I liked Nameless' suggestion better.
There are cases where it's better for a thread to remain open, even if it's old. Sometimes people will bump a thread when the discussion becomes relevant again.
I think a warning to new users is a more appropriate response to the problem than auto-locking all the old threads. I realize that reopening old threads isn't always a good thing, but I think removing the option has the potential to cause more problems.
EDIT: Also, there are plenty of threads that get necroed before they are a year old. Nameless' suggestion allows for a warning system to be used MUCH earlier than that (I think a couple months would be fine), whereas an auto-lock system can't happen too soon or it might end up closing discussions that are still relevant.
There are cases where it's better for a thread to remain open, even if it's old. Sometimes people will bump a thread when the discussion becomes relevant again.
I think a warning to new users is a more appropriate response to the problem than auto-locking all the old threads. I realize that reopening old threads isn't always a good thing, but I think removing the option has the potential to cause more problems.
EDIT: Also, there are plenty of threads that get necroed before they are a year old. Nameless' suggestion allows for a warning system to be used MUCH earlier than that (I think a couple months would be fine), whereas an auto-lock system can't happen too soon or it might end up closing discussions that are still relevant.

Thanks to Lugignaf for the sig!
well...I think a warning at first with an eventual autolock on threads more than a year old makes sense.
But that's just me.
But that's just me.
You need to log in before commenting.
Can we have something like, a force lock if a thread is over a year old with no replies if it's not stickied?