From my perspective, this is unwise for a number of reasons.
1 - The conversation is going to happen regardless. Talking about IPMS on the IPMS group makes sense. Where else should it happen? Dictating that people have to go somewhere other than where they already (and become paying members if they aren't) just means they won't engage, or they'll engage in other groups, or hear about it via other pages and podcasts and youtube channels and blogs. This is the internet. You can't have smoke-filled backroom conversations.
2 - There seems to be an operating assumption that everything would just go away if it wasn't for non-members on Facebook. This is straight up untrue. Most of the people I see involved in conversations are members. A great many of them I've met at Nats. 13K members doesn't mean squat. Again...it's the internet. 90% of those never engage, comment, or even like a post. 9% comment, and along that same distribution curve. And then you have 1% driving almost all of the activity. And I'll guarantee that the most active are also mostly members.
3 - For all the talk of growing the hobby and making IPMS more inclusive and welcoming, this is slamming the door on that intention. You don't win hearts and minds with members only signs and locked doors.
4 - Respectfully, the problem is not the where. A controversy arises that people are understandably upset about. And instead of any official voice saying "eesh, yeah, that looks bad, and I understand why you'd be upset, but that picture isn't telling the whole story" it's instant defensiveness and dismissal. It's ad hominem attacks. It puts a sour taste in people's mouths. So does attacking whistleblowers. Pitchforks are raised because people are pissed, and at every turn they've been given reason to be. And when you have the (now former) head of the NCC calling what from the outside reads like an extremely thorough, level-headed report "that McLain bull!", well...yeah that's just another thing that's going to keep the era of bad feelings rolling.
