>But it would be too difficult to enforce in a fair and even >manner. > >Plus, it ignores the reality of message board turnover. You >can't say "You are not allowed to discuss xyz anymore as we >discussed it to death 2 years ago" because, frankly, every day >is someone's first day on here.
i don't know how true that is.
>Yes, new members are already encouraged to lurk for a while >before posting in order to cut down on redundant posts, but if >someone truly believes--rightly or wrongly--that they have a >fresh perspective to offer on a particular subject, you really >can't tell them they're prohibited from discussing it because >some oldheads (who might not even still be active posters) >already talked about it.
listen, i think not underestimating peoples intelligence is an underrated sales tactic. would some people be rubbed the wrong way if their thread got locked? sure. but would the ultimate realization of what type of level of conversation we are trying to achieve outweigh that? absolutely. i say lock a few threads, just give em the reason. posting on a new forum you always have to learn the dimentions. i'm saying let's consciously expand the dimentions here rather than passively letting anything fly. let's move in a progressive direction where detailed and intricate conversations are the norm - not "list your fav. songs" or similar bullshit from the internet's infancy.