Dog piling

(I have not thought long and hard about this, so I expect and appreciate some criticism.)Could we have a new forum guideline regarding new members?Something like:
No more than 2 people are allowed to reply to a new member in a single thread.If you are new to this forum, then it can be quite a shock to the system to see the level of detailed knowledge that is required to debate here.
I fear that 'dog piling' would scare people off before they have a chance to up their game.I am not sure that any good comes from 'dog piling' new members.
(But I do kinda feel that if someone has posted here for years and says something 'stupid' then they deserve to be jumped on. )What do you people think?Edited by Panda, : Tyops

I presume it could be enforced by hiding posts that are dog piling?
As to whether the mods want to do it - I guess we will have to see... Me too. But maybe I shouldn't have.
And I have also not posted because I felt there was too many posts already. Not specifically, no.

Why do you think it is unenforceable?
And I am not suggesting that we pander to any particular side, I am suggesting that we 'pander' to new members.I do agree that some people can make a single post with many, many errors, but I am concerned that swamping the poster with criticisms is counter-productive.
I also do not think that having 'stones' should be a requirement to post on this site. I think that being able to learn is a far more important attribute. But dog-piling can put people's defences up and discourage them from learning.

I do not understand the point you are trying to make.Can you re-phrase please?

I agree with the principle you have stated, but both of your replies seem not to be replies to my post.It appears that you are accusing me of dog-piling others as some kind of petty revenge due to me being dog-piled when I was a new member?
This seems far removed from the altruistic suggestion I have made.*shrug*Well, no-one else seems to think my suggestion is viable, so I will leave it as food for thought.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Ah..ok.I was not offended - just confused.

There are certain threads where I don't understand the question, and the answers make even less sense...

I would suggest first come first served basis. I am not sure mods could (or would want to have to) judge posts.As fearandloathing suggested (above) it might be simpler to just hide repeats. Since you are actually the 2nd smartest guy in the room, it would be appreciated if you would stand back and let me through! I do know what you mean though.
But I have deleted a couple of my posts because they were too similar to the posts before them.
I will try and keep an eye open for more of this kind of thing.

I have had the same experience.
But I am wondering if 'asking a question better' actually makes that much difference.
Sure, we could maybe get to an quicker answer by asking a better question, but by adding an extra person (ourselves) to the debate we instead slow things down. Something like that sounds like it could be workable. This does seem to be the most difficult to restrict.
It starts verging on censorship.

Yes, any change would need to be thought through.
To quote my OP: "I have not thought long and hard about this, so I expect and appreciate some criticism." I agree that there can be unforeseen consequences to 'change', but there are also unforeseen consequences to 'no change'.
As you say, all rule changes will upset someone - and I would assert that trying to 'please everyone all the time' is an exercise in futility.
Rules can be changed with the overall result being positive (more people join than leave).
When you aren't trapped trying to keep everyone happy, you can choose other criteria when deciding which rules to have.
I was looking to make EvC less intimidating. 'No change' (by definition) wouldn't accomplish that. I am not a new member so the reply limit doesn't apply.