In addition to the poll (great idea!) it's worth having a frank debate about launching publicly.

I think that it's a bad idea to launch publicly. Here's why:

1. A public launch has no upside. We're not trying to sell space or to generate $$$ from large numbers of subscribers.

2. A public launch has considerable downside. It only takes a couple of undesirables to ruin a lively and interesting forum.

3. We can easily recruit large numbers of interesting and intelligent forum members by continuing to pursue an "invitation only" policy. This approach means that we can grow the forum membership rapidly whilst ensuring a high standard.

4. ... that's it.

What does everyone else think?

I have just voted Yes for a launch, but now that I've read what you wrote, I think I'd like to change that to a No.

It's a very delicate situation. Of course, a public forum would be am ideal situation, but I really wish to avoid the heartache some of us experienced on W****tt.

I just can't take another extreme right wing poster who starts at least a thread aday with anti-someone or anti-something propaganda. Enough is enough.

I've also seen too many nice discussions on W****tt go down the drain due to continuous interruptions. It's all too painful.

But the above are facts of life on a public forum. We are about 60 poeple now. I think that 120 to 150 would be an ideal size for a lively forum. We can achieve that by invitation only.

I agree totally with Johnny!

There is simply no need. The forum is far from lacking in interesting, intelligent, and experienced individuals.

Plus as Johnny points out it guess who will be over here from the 'other place' as soon as NP goes public. We will be right back to square one...

DONT DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hAZ

Haven't the faintest illusions of being a member of this new league of giants. And, I probably would be one of those who, if I hadn't slipped in, would have a hard time getting membership. There are many interesting people out there, and there's no way one can claim to know how they would "behave" or "contribute" in the coming days. Besides, there are many leaners, like me, who benefit much from discussions here. One needs a dynamic system for "control."

Here's an unsolicitated thought. What you guys might consider is a gradual/dynamic build up of a voting system. Initially a handfull of people have "exclusive" voting rights (call it the "senate"). Anyone can sign up (the "population"). With time, the senate gets an "impression" of population. The "worthwhile" are then admitted to the senate. The "useless" (categorized by one's ability to ruin board "coherence") are voted out and board memberships revoked. The senate gets larger, whimsical veto's will asympotote out, and the system gets truly democratic. And so on to Shangrila.......

And, of course, don't forget, some members are to humored and kept on.....that way I get to stay!! No?

I think a rating system might get a bit time consuming... you could have a 'thanks!'/'no thanks' token thing where people sent 'thanks!' after a good post to the poster... and maybe you need 50 before you can post on off topic?! ;-)

I still advocate stopping casual reading of any of the forums by unregistered members ... I don't want MP mis-quoting the bad points of this place all over on W****tt next week after Quadrature posts the link.

The most frequent posters are also going to be the people most likely to submit a rating on any given post. It's very possible that by posting and rating a lot, certain members can exercise disporportionate influence. this is not necessarily bad, you just have to recognize that the system will tend to represent those who spend the most time on the forum.

As for the idea of making the forum open and public with some person or group given the right to exclude others - it could be very problematic. I thought that one of the major motivations in creating NP was to have an alternative to the aribtrary censoring and banning that occurs on the W.

I think any banning or exclusion procedure should be kept very transparent to avoid a repeat of history. For example, the names of the members with the right to vote on banning should be known to the rest of the forum, and the vote should be an open one.

While this does not guarantee fairness, it at least 1) lets the accused see who his accusers are, and 2) means that if you want to ban someone you have to have the balls to say it to their face.

From my perspective there is one major disadvantage to the voting system: not every intelligent person worth inviting into this community is a member of W****tt. How to we address the need to get fresh thought into this thing without letting what happened to W****tt happen here?  When FDAX sent me an invitation to join I was overjoyed. I watched W****tt go to hell and I was frustrated. It is difficult to find quantitative people with intuition.  I voted that we keep this place private, but at the same time I would hate to see this place end up like the Quant Analysis group I have to vet models through. Going to a meeting with all of QA is like talking to one person in the group. They come to such a quick consensus, that things that do not make any sense slip through quickly. If you take a bunch smart / useful people and isolate them, they will often begin to agree on everything and that is typically not good for intellectual development. Just my 1 bp worth.

Keep it simple.  To resume:

• invitation + sponsor 'validation'
  
• public stoning (lapidation polls)
• inspector as hitman

Maybe NP should be completely invisible to non-members in the immediate.

Let's not forget that the idea is to get a good rythmn + good quality posts going with little disruption.

After reading the thread carefully, I think that there are three main issues:

1. Mechanism/policy for letting people into the site.
2. Mechanism/policy for evicting miscreants from the site.
3. Visibility of the site

On the issue of letting people into the site, it is clear (to me at least) that an "open door" admissions policy would lead to miscreants entering and ruining the site. If we want to avoid this then we need some sort of filtering method. As FDAX and others have said, transparency is key. I therefore support Crassus' view of "invitation + sponsor 'validation'". This approach is consistent with current practice ("anyone mind if I invite XYZ?"), is transparent and democratic, and should be effective in keeping out the majority of trouble makers.

Inevitably some trouble makers will get in to the site. Once again transparency is the key and I support Crassus' "lapidation polls". In my view, having transparent polls is much preferable to appointing some sort of Senate.

Finally, if technology permits (and I'm sure it does) I would also support LP's idea of preventing non-members from viewing the forum. This forum should be a place of meeting, discussion and exchange of ideas. I see no reason why we should all be exposed and visible to casual passers-by.

In conclusion, I suggest not only that we stay private but also that we become even more private by hiding the forum in some way. We should refine our ideas on how to select new members (invitation, sponsorship, admissions letter?) and on how to deal with miscreants in a transparent manner.

People who have expressed their views here so far seem to favor privacy. Can anybody play devil's advocate and explain the benefits of going public? There may be something we missed.

Why I initially voted yes (and still think, at some future date, that may be the way to go) [OK, I didn't think this hard before I voted, but in response to Nero, here are some reasons]

1. Being consistent.  It's all about the teaching and helping, and you can't do that if there's no one new here.

2. Transparency. If the site is transparent, we can't as easily be accused of nefarious dealings with the lemonade stand, because one glance at this site would prove the accusations false.

3. Prove to "Monty" that a site can be successful without all the spam/advertising.

4. Endgender interest in the field of quantitative finance (doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?)

Seriously, the main reason to me is that many people have an interest in the field and we've got some of the best, and they're willing to help.  But without 'fresh blood' there will be less newbies to help.  And that is not just being said to sound nice, I find I learn more by teaching, and I'm sure Daxy and others are the same.