Rules update'

ah, I see. In that regard yeah, I could see an issue with that, they’re super annoying but just flat out banning them seems difficult to enforce, sorry for the mixup.

I actually have a pet peeve with the way old and inactive threads work. Let me explain.

First, I’ll pretend I’m talking about one of my threads. For me, any sort of criticism of a past project, or any feedback about it, any insights gained from playing it, and even something like, “Wow, I really enjoyed this project! The gameplay was fun even if I didn’t enjoy the dialogue!” or whatever; those are all useful posts. Those are good reasons to have my thread open. Truthfully, some people could achieve the same ends by PMing me, but that’s one small layer of friction I don’t like having.

My peeve, however, comes from a decision that most forums, including Serenes and FEU, often or sometimes make. Sometimes one person will make a post after like 6 months in an inactive topic, and their post is worthless. Just “is the proyect ded?” tier posts. Right, so that sucks. But then usually the entire post gets locked, thus preventing other people from leaving valuable feedback!

“Don’t bump old threads with nonsense. Locked.”

I mean, I see it on Serenes more than here, by a wiiiiide margin, but I think it’s worth pointing out. Now the thread, since it’s locked, has zero chance to accumulate valuable feedback, and that’s a shame.


Great point. I certainly don’t mind if somebody bumps a project years later to post a comprehensive review of what they enjoyed and what they would suggest. That sort of thing is so wholesome :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:


Edit: There were a couple of pretty rude posts above this that were flagged and then removed.

I’ve seen a couple of posts that were basically just an outcry of dissatisfaction with the staff. Here’s my opinion, for whatever that’s worth.

  • “Mods didn’t resolve this thread fast enough”

There was public backlash and in response to that, they said “wait, hold on” and brought revised policies to the table a couple of weeks later. These new policies seem to have been well-received.

  • “Mods have personal vendettas against me or a specific user”

Mods are people too. They don’t have to like you or agree with you. I admit that I’ve seen the rare comment from a mod that was a thinly veiled insult directed at somebody. It would be a nicer world if these comments didn’t happen, but I see no abuse of power. Any post I’ve seen that was later deleted (eg. one on this thread) or flagged were posts that were no where near respectful, legitimate feedback.

  • “I don’t like the mods”

That’s fine. We aren’t expected to like everybody. But we are expected to at least tolerate each other. Rude behaviour towards anybody, mod or not, is uncalled for and I feel those sort of posts should generally be removed.

Sorry for the rant & if this sort of post is out of place.


This felt rather unnecessary. I suppose I appreciate the, erm, support? I certainly don’t think the vast majority of FEU’s staff are terrible at their jobs or anything. A bit of bias is also always expected.

Moving on…

Yup. I’m just glad to see the policy revised.

I was hoping it would happen, and it did. That’s good moderation in my opinion. Now I’m only quibbling over the specifics.


idrk what the problem is, I think the finalized policy is fine. Mostly.

If a thread bad, lock it. That’s how it’s been done, and that’s fine, but, uh… do you really need to delete it? In any scenario?

Yeah if a thread is problematic, it should be removed entirely.
Not every bad thread should be deleted but some have no purpose in existing.

I’m just talking about in the context of add-nothing replies.

Oh in that case the threads aren’t deleted? If anything the pointless reply is.


that said, i am reserving the right of the staff to manually activate thread timers on specific threads without notice in extreme cases.

:clock4: This topic will automatically close in 8 hours.

Welp, I guess this thread was found to be an extreme case already. :skateboard:

It’d have been nice if, before closing this and we can’t talk about the topic anymore, it was actually decided what qualifies as a necropost and what doesn’t, and having it specified in the rules. I mean, if you still do care about user feedback on it.

We are intentionally playing our cards close to the chest regarding the precise amount of time relating to what is or isn’t a necropost. We have already had a case of someone posting exactly 30 hours before thread closure and then arguing that "it wasn’t the day before". Instead, you should use common sense to question whether your comment is worth bumping an old thread for.

A good standard might be that, if you feel the need to ensure that you are falling within some arbitrary limit on whether something is or is not “a necropost”, that suggests that the post you are about to make is not substantive, and you probably shouldn’t be making it.


Oh, I thought you wanted to be pretty strict on time limits, judging by the auto-lock timers that had been initially proposed. But from the sounds of it, you’re now going for a case-by-case thing, and it’ll depend on the post’s content? Sounds even better, then. :+1:

Yeah, that was also me, but I was trying to ask a genuine question about when a poll should be closed. So um, is there any reason why this particular thread has a doomsday clock on it?

As I believed there is no more to discuss (as our policy is unchanged from prior to this thread, only the wording of the rule), I felt there was little need to leave the thread open, especially following a series of personal attacks in this thread.

If you think there is more to be said, please do so and I’ll kill the timer.


I’m sure if someone has a galaxy brain contribution they can run it through you or another mod to reopen. It’s fine.

This topic was automatically closed after 21 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.