Inexpensive virus checker was closed by after seven (7) recent posters added to it. It could easily have lasted a few days with no harm to anyone whatever, providing a valuable service. But no, “Czarcasm Moderator”'s sole role here is to stop active conversations cold. I was going to add a recent find of my own but “Czarcasm Moderator” is too stuffy about this “rule” to permit it. I must create my own thread if I want to add? Well, don’t count on it. I’ll just keep my recent discovery to myself. This is my thread and it’s not about virus, I’ve moved on and the moment is gone. Hope you’re happy “Czarcasm Moderator”. Actually, I bet you are happy. You always love to talk about your own virtuous “rules”.
Software goes out of date rather quickly. The hot antivirus last year could very well be an also-ran now.
Thank you.
Yeah, that’s happened to me too. It’s a drag, isn’t it, to discover that the subject of a closed thread doesn’t actually interest one enough to bother to start a new thread about it?
You should talk! you’re worse than Czarcasm at being all negative. Have you ever looked over your “contributions” to the forum for the last several years. Do so now. I think you’ll find that you have locked and erased more good posts than you’ve made.
As runner pat says, "Software goes out of date rather quickly. The hot antivirus last year could very well be an also-ran now. " Of course in the case of this thread he’s wrong. All the software mentioned on that thread is alive and well. But his words apply to moderators. They go out of date quickly, and the hot moderator of years past is an also-ran now. I think you only come here to kill other people’s fun because if you failed to lock or delete things you wouldn’t bother to come at all. Try it for a week. Don’t step on anyone’s toes for a week and see if that’s all you come here for any more.
It’s a drag, isn’t it, to discover that the subject of a thread interests others but not the self appointed frump that locks it to validate his existence.
I, for one, welcome our frumpy overlords.
Seriously, dude, would it kill you to open a new thread and link to the old one? The material is still accessible, the old thread isn’t zombified - everybody happy.
You are right, by gum. I will open that new thread, and copy all the prior posts into it. Your suggestion has saved the day! Thank you.
Oh, and I apologize to Frank for saying he still steps on people’s toes by locking threads. I forgot that he is a non-mod these days, so he has to remain just a poseur of a frumpy overlord, stepping on peoples toes without the lock. Some comfort at least in that.
Keep fighting the good fight, man.
That’s not what he suggested. He suggested linking to the old thread in a new OP, not copying all the prior posts. Due respect, but with all the complaints out there about everything from board performance to the inability of Charter Members to sponsor new members, yours is rather unnoteworthy. We cannot make the board run faster. We cannot make the Subcsription dropdown show member pricing. But you can easily open a new thread and link to an old one. There exist actual needs. I recommend saving the crybaby stuff until the board is zipping along, new members can be sponsored, and assorted other real problems that we can’t do anything about ourselves are taken care of.
I stand corrected. Your wishin’ is my commission!
Brainiac, you should not be abusive towards people on this board – whether they are on staff or not.
You have been formally Warned.
Actually, without bitching, I’d like to formally agree with him. I thought the zombie rule was, if you have something valuable to add, you can zombify it? Now it seems like we just lock threads without even seeing if the new posts are worthwhile. Just to obey a rule.
Another message board I’m on actually prefers reviving old threads to starting new ones on the same topic.
I don’t understand it either.
More like being frustrated with a newbie.
Depends on the forum. Generally it’s OK to post to an old thread if you are adding new information in at least CCC, CSR, GQ, and Cafe Society. Other forums, which are more conversational than informational, have different policies.
Expanding on what Colibri said:
In some forums, such as the Pit, we really do NOT want zombie threads. There are two main reasons:
(a) Some of the people who posted to the thread two years ago are no longer posting here, and can’t defend themselves or respond; and
(b) There are issues that have died and time has healed over the wounds, and we don’t see any point to some newbie unwittingly picking at old scabs.
This is less an issue in (say) Cafe Society, as long as the new posters understand that the posters from two years ago may not be here, may not be reading that thread, etc. and many not engage in discussion. There’s less “attack” mode in Cafe Society than in the Pit --someone not being able to defend their position about some TV show is different from someone not being able to defend their character against attack.
Thus, in Cafe Society, CCC, CSR, and GQ, it’s OK to add thoughts to an old thread. In the Pit it’s absolutely not OK. And in MPSIMS and IMHO, it’s generally not OK.
In general, resurrected threads are at least a minor nuisance in any case. To make the point by using an example: You see someone complaining that their landlord searched their apartment while they were at work and stole money (say.) You get indignant on that person’s behalf. You read through the thread, really building up empathy for the person, and then, two pages later, you discover the incident happened four years ago. Some newcomer just put “That sucks” at the bottom. So, you’ve got all worked up over some issue that’s long dead. That’s annoying. Worse, sometimes, you don’t notice that the thread was old, and you try to interact with the prior posters, giving sage advice and well-thought out comments, and then finding out your efforts were completely irrelevant.
The topics where this is most annoying tends to be those of the Pit, IMHO, and MPSIMS. Topics in CoCC, Cafe Society, GQ… well, it tends not to matter so much if you see a thread about a movie that’s four years old, it’s still around on DVD. It doesn’t matter too much if you have comments on Cecil columns, or have further information about some GQ question about Christopher Columbus.
That’s why, in some forums we care and in other forums we don’t.
I agree with this, and I’m not a frustrated newbie by a decade.
Here’s one I just ran into with many new posts, and a main link from** samclem** killed off by Twixter for no special reason, just the rule.
That resurrection started with someone who didn’t actually have much to add to the discussion, which was followed up by someone asking a question. The person of whom the question was asked was unable to answer it because the events were so far in the past. That strikes me as a pretty good example of why we use a six-month rule of thumb in MPSIMS for “how old is too old.” (This thread, you’ll note, was twice that.)
Keep in mind, folks, that if a mod closes a thread as a zombie, and you think that there would be good reasons to leave it open, you can always PM that person and ask them to reconsider, giving those reasons. Decisions far more significant than the closing of threads get reversed around here – and are more likely to be if the request is presented courteously.
Okay, please unlock that thread, I was planning to add to it. And as an aside, I think asking questions is always an iffy proposition because those often go unnoticed, so I wouldn’t sweat one not getting answered. It happens a lot.
Done.