- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
Hmmm. I don't see what great things you're expecting from the above mentioned kind of forum.
First, it seems to be based solely on user titles. The axiom that people with higher titles are any more worthy than anyone else is precisely that, an axiom. Its an inane supposition with almost no real solid data to back such an axiom. All we have are anecdotes from our experiences here, and even those are not consistent. Titles may be an indicator of good behavior, but its not a measure of it. If that were the case, then users with higher member titles would never be banned, and since I remember banning a good number of Heroic, Legendary, and Mythic members when I was a moderator, that's not the case. Simply being here for awhile and potentially receiving less moderator attention is not a warranted method of determining trust just yet. Perhaps in the future, but not quite yet.
On top of that, making a forum solely to allow certain users to interact with one another is in fact redundant, as this is m ore or less an all inclusive place, as it should be. The only limits are private groups, and The Optimatch. The Otimatch has restrictions because it makes sense to have those restrictions. If you're not using a linked gamertag, then you don't really have any proof you actually play matchmaking, and as such don't need to contribute there. It fulfills a function. A forum based on member titles does not, at least not in as pragmatic terms.
The elitism thing is a red herring. Its not important. I don't think that needs any more input or discussion.
I believe private group forums fulfill everything Foman was talking about nicely, even though they have their flaws, because something which is a private forum clearly implies inclusivity. A "public" forum which does not let certain people interact based on such specious reasoning as they have not been around long enough is the very definition of unnecessary and redundant. Member titles mean nothing to anyone with at least the perspicacity to want to expand their horizons. That's not to say that member titles are not worth anything in general, because they have their place, but I think that using them for a selection process to who can and who can't do certain things is totally misunderstanding the spirit of them. They're meant as an incentive to stay out of trouble. While that's certainly a good thing overall, it does not at all fit into what I would hope the criteria of who is a good member and who is not denotes.
While I think a "public" forum that's not at all actually public is totally a step in the wrong direction, its not my only quarrel with this idea. The other thing many of you are discussing is a "good" place to talk about things like Halo 3. Your reasoning for this is the current Halo 3 forum is a mess and not worth your time. Well, what would making an exclusive forum about Halo 3 do to the current one? I think it would be publicly abandoning it, even if the moderators and admins are not trying to do that. It would be the same as saying "this is not worth the time of good members, so go nuts". That, in every way I think about it is counter-productive. And an exclusive forum would not fix any actual problems here, it would only either sweep them temporarily under the rug, or make them ALL worse via reaction.
My vote: there is no need for an exclusive forum. It won't solve any problem. The same problems that afflict the main public forums would not be assuaged at all, and those problems would likely find their way into the exclusive forum very very quickly. Its not worth our time.
Also, going on the rational used to justify this forum's existence (in that anecdotally theorizing about a sort of Utopia) historically should tell you that its bound to fail. Platitudes, and Utopian hypothesis have ALWAYS failed to deliver anything of substance. I don't see how this is any different.
[Edited on 12.05.2008 4:24 PM PST]