# Question about a thread closing **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 17, 2014, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-a-thread-closing/707475 "2014-12-17T06:08:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-a-thread-closing/707475/1 "2014-12-17T06:08:51Z")
[This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=211927) GD thread, which has lain dormant for 11 years, was re-opened by a new member, and was immediately closed, in a very short time (9 minutes) without any other responses. The poster did add new information (I am not sure of the quality of that information, but nevertheless…), which I thought was the usual rule for allowing a zombie thread to remain re-vivified. The topic, however, is uncomfortable, and the poster espouses an unpopular view. Although most of the posters in that thread are no longer active, could not this revived thread have stimulated new conversation without requiring the new poster to create a new OP from scratch? To be clear, I am not supposing any nefarious motives, just clarification of what is normal practice. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-a-thread-closing/707475/2 "2014-12-17T12:00:01Z")
I am not a GD mod nor am I the mod who closed the thread. But it seems to me that an 11 year old thread opened with a response to a banned poster should have been put down. Especially seeing that the thread was basically driven along by now banned posters. Regardless of the topic it doesn’t make sense to let certain zombies come back to life. The OP was instructed to open a new thread if they wanted. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-a-thread-closing/707475/3 "2014-12-17T13:23:19Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I am not a GD mod nor am I the mod who closed the thread. But it seems to me that an 11 year old thread opened with a response to a banned poster should have been put down. Especially seeing that the thread was basically driven along by now banned posters. Regardless of the topic it doesn’t make sense to let certain zombies come back to life. The OP was instructed to open a new thread if they wanted. Makes total sense to me. In this case. There I can be reasonable…now about that…oh, never mind. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-a-thread-closing/707475/4 "2014-12-17T13:47:45Z")
It might also be noted that the newbie, in his post, was quoting someone who is literally no longer with us. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-a-thread-closing/707475/5 "2014-12-17T15:23:10Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > The poster did add new information (I am not sure of the quality of that information, but nevertheless…), which I thought was the usual rule for allowing a zombie thread to remain re-vivified. [Here’s the FAQ on the subject.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697100&postcount=4) That’s the rule in General Questions, Comments, and maybe a couple of other forums. But it doesn’t apply to Great Debates or the other more “conversational” forums, in which the participants in the discussion are more critical to the character of the thread. There’s really no point in reviving a conversation in which most of the original participants are no longer involved, as opposed to starting a new conversation. Even in GQ, I would likely have closed a thread after a post like that, since the poster was trying to revive an argument rather than just posting new information. ---
**Author:** ![jimbuff314](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c57346/32.png) [@jimbuff314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimbuff314)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-a-thread-closing/707475/6 "2014-12-17T16:00:25Z")
**Gaw-DAY-ray** is posting (and moderating) again? Is this something like an Army Reservist being called up? Not being snarky at all (kinda thrilled in fact) but **Gaudere** had like 8 posts in all of 2011 and 2012, a mod post in July of last year and now a resurgence beginning this month. Wow. A moderator after whom an internet meme, rule, observation, thingie was named. Darned glad to see him/her back (haven’t nailed down gender yet.) ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-a-thread-closing/707475/7 "2014-12-17T16:19:55Z")
It’s a shame as I’ve always been a fan of her hands-off moderating style. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-a-thread-closing/707475/8 "2014-12-17T16:45:25Z")
> [@jimbuff314](#): > > Darned glad to see him/her back (haven’t nailed down gender yet.) Her. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-a-thread-closing/707475/9 "2014-12-17T18:35:56Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > [Here’s the FAQ on the subject.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697100&postcount=4) > > That’s the rule in General Questions, Comments, and maybe a couple of other forums. But it doesn’t apply to Great Debates or the other more “conversational” forums, in which the participants in the discussion are more critical to the character of the thread. There’s really no point in reviving a conversation in which most of the original participants are no longer involved, as opposed to starting a new conversation. > > Even in GQ, I would likely have closed a thread after a post like that, since the poster was trying to revive an argument rather than just posting new information. I agree. That was excellent moderation.