I tried to post this yesterday, but the server seemed to be mucked up. Sorry if some of the references are a page or two up.

This is not a bar, a workplace, or a church group. It's an on-line forum. Argument by analogy, although it can provide insights, only goes so far. Birdstrike's comments in Those who do not learn from history seem to me to be the most pertinent to date. He's right about what we're going to lose, later if not sooner, if something isn't done.

What puzzles me is, what do people - especially those who are "only here for the miles" - think we'll lose by having moderated forums? If they don't care about the flames and random junk now, what possible difference should it make to them, unless of course they actually like the flames? But those who like that sort of thing already have other boards to go to. Why should we expect that carefully chosen, replaceable moderators will cause more problems for the majority of us than egotistical flamers?

bernie wrote, this is supposed to be an open forum, so everybody is invited to "do what he wants". Sorry, I can't agree. (bernie, not trying to pick on you; you just happened to say succinctly what a lot of people seem to think.) Before registering, haven't we all agreed to abide by certain rules of behavior? The problems we have now are being caused by people who seem to feel that the rules don't apply to them, or who think that they can safely flout the rules because no significant punishment will ensue if they do, or who simply enjoy getting a rise out of other folks. Or all of the above.

Until now I've been a part of the "ignore them and hope they go away" group. But it was a slow weekend, and I spent quite a bit of time reading old threads. Not sure exactly when I changed my mind, but I have.
One of the fallacies of the Ignore 'Em viewpoint is the contention that we're all adults here. We're clearly not, whether by chronological or - much more important - by emotional age. The occasional peccadillo is no big deal; a continuing pattern of abuse is. And although one individual seems to be a big part of the problem at the moment, it seems to me sensible to have a structure in place that could deal with any seriously disruptive person. This might even encourage positive contributions from posters who otherwise waste our time and patience.

doc, you left out "some come to interact with like-minded people who share a common interest in travel".

svpii, count me under "General Agreement" - but I'm of the opinion that the lightest hand possible should be applied to the reins. Rather than make this post even longer, I'll just say that I pretty much agree with james's comments on p.1.