once management is involved in a disruption, and a decision is made, what you or anyone thinks about our decision rarely makes a lot of difference. Both of you have much more ability to control and/or influence the outcome prior to management getting involved, and very little after the fact. We've been doing this a long time, and one of the things we've learned is that we will not please everyone with the decisions we make, and to be honest, we're not trying. Disruptions are handled in a manner that ends them in the quickest fashion possible, allocating the least amount of resources to the unacceptable behavior. We have a few rules / policies that speak to this. 1. You Want Consistency in our Management - Here It Is 2. When Moderators Are Moderating - Stay Out of the Way 3. No One Member or Topic is Greater Than Our Collective Peace So again, if you want to help the situation, do it before we get involved, because it's too late after. By your own admission, you didnt bother to read the thread. Therefore, it cant be argued that a fair and unbiased hearing was actually given. Which violates all three rules. Consistency cant be accomplished in a vaccuum. Nor without benefit of the facts. Which is why I and others repeatedly bade you to read the thread. By definition, the moderators couldnt moderate. You presented no evidence to justify the shutting of that thread. To seem unbiased it would have been prudent to at least state the cause. There is a reason that three separate threads have been started over this! Furthermore, agreed to be people who dont necessarily agree with each other all the time. I submit you have misread your membership and are in fact allowing a small minority of,......"outsiders", read whiners,are being allowed to dictate terms. This isnt the 1st time this has happened. ..