| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 01 Oct 2018 : 16:37:17
Who let the Necromancer in?
Some interesting Realmslore discussions back in 2003/2004. |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Oct 2018 : 06:03:56
I think we all made that splash when first diving into Candlekeep. I know I did. Such a vast trove of Realmslore - and lost Realmslore - that it's hard to resist dredging up forgotten old scrolls.
Although a speak with dead spell might be necessary to continue discussions with scribes who have not been seen in too many years, lol. And Candlekeep's search genie is a rather elderly, limited, senile being ... the mighty google search genie is a far more knowledgeable entity when adding the "site:forum.candlekeep.com" command word within each request. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Oct 2018 : 02:38:13
Again, the issue was previously addressed, and I'm satisfied with it. It's much better than it was, so I don't think that we need to bring it up again every time he finds an old thread.
Keep in mind that there are no restrictions, here, against resurrecting old threads -- as we have recently seen. There are similarly no restrictions on a person's daily post count -- as we have recently seen.
I asked for some restraint to be shown, and though he was under no obligation to do so, he has agreed to limit himself, so as not to cause any issues.
Sure, he made a big splash that first week -- but I don't think that's cause to keep mentioning it every time he posts. I appreciate the restraint he's now showing, and I'd appreciate it if everyone else acknowledged that and cut him some slack. |
| BenN |
Posted - 09 Oct 2018 : 00:37:48
He's at it again...... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Oct 2018 : 16:41:03
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The issue has been addressed.
Does not appeared to have been well addressed.
Compared to a week or so ago, yes, it has been. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 06 Oct 2018 : 16:03:26
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The issue has been addressed.
Does not appeared to have been well addressed. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Oct 2018 : 17:59:12
The issue has been addressed. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 02 Oct 2018 : 15:06:19
Eh, nothing's wrong with occasional necromancy. Obvious link-farming for wikia, while kind of objectionable, is not horrible, either.
Making every single message as long as possible with lots of empty lines and then dragging a cadaver on long chain behind it for good measure is either a deliberate annoyance or some sort of attention-begging compulsion, however. |
| Demzer |
Posted - 02 Oct 2018 : 08:39:08
While I admire the scope of such a monumental undertaking, I'm afraid it has rendered one subforum (for now ...) completely useless to me (and it was one of the few with constant new threads and updates) plus most of the time the necromancy is just to point to a later source that obviously has the answer, because it was published 5-10 years after the question ...
Jeez I hate bashing people ... I'll try with a private message but I don't know if I can word everything properly without sounding a prick, anyone tried already? |
| BenN |
Posted - 02 Oct 2018 : 00:29:35
The problem is that in doing so, he's going to knock more current scrolls off the front page. |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 01 Oct 2018 : 22:11:00
Yeah - I recommended I started with modern day and try to work backward instead :P
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Oct 2018 : 17:44:47
I think he's trying to peruse every discussion that has ever been had, here.  |
