The recent fuss over Karel has not been accompanied by a full menu of policy alternatives. Bj21 has a policy of allowing everybody in, with a relatively unmoderated discussion. The logic is excluding some "spies" lulls people into a false sense of security. And Stanford doesn't want to turn down subscription money if the financial sacrifice doesn't improve security. Don's response was just because you can't keep them all out doesn't mean you welcome them all in!

Similarly, Don objected to the unmoderated free-for-all discussion dominated by cranks and trolls. This reflects a philosophy to offer a more exclusive, more controlled discussion instead of a less restrictive more accessible discussion.

This is a continuum. You can make the product so exclusive that nobody can get in. And you can provide advanced technical content of limited interest. Things can evolve. Bj21 formerly had fewer members, more restrictions, and more participation by the host. In many ways Don is trying to recreate the old Bj21.

Some surveillance guys and pit personnel provided interesting perspective on bj21. MathProf hinted he did not necessarily object to all participation by casino employees. I thought Zender was valuable. There are dealers who count but don't work in management or game protection. The problem comes when management uses this forum to protect their games or identify players. But not everybody is Andy Anderson or Michael Barnett. Let me emphasize anybody here could potentially work for casinos in the future. At one time Zender and Vancura were on the players' side.

We need to think about articulating a policy that is easy to grasp and which maximizes the quality of this forum. You may not be able to stop "spies". But a clear policy may discourage casino personnel who want to avoid legal problems and bad publicity.