Quote:
Originally Posted by Aniki
I take it as your opinion, but I don't agree with it. Like I stated in first post, if a thread isn't closed it's still active no matter how old it is. To me reviving an old thread with the 'I agree' post is the same as posting 'I agree' in an active one that is in the first page.
|
Wrong, closed and inactive are two different terms. Threads get closed because of massive SPAM, flaming or off-topic. Inactive is when a thread is open but hasn't been replied for a long time... but you can still reply. The problem is what to reply there. Necroposting won't help. If someone wants so much to talk about something, he/she will post a new topic and then will find that and older post exists (it happened to me), then giving his argument on that post.
Quote:
|
I gave a good example of how necroposting is might prove useful, but I don't see any good examples of why is it bad besides the 'I pisses me off when I see a revived thread with a pointless post' and MMM's silly argument that necroposts push the active threads into the second page.
|
By your way of thinking, we need members who only necropost and contribute none of their opinions to the community... just to go around and bump old threads because they like to. Those threads became inactive for a reason, if someone is so interested to share his argument and revive it yea, but in no way should someone bump a topic and WAIT for others opinions... I don't get the point in all this.