resurrection vs. new thread

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by J Flex 188

No matter how light-hearted or how serious the thread brought back is, it is still a piece of FIRST history.

My vote was based on the idea that for housecleaning purposes, it's easier to remove something old if it is discontinuous with the present, because it's no longer needed or wanted. So, no resurrecting ancient stuff. But that is a good point about the history.

Even if you're going to save stuff for its historical value, eventually you will run out of usable space--first to view it or use it, then to store it. Admonitions to search before you post will be meaningless if the search resembles hunting a needle in a haystack. I think that eventually choices will have to be made about what to keep and what to throw out, but whoever makes those choices will need a bulletproof skin.

[orelinde]

i think it depends on the actual post being brought back into the light. I think that there are certain posts (letter to rookie teams being my favorite one) that should remain at the front of the line. and others that are less relevant to the back. personnally i am thankful to have read the letter to rookies as it completely reflected what i was feeling have just shipped our robot. (went home almost in tears to see it go away for a whole month) but there are other posts that maybe should not be resurrected so it really depends on the posts.

[Jon K.]

I feel that any thread with over a year of no postings should be locked so that it can't be resurected unless there is a good reason to do so in which case a mod or maybe just Brandon could reopen the thread. While I am not sure of the work load this would cause for Brandon, I feel that after a certain age some things should just be left dead, and that the similar threads feature has made this resurection debate more common in recent months.