Thread:Paperluigi ttyd/@comment-4969948-20161123042556/@comment-4139585-20161123044426

If you don't mind me resisting this rule for a moment, I would guess that this policy was put in place to prevent people from spamming and bumping old threads. I agree with this policy completely and when I was an admin I tried to make similar rules. However, I think that there ought to be a distinction between certain cases. For instance, had I replied on a long forum thread that was long dead, that would be certainly inappropriate. There are common-sense exceptions that come to mind, though:


 * 1) I was inactive for several months, and someone left a message on my wall. Ignoring the fact that the rule was created while I was inactive, it doesn't make sense that I have to create another thread just to reply to that message. It's not like I'm going to anger anyone by replying to it; no one except for the person who left the message is going to get a notification (and that person will get a notification even if I create a new thread). Additionally, it doesn't affect recent activity or anything, as either way, my message shows up on it.
 * 2) Not relevant to this case, but does this rule also apply to things like a series discussion thread? From experience, those can go multiple weeks without new posts, but it doesn't really necessitate creating a new thread. In fact, in that case, a new thread is actually a negative because all of the people who were interested in discussing that series won't see the new thread. This point can be debated, though.

That's just my suggestion for this rule, though. I'll keep it in mind and be sure not to do it again until the rule changes (if it does).