HTRegz, here's your original suggestion on this.
First. To be picky, it was 9 months ago. :DQuote:
Why was it that when I brought this up 6 months ago it was a horrid idea? That I was attacked and berated for the idea... but now it's suddenly a great idea?
I was looking at the thread and you weren't attacked or berated. There actually was a lot of support for this. The thread however started to degenerate and lost the original idea of what it was about. There are some differences however to what you had suggested compared to what allenb is suggesting:
You were suggesting a new forum that was invite only. Invite only does tend to get people to "get their backs up" because they think "conspiracy", "favourtism", etc. Whether true or not. Someone, somewhere will have to make a decision as to who qualifies in that case.Quote:
I'd like to suggest a new forum. After talking with several of the more well versed members on this site through IRC, and various IM clients, I've come to the conclusion that a new forum is needed. One that is invite only, for those of us that actually know what we are talking about.
What allen is suggesting is based on "non-biased" factors. Reality is someone will "spam" somewhat through the security/computer forums with "I agree" posts or repeat suggestions made by someone one post up but I think that might be far and few between.
With any idea however based on things like time and/or # of posts in specific forums we will run the risk of exclusion no matter what. We have to be ready to deal with that. It's not an elitism but rather the requirement that's put forward. This is what seperates the idea from invite only versus base requirements. One might be subject to favouritism (e.g., give me more APs and you'll get in) while the other could be subject to post whoring. Which is the lesser of two evils? (it's just a simple question, not a statement or comment on either suggestion)
That's not entirely accurate. What I had said was this:Quote:
I was told to start a Conference Room because they wouldn't give us a new site...
It was meant to be a creative solution because I didn't know if or when this might be implemented, particularly since there was so many varied things going on. A lot has changed in 9 months. The postings even in the last couple of months have changed. I don't think it's a bad thing to re-visit items after a period of time if it was successful the first time or wasn't as well received the first time. Those that make up the Addicts have changed. Rather than putting this into a negative light can we not debate, civilly, the merits and problems that we might have to face if we do change the requirements?Quote:
an alternative suggestion would be to use the Conference option and invite those you want to a serious security discussion (attendence limited only by the creator of the Conference IIRC).
That all said, why not use a conference for now and post the results of it in the Misc Security or Addicts forum when the discussion has reach it's final point (or after a certain period of time)? As an interim thing until/if JUPM does create a forum like you are suggesting.
We will need to consider a few things:
What about those that are part of Addicts now? Do they just get ejected?
Should those that participated so long ago but rarely participate now be given access?
(I ask these seriously because rarely is anything, IMO, black and white). There may be others that we need to consider before implementing this and I would appreciate any other ideas/questions/thoughts put forward that might help us come to a final resolution on this.
