Bumping old threads/unneccesary locks

[Cappy_Smurf]

There is a thread on the GB about small ball taking over, that I wanted to bump. I understand the rationale against bumping old threads, but believe there are old threads that are legitimate bumps. Is it automatic that bumping threads have to be in the frame of "I told you so"? This thread was locked without an explanation, otherwise I might not be here asking why. I believe there should be a little more leash given to people bumping old threads, rather than assuming it is just for dickish reasons, and I believe it is extremely reasonable for every locked thread to have an explanation as to why it was locked. Thank you for your time in moderating this board and your contributions in general.

-Cappy

Here is the thread in question. If nothing else, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why it was locked. Thanks.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1397770&start=60#start_here

[tsherkin]

Here is the thread in question. If nothing else, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why it was locked. Thanks.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1397770&start=60#start_here

My guess is since that thread was 9 months old or so, there was no real reason to bump it. Make a new thread, link to the old one if earlier content is that necessary. When a thread is that old, there isn't any sense in resurrecting it, just start a new thread. And yes, 99% of the time, bumps are designed to be a pain to someone who said something earlier.

Meantime, if you could stop posting stuff like this, it'd be great:

Anyway, speaking of which, some oversensitive individual should have locked this by now. At least one person must be offended by now, and as a sports forum, I think it's completely reasonable to lock every single damn thread that could possible offend anyone in any way. Just to be safe.

[Howard Mass]

Thanks for answering this tsherkin.