Wrecan, you recently indicated in the VCL request thread that you have set a policy of moving D&D4e Q&A Forum threads that exceed about 30 posts from that forum.
I object most strongly to this policy. Since I joined this boards many years ago, I have been a part of the very strong Q&A Forum community, which is a subset of the D&D forum community that has exceptional interest in rules debates, including minutia of how the rules operate. Threads frequenty used to go to several pages and as the members of this community debated the rule in question until it had reached a conclusion (or the members in question tired of the debate).
Recently I noticed that the participation of members of this community was starting to die down. And after discovering your policy, I consider it to be a major contribution to this. Moving threads that are an active and ongoing debate to another forum is not only typically a threadkiller for that particular debate, but it strongly discourages these debates from occuring in the first place. That does two things. It harms the Rules Q&A community's ability to stay together as a community. And it harms that community's ability to figure out answers to these questions so that future posts can be answered quickly and accurately when newcomers ask a question.
I strongly feel that you are actively destroying a community with this policy, as opposed to assisting its needs.
I understand that some threads are appropriate by topic to move to other forums, but some of the threads being moved are rules debates that aren't class specific, aren't about traps/terrain/tactics, and aren't about magic items. And they are being moved to 'What's a player to do' or 'What's a DM to do' despite the fact they are a technical rules mechanics debate. These moves in particular seem unnecessarily forced just to maintain an unnecessary "short thread" policy for Rules Q&A. I fail to see why this policy is even necessary in the first place, let alone actively implemented when it's causing disruption and when it is moving threads to inappropriate locations.
(Edit: Wrecan, sorry about mispelling your name in the title.)
The reason for the policy is as follows:
The Rules Q&A forum ("Q&A") has a slightly different purpose than the old DM Rules Counseling forum ("DMRC") forum that preceded it. First, some history...
DMRC was a subforum of the What's a DM to Do? forum. It was created as a place where DMs could discuss the rules of 3rd edition away from the larger community of DMs who might discuss house rules and such.
The Q&A forum had a different purpose in mind. It is designed to afford all individuals a place to ask a quick rules question and get a textual answer. It is no longer a What's a DM to Do? subforum because it is for all D&Ders, whether player or DM who have rules questions. It's also designed to reduce the pressure on the General Discussion forum.
The primary purpose of the forum is to get people who have a short easy-to-answer question a quick response. The reason for the policy of moving threads out of Q&A is twofold.
First, if a thread grows past 30 posts, it either i) wasn't an easy-to-answer question, or ii) thread drift caused the discussion to change to a new topic.
Second, if we have a lot of threads that are simply back-and-forth discussions about a rule, it reduces the number of new threads that are visible. Most people have their browsers set to see thirty threads a page. If half of those threads are taken up by extended discussions, other threads, written by people who do need help, will go unseen. This was a real problem in the DMRC forum. I remember distinctly seeing lots of threads with one or no responses because they got pushed to the second page too quickly and thus out-of-sight. Now, very few threads go entirely unanswered.
Has the community died down in Q&A compared to DMRC? Yes. Might it have something to do with this policy? It might. It might also have to do with the fact that there are not nearly as many rules issues as there were with 3rd edition.
The question is whether the change is worth it. Obviously, as someone who was invested in the DMRC community, you don't think it is. I, as someone who is very interested in making sure that even sporadic visitors to the forum get assistance they seek, think it is. I don't think either of us is right or wrong. I completely understand your position, and I am absolutely not denying what you've observed.
If the VCLs want me to stop requesting threads to be moved from Q&A, I will oblige. I personally think the policy has done more good than harm, though.
DMRC was a subforum of the What's a DM to Do? forum. It was created as a place where DMs could discuss the rules of 3rd edition away from the larger community of DMs who might discuss house rules and such.
