Posted by: Tycho_005917
Let's use an ordinary real-life conversation as an analogy. Picture a group of boys talking about the latest Aleph One update. Another boy walks over and joins in the conversation, regardless of the groups unwillingness to let him in. That to me seems a bit intrusive, considering the members neither asked nor implied that he joined them.That analogy doesn't hold up since you would have the option to set a group to private where the "other boy" can't intrude.
Posted by: Tycho_005917
I also feel that if the groups were open 100% of the time, that would leave potential to spamming and trolling the members with threads that are irrelevant to the sole discussion. If a B.net member signs up and spams, they'd receive a warning, and assuming they'd continue to spam, they'd be banned. If a user were not a member and could still post, you wouldn't be able to prosecute him considering he's not exclusively your responsibility, thus leaving the forums open to anyone with any potential to harass.
Perhaps this is acceptable in open groups, but I simply don't think that anyone would allow any user to post, without at least the ability to ban or warn them.Assign every member on bungie.net the default security role for the group so that everyone is technically a member by default.
Posted by: snipe champpppp
What if the group is large, but then they change it to closed? Because they didn't have to fully join it would leave the group memberless. I say keep it, it isn't that hard to take five seconds out of the day to click two buttons.Haven't solved that problem yet. What Tom posted is a good compromise, but how about keeping membership and allowing options for the Non-Member role to post/view the forum (among other options)?