Should the mods apply a "Dead Horse" rule to threads?

[Gary LaPook]

I didn't get a chance to put in my two cents worth before you locked the life raft thread so I had to start this new thread.

I would recommend just leaving the threads open for a number of reasons.
1. New people come to the forum and  might have some new insight on the old topic.
2. Even older posters might see something in a new post on an old thread that gives him an insight and something entirely new to add to the discussion.
3. Who knows then something important might be posted (even if the ground seems well plowed.) Remember the guy at the patent office about a hundred years ago who wanted to close the patent office because everything had already been invented.
4. If something new comes up on the old topic it is better to post it on the original topic because then all of the prior discussions will be available to anyone then reading the new post with new information. If the new information is on a brand new topic it will not be obvious that there was additional information previously presented and discussed on the topic.
5. Without being on the same thread, new information posted on a new thread but on the old topic will lack the context, especially to those new to the forum. Some of the old timers might remember that there had been a prior discussion of the topic and so know to go and look for it but it seems unreasonable to me to expect new forum members to read the list of all the old threads.
6. What extra does it cost to keep the thread alive, nothing.

gl

[Ric Gillespie]

6. What extra does it cost to keep the thread alive, nothing.

I'm not suggesting that all threads be closed at some point - only threads where the question raised has been answered as best it can be answered unless new evidence turns up.  Leaving a thread like "Did Amelia Leave Her Life Raft Behind?" open invites further pointless discussion and could lead to the misconception among some readers that invalid arguments expressed on the thread have some legitimacy.

[Gary LaPook]

6. What extra does it cost to keep the thread alive, nothing.

I'm not suggesting that all threads be closed at some point - only threads where the question raised has been answered as best it can be answered unless new evidence turns up.  Leaving a thread like "Did Amelia Leave Her Life Raft Behind?" open invites further pointless discussion and could lead to the misconception among some readers that invalid arguments expressed on the thread have some legitimacy.

That doesn't make a whole lot of since locking the thread (unless you erase it) still leaves it there for people to read and believe that the posts are legitimate. And which ones on the thread are "legitimate" and which are not. When you lock a thread are you going to place a header to the effect, "posts 1,2,45,67,and 101 on this thread are considered not to be legitimate as determined by Ric Gillespie?"

gl

[Ric Gillespie]

That doesn't make a whole lot of since locking the thread (unless you erase it) still leaves it there for people to read and believe that the posts are legitimate. And which ones on the thread are "legitimate" and which are not. When you lock a thread are you going to place a header to the effect, "posts 1,2,45,67,and 101 on this thread are considered not to be legitimate as determined by Ric Gillespie?"

No.  Anyone is free to read the entire thread and see that it was terminated by the moderators at a certain point for a stated reason.  They can decide for themselves whether the termination was justified.

[Chris Johnson]

From GLP

5. Without being on the same thread, new information posted on a new thread but on the old topic will lack the context, especially to those new to the forum. Some of the old timers might remember that there had been a prior discussion of the topic and so know to go and look for it but it seems unreasonable to me to expect new forum members to read the list of all the old threads.

That was what I was trying to put accross but words arn'y my career.

However saying that i'm begining to see the benefit of mods/members asking for threads to be locked until 'fresh' evidence is found.

This forum is quite evolutionary and i'm sure we'll find a way that suits most.

Here's a suggestion that is used in a soccor site that I frequent.  They have a 'rumors and other stuff' section where unsubstantiated posts are put until the evidence stacks up to put them on the main sections.  We could try something like this? or not!

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

I would simply suggest that people read the comments other people have posted more carefully. Quite a few statements made during the life raft thread have pointed out things that have already been agreed, as if they were new revelations. If some one posts an idea that hasn't been considered yet, that doesn't automatically mean that what has already been agreed is being challenged, it just opens up another avenue.