IIRC, when I debated 3e rules on these forums after I signed up in 2002, it was in a forum called Q&A (or possibly "General Rules" or the like). I don't recall DMRC, and I was debating with a mix or players and DMs all interested in rules details and specifics, much like now. Possibly the DMRC forum was what that Q&A (or General Rules) became when I wasn't around between 2005 or so and 2008, or maybe I'm just recalling incorrectly.
First, if a thread grows past 30 posts, it either i) wasn't an easy-to-answer question, or ii) thread drift caused the discussion to change to a new topic.
Granted, those are both reasons threads go on for some time. That in and of itself doesn't justify moving them, as important and relevent rules debates can still be ongoing.
Second, if we have a lot of threads that are simply back-and-forth discussions about a rule, it reduces the number of new threads that are visible. Most people have their browsers set to see thirty threads a page. If half of those threads are taken up by extended discussions, other threads, written by people who do need help, will go unseen. This was a real problem in the DMRC forum. I remember distinctly seeing lots of threads with one or no responses because they got pushed to the second page too quickly and thus out-of-sight. Now, very few threads go entirely unanswered.
This isn't generally my impression. Both in the older 3e days and since 4e was released, I've participated in many discussions. A bigger problem than a few longer threads is people asking the same question over and over, with no longer threads detailing the issue. Some members (mvincent is notable) link to previous discussions, and instead of a few longer threads breaking down all sides of an issue, there are a multitude of shorter threads frequently with conflicting information.
Has the community died down in Q&A compared to DMRC? Yes. Might it have something to do with this policy? It might. It might also have to do with the fact that there are not nearly as many rules issues as there were with 3rd edition.
Not blatantly so, in my opinion. As a follower of rules minutia, there are plenty of questions with not so easy answers that can still be asked and discussed.
The biggest issue to me is that some topics now have no place to be discussed at length. And there are more than a few topics that require that treatment to come to an understanding. Any topic that is broader than a class specific issue, such as actions, action/event order, resistance/vulnerability, TWF, and effect saves (to name a few) don't have a forum of their own, Rules Q&A is where they currently belong. The real crunchy parts of the system that have universal application to all classes are unsupported except by brief single shot question threads. And the answer to those single shot question threads will not necessarily even be correct, or even indicate there is a debate on the issue, since the thread could be moved before the issue is fleshed out, or they sink so fast or are moved due to length before the community can even get online to really address them properly.
As a last thought, I do agree that there are times when a thread has lived past its usefulness, the debate is going in circles or has drifted off into a non-rules based discussion. But some of the threads you are moving based purely on post count are still an active ongoing discussion that are relevent to a concept of general rules questions. I'd be happier if there was a reasonable exception to the policy based on the ongoing relevence of the thread, and a reasonable amount of continuing activity. Although I realize that you are already reviewing a lot of threads and that may not be easy to do.
wrecan's explanation for why he would move things *from* 4e Rules Q&A partially makes sense to me. On-and-on type threads are not Q&A. If an answer can't be found in 30 posts, it can't be found in 300. (However, I would argue that if it cannot be answered in 10 posts, it cannot be answered in 300 either).
I said "partially makes sense" because it doesn't seem like the length of the view page doesn't really make a difference. People with their page set to 30 posts still can't really see the questions posted yesterday because of the volume, so to "get caught up" -- and if you are looking for a specific thread, it doesn't matter whether it is on page one or page two or three, you'll look until you find it.
One question for wrecan: where are 30+ post threads being moved to?
And one for Fitz (as succinctly as possible): what is your primary objection?
Threads get moved to the D&D Fundamentals forum appropriate to the topic. If no such Fundamentals Forum exists, the thread will be transfered to What's a DM to Do?, What's a Player to Do?, or House Rules and Homebrew, depending on the topic.
