Interesting discussion. The dynamics of online social groups are so well documented, one could write the script for this discussion without needing to consult anyone, and the results would not be materially different from this one. The arguments made by the opposing group were valid at the forum's inception, and initial growth period, but now the forum is mature (if not the members), the core group and the contribution distribution established, and there is a kind of stasis. While it's unlikely new members would join the group and overwhelm the core group as a result od a more liberal topic policy, there is a chance the core group themselves, in a changing world, might drift into territories beyond the currently defined borders. How far might they drift, and how might the changed landscape look? Who knows, but I don't think it's the ominous and inevitable silicon landscape predicted by some. For those satisfied with the status quo, there is nothing to be gained by relaxing constraints, but for those on the fringe of the core group, moderately satisfied with the status quo, slavish devotion to the original charter can feel uncomfortably restrictive, especially when the core group gets evangelical. Accommodations like the lounge, and the unrestricted format forum are good examples of concessions to the wider interests of the group at large. How far in that direction it is wise to go is an open question.
Bookmarks