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

[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.

[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.