My response

[Saravanth]

So can we stop being assholes and move on?

[Ivan2006]

Honestly, I'm with everyone here.
Except Hyperlite.
Yes, I apologize, I was being rude at the time and overreacted.
Sorry for that.
But necroing IS against the rules.
And allowing someone to go against the rules without any consequences is a sign of bad management.
So yes, Hyper deserves the point, so that he learns his lesson to not necro tons of threads as a joke to let people know he's back. But again, it was a joke, if an unfunny one, so he propably should not get much more.
Leave it as it is and move on. And honestly, I do not remember Jedi rigging an election.
Even if he did that, I do not see how that would even be relevant here.

[Chairman_Tiel]

But necroing IS against the rules.

Realize that if we're defining necro as 'the posting in an old thread with the end result of disrupting the stream of current, relevant topics'; you're as guilty of it as he. Given that I would pipe down were I you.

[Ivan2006]

But necroing IS against the rules.

Realize that if we're defining necro as 'the posting in an old thread with the end result of disrupting the stream of current, relevant topics'; you're as guilty of it as he. Given that I would pipe down were I you.

Necroposting is allowed with a valid reason (i.e. if you have something constructive to add). If a topic on a certain... topic already exists, but is not active, bumping it rather than posting a new topic would be preferable; however, it is not necessary.

When I resurrect an old thread, I do it because I want to add something to a topic that has been discussed before and am therefore acting within the rules.
Know your sources, Tiel.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Not really. To go with your analogy, sure, maybe he does do all of those things, but it's not what's on display here. A whiff of aerated fecal particles is something that any 21st century AC unit or even our natural wind patterns will resolve by itself. What you should get out of that is that the environment fixes the problem. It's not a possibility, or a probability, but something that's inevitable. Likewise bumping a handful of threads, however old, is honestly beyond benign when you consider that unless people make a big deal of it (similar to a fart), it's quickly going to be buried under recent and relevant threads. The environment fixes the issue without any of the drama that has been drawn into being here.

So in practice, it's not even the necroer that "worsens the overall experience"; it is the people that "would actually like to fill with swearing" responses to the alleged offense. They are the ones that continually bump these old threads to the surface. They are the ones that create this unnecessary conflict out of virtually nothingness (making a mountain out of a molehill due to collapse anyway). Effectually they are the necroers, guilty of cluttering the forum just as much as the initiator, and any punishment you see fit to award to hyperlite should also be bestowed upon them.

So I hardly think you added anything 'constructive' to those bumped threads; not that I've seen, anyway. The type of misplaced, presumptuous arrogance you exude on a regular basis is like an amish on cocaine - laughable and distinctly idiotic. Check yourself before you shrek yourself.

[Ivan2006]

Tiel.
I admitted that I overreacted.
If you want to hold a lecture about how it's the people reacting to a necro that make it a problem, feel free to suggest changing the rules to "do not get angry at necroers".
Because in all honesty, this would be the logical consequence of your direction of thought.
Or you admit that it would be silly to give people points for being annoyed at a flood of old posts being washed onto the top of the list and finding nothing but "k", or a post of similar constructivity, in any of them. It is natural for humans to get angry in such situations, as in the fart example. People would propably not take you seriously if you tell them to not get angry at people running into the room with no appearent intent other than farting into the faces of everyone else. As Hyper said, it may sound harmless in hindsight, but at the time, people are simply enraged at the situation. And if you want to avoid such rage, there are only two ways to stop that by the means of moderation: ban getting angry at necroers or ban necros.
And in all honesty, I think that banning necros would be the better choice. If you have any reasonable argument why we should make it against the rules to get angry at necroers instead, please put that into the suggestions area. Thank you.

[Chairman_Tiel]

I'm not sure what you're on about (so won't try to address your tangent on...ostracism?) because all I'm suggesting is that you keep your trap shut as you have vicarious liability here. By yelping and yelping for increased punishment for hyperlite you're doing the same for anyone who helped these necros along, including yourself.

[Professor Fenway]

Tiel and Ivan you are both being ridiculous.

Tiel, Ivan is not in any way looking for increased punishment. He accepted that he OVERREACTED, but believes a point for hyperlite's actions is valid. And, yet again, you're devolving in personal insults. I'm getting really fucking tired of every fucking argument devolving into petty fucking insults.

Ivan, there isn't much of a reason to rage at these necros, as any sane human would simply ignore them. It's still annoying, yes, and is technically against the rules, but we don't need to completely rage against it.

Fucking unacceptable guys. Grow up and move on.

[Error]

And now that Fenway has summed things up succinctly, locked.

[Chairman_Tiel]

I'm getting really fucking tired of every fucking argument devolving into petty fucking insults.

Rich coming from you.

[Error]

Oi. Cut it out, all of you. If you feel the need to argue, do so via PMs.