Kill “Plane on a Treadmill” zombies on sight. Then ban the ressurector! 
… and if we did, the population of posters would not increase, but would steadily dwindle. Sorry, but you’ve cited one major reason FOR not making a big fuss about zombie threads. New posters come to the boards, and they browse or read old threads, and they want to comment. If our reaction is to scold them, they say WTF and go away and don’t come back. We need to be more welcoming. Heaven knows, we got enough new posters who start with serious rules infractions, we don’t need to make a fuss over trivialities.
I really don’t see the issue with zombie threads. There already is enough bitching about rules as it is. Why add another rule to correct a minor inconvenience.
We still want to restrict zombie threads, at least in the Pit. A great huge flurry of serious insults and hurt feelings and whatever from three years ago: time has [del]wounded the heels[/del] healed the wounds, some of the people are no longer around, and the once burning issue is cold ash. We don’t want such scabs being picked open. Hence, no zombies in the Pit.
This makes sense. So, why not close any threads in the Pit that have been inactive for, say, 6 months? In the very rare circumstance it were appropriate, one could pm you or another admin to reopen them.
In general, I think that if a thread is open, it should be fine to post to it, and if you don’t want people posting to it, close the thread. It’s not a big deal though.
This is plenty of reason not to lock threads. I did an informal poll on a forum I moderated for a couple of years and there was a significant number of people who found an old thread via Google and registered an account just to post in that thread. Sure some of those posts were pointless and were deleted and the threads locked in accordance with the “no necropost rule”, but many were substantial and our policy was to waive the rule in those cases for a new member and either leave the thread open or split that substantial post to a new thread. Getting that first post from someone is essential in acquiring new members.
Serious question: how many newbies who have made their first post by resurrecting a zombie thread have ever posted again?
Saw a zombie thread today in which Q.E.D. had been a major contributor. The resurrecting poster basically made the same point Q.E.D. had made several years ago. What’s the point of keeping it open?
That will never fly.
YES IT WILL!!! All you have to do is assume that…
Oh, I see what you did there :smack:
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Neither I nor any other mod wants to spend time counting that, even if we could. The more serious question is, how many newbies who made their first post by resurrecting a zombie thread DID continue posting? And would they have been discouraged from doing so by being scolded for resurrectionism?
I don’t think I follow this. We’ve got lots of threads (not just zombies) where one poster says something, and then another poster makes the same point two or three posts later. We’re all about discussion, and that means some repetition; not a big deal. The point about keeping that thread open is EXACTLY so that a newbie can post to it, as a way of joining our boards. So, the person didn’t read the whole thread to realize that there was already a post saying the same thing? Not a big deal, in our opinion: happens alla time. And not just zombie threads. And isn’t against the rules, nor morally offensive. Again, my point: we want to be welcoming to new posters, and to enable them to hop on in. If that means the rest of us need to read a repetition or old thread now and again, then that seems a small price to pay.
I think you just asked the same question the poster you quoted did.
The correct word is necromancy; my spell checker scolded me for keeping “resurrectionism” above. Anyway, if the thread was locked the “scolding” wouldn’t happen. I already said most “newbies” expect that if a thread isn’t locked, it isn’t old. You certainly can’t be attracting that many new members by letting them post in old threads, just because they can; the “jokes” in them about zombies is the same as “scolding” anyway.
Ah, sorry, my embarrassment – I somehow read “ever” in Jenarop’s post as “never.” I shouldn’t get involved in discussions until after I’ve had my coffee. My apologies.
My bad, I unfortunately deleted a sentence referencing a key part of my discomfort with that particular resurrection: Q.E.D.'s dead. If the new poster wanted a conversation with him on this topic, it’s gonna be kinda difficult. And were I told on a board that I just joined that I’d revived a thread in which the person I was responding to was a regular who’d died a while ago and and was sorely missed, I kinda doubt I’d come back anyway, being rather mortified.