A new list for substantive posts?

[nkafkafi]

> Carolyn:
> 1. Start a new, separate list (open to everyone), dedicated to 
posts 
> which set out to deliberately discuss key topics,
> <snip>

> 2. Subsequent posts replying to the starter-post would be subject 
to 
> certain rules 
> <snip>.
> 
> 3. The idea would be to have relatively few threads going at a 
time, 
> but in-depth and chunky discussion of topics. 
> <snip>
> Would anyone support this?


Neri:
Me too!

OK, I can't leave it at that so I'll add some thoughts. First, better 
call this something that doesn't sound too elitist. How about the "in 
depth" list? Or the "looong and booooooring" list? This should scare 
off anybody who doesn't like to read long posts.

Also, are the moderators ready to take on the job of going over all 
the posts and responses? I'm all for strict guidelines, but in the 
beginning I'd try leaving it to the members to decide what to post in 
the "in depth" group and what in the regular group. If this doesn't 
work well we can always increase moderation.

The main problems I foresee with this suggestion are similar to the 
problems we have today between the regular list and the OTC and movie 
lists. That is, at what point in the thread do we move a post to the 
less-moderated list? Example: you post a very long and complex theory 
in the "in depth" list, and I mostly agree with you but I want a 
clarification regarding a single detail in your theory. Should I post 
this response in the "in depth" list or the regular list? If I post 
it in the regular list you might miss it and I won't get an answer.

It would be best if we could work out guidelines for going from 
the "in depth" list to the regular list and back, so a discussion can 
be maintained across both lists.

These problems are not very serious and shouldn't be viewed as my 
objection to the idea.

Neri