As for your statement that "if you are looking for a specific thread, it doesn't matter whether it is on page one or page two or three, you'll look until you find it", that is only true for people looking for a specific thread. Most visitors to that forum are generally looking to assit others by answering people's questions. It has been my experience that people generally just scan the first page of threads (which, for most people, is the first 30 threads) and if they don't see a topic that interests them, they move on to another forum. If a thread has been bumped to page 2 before it gets a response, that's usually a deathknell for the thread.
I agree that we could reduce the threshold for transfer to as low as ten posts. but for the reasons FitzNighteyes has suggested, I am reluctant to do that. 30 posts seems to me to be a good middle ground, and it's easiest for me to quickly identify the threads that need transfer.
To FitzNighteye:
I'm not sure what Q&A forum you are describing. As you can see from my join date, I've been here since 2005, and there was no Q&A forum at that point. It was already the DM Rules Counseling subforum.
As for where to put topics that are generally about mechanics, there is a proposal, which I support, for a forum dedicated to Skills, Skill Challenges and Quests (which would also include Abilities). If that happens, I'd recommend that the Combat: Tactics, Traps and Terrain forum possibly be renamed to cover any remaining rules issues. That way, there would be a Fundemanetals forum for everything.
And one for Fitz[/b] (as succinctly as possible): what is your primary objection?
That rules that require discussion on the correct answer aren't possible if the thread is moved, especially if the discussion is actively ongoing, and especially if it is moved to a non-mechanics/fundamentals forum (such as the what's a player/dm to do forums).
Traditionally (at least to me) the forum for such topics, when it wasn't a class specific rule, has been Rules Q&A and its precursors.
If the Combat: Tactics, Traps and Terrain was renamed appropriately, or a forum was created that was for Rules Mechanics discussion (ie things not covered by the existing areas of specific classes, items, tactics/traps/terrain and a new skill challenges forum) to handle threads of a longer nature handling such issue, that could work to address my concerns. The problem as it stands now is that while technically Combat does cover most rules that aren't classes, items or skill challenges, I think it's seen as a much narrower sub-portion, especially with it's current name (which is why it doesn't get that much traffic). If Rules Q&A is deemed to be the incorrect location for lengthy threads or ongoing debates, a forum that can cover general rules mechanics and their interactions from all levels of the game is what is needed.
Most of our discussions here are likely academic. The VCLs have been requesting that the General Discussion forum be moved to the bottom of the Fundamentals section for more than six months now and nothing has happened. So, while adding a Skills, Skill Challenges, and Quests forum is generally supported on the forums, and I think renaming Combat to Combat Rules and Strategies would be useful for getting more traffic to that forum, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
4e Rules Q&A
If you want a no-nonsense discussion about what a rule means or where it can be found, ask your question here.
That is the PRIMARY function of the Q&A forum... says so right there...
I don't see how you get "It is designed to afford all individuals a place to ask a quick rules question and get a textual answer." out of that....
A discussion is never quick.
I do have a suggestion to remedy the "problem" though.
Create a "Ask a quick Question, Get a quick Answer" Thread, sticky it to the top (and I do mean the TOP) of the forum and viola, people can get their quick questions answered without having to worry about their thread disappearing on page 2 and we all get to keep our discussion forum.
Just a note:
Most of our discussions here are likely academic.
But we're also discussing your tactics in moving threads.... not (only) the creation of a new forum... I hope those are not just 'academic' and we can actually get some progress in having this discussion.. as you seem to possibly imply by using the term 'most'.
Honestly I'm not quite sure if I'm missing something here but...
Yes. It's the "Q&A" part of the forum name, which is supposed to indicate that the discussions in this forum are to be a question and an answer.
A discussion is never quick.
That is not true. A question followed by an answer is a discussion. A short discussion, but a discussion nonetheless.
Create a "Ask a quick Question, Get a quick Answer" Thread
Those threads are not helpful in creating a quick resource for people to find a quick answer to a question that has already been asked. First, the vast majority of people who post quick questions don't bother to check out sticky threads. We've tried that in the past and you end up with people asking the same question multiple times and not in the Q&A thread.
