Reviving old topics

Reviving old topics

I don't understand why posting in an old topic is so annoying. This means that it is better to open another topic to make a reply about something which was discussed some time ago and you didn't get the wanted information?

I dont completely understand either. I find it to make sense to revive an old topic to discuss something as opposed something creating a new one, but that rule was here long before I was.

Generally certain kinds topic reviving is OK, but thats often up to moderator discretion. Usually its stuff like "introduce yourself" kinds of threads that dont get outdated regardless of how buried they get. But if someone revives a topic thats been buried for 3 months just to agree with something the last poster said, its quite pointless.
-VGsatomi

yeah...or saying "should we have a rating system?" and then 1 month laster we get one..and then 4 months later someone says"..yes..we should have one"
iv done stupid things like that...i guess im just an idiot..

Werewulfiv done stupid things like that...i guess im just an idiot..

hehe, no comment

i did that at some otehr forum..and someone made it there sig...
anyway..
i dont like TR much...
i say Topic reval when someone does it
and people say.WULF U SPAMMED!

Basically what VG said. This rule is some kind of countermeasure against spamming. It should prevent people from answering very old topics just to increase post count (e.g. I guess a 3 months old topic doesn't need to be answered, does it?).

But if someone is having a similar question like asked in the old topic and doesn't really understand the solution (or there's no solution at all), he's allowed to revive it (better then creating a new topic for the same question).

I hope every user AND every moderator is seeing it this way, cause it's ment this way.