Animation Source Forums

It's a rule that reviving old/dead topics is forbidden, but what exactly does "old" mean? I remember a time when it had to be well over a year old in order for it to count, but now it seems that even three months is too old to be deemed "active". I've even seen one topic that had only been posted in a MONTH earlier get called "old" - albeit from a noob who really didn't know what they were talking about.

First of all, while I AM totally against reviving old, dead topics, I must point out that sometimes the older topics are quite interesting, both in premise and in conversation. I feel, if the topic is good enough and content can be added to it, then it can be revived as much as possible. However, if all that's said has been said and nothing's been posted for six months or so, I feel it's like beating a dead horse.

So, my proposal here is that the mods get together and agree on what constitutes 1) a dead topic, and 2) an old topic - and they should be identified individually. If a topic is old but not dead - if there is still insight that can be given to it, or if more can be added in the present with information that was not available in the past - then I think it would be okay to revive it, as long as it's not SUPER-old like 8 years. If it's old AND dead, then the mods should decide what the time factor should be in determining its too-old-to-post limit - three months, six months, or whathaveyou.

Anyways, just a suggestion.

To my way of thinking, it is not "how old" the topic may be that is the real question, but whether or not they have something worthwhile and substantive to offer to the topic in resurrecting it.


It would be my assertion that, if the person posting has nothing of substance to offer to the topic, and the last post was more than a year ago, then they should not be permitted to post in it (and a moderator should handle it...reported or no).


The question becomes what defines "substance"? Word English Dictionary (from the dictionary.com website) defines "substance", as it relates here, as:





The usual answers given on topics by members, such as (and these are some real quotes from topics in the Balto forums):

"I agree with Kodi! "

"Good point on both of those."

"I have the Balto soundtrack!!!!!!!"

"i think so too."

"She was cool. I didn't mind her."

And that's just a tiny sampling of the kinds of inept, vacuous and pointless postings people often throw into topics...dead or otherwise, which cause so much consternation (and the reason why that rule came into existence). And these types of posts are almost ALWAYS what appear as new ones in otherwise long-dead (or even not-so-long dead) topics.


It seems a rather frustrating pattern for some of us that there are newbies AND noobs out there who consistently seek out OLD topics to do their first forum posts in, rather than the newer topics which occupy the top half of the first page of any particular board in the forum. And they do it on several boards, and some do it repeatedly and consistently, regardless of being advised that they really ought not to, and that there are plenty of newer topics (and sometimes newer topics with the same subject) to post in.


Um, however, it is worth noting that the rule about posting in old topics was changed sometime during the course of 2012 or very early 2013...WITHOUT anyone being advised of it. To wit (from the site rules page):

And this is where a website called "Web.archive.org" comes in handy.
Look here at September 2011- http://web.archive.org/web/201109130838 ... -t832.html (Rule 9)

And here July 2011- http://web.archive.org/web/201107191627 ... -t832.html (Rule 9)

So the rule was changed between July 2011 and September 2011.

But I agree with Jersey on this " it is not "how old" the topic may be that is the real question, but whether or not they have something worthwhile and substantive to offer to the topic in resurrecting it."

(In my opinion) Like the rule says, you can bring back old topics even from years ago, but as long as you have something worthwhile to say.

Ah, thanks for that helpful clarification (and a handy resource for the future). And for the nod to my point.