At the risk of committing an unnatural act here – i.e., posting on topic – let me suggest “a simple solution”.

I’ll start with an executive summary: Since it’s Randy’s house, let’s be sensitive guests here and do what he asks.

Some examples:

1. Let’s concentrate on points and miles, and clearly related topics. Now, that doesn’t seem too hard, does it? I mean, after all, it’s called “flyertalk” – which was intended, as I recall, to mean talk about (or related to) flying. It’s not called “baseball talk” or “same sex marriage talk” or “presidential election talk” or even – “moderator talk”.

(As a subset of this point, I fully concur with Jailer’s suggestion: If you want to spend [most of?] your time talking about this non-flyer stuff, find a board that specializes in such stuff, or even start one of your own.)

2. Since it is Randy’s house, let’s let him [and those he designates as his agents] decide who is welcome and who is not. Golly, what a thought. Can you imagine a group of nosey Parkers picketing and annoying a homeowner because he no longer invites someone else to his home? Randy is a private person, answerable to himself and his employers and shareholders, if any. He’s not a government and he’s not an elected or appointed representative who is “answerable” to the masses. If he decides not to invite someone into his living room anymore, that’s his call.

3. Related to the above is MYOB. Lawyers, who seldom use plain English if something else is available, call the concept “standing”. Whether you say “mind your own business” or “I suggest you don’t have standing” the meaning is the same. To the extent that Randy or his agents decide to exclude someone for what Randy considers disruptive behavior in his own place, so far as I can tell the only person who would have a legitimate right to complain is the person so excluded. I know, you really like “X”, but where it is written that you have a right to meet “X” at Randy’s place?

4. If you have a point to make, make it. When the point is made, and responded to, quit bellyaching and re-raising the point. If it’s your house, you can make the rules; if it’s Randy’s house, then he gets to make the rules and you have two options: Comply or depart. What part of that don’t people understand?

Now, I can understand mentioning to a friend that you think he may have been a bit harsh in his action, or that you think he doesn’t know the whole story, or that you thought the kids were just walking fast and not actually “running” through his house when they broke the vase (although personally I think those would be subjects for a private conversation, not a public debate), but when the (unfailingly polite) friend says, “thank you for your input, but my decision (or the decision of my agent) stands; that’s the way I want to do things around here,” you have run out of any reasonable right to continue arguing with him. At that point, you understand that (a) he doesn’t want to discuss it, or (b) he’s already considered that, or (c) he doesn’t want to put that issue up for a vote. Again, you have two legitimate options: Comply or depart. Staying but making a pest of yourself by continuing to whine about it, rearguing the point at every opportunity, and diverting nearly every conversation to your pet obsession is not one of the options.

I don’t know what the difficulty is. This seems simple politeness to me, yet it is apparent that a certain group of folks (not a “clique” because they don’t always agree with each other, although they -- the banned and their buddies -- clearly are passing e-mails back and forth behind the scene; maybe “the usual suspects”?) simply seem incapable of letting this go.

Or, maybe an even simpler way to put it is:

Rule 1. Folks here shall respect Randy’s wishes.

Rule 2: Even if you don’t like the result, Rule 1 applies.