Replying to old threads

[Tonto Kowalski]

It seems that there is an unwritten rule on this forum that you should not reply to old threads. When someone does it he usually gets flamed and a moderator closes that thread. I would just like to know why that is? What is wrong with replying to an old thread if you have a useful comment or question to add to the discussion? It seems more efficient to simply rewive the old discussion instead of start a new one.

[jon@af]

More often than not, we got new members that reply to threads with questions that have long since been answered. In cases like you are stating--adding and continuing the discussion--it depends on the moderator. Depending on the age of the issue, sometimes it IS better to start a new thread. In many cases, if the post is a well thought out post that does indeed add a new angle to the dead discussion, we let it stay open. It's just very rare that that happens. You feel me?

[freakray]

The rule is not unwritten, it's in the user guidelines - about time you read them?

[twospirits]

I will also add, that if a member feels that a discussion need to continue on a thread older than three months, they can start a new thread and provide a link to the old one. But that is only in cases such as new information that the older discussion has not covered.

TS