So, if a topics been covered in the past we can no longer discuss it? Huh???

[jaxwired]

A thead I started on CD resolution versus MP3s was closed because "Lot's of prior threads on that subject". I was told to go search and read those old threads.

I'm not here to read old threads, I'm here to debate and discuss. Reading old threads is hardly the same as a new discussion. New people to the site should be able to start a thread regardless of whether the subject has previously been covered to death or not. Who cares? If nobody wants to talk about it, then it will be off the first page of threads quickly anyway. Just let it die on it's own.

Or, how about posting a long list of thread topics you guys are sick of and then we can all just avoid those sacred topics. Of course that would be a bit retarded.

[James]

You can discuss it, just that you have to do it in the original thread.

[jaxwired]

Originally Posted by James

You can discuss it, just that you have to do it in the original thread.

Yeah, so I can add to a 20 page thread at the very end? That's equally retarded. Why dig up an old dead thread? Anybody unfamiliar with the topic does not want to read through all that old baggage and it's demotivating for new posters.

Ultimately, my post won't get the same attention on the end of an old dead thread as it would as a new thread.

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

Just as retarded as having a bunch of the same threads all discussing the same thing.

Do you really think your post would get the same attention if there were 5 or 6 already active threads kicking around the place at the same time?

We get people making threads about music formats every other week.
We have to draw the line somewhere and with one topic one thread everybody knows where they stand.

If your point is worthwhile it will get picked up on.

[jaxwired]

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Just as retarded as having a bunch of the same threads all discussing the same thing.

Do you really think your post would get the same attention if there were 5 or 6 already active threads kicking around the place at the same time?

We get people making threads about music formats every other week.
We have to draw the line somewhere and with one topic one thread everybody knows where they stand.

If your point is worthwhile it will get picked up on.

What do you call an active thread? If it's 10 pages down, it's not "active" IMO. Most people read the first page or two of threads. They don't search, find tired old threads from two months ago and add a post.

Now, I would agree with you if you had multiple threads on that topic on the very first page or two. That would be a problem. Not the case here. You are protecting against a phatom problem. The problem does not exist.

[James]

Originally Posted by jaxwired

What do you call an active thread? If it's 10 pages down, it's not "active" IMO. Most people read the first page or two of threads. They don't search, find tired old threads from two months ago and add a post.

Now, I would agree with you if you had multiple threads on that topic on the very first page or two. That would be a problem. Not the case here. You are protecting against a phatom problem. The problem does not exist.

If your notwilling to read a few pages of music talk, then leave, because this place is about discussion and most of the people here would happily read 10 pages of it.

[jaxwired]

Basically what you are doing is discouraging a topic from being discussed again. If it's already been discussed, then you want to bannish the topic. That's not a good idea.

[jaxwired]

Originally Posted by James

If your notwilling to read a few pages of music talk, then leave, because this place is about discussion and most of the people here would happily read 10 pages of it.

Wow, that's a very welcoming attitude to a new user.

My point wasn't about reading 10 pages of old posts (some of which are from user's that are not even active anymore), but about how that makes my post pointless. Pretty much a waste of time to add a post like that as it will likely generate no response.

Have an open mind. At least consider the possiblity that you have a bad policy.

[James]

Originally Posted by jaxwired

Wow, that's a very welcoming attitude to a new user.

My point wasn't about reading 10 pages of old posts (some of which are from user's that are not even active anymore), but about how that makes my post pointless. Pretty much a waste of time to add a post like that as it will likely generate no response.

Have an open mind. At least consider the possiblity that you have a bad policy.

When a new user starts mocking the websites rules within their first 10 posts of course we aren't going to be welcoming.
We don't want our forums to be blocked up by multiple posts saying the exact same thing.

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

Originally Posted by jaxwired

What do you call an active thread? If it's 10 pages down, it's not "active" IMO. Most people read the first page or two of threads. They don't search, find tired old threads from two months ago and add a post.

They do here

Now, I would agree with you if you had multiple threads on that topic on the very first page or two. That would be a problem. Not the case here. You are protecting against a phatom problem. The problem does not exist.

If it wasn't a problem there wouldn't be a rule for it.
We don't make this stuff up as we go along you know.