Should the "No reviving old threads" rule be abolished?

[MJN SEIFER]

I think it should!

As many of should know, if a poster posts a reply to an old "dead" thead an admin will frown them for "reviving" a thread and then close the topic.

However there are times when inportant things need to be said on that topic - the poster may have never seen that topic and then one day s/he decides to look threw some old topics, sees something in the thread that needs to be replied to for some reason, be it personal or the answer that is needed.

Other forums I am/have been a member of actualy don't have this rule.

However a slight negative side is that when a topic reaches 30 pages (That actually happend once) it can be quite tough to find where you are.

I am in no authority but hopfuly the votes will cause the admins to reach a descision(sp?)

[Christmas]

No

[Hambone]

No. Once a thread is dead. It needs to remain dead, like wasps!

[Bahamut2000X]

How can you even tell anymore? I havn't been able to find any sort of posting times/dates anymnore since I came back to the forums. And my join date vanished as well. I'm so lost without my dates anymore. T_T

[sephirothishere]

indeed masmas.....they are old..and have already been discussed...why talk about them again...old threads are not sooo fun...

[rubah]

The only people that say that are the ones who get fooled and told off for posting in them.

They should not be revived unless you have the best reason in the world.

[White Raven]

I don't understand that if the gods don't want old threads to be reopened, why not just close them when they reach a certain age? :confused:

They should euthanasia them. :D

[Ryth]

No more baby killing! :mad2:

[XxSephirothxX]

Nah. In the vast majority of circumstances, it's better just to start a fresh discussion on the topic. Ending is better than mending. :monster:

[Shlup]

If a thread has been revived I often don't recognize it and'll post in it again. If I'm going to repeat myself, may as well be in a fresh thread.

[LunarWeaver]

I could revive all the hundreds of "Who is your favorite character" threads at once if it wasn't for that meddling rule.

[DarkLadyNyara]

I am in no authority but hopfuly the votes will cause the admins to reach a descision(sp?)
I'd say that, given how long the rule's been in effect, they have reached a decision. :D

No, they shouldn't be revived. Threads die for a reason.

[rubah]

We have better things to do than to close forty dozen threads every day, really. It's just common sense and forum ettiquette!

[Tavrobel]

No, it should not be abolished.

[edczxcvbnm]

Hell yeah it should. Then I could bring back 100 old threads an hour and really just piss people off.

[Giga Guess]

The only people that say that are the ones who get fooled and told off for posting in them.

They should not be revived unless you have the best reason in the world.

Agreed. And NO I'm not sucking up!

[Bunny]

The short answer is no.

The long answer is nope.

[Xaven]

I am in no authority but hopfuly the votes will cause the admins to reach a descision(sp?)
I'd say that, given how long the rule's been in effect, they have reached a decision. :D

No, they shouldn't be revived. Threads die for a reason.
Yeah, that.

[Rase]

However there are times when inportant things need to be said on that topic - the poster may have never seen that topic and then one day s/he decides to look threw some old topics, sees something in the thread that needs to be replied to for some reason, be it personal or the answer that is needed.
You could always use the handy PM system, though given how old most dead threads are the person in question probably won't remember or care anymore.

Oh, and no, I like it how it is now. It's not that hard to make a new thread about a topic.

[Morningstar]

Nah. People would get confused.

[Jojee]

I remember one of the times that I came back to the forums in um I dunno, 2003? I revived a bunch of old threads and then Leeza closed every single one of them and kept saying "Stop reviving old threads!" x( I felt so gyped. xD

I don't care if they rule stays or goes ^_^ Usually I'm too lazy to hit the button to go to the 2nd page even.

[Zeromus_X]

You can just make a new topic. :) :cat:

[Evastio]

No. Once a thread is dead. It needs to remain dead, like wasps!
What if someone is asking for help or advice? EoEO Threads should be allowed to be revived if the person still needs help.

[Goldenboko]

No you could always make a new thread and it would get too confusing I hate when old threads are brought.

[Agent Proto]

I don't believe the "no reviving old threads" rule should be abolished. Some threads don't deserve to be revived, and should stay "dead" rather than be revived. If we remove that rule, we could see a whole lot of confused members seeing threads by members who no longer post here. Though, I do think the rule is silly, it's there for a reason. However, some threads can be revived, but rarely are threads allowed to stay open if revived.

[Ashley Schovitz]

The only people that say that are the ones who get fooled and told off for posting in them.

They should not be revived unless you have the best reason in the world.

Is having no replies a good reason?

[rubah]

If there's no replies then clearly no one wants to talk about it. Which is depressing if you're posting in the art forum ;.;

evastio has a good point, and I think that could qualify as being one of the best reasons in the world. But you could just make a new thread and refer back like zexy said.

[NorthernChaosGod]

I don't think it should be abolished, merely changed.

If the reviver can bring a legitimate post to the table, that is still useful, insightful, and/or relevant, why not allow it?

Obviously threads that have some sort of time limit of relevance should stay dead.


And if you expect people to check dates to know when not to revive threads, why can't you expect to know that certain posts are old and that certain members no longer actively post? Sounds like quite a double standard.

[Quindiana Jones]

There is actually only one correct answer to this question, and that answer is no.

[Madonna]

Hey, if you are into corpses, what is the problem?

The rule should stay in place, you sick, disturbed souls.

[Quindiana Jones]

Corpses struggle less.

[abrojtm]

It should <i>maybe</i> be amended in the forums that don't get as much action as, say, GC; otherwise--no.

[Timerk]

I don't understand that if the gods don't want old threads to be reopened, why not just close them when they reach a certain age? :confused:

[starseeker]

Rules exist for a reason. The thread necromancy rule exists the keep threads in the forum relevant.

[Bunny]

Rules exist for a reason. The thread necromancy rule exists the keep threads in the forum relevant.

Threadcomancy!

I don't understand the problem. Usually if you can't find the post on the first three pages it is fair game to repost the topic with your own added flair. Make it yours, people!

[Bart's Friend Milhouse]

So when exactly is a thread considered old?

[Quindiana Jones]

Whenever people stop posting in it for a month. :bigsmile:

[Jess]

If the thread is dead and you wish to discuss the topic of it, why don't you just make a new thread? :jess:

[Burtsplurt]

I think it's a pretty pointless rule. :)

I know of one forum that forbids making a new thread for a topic that has already been discussed. Equally as pointless.

[Yamaneko]

Might want to fight the powers that be in another manner, kid.

[Mirage]

We have better things to do than to close forty dozen threads every day, really. It's just common sense and forum ettiquette!
I'm sure it could be automated :p