Aw, c'mon, njc. Building walls? That's not what we're about. The purpose of groups is to gather like-minded writers together to share ideas, discuss issues related to the particular genres. At least that was my motivation for starting a group. Most of the time, though, the group just serves as the place to post a story appropriate for the genre. A place for those who like that kind of story to go to and find a story to their liking. How can it be clique-ish if anyone can join a specific group if they think it suits them? And join more than one group? We're a family of writers, each member trying to achieve a success that meets the individual's definition of it. So have some fun and take advantage of the wealth of talent available here - in whatever group(s) meets your fancy. The paranoia you expressed is misplaced, in my view.
If building walls were not an express purpose of groups, why is it possible to create a private or invite-only group? Those capabilities are wall-builders.
What this suggests to me that -both- capabilties are present in the design. The problems that we are having figuring out how to use the things might or might not come from having both openness and closedness as part of group function, but it's a question this sometime software designer feels should be asked.
It's only paranoia in the sense that having a system test team to hammer on the product before it ships is paranoia. You =always= expect bugs, in requirements, analysis, several levels of design, coding, integration, configuration, and in packaging the product to ship or go into service. It's best if the designers and programmers expect the bugs, and design/code them out before they happen. But that's a discussion for another place and time.
