I now have several years under my belt participating and moderating quite a few forums. It's not easy. I have seen forums fail due to the one extreme of allowing too much infighting and personal attacks, and also fail due to the other extreme of heavy handed moderating and censorship. People get really upset when their opinions are deleted, or worse, selectively censored. You would really be surprised how many enemies I now have, and how many emails and responses are sometimes necessary after someone is censored. And of course, a total free for all is equally doomed to failure. There was one comment here from Dave that attacked Jeff, and Jeff responded with his explanation. All subsequent remarks were deleted after I became aware of the comments. Butler apologized publicly and privately numerous times. He has been banned for now. And any reader can form their own opinion. On the biggest Forum I manage we allow people to express dissatisfaction with business dealings they may have had. We rate sellers. And not all get good ratings. But everyone there (and here) are adults, and just like in real life they can listen to both sides of a story and