You nailed that one.
How about making stupid, self-promoting witticisms a bannable offense instead.
I’m pretty sure there’s a “app” for vBulletin boards that pops up a message saying "you are about to reply to a thread that is over X months/weeks/years old, are you sure you wish to continue?"
or words to that effect. Admin can decide how many minutes/hours/days/weeks/months/years is too old
How about an app for all those people whining about “zombie threads” that pops up and says"Just look at the damned date in the corner and stop bitching about classic threads being revived already"
Or an app that delivers a strong electrical shock to anyone who posts “aarrgh…brainzzzz” to a revived thread?
New posters=good. Reviving old threads allows one to reevaluate old ideas in light of new issues. This is also good. I swear that this is the only board I’ve ever read that had so many people bitching about new posters reviving classic threads…we have the weirdest quirks here.
Seriously: It’s an old thread…but it’s still just words. They won’t hurt you. They don’t go bad like, say, last month’s pork chops that you forgot to throw out. Read them. Reply to them. Share new insights about them. Or, y’know…look at that date in the corner and decide “Nah” and just get the hell over it.
(But it took a while for it to register with me.)
Et tu, Brute?
Well, except they kinda do. I haven’t complained about the zombies because I don’t think they’re that big of a deal, but since you brought it up, this is pretty much what I find annoying about them.
The attraction of a message board like this is the ability to share and discuss ideas, be it debate over world events or bullshitting about the Harry Potter movie. So, you see a thread that looks interesting, you open it, you’re reading through it, and you come upon an interesting idea that you’d like to discuss (read: argue about) with the person who posted it. As you prepare to respond, you look and see that it’s someone who hasn’t been around since 2007. Well, so much for that, then. But hey, maybe it’s not a total waste — somebody saw fit to revive this thing after five years; let’s see what they brought to the table.
[QUOTE=newguy10524]
lol yeah that was cool
[/QUOTE]
…fantastic. YMMV, but I see a lot less bitching about this in threads where the necromancer has something useful to say, or otherwise sparks a new interesting discussion.
And there’s the other thing. Because of the increasing frequency of useless thread bumping, to avoid wasting your time, the thread reading procedure goes from “open thread, read posts, decide whether to respond” to “open thread, check date of OP, read posts, decide to respond, figure out whether poster(s) you want to respond to still exist, and if not, whether new poster has added anything of substance.” As I said, it’s hardly the end of the world, but if you don’t understand what’s annoying about adding three unnecessary steps to a process you do 50 times a day, you have a lot more tolerance for tedium than most.
That said, I’d like to take this opportunity to endorse any and all creative acts of violence and psychological torture on the perpetrators of zombie-thread jokes. “Braaains,” indeed.
We obviously have strong disgreements on other matters, but on this “Braaaaains” issue, I believe we can find common ground assuming you’re willing to add intense physical torture* to the mix along with creative violence and psychological torture.
*I’m still partial to the “Electro-shocks through the keyboard” concept.
No one has yet to mention the OP bumping his own year and a half dead thread just a few months ago?
We generally allow a gratuitous bump. One only. And, the fact that it wasn’t frivolous, but rather on point, we obviously allowed it.
You should tell that to Oakminster, who’s all worked up over people gratuitously bumping threads, on point or not. He lays out his concerns pretty clearly in the OP.
There are some good reasons to NOT add to old threads. Some of the posters aren’t around anymore to view or respond, and the topic may have grown cold. It’s not like a thread that has posts appended several times a day at least.
Why not lock all threads older than X months? Hire a few homeless people, teach 'em how and turn 'em loose.
I’ve never understood why this is considered an issue. So people might not be around to respond anymore? So what? If they don’t respond they don’t respond, big whoop.
Even if the topic’s not a zombie, it’s not like there’s some guarantee someone will come back and respond. If they do great, if they don’t, deal with it. 
If the topic is contentious or the bumper expects back-and-forth with the long-gone, we’ll lock. Otherwise that alone is not reason for us to lock a zombie.
We’ve taken a much more laissez-faire attitude toward zombies over the last few months, so far without undue problems.
Other than periodic threads in ATMB asking us to control them better, of course. 
And since when we locked them reflexively we had periodic threads in ATMB asking us to leave them over, that’s a wash.
That would be pretty awesome.
But it’s not the same thing. You cited a case of an ongoing complaint, where the person in question has not changed his behavior. Ergo, Oak posted to an existing Pit thread that he still has the complaint because the poster in question is still a whatever. What would you have him do, open a brand new Pit thread to say the same thing?
That’s quite different than a newbie finding an old thread via Google, bumping it from the depths of time with a “me too”.