Board Thread:Administrative Requests/@comment-24891101-20150527030147/@comment-3387274-20150528062910

That policy would cripple any discussion of new info, since by that logic a thread can be locked just because somebody else talked about it a long while ago. By that logic, there can't really be new threads. And even if you make an exception for new info appearing in the canon, that still blocks out everyone who simply made a realisation about existing info that everyone else missed. Deleting new threads would lead to the poster pottentially not getting their answer and having to ask again because they missed it. Lock them, and you get a pileup of threads instead. So we'd really have to allow new threads on a topic to be created in order for new ideas to be presented, or just for the old ones to be passed on.

At which point, if we do go for creating new threads every time there'd just be continuity lockout, as Vell said; somebody missing a crucial point because it was in a different thread. Having to remind people to catch up elsewhere would be more annoying than Necroing, in my opinion.

Also, creating new threads too frequently just leads to excessive numbers of threads on the forum, as I said before. And if we delete older threads to control this the continuity problem gets worse, since the older threads might be lost, making it impossible to get the past discussion for context.

I note that most people are objecting to people either not paying attention to when a thread was created, or posting before they have all the info and getting it wrong. The former case would still apply if we allowed revived threads, and the latter would clearly be made much, much worse. And that's apart from the clutter. In the end, those problems are not caused by necroing, they're caused by people being stupid or making mistakes. And that isn't going to change just because of a new policy, since they'd just mess up in other ways. The problems caused by having an anti-necro policy affect everyone, whether or not there's a poorly-informed post involved, and could pottentially cause more problems.

So I really think implementing a policy like this is a bad idea, one that's going to cause more trouble. I'm not even sure why reviving an innactive thread is such a bad thing to anyone.