For what it's worth.
I'm unclear as to the straightness of the agenda that this board is endeavouring to establish, although that might be because I'm too thick to get it.
The decisions about what the quality level of any contribution is, and who makes them are worrying
There is an ongoing increase in the popularity of the Union game and subsequently a wider demographic in who may or may not be attracted to participate in this forum.
If the decision to be allowed to participate is based on some arbitrary capacity to articulate an idea or opinion then that is patently wrong.
If it is based on some educational prejudice of a poster's capacity to deliver eloquent and coherent commentary on their experiences of Union rugby then that is wrong.
If this policy is based upon a desire to make a Moderator or Editor's activity easier then that is wrong.
If it is due to criticism from a 3rd party of influence who the Ed?Mods? wish to impress by suppressing untoward or less on-message discussion then this decision is wrong and highlights lazy management.
If it reflects a lack of editorial/ mod intellect to do the job then bin the lot of them and bring in new blood.
I find a manifesto, as published, that trumpets the spurious benefits of less options, less choice of participation, less openness, more censure, less variety and less rigour in the desire to make G&G an inclusive forum to be a depressing result of an crass top management process.
But it is a perception given the way this message has been broadcast and possibly due to poor forethought of the way the proclamation is delivered.
It sounds pompous and arrogant.
I would beseech the great and good of G&G to take another swig of the jar and have a thorough think about what they want G&G to be.
At the moment it seems that they only want an exclusive "elite" to voice a view - that is the perception, in which case, if real will reduce G&G to a very lonely place for those still interested in participating.
That's my take.