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.

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?

@Akshay why is it a fundamental change? On the contrary, the proposal itself is democratic and will only result in a change, if people vote for it. If dissenters views lose out but they have sufficient energy, they will fork the group and create something.

@Akshay I don't think it is a fundamental change. From the beginning, peer to peer structure was considered for (permanent) members only. I never envisioned giving equal rights to just anyone who joins our discussion groups. They had to explicitly ask to be associates and then ask to be members, they also need vouching by existing members before they get equal rights as other members. The open discussions are just a way for people to get started and we just realized the cost of running such a group is very high from experience. So basically this is just winding up an experiment for wider participation.