Question about the policy of locking threads

[Lord Xnut]

I have a question about the policy of locking threads, as it is now a thread is locked as soon as some kind of conclusion is made in a thread. The problem is that it seems to be up to the induvidual moderator/admin when that conclusion is reached.

Wouldn't the forum be better if threads would be allowed to live on?

That way related discussions or input would not have to be posted in a new thread all the time. The way it is now is that it's very hard to search the forum since you mostly find locked threads, so if you have any further questions you have to make a new thread. I understand the problem with grave digging, but as long as the new post is on topic and brings something new to the thread it would be better to get it in the original thread instead of making a new one. If someone bumps old threads without any good reason they could get a warning or a day suspension instead.

[thedestro]

Well if it's something new, and I don't think it belongs in the topic since it is not primarily on-topic with the OP.

That's just my opinion though,

[EvenStar]

No it would not be better. You would be plagued by meaningless gravedigs repeating previous points or re-answering questions that have already been answered. The point of locking a thread is recognising that it specifically has no where else constructive to go. If you feel the locked thread is somehow relevant to your new thread you are welcome to link to it in your new thread, but it will never happen that threads are left open forever. It would be terrible. On a global scale.

[Woodrow]

Also topics discussing moderation are supposed to be in the Moderation forum.