Q/A Threads are somewhat useful for removing clutter from a board. But the standard threads intended for Q&A -- one question followed by an answer -- are not clutter; they are the purpose of the board. We shouldn't be relegating that to a sticky thread so people who like talking about rules can have the rest of the forums to themselves.
In fact, we have a Q/A thread in the General Discussion in the hopes of keeping General Discussion from getting clogged up with Q&A threads that should be in Rules Q&A. That hasn't really worked either, as we get a few dozen threads a week inappropriately placed in GD even with the Ask A Quick Question, Get a Quick Answer Thread grabbing yet another few dozen questions a week.
we all get to keep our discussion forum.
That forum was lost when DM Rules Counseling was closed almost two years ago. Instead you have all of the 4e Fundamentals forums to discuss rules about almost anything. With a small change to the Combat forum and an addition of the Skills forum, there'd be a place to discuss everything.
Yes. It's the "Q&A" part of the forum name, which is supposed to indicate that the discussions in this forum are to be a question and an answer.
And how does that imply a "quick" response?
That is not true. A question followed by an answer is a discussion. A short discussion, but a discussion nonetheless.
Ummm...
dis·cus·sion
Pronunciation:\di-ˈskə-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing
And to further prove my point:
As a noun;
de·bate
Pronunciation: \di-ˈbāt, dē-\
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 : a contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
And as a Verb;
de·bate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·bat·ed; de·bat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French debatre, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere
Date: 14th century
intransitive verb
1 obsolete : fight, contend
2 a : to contend in words b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments
3 : to participate in a debate
transitive verb
1 a : to argue about b : to engage (an opponent) in debate
2 : to turn over in one's mind
Nothing about this indicates 'quick' Question and Answer. In fact it indicates the opposite.
Those threads are not helpful in creating a quick resource for people to find a quick answer to a question that has already been asked. First, the vast majority of people who post quick questions don't bother to check out sticky threads. We've tried that in the past and you end up with people asking the same question multiple times and not in the Q&A thread.
Say what? I'd like you to prove to me that that is true. First of all if they have a Quick Question, then a thread that gives the title of "Quick Question" would draw me in, and second I think you underestimate the power of sticky threads.
Q/A Threads are somewhat useful for removing clutter from a board. But the standard threads intended for Q&A -- one question followed by an answer -- are not clutter; they are the purpose of the board. We shouldn't be relegating that to a sticky thread so people who like talking about rules can have the rest of the forums to themselves.
Except that it isn't only intended as such. As proven above.
In fact, we have a Q/A thread in the General Discussion in the hopes of keeping General Discussion from getting clogged up with Q&A threads that should be in Rules Q&A. That hasn't really worked either, as we get a few dozen threads a week inappropriately placed in GD even with the Ask A Quick Question, Get a Quick Answer Thread grabbing yet another few dozen questions a week.
Huh, imagine that... the general board... how odd that there would be a million different threads about topics that belong elsewhere when it is in all certainty the most one-time used board on the forum, with probably the most traffic in general.
Not to mention the fact that the thread you mentioned, gets DAILY traffic.
That forum was lost when DM Rules Counseling was closed almost two years ago. Instead you have all of the 4e Fundamentals forums to discuss rules about almost anything. With a small change to the Combat forum and an addition of the Skills forum, there'd be a place to discuss everything.
I don't see why we can't use the forum that is already here and in existence with that exact intent in mind.
Say what? I'd like you to prove to me that that is true. First of all if they have a Quick Question, then a thread that gives the title of "Quick Question" would draw me in, and second I think you underestimate the power of sticky threads.
The proof that you ask for doesn't exist, one way or another. Wrecan and I can only give you our experiences, which says that only a small percentage of people actually pay attention to the sticky threads unless the topic directly applies to them or interests them.
Not to mention the fact that the [quick question thread], gets DAILY traffic.
