The post you are reporting:
I don't wish this to be seen as a criticism of DF but merely an observation. It might be that there are too many rules and restrictions on DF. Free, easy, accessible media has always been the backbone of the web's social scene and DF doesn't offer that. While we all know why this is (Paul has a specific agenda with this forum in terms of maintaining quality editorial content and a more polite exchange platform) it might well be this very thing that is harming it too. Most - perhaps ALL - forums offer free, open registration, with rules to follow but no restrictions on topics or response types. While most - perhaps ALL - other forums are 95% bullsh*t, nevertheless it is from this bullsh*t that the audience grows and the message is spread. I'd be willing to bet that DF membership would increase with a lighter approach to registration and posting. But I want to assert that this is NOT a criticism of this forum, I actually think Paul is brave and ballsy for doing something a bit different, and the control factor is only to maintain a certain level of quality and not tamper with free speech.
When you look at a lot of forums, they tend to follow one of three patterns:
Firstly, someone starts a topic, someone replies, someone slags off the first person, and then the entire thread descends into rude, insulting nonsense.
Secondly, someone starts a topic, a few people respond positively, then the thread dies off.
Lastly, someone starts a topic and it runs in rich debate for a long time (rarest of all patterns).
However, even in that last scenario there, you will still get a few idiotic comments, single-line drivel, moaners, and flamers trying to cause a fight. The internet's biggest flaw is that it shows human nature for what it really is, and maintaining the level of quality output that Paul wants to achieve may simply be too much to ask.
It's a particularly difficult concept to maintain at the moment given the world's embrace of social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter etc which provides the ultimate model of free and expansive access to this type of media. I know quite a few of you guys use Facebook (I see you on there often enough) and it might be that Paul's more noble model might be a bit out of date and out of touch with the modern digital mindset.
I think it would be a terrible shame to see this forum closed, it has been a brilliant asset for Dover now for 10 years. While it has changed hands and changed philosophically during that time, maybe now is a good time to review the forum rather than close it. Maybe it needs to be re-evaluated and its place in modern digital media looked at.
Let me give you another cracking good example of why forums are important. Quite often you might type a query into Google, for a random example let's say you want to find out if Adobe Photoshop v7 will work on your new Intel iMac. Rather than Google listing information websites that will answer your query, it may find dozens of forum pages which can really blow open the subject for you. This is by no means a rare outcome. Forum pages constitute a lot of Google's content and offer a rich and valuable source of info, but again I think this is only possible because of the free and open nature of those forums.
I'm going to remind you one last time that I am not critical of DF, merely commenting on how I see it based on how the public are using the web these days. There should not really be any steering of "more politics" or "less politics" or any separate forums for politics and non-politics the way it used to be. There should be just one big open forum where all can discuss anything. The price for this will indeed be that a certain volume of the content will be utter utter crap, but given that most other forums survive beautifully on this basis it could do wonders for audience figures and participation. I also think that DF needs a Facebook presence. If I were still running DoverWeb then you can guarantee it would have a massive Facebook and Twitter presence.
I have one more comment to make, which might be why the activity seems to be on a lull. Maybe, given the rather strict registration process and demand to operate under you full real name, it is off-putting for a lot of people and the handful of members that do contribute regularly are probably - how can I put this politely - fed up with each other (or, to be more politically correct, may be suffering from "small membership fatigue"). I don't mean that in a unfriendly way of course, but it must surely be hard to keep things fresh when the same few people argue and debate the same few topics.
My own opinion is that DF has bags of life left in it yet, but might need to have its position reviewed and its philosophy upgraded. The fact that the home page (which requires no registration and adopts the free and open access model) is so busy all the time seems to bear this idea out pretty well.