C K Dexter Haven said:
I, also, wish to say thanks. Not that this has been an issue to me, but the new etiquette/policy is reasonable and makes sense. It allows more leeway for continuing old discussions when there isn’t a problem, while still indicating reasons why they might be closed if there is a problem or to preclude a problem.
Not another “judgement call” situation. Cue the whines in 3… 2… 1…
Well, our assumption is that most Pit threads (espesh those about other posters) will be closed if zombified. However, we don’t want to require closure. For instance, why bother to close a resurrected thread complaining about (say) New York sales tax?
So, yeah, there will be whining, but we’ve got listed the conditions under which we’d close a thread. So, a mod will say, “This thread is a long-dead rant against a poster who was banned three years ago. Closed.”
I daresay I’m impressed. The new policies seem reasonable, and putting them in after considering poster suggestions is pretty cool.
See? I’m not always an asshole when I post about mod actions in this forum…
And while the default in GQ may be to leave zombies open, there may be circumstances in which they will be closed there. For example, just last week I had a case in which someone raised a thread from 2004 just to say hi to an acquaintance whose name they had come across by searching on Google. Unfortunately the poster had passed away almost three years ago. I gave them a link to the memorial thread in MPSIMS and closed the one in GQ.
There was another one a few weeks ago where somebody posted a response to Q.E.D., and I linked to the memorial thread/reported.
I assume you mean Q.E.D.
OH SHIT.
Um…I swear that wasn’t intentional. Don’t guess you’d be willing to fix it for me?
And whether it gets fixed or not, I’m sorry. It was an honest error. I would not take a cheapshot at a deceased poster like that. I’m horribly embarrassed.
In Comments on Cecil’s Columns, newbies regularly open threads without linking to the original column in question. Mods routinely offer boilerplate when adding the link. The system works pretty well. Friendly boilerplate is good.
No prob. Email me or any mod, with a link, and we’ll be glad to fix it. (Searching on “G.E.D.” and/or “Q.E.D.” will be tedious, and you presumably have some memory of date or topic to help narrow searching?)
Dex, he meant right here.
And it’s all right, Oakminster – we’re all one keystroke away from disaster, you know, all of us. Please don’t sweat this.
Since it’s done to go back and edit it out would make the rest of the thread nonsensical so I’m afraid we need to let this stand. However, it’s an honest oopses and there’s really nothing more that need be said about it. Go in peace.
I think the new policy is fine and reflects well on management.
There was a zombie thread a few days ago about old or funny business names (I can’t locate it at present) which was locked. While it was of no great interest I think the content showed a lot of how we reacted to each other then- it seemed a little more placid.
Fair enough. Thanks, Tuba.
I appreciate the new approach. Oftentimes, even if the the necromancer doesn’t really have anything particularly important to add, the additional discussion that follows is interesting and adds to the thread.
Gotta run, got a couple hundred threads I need to resurrect…
Hey, what is my thread, chopped liver? 
Err, I mean thanks a ton! These new policies make a lot of sense.
Sorry, Autolycus, I shoulda said “based on several threads”.
And I changed the GED to QED before I saw TubaDiva’s comment that it’s too late. So, I’ve messed up the trouser leg of history once again.
I shoulda stayed in bed today. Sorry, all.
Well then where’s my thanks for going to all that effort of opening a sequel thread for you? 
I’ll be answering this thread in early November 2017…
It’s okay. It still makes sense as long as you keep it in yours. Heck, I think we’d still figure it out, if not the exact misspelling.
I’ll thank you in a few years 