Yes, the quick question thread does get daily traffic, but or someone looking to find an answer in the thread, it is almost impossible. It moves so quickly that it is impossible to have an index of questions/answers.
The proof that you ask for doesn't exist, one way or another. Wrecan and I can only give you our experiences, which says that only a small percentage of people actually pay attention to the sticky threads unless the topic directly applies to them or interests them.
Indicate to me how you would know that? I don't think you can track how many people use stickied threads one way or another. In fact I think it's impossible for you to determine. What in your experience could possibly indicate such a statement?
Yes, the quick question thread does get daily traffic, but or someone looking to find an answer in the thread, it is almost impossible. It moves so quickly that it is impossible to have an index of questions/answers.
No it's not. There is only so many questions one can ask. Especially with the Rules forum, with proper indexation and categorization all questions can have an indexed answer.
Further more if you do it properly we could have an idiots guide to D&D at the top, something like Seekers sig which tells you exactly where and how to find the rules.
Indicate to me how you would know that? I don't think you can track how many people use stickied threads one way or another.
No, but we can notice changes in posting traffic in a forum before and after a Q/A stickied thread is posted. Webster, mudbunny and I both observed that improperly placed threads did not diminish significantly after the Q/A thread was created for the General Discussion forum.
I also noticed very little diminution in inappropriate threads in the What's a DM to Do? forum after a "Where to Post" thread was stickied there.
While that is anecdotal evidence (which is all we have) it gives me at least two data points to conclude that stickied threads are not an efficient way to control forum traffic.
What's more, even if it were, I still wouldn't want to do it in Rules Q&A, because Rules Q&A was not conceived as a forum where extended discussions of rules were to occur. All you've convinced me is that perhaps the descriptive text under the forum title needs to be made clearer as to the intended purpose of the forum.
Especially with the Rules forum, with proper indexation and categorization all questions can have an indexed answer.
The VCLs and Forum Leads are community volunteers. It would take hours to properly index such a thread (if I even thought it worthwhile, which I don't). In the end, you'd end up with an index that could conceivably be larger than the rulebooks themselves.fn That isn't feasible on this forum.
The General Discussion Q/A thread is already on its second iteration, the first one having grown too large.
And of course, this also assumes that indices are actually going to trim the size of the Q/A threads. My anecdotal experience in these forums is that many people often post without spending the time to review a thread properly. We see this often on long threads where people say "I haven't read through the whole thread, but I just wanted to say..." and then the person says something that many other people have already said.
I understand your frustration. You and Fitz want a place where people can talk about rules and only rules, without worrying about people proposing house rules. I think we might be able to come up with a compromise that may be acceptable to most.
footnote
I see this as akin to Talmud, a collection of commentaries on the Hebraic Torah (the First five books of the Old Testament). Much like DM Rules Counseling, Talmud is commentary by learned people on a finite set of rules (the 613 commandments the rabbis identify in the Torah). But the Talmud is easily ten times as long as the Torah (and thousands of times as long as if you just wrote out the 613 rules.) And the Talmud only includes the rabbinical commentary from about 40 rabbis from before the era of computers -- the DM Rules Counseling has a lot more than 40 contributors. I don't think we can expect that even a well-indexed Q/A thread will be manageable in length.
Indicate to me how you would know that? I don't think you can track how many people use stickied threads one way or another. In fact I think it's impossible for you to determine. What in your experience could possibly indicate such a statement?
My experience is that I frequently see people asking questions that are answered in stickies at the top of the forum.
One of the common questions in the DDI forums??
[indent]I can't access the help system, it gives me an error. What do I do.[/indent]
One of the stickies in the DDI forums is entitled
[indent]Trouble Accessing our Help System? See here.[/indent]
No it's not. There is only so many questions one can ask.
There is not a finite number of questions that can be asked. The number of rules that D&D has and the number of interactions possible pushes the number of questions in the realm of "very large number"
Especially with the Rules forum, with proper indexation and categorization all questions can have an indexed answer.
With the rules forum, possibly. But I was talking about the "Ask a quick question" thread. The very nature of the thread makes keeping a continual index up to date pointless and extremely difficult.
The Q&A forum really was created to replace the Q&A thread which was created to clean up the general forum from quick one hit posts. People come in, post a question and then you never see or hear from them again. (Side note- I requested the D&D general board be put just under the Q&A board so new people would see that first.) The Q&A forum wasn't created with it being a "community" in mind.
It's also relatively new- created for the 4e boards to help people with quick 4e questions. (Despite the description, the forum's title is 4e rules Q&A, not 4e rules or 4e rules discussion.)
A rules discussion board would be redundant in itself as people can have rule discussions in one of the other catgeorized forums. What are the rules for my controller charcter? What are the rules monster x? Should rutuals cost as much as they do?
As for thread moves "killing" off an area based on observations of less activity, it may be a contributing factor or it might not. All forums go through a state of flux. I've seen "This forum is dying!" many, many times. It's just natual that people's lives get busy, or they lose interest, or something else grabs their attention. We're currently in the middle of summer and not everyone is going to bring their laptops to the beach just to keep posting. :D
Now having said all of that, FitzNighteyes, I think you do have some very good points. Plus, the forums change often; there's no reason why we can't make changes. (Albeit slowly.)
What we'll do for now while all this gets hashed out, (I'd love input from folk such as what to do about those one visit newbie questions, what to do about threads that really do belong on other fourms and so on) is raise the bar on the number of posts before something is moved. 100 posts seems like a nice number to use.
Minor issue to be sure any targets are painted on the right person- I'm the VCL for the D&D area. Mudbunny is very helpful and free to continue to comment but I don't want folks to blame him for my actions/decisions. Wrecan as the forum guide provides me with suggestions/head up on what needs to be done, but ultimately, it's my responsibility. Don't hate those two, please. ;)
However, even in such a highly-tuned forum and even with Magic's exceedingly comprehensive rule set, there was always a recurring theme of questions that had no clear-cut answers, as well as discussions about how the rules might be improved, streamlined, or expanded. So in order to accomodate these kinds of discussions, we created a subforum specifically for the kinds of in-depth discussions that the normal format of Rules Q&A couldn't accomodate: the [forum=934]Rules Issues forum[/forum].
That kind of discussion forum seems to be exactly the kind of thing Fitz is looking for here--where such threads might find themselves derailed or deluged with...well, let's call it "unhelpful"...commentary from less-rules-savvy posters in other forums, Rules Issues' placement and nature ensure a consistently high level of discussion and knowledge. And if we Magic players can find enough to talk about to support such a forum, I can only imagine that a similar forum devoted to D&D's squishier rules set would allow room for far more discussion.
As the Magic judge above says, there's a significant difference between Q&A ("My GM told me I couldn't use 'yield ground' on my turn. Why not?"-type questions which can be answered very quickly) and rules discussion ("What happens when the target of a spiritual weapon moves?" and other questions without a clear answer found in a single sentence of the rules). The former can be answered easily with a textual reference. The latter - if they can be answered at all - will require work. If there are people willing to do that work - reading and re-reading the rules; writing their understanding of the rules down for others to read, consider, and respond to; synthesising the various sources and arguments into a best-fit interpretation where the rules are unclear or allow multiple meanings; etc - then it seems sensible for there to be a place on the forums where that can happen. And if there is a community of people who are willing to do this repeatedly, on a variety of topics, then having a single forum for that makes sense as those people can go to that forum regularly, rather than spreading them across the range of forums for different aspects of the game - which I expect contain many non-rules discussions.
During Living Greyhawk a Yahoo Group called 'Infinite Monkeys' was set up for detailed rules discussion (both of campaign rules and the RAW of D&D). It still exists for RAW 4e discussions should anyone want to join it, though it is less active now than it was. It has proved very good at removing long and drawn-out rules discussions/disagreements from the other groups, as admins elsewhere can say "take this discussion to Infinite Monkeys, please", allowing those groups to be useful for general discussion and quick answers.
My suggestion, should it be possible, would be a sub-forum in Rules Q&A for longer discussions; anything that can't be answered easily could then be moved to that sub-forum (this needn't even need VCL action: the posters could simply start a thread on the topic in the sub-forum and put a note in the question thread saying that longer discussion is on-going there).
The reason for the policy is as follows:
Thank you for the clarification. Now that I am aware of the policy and its reasons, the practice will seem far less vexing for me.
Those threads are not helpful in creating a quick resource for people to find a quick answer to a question that has already been asked.
The "Ask a simple question, get a simple answer" thread from the Character Optimization board seems to get a obtain quick answers, however it's completely different from a FAQ.
A well-organized, hyperlinked FAQ could provide answers, and certainly seems applicable to the "Rules Q&A" board... it's something people would likely expect to see there.
Mind you: decreasing board traffic isn't necessarily a positive thing. The busy-ness of a board it often what attracts people. Also, most people (whether they admit it or not) absolutely love answering easy questions.
Thank you for the clarification. Now that I am aware of the policy and its reasons, the practice will seem far less vexing for me.
Well, the policy has been changed. Threads won't get ported until they reach 100 posts, rathe than 30. I imagine that will require very few threads to be ported.
The "Ask a simple question, get a simple answer" thread from the Character Optimization board seems to get a obtain quick answers, however it's completely different from a FAQ.
Oh, I don't deny people will get quick responses. What I mean is it doesn't do much to prevent multiple posts on the same topic and it does little to lessen traffic. Also, as you point out, lessening traffic to the forum is not a goal of Q&A.
A well-organized, hyperlinked FAQ could provide answers, and certainly seems applicable to the "Rules Q&A" board... it's something people would likely expect to see there.
That would be lovely and I would happily recommend stickying such a thread should someone commit themselves to maintaining it and I wasn't worried the person might lag behind in keeping it current. It also would require more time than I can handle. I also suspect the index would quickly become voluminous.
A rules discussion board would be redundant in itself as people can have rule discussions in one of the other catgeorized forums. What are the rules for my controller charcter? What are the rules monster x? Should rutuals cost as much as they do?
And yet there are so many areas that aren't covered by the current rules, although many of them could fall under "Combat" if it was widened from it's current scope of Tactics, Traps and Terrain.
I mentioned a few earlier because they came to mind as oft-repeated subjects. Questions related to actions types and how they work, the TWF rules, the use of weapons-as-implements and their interaction with powers, anything related to Feats, how damage rolls work and what is added to them, and many questions related to the definition of "attack" and how the Attack/targeting process actually works. On top of that, there are many rules questions about seeming class specific questions that actually affect many other aspects of the game such as the rules behind how Commander's Strike works or how MC Healing/Inspiring Word work.
I still feel there is a need eventually (and understand it may take a while) for a Forum to address these kinds of issues, but unfortunately I'm terrible at names. I'm not sure how the current Combat forum could be renamed to be clear it was including all rules issues not related to Classes, Skill Challenges or Magic Items/Rituals. Obviously having a forum just named 'Rules Issues' would be too broad, and would instead just end being a catchall for ALL rules issues, even ones that should be elsewhere.
You could pick a flavor-based name, similar to Astrid's.
Why not Mordenkind's Malicious Rules Interpretations?
or Raistlin's Rules Debates or Leomund's Debate Tent?
Description (For Rules which have more than one correct interpretation)
However, it seems like a moot point to me; we've been waiting how long for other relatively simple changes? I have a feeling that CM considers these requests inconsequential, especially considering that the DDI section got a new forum for the Monster Builder tool as soon as the beta was ready.