I get where you are coming from and agree on the premise, and much of the application, but with some qualifiers. The founder of the forum had a vision for the promotion of self sufficiency and good content, whish is representative in this post he made about a year ago: He preferred subtle bread crumbs to spoon feeding, from what I understand. I think the question is: are we hoping to have more in depth content or very basic questions?Forums are supposed to thrive as community-driven spaces where people share knowledge and help each other. Yet this kind of gatekeeping undermines that purpose entirely. Instead of fostering discussion, it creates unnecessary barriers that discourage newcomers—whether through elitism, dismissiveness, or overly rigid rules. The irony is that this attitude doesn’t 'protect' the forum; it just makes it less welcoming and ultimately less active. Whether I personally stick around or not is irrelevant—the bigger issue is how this approach harms the community as a whole. If the goal is to sustain engagement, alienating potential contributors is the worst way to do it.
I think the consensus of those who have built and developed this forum is that the latter is accurate and it was never designed an introductory step.
In fact for several months last year all of the new questions were referred to STG, as that forum was the "Stairway" and this was hopefully more intermediate to advanced content. I think assuming it is elitism or gatekeeping is not an accurate lens to see this through, it is simply a graduated course that hopefully allows for all levels of knowledge without the extreme basics of bargain hunting and very pedestrian questions.
I do compliment you on your recent handling of this controversial philosophy and enjoy the debate it can provoke when discussed intelligently.
TLDR portion:

Last edited: