Suggestion: Clarity on how long it takes before posts shouldn't be 'resurrected'

[Latios]

I offer this suggestion with the upmost sincerity and good faith:

I have noticed that across the forum, different moderators have locked threats and reprimanded for resurrecting old threads, except this has varied from moderator to moderator, and I believe I read one comment saying that there's no official rule for it, and it just makes the team look inconsistent and (to be really honest) on a bit of a power trip.

If it's not already in place, I would recommend a clearer guidance on this, if it isn't already in place. I would also argue that it's necessary to re-open an old thread sometimes, if an old topic suddenly becomes popular again. It means that there won't be duplicate threads with the same content, and discussions are collected all in one place. It would also be worth considering: Does it matter if a thread is resurrected and further discussion occurs, providing it's meaningful? More discussion on the forum is a good thing in my opinion!

I hope this feedback is considered helpful, and doesn't cause offence (or ironically, the thread being closed).

Best of luck with the community!

 

[Nah]

We used to have an official rule on thread revival, it was that threads that hadn't been posted in for a month or more were not to be revived and infractions for doing so were an option on the table. Several years ago though it was suggested that we do away with the rule. Staff opinion was kinda split, and in the end we decided on removing it from the rules page but allowing moderators to still lock necro'd threads if they want to, which is why it seems inconsistent.

Nobody really cares to give warnings or any sort of disciplinary action for thread revival these days (and we're not required to anyway), and most of us who still lock old threads usually only do with ones that are like multiple years old.