Old Threads

[Pilot]

Hey all, need some help!

I'd already PM'd Nate about this issue, but it occurred to me that it is very difficult to gain any kind of 'rounded' perspective without an open discussion so I'm asking for the attention of the Mods and Admins.

My question is about old threads. In off topic just a couple of hours ago I resurrected an old thread I'd started about the Odd Tour. Now my reasoning behind this was that I thought it would be of particular nostalgic interest to members, some new, some senior. The response I got was one of the most drastic I've ever seen in any thread (since I've been back anyway).

I'd like to know not "what" the rule is, as that is quite clear and was driven home a might clearly in that thread, but the 'why' this rule exists? This is not a challenge to anyone's authority as clearly the mods know their duties and reacted as expected.

Can someone tell my lame brain what the exact crime is in digging up old threads? Normally I would not see fit to pull up just 'any' old thread, mine or otherwise for the hell of it, but this thread I feel has a certain forum historical significance and even a 'current' appeal to members.

I think that if there is a rule in place for this, then a 'time limit' ought to be set so that a member knows if they are making an infraction or not. Is that reasonable? Was my resurrection of the Odd Tour unreasonable?

[Nate]

As I explained via PM: Reviving old threads makes the forum look like a mess. We'd have old threads popping up all over the place. Also, really good threads should be kept as they are and not have irrelevant crap added on to the end. If you want to call attention to an old thread, mention it in the Classics thread.

[From: http://www.oddworldforums.net/showpo...4&postcount=88]
As an addendum and clarification, threads are only Necrummed when they are either pointless spam that should be forgotten or game threads that served to boost postcounts absurdly. Quality, old threads are left open [and unmoved—Max] but should not be posted in.

[mitsur]

First off, a lot of these old threads that were lengthy in the way a good book is lengthy back then are now tl;dr lengthy since the majority of members weren't around when they happened.

Second off, nobody is really going to care about 2002 tours enough that only you will post in it. That might as well be spam. If you want to talk about a new tour, start a new thread or blog.

Sorry to kill the nostalgia, but leave the graves as they were.

[OANST]

If you feel that a thread has real staying power and that other users may get a kick out of reading it then you should add it to the classics thread. That way the thread doesn't get new posts by people trying to converse with long gone members but still gets another airing in the sun. I do this with almost every thread I've been in that I liked. I'm a whore.

[Leto]

It is indeed a 'Classics thread' situation.

[Hobo]

I'm a whore.

He is.

[Pilot]

Thanks everyone for making that clear. I just thought it better it be asked here for public record than discussion in private.

Hobo, thank you for making that clear too.

I am disappointed, however, that I was not infracted. With a bunch of homosexual admins and mods I thought that might actually be fun!

[OANST]

Thanks everyone for making that clear. I just thought it better it be asked here for public record than discussion in private.

Hobo, thank you for making that clear too.

I am disappointed, however, that I was not infracted. With a bunch of homosexual admins and mods I thought that might actually be fun!

You can have three or four of mine. Seriously, I have enough to keep us all warm at night.

[Nate]

You have no active ones left, OANST. Clearly you haven't been trying hard enough lately.

[OANST]

Sorry, guys. I've let you all down, again.