With this post, this thread has officially outlived its predecessor. Just an observation.

[i]Edit:[/i] I really feel it important to point out Elitism itself isn't a problem. It has this terribly negative connotation to it, but Elitism itself merely refers to the choice or best of anything collective in such a case of people or merely the people of highest class. That has a huge scope of possibilities because the status of 'best' or 'being choice' is utterly subjective. The highest class could exist because of a meritocratic system just as much as it could an monarchical or traditional system. An Elitist that is a problem is one that believes in some higher 'tier' solely to place themselves within it, thus have a sense of self-entitlement based on unprecedented claims. Considering that the entire system presented here on RPGuild is based on a GM that essentially has dictatorial authority, social stratification itself isn't uncommon. There is an obvious division line. It exists and performs a function. Elitism, such as that of a meritocratic system, could as well. I really think a far better term here would be 'narcissist' or - my personal favorite - 'asshole'. It really irks me that a potentially positive function of society is used so distastefully because of a negative connotation of the word.

Sort've like Communists, Socialists... or Libertarians. Although, that also depends highly on culture and geographic placement. I've got some friends on the West Coast that think Libertarians are utterly perfect while just about everyone else I know think they're too idealistic to take seriously.