If a topic is dead, but relevant, why is it a problem if a current concept is addressed in an undead thread that has risen from the grave? Just curious why this is so heavily moderated with disabling comments?
My guess if I had to guess would be that Necromancy is a easy and the boards want fresh posts instead of old haggard zombie posts. Is that right? Maybe there is something I am missing, please do fill me in, thanks.
Cheers!
They want you to add people and stuff to talk about relevant topics or just make a new post
I mean I'm still salty I didn't get to go back and slam "I TOLD YOU SENNA WAS GOING TO BE THE CHAMPION" in the post where I suggested "hey maybe its senna"
but necromancy baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad only 
and such can do that
Keep in mind this is my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.
I think it is just easier to have a blanket policy as the amount of information in a post may contain can cause a loss of point/attention.
In other words, there is a difference between necroeing a post that only has 5 comments and a post that has 50+.
So, in many cases it is probably better to make a new post and link. ~~Hopefully that linked properly. ~~ Especially if you consider the existence of voter climate. Which is probably the wrong term, but I am talking about the bias created looking at votes. People are more likely to look at positively voted opinions more favourably. So creating a new post may produce more relevant results. As an example, I have a post about adding an extra step to the punishment system. Posts about the subject existed before that, but only a few were looked at favorably.
Reddit automatically locks posts after what, a year? For the same reason.
