I guess I look at this as a minor defeat for the circuit, that this has proven necessary.

Ultimately I see the next battle in quiz bowl not in terms of victory for one format over another, but a battle between two viewpoints, one of which I may be the most orthodox proponent of. I hold the following to be the truth: That ideally, the goals of quiz bowl should be to unify under a common set of beliefs. Note that these are fairly simple beliefs that go right across the traditional format partisanship:
1. Playing the game is inherently a good thing. The game
itself has value.
2. Playing more of the game is better.
3. The more people playing the better, regardless of what particular flavor of quiz bowl they are playing. The people themselves playing bring value to the game.

I hold these as principles that integrate people into the circuit, and integrate the various factions into the circuit. (As a result I'd call this viewpoint integrationist, if we're looking for labels.)

In opposition to this viewpoint, I place a large number of views on format, organization, and other issues that are bound by a common view, that X is not a part of quizbowl. Now that X can basically be defined by any element of quizbowl. Examples have included the existence of trash categories, the use of a clock, chemical elements, variable valued bonuses, geography questions, current events, general knowledge, academic clues in trash questions, fine arts, graduate students, theology, teams which only play once a year. The common thread is that in all of these, the espouser of the notion makes a bright line division: this is in, that is out. (If I were to be a total jerk, I'd try sticking the label of segregationist with this viewpoint, but separatist would be equally fine. They both convey the spirit, but I don't want to tag the opposition with the obvious connotations.) It isn't necessarily tied to a format.

The fundamental problem is that all separatist decisions end up dividing the circuit into "us" and "them". While that's a reasonable division for political purposes, it's not one that works long term, because as the number of bright line divisions increase, the number of people who become "them" also increases. And where political rationality, or pragmatism may work in real life, allowing things to smoothed over, there's no stake large enough in quiz bowl to create a benefit worth making compromise. As a result, there are great fights, initated on the purpose of improvement, which only result in division, segmentation, and multiple disjoint circuits. I fear that some would look upon that as ideal, not realizing no faction of the circuit is strong enough, or numerous enough, to survive on its own. And in fact, typically, when one side tries to build a wall around everything that's not 'their own", they only serve to wall themselves off. CBI tightens up on grad students, ACF begins to gain traction. ACF tightens up on trash, TRASH becomes a viable entity.

That's why I'm approaching upcoming events with a little trepidation. The notion of "another forum" feels like a separatist notion to me, after all, the circuit tends to regulate and temper its own viewpoints best when everyone has the same information, and people can be seen either as fools or sages by statements seen by all, and another forum just means that more people won't have the time or inclination to sift through it. However, I can't deny its necessity. The calm of low traffic is the offspring of us driving people away, and what has seemed as public agreement is nothing but an unrepresented majority feeling silenced and being silenced. I can't say that another forum will prevent that, but it has a better shot of doing it than the status quo.