What's wrong with zombie threads?

[Vort]

Why the rush by mods to close any thread more than a year old if it gets posted on after being dormant for a time? What's the logic behind such thread closure?

[rameumptom]

I KNEW it! Vort is actually a Zombie! He's just slowly devouring our brains as we share our intelligence and intellect on this site. He wants to draw it out long and slow for any of the zombie threads that he has put in place to slowly suck the smarts out of us.

Beware Vort the Zombie!

[Vort]

Hey, ram, come on over here. I have something I want to talk to you about. Pick your brain, so to speak.

No, really, it was just a figure of speech. You can trust me.

CDC Tells Us How To Prepare For The Coming Zombie Apocalypse

(My avatar is actually saying "braaaaainsssss!")

[beefche]

Various reasons. Perhaps the old thread had prior contention and we don't want to stir up that nest again. Perhaps, the OP was banned and we don't want to bring up old thread that may contain wrong information or something. Sometimes there might be some behind the scenes things going on and that thread may be used (by a non-mod) to try to stir things up or for nefarious uses.

And sometimes it's just to keep the brain eating zombies at bay for just a little longer. Give us more time to prepare for the zombie apocalypse.

[Connie]

I have no problem with you starting a zombie thread, Vort. I would prefer, however, that you called them the "living impaired." Zombies are people, too, ya know.

[Vort]

Various reasons. Perhaps the old thread had prior contention and we don't want to stir up that nest again. Perhaps, the OP was banned and we don't want to bring up old thread that may contain wrong information or something. Sometimes there might be some behind the scenes things going on and that thread may be used (by a non-mod) to try to stir things up or for nefarious uses.

Strange, then, that I've seen at least half a dozen zombie threads closed in just the past week or so. Am I to understand that all of them were somehow objectionable? Or is it more like the default action to zombie threads is to close them down for some reason?

And sometimes it's just to keep the brain eating zombies at bay for just a little longer. Give us more time to prepare for the zombie apocalypse.

Look, I gave you the CDC link. If you haven't taken advantage by now, then it's your own fault when we^B^Bthe zombies eat your brains.

[estradling75]

Strange, then, that I've seen at least half a dozen zombie threads closed in just the past week or so. Am I to understand that all of them were somehow objectionable? Or is it more like the default action to zombie threads is to close them down for some reason?

Well sometime they just aren't fresh, hip, fashionable or current enough... I mean by definition they are SO last year...

[pam]

Sometimes the subjects are ones that have been discussed again and again numerous times since that particular thread was open. Why some pick those from 3 years ago, I don't know.

[Backroads]

... I just assumed the mods were trying to keep everything cleaned up and tidy.

[Vort]

Sometimes the subjects are ones that have been discussed again and again numerous times since that particular thread was open. Why some pick those from 3 years ago, I don't know.

Maybe there is some particularly relevant post in that thread that they want to emphasize. In any case, why lock the thread? Is there something objectionable about someone reviving an old thread? Is there some reason it's preferable to start a new one instead?

[pam]

As the manager of lds.net, there is a criteria that I use personally to decide if an old thread should be closed. It's all case by case. I don't close all old threads. Nor am I going to justify why some are closed and others aren't. It's just a decision that I make at the time. Sometimes it's based on whether it's an advice thread that the OP hasn't been on the site for a long time, sometimes it's the post the person makes after a thread had been dormant for years. Again, all case by case.

[Mahone]

Maybe there is some particularly relevant post in that thread that they want to emphasize. In any case, why lock the thread? Is there something objectionable about someone reviving an old thread? Is there some reason it's preferable to start a new one instead?

A large part of the issue is that subsequent posters rarely check the date of the OPs original post, and reply to the thread under the assumption that it was created recently, forgetting that just because a thread appears near the top, it doesn't mean it's a new one.

Posts made in 2007 were created with information the poster had at the time. Four years later, a lot has changed in the world and the posts might not make as much sense as they did in 2007, even little details that don't necessarily pertain to the primary subject of the thread. This can cause some confusion, and often it's better to close a thread and start a new one.

[estradling75]

When I close a thread for no other reason then age I do it for much the same reason Mahone. I have a hard time remembering what I did yesterday so I figure very few people want to try to figure out what they were thinking years ago.

That being said if something in a closed necro'd thread, strikes your interest. Start a new thread, generate new interest, with out carrying over baggage from what went before.

[Latter Days Guy]

Sod the zombies, I thought Vort was a girl!!! So I guess that is not you in the avatar then?

[Mahone]

It's probably also worth pointing out that if you do bump an old thread, it's polite just to point out that it's an old thread and give a reason why you are bringing it back up from its grave as opposed to starting a new thread. That way the moderators have a little more to think about before deciding whether or not to lock a thread, and any subsequent posters have been given warning that it is an old thread.

[pam]

It's probably also worth pointing out that if you do bump an old thread, it's polite just to point out that it's an old thread and give a reason why you are bringing it back up from its grave as opposed to starting a new thread. That way the moderators have a little more to think about before deciding whether or not to lock a thread, and any subsequent posters have been given warning that it is an old thread.

To be honest, when someone does that...such as give a reason and acknowledge that they realize it's old..I'm more likely to let it go.

[rameumptom]

Vort, so why are you worried about old zombie threads, anyway? They're dead! They're old and musty. The zombies often are missing limbs or eyeballs, which obviously distracts from the threads they are wearing. And besides, a zombie's clothing is usually not even something you'd find at Goodwill. Retread threads from the 70s aside, I'm just not into polyester. It's dead. Let dead zombie threads remain in the grave.

[Blackmarch]

Why the rush by mods to close any thread more than a year old if it gets posted on after being dormant for a time? What's the logic behind such thread closure?

cause only mods have access to the plasma cutters to disable them from necroing other threads.

[Vort]

Vort, so why are you worried about old zombie threads, anyway? They're dead! They're old and musty. The zombies often are missing limbs or eyeballs, which obviously distracts from the threads they are wearing. And besides, a zombie's clothing is usually not even something you'd find at Goodwill. Retread threads from the 70s aside, I'm just not into polyester. It's dead. Let dead zombie threads remain in the grave.

That's not phat, cat. That's not rad, dad. Dismiss the heads but don't dis the threads. Don't be rude, dude.