Old not necessarily bad

[Narz]

A bit annoyed this thread got locked

What do you need to be virtually self sustainable on a BOAT?

Hmm. An im guessing i'd have to hug the coast to get any signal from the mainland?

forums.civfanatics.com

Why the kneejerk locking of any thread that's older than a newborn baby? It's a bit annoying. Especially when page 1 of OT has gotten pretty boring lately.

 

[Broken_Erika]

A bit annoyed this thread got locked

What do you need to be virtually self sustainable on a BOAT?

Hmm. An im guessing i'd have to hug the coast to get any signal from the mainland?

forums.civfanatics.com

Why the kneejerk locking of any thread that's older than a newborn baby? It's a bit annoying. Especially when page 1 of OT has gotten pretty boring lately.

I think it's 'cause ressurecting old thread causes issues with the database, or something.

 

[Narz]

Hmm that's strange cause presumably it's all part of the same database, no?

 

[The_J]

No, there are no database issues. You might remember there something regarding the 1000 posts rule, but that's in the meantime also obsolete. (serial threads we do just out of tradition now, not anymore because it's necessary).

For the actual topic: A new thread is simply better. I don't think most people want to get into a discussion, which was concluded or had died down X years ago. Most often there is also a reason why it had died down, maybe simply because there were no arguments left at some point. If you have a good discussion point, or want to discuss a topic again, then you can start over, and people can again engage with the same arguments or new arguemtns, without reading through an old thread, saying "it has already been written, why bother"? (while this is in theory valid, we are a discussion forum and live from new discussions though ). It also prevents issues like responding to people who are not around anymore, or pointing to problems which have become obsolete.
So... please don't dig too deep. If it's interesting, then start a new discussion please .

 

[Valka D'Ur]

No, there are no database issues. You might remember there something regarding the 1000 posts rule, but that's in the meantime also obsolete. (serial threads we do just out of tradition now, not anymore because it's necessary).

For the actual topic: A new thread is simply better. I don't think most people want to get into a discussion, which was concluded or had died down X years ago. Most often there is also a reason why it had died down, maybe simply because there were no arguments left at some point. If you have a good discussion point, or want to discuss a topic again, then you can start over, and people can again engage with the same arguments or new arguemtns, without reading through an old thread, saying "it has already been written, why bother"? (while this is in theory valid, we are a discussion forum and live from new discussions though ). It also prevents issues like responding to people who are not around anymore, or pointing to problems which have become obsolete.
So... please don't dig too deep. If it's interesting, then start a new discussion please .

You're assuming that most of us ever knew about the thread in the first place. It's interesting to see some of the old threads that were active before I was here, or before I was active in OT (I spent the first year or two here in the Civ forums). Sometimes I can think of comments I'd like to make, but it's frustrating because it's not allowed. And sometimes it's actually a good idea to read the old comments so as to avoid situations that led to moderator actions.

 

[The_J]

Reading you can always do , but a fresh discussion is just better .