I’m certainly not having a go at you or anyone else for that matter. I just saw your post and in the excitement I decided to revisit those links as they’re the ones I was most familiar with and discovered a few 404s 
In terms of parachain development I used to ask Rococo-related questions in the Substrate Builders Program rooms. I’m not surprised that there aren’t many questions in those groups anymore from established parachain teams given the significant advancements in generative AI guidance, and for new teams I think it would make sense for them to be using Paseo Testnet Support #paseo-testnet-support:parity.io, which seems quite active. Although last year it seemed easier to get Kusama and Polkadot parachains and associated cores than it was to get a parachain to test Paseo (formerly Rococo), hence why I never adopted using Paseo.
But I do seriously think there is an opportunity to create a mind map visualisation of all these different live communication channels that directs new and legacy users to where the latest action is. Perhaps even having a health check shown in those visualisations, with metrics shown from red to green that highlight their liveness (amount of messages per day) and moderation (limited amount of spam).
I’ll give an example from the Ambassador Program for context. There’s currently an unofficial Ambassadors Open Forum in Telegram at Telegram: View @ambxpert that says its “A chat for ambassadors and non ambassadors to talk about ambassadors 
” and has two admins, one of which has been in official Ambassador Fellowship roles lately, and they both juggle multiple commitments. That channel has been full of spam messages since about 25th May 2025. If there was a mind map visualisation of live communications across the Ambassador Program then that group would be labelled red for moderation, a red for liveness (there aren’t many messages, and they’re drowned amongst all the spam messages), and red for redirection (there isn’t any information directing users to official groups that would be labelled in green).
I think we need to establish governance standards and moderator accountability to address these gaps, both for unmoderated unofficial groups that are where users may be onboarded, just as much as we address unmoderated official groups, which is where we actually want them to be redirected to since there’s a higher chance of those unofficial groups being abandoned.
If moderators don’t uphold those governance standards and properly moderate the groups then they should be held to account and be formally requested to restore dedicating time to it or to step back from official roles in the ecosystem to focus on fixing their unofficial priorities with a clear deadline for compliance, and if after the warning period the matter is still unresolved, then remove them from official capacity in the Ambassador Fellowship.
.