Restrict matrix group to Associates only?

Yes, we should make is associates only. The room is a target for people who have no intention to become members and are mainly just trying to disrupt. Its easy to come here and make proposals for change, people don't seem to want to engage in that.

The outreach by members and other such direct action are more effective in growing the membership size than having a random open debate room.

Indian Pirates is not a free for all, there is a constitution and a COC, if people are aligned to it, they should come.

Yes looking at the recent discussions, I'd agree, but we do need an open for all channel as well so that people randomly searing for us can land somewhere and ask questions, or express why they went searching for the pirates, and we show them these are the guidelines for interacting in the channel and i don't know how we do it, but i think we should have an open for all channel as well somehow.

Would it be better to keep loomio for that purpose? Otherwise won't we end up with the same administration problem?

I think we can keep the current group open but tell new people about it being Associates only when they start discussing.

This might fire back, will end up doing more moderation when people choose to continue discussion, but this time with a tone that they are being silenced. I think its better to have a new associate only room and continue discussions over there while keeping present group open for everyone.

I do think its good to preserve a group for non associate to involve with Indian Pirates, so we can keep the public group for introductions and interactions about the perspectives and ideologies that Indian Pirates pursue. Keeping it away from general open discussions.

How do you plan to manage it without moderation? Do you volunteer to be an admin? I don't think it is very useful to debate with people who are ideologically opposed. The issue is not debates in itself, but not everyone has time or interest to engage. It becomes a denial of service, we have to spend all our time answering a few people. You can create a new room for such open discussions.

Keeping such discussions have direct consequences for us. Akshay already left the group, Bady muted himself for a month. Others personally told me they want to leave. So you want to keep people who are opposed to our ideas at the cost of losing people who care about our ideas? The core idea is to end hierarchy among people who care and agree about some core ideas, not run an open place to give equal importance to all ideas. This structure prevents a single person from sabotaging the core ideas of the group, it can't work with a random set of people with different ideologies and biases.

This new request by you just reinstated my doubts about your authoritative administration and I can even prove it to you. The last three individuals that were warned unnecessarily for misconduct were Jigarkamble, Sah and me. Naturally you'd all expect a neutral unbiased admin to punish himself after he banned a member for more than a month unnecessarily for thinking that 'circle jerk' is an abusive word. But Brady took it upon himself to self mute because he understood his genuine mistake and here you are trying to dictate new rules so that you can impose ban on the members mentioned above that are dissenting your political perception. And you expect us to think of you as a political leader? A leader who is intolerant to any smell outside his own bubble of reality?

No, I don't expect everyone to agree with my ideas. Dissent does not mean we have to provide you a platform. The issue is mainly that of time management. We don't really want to endlessly argue with people of different political ideas. You are free to take your ideas directly to people and even criticize us. I think it is a waste of our time and effort to debate with you.