That is a problem of moderation, then. The example you cite does not support an argument of "sites with verification and payment have the same problems, so why bother" argument at all.

A little excursion:

I know this will probably rub some people the wrong way - but if I were the one that would have had to pull the trigger, I would have banned a lot more people already. With a site like this, you have to set a signal sometimes and just outright kick people if they start challenging you. This is not a democracy. This is a free site that belongs to Randy (as far as I know).

People forget that. Just today I read people saying "I have every right to do so" etc. No you don't. You have no right here if Randy decides you don't. This is a free site and Randy can do with it what he wants. You can - as I am just doing it - make suggestions on how to improve the site. But they are what they are - suggestions. You can argue with other posters. But if Randy decides, it is enough - you have no right to complain.

That's the way it is. Again, this is not a democracy or a debate club. Any right that you have on this site is derived from Randy allowing you to post here.

If Randy decides that what some describe as "seagull management" is the way he decides to run the site - perhaps not answering e-mails or be inconsistent in enforcing standards (I don't know what experience they have made) - then that is the way it is. People may be annoyed with this, and I can understand their disappointment, but they have no right to complain. Again, even though he seems to be the friendly, grassroots type that would like to involve everyone and give them the feeling that it is their site - it is not. It is his. I think many people feel they have spent so much time on this site that part of it is theirs and this is why they get so bitter and angry when something does not go their way. I would have probably kicked these people to set a signal (I am saying this even though I know that some of them are my favorite posters). It is a little bit like in a company - if I am the boss and some employees start behaving like they think they are free to do whatever they choose, I will have to fire them at some point, even if I think they are valuable to the company - just to show the others: This is how far you can go and not a step further, and I will not hesitate to fire even my favorite employees if they cross that line.


Coming back to what you said about the site where people pay a lot of money and they still have flaming problems: That site apparently does not make it clear in their terms and conditions that paying money does not mean you can do what you want. You will still have to abide by certain standards and once you start insulting other posters, you risk losing the rights to post that you acquired when you paid your subscription fee. Tough luck. Kick one or two and you will see that others will become more hesitant, after having paid money, to lose their posting rights.


The problem here right now is that you cannot really act like I just described and enforce the standards, because people can easily always come back and cause trouble again or even be vengeful and REALLY try to cause trouble.

Hence my strong support for requiring positive identification as outlined in my proposal, if I were Randy.