Why do some people here say it's wrong to revive old posts? (And when *does* a post become old, anyway?)

If the post isn't spam (which isn't allowed anyway), I don't see any reason why reviving shouldn't be allowed. *Is confused*



~Talec LP

It gets confusing to see an old conversation pop up.

I guess, but the anti-reviving-topic-replies seem a little... harsh (for lack of a better word, no offense to anyone) for that.



~Talec LP

And usually people that start the topic up again with a new question they'll say : We already had a topic about this.

The bad topic revivers are the ones who bring them back up for no point. I see nothing wrong with bringing topics back up if someone wants to continue discussing them. Perhaps a feature could be added to this board (ha!) that when a topic has been inactive for X amount of days and it's brought back up, then "(Revived)" appears at the end of the title. I'd sorta like that :)

Exactly, Monolith. I mean, my Remaking JJ1 in JJ2 (JelZe's work, my topic) was dead for a while. Then it was revived and the discussion continued, and not spam either.

I didn't warn anyone for that.. did somebody else did?

Everyone does, FQuist [img]http://jazz2.nagcentral.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] Members, and the Royalty alike.

Its just Not Done [img]http://jazz2.nagcentral.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

`Ducky

Good, then give each other a kiss and promise that you wont do it again and we'll call it a day

I'd rather not, thank you. And WHY did Fquist nag me to stop reviving topics when I posted something in that Descent topic?