If topics are going to be held without any discussion whatsoever of what is wrong with them - only vague commands to "rewrite the opening post" - how on Earth are we supposed to come to an understanding about what constitutes a legitimate opening post?
I agree with you crash, I think it would be helpful to get a little bit of feedback as to what constitutes a good topic (both for Admins and us lowly grunts). There seems to be a lot of 'gut-sense' and a reluctance (as Nosey points out) for more than one Admin to offer opinions on PNTs (despite AMs repeated pleas for alternative views).
On a slightly different note:
Recently I had a topic postponed because it was thought that it wouldn't "fly". I don't want AM to think that I'm being sour here as I actually ended up agreeing with the point (and was actually quite surprised to see it popping up in the 'misc' file), but it did raise a question in my mind.
Can anyone think of a way of 'testing the water' before a topic is released to check whether there is going to be enough willing participants (especially considering the uneven Evo/Creo ratio) ?
I noticed that you recently had a hand in getting a topic promoted by a popular vote, but this seems a bit ungainly (with a large possibility for clogging up the boards). Any thoughts?