit stage of the sign-up process.
Here’s you eyeroll back :rolleyes:. I don’t need it.
No. Not unless we also get to ban insults by male posters about so-and-so getting sand in their vaginas. That casual sexism is much more annoying than zombie jokes.
If we ban things just because they’re annoying…it just won’t be the newbies you have you worry about scaring off.
72.3% of the SDMB would be history :eek:
Another solution looking for a problem.
The only issue with “zombie” threads is careless existing SDMB members who don’t bother taking the 2 seconds to look at the date on the OP.
What possible reason would there be to try to discourage new posters from adding their .02c? It’s not as if it’s actually hurting anything to have an older thread resurrected.
Really…is a thread on, say, Casablanca from 2003 any less valuable than a brand new thread?
And on the time-sensitive ones, frankly I think it’s interesting to see how opinions change over time–posting in the first LOST thread about “Hey, look at these opinions–look at who got it right and who got it wrong…”? Sounds like a great thread.
If you’re bothered by “zombie” threads, just open your eyes and take the 2 seconds to read the fucking date on the op. It’s not a new poster’s fault that you’re lazy or careless. And we don’t get enough new posters as it is.
Frankly, if the choice is an enthusiastic new poster or an veteran poster who can’t be bothered to read the OP, I’d rather have the new one.
My point was just that you can’t justify banning zombie jokes because they scare off people if you don’t also ban other things that scare them off more.
I am aware that it does sometimes scare people off. That’s why I was helping out with my previous post. In fact, I was thinking about having the message say something about warning people that some jokes would be made, so we could keep the jokes, discourage zombies a little bit more for those who hate zombies, while still allowing them for those who don’t, and even keep from scaring people off.
And don’t give me that big about not adding hacks. We’ve tried a few already, so obviously it can be done for a significant enough problem.
Proposed Boilerplate:
Greetings Poster X and welcome to the Straight Dope. You may not have noticed, but you have replied to a 2007 thread, so don’t be surprised if some of the posters don’t respond to you. It’s nothing personal: they may just be lurking elsewhere.
or simply,
This is a 2007 thread by the way. Preceding posters are not necessarily currently active. No worries, just FYI. I might choose the first if the newbie displayed some indicators of sapience.
And at the risk of adding to board drama, anybody wishing to curb the zombie meme should just politely explain the joke to the newbie. Nothing destroys joviality like explanations of humor: Greetings Poster X and welcome to the Straight Dope. You may not have noticed, but you have replied to a 2007 thread, so don’t be surprised if some of the posters don’t respond to you. It’s nothing personal: they may just be lurking elsewhere. We’re a quirky bunch here: some of us like to joke about zombies and the walking dead whenever an old thread is resurrected.
I like the zombie jokes. Or at least when they are cleverly worked into some pun.