[jaydles]

Disclaimer: WORK THERE. BIASED.

Now... I actually agree that we can do more to help with questions that are less black and white. It's harder than it sounds - being a little rigid, and downright intolerant of questions that descend into religious debate "which language is better overall?" is a key part of what makes SO and our other sites work. But, I completely agree that we could probably do more to help more with a lot of more subjective or nuanced questions, and we're devoting a lot of energy to figuring out how to do so without undermining what's working well today. In summary, I agree with your point. :)

As to Startups, the main issue wasn't just questions per day. We have a lot of sites with less activity that we think are doing really well for their communities.

[jfoster]

Re: B&W <-> Religious debate spectrum, I agree with you. You don't want to host arguments, but the current approach is a bit overly rigid. The "which X is better?" is a question that probably should be shutdown, but "what are the differences or strengths of X versus Y?" is a question that hopes to be objective, might have higher-than-normal risk of descending into a debate (but won't necessarily), and from what I've seen, will probably get closed. I suggest tolerating such threads until they show signs of devolving.

Re: Startups issue, in that case, the Area 51 page for Startups is wrong. It says:

"This site has been Closed ... This proposal didn't have enough activity during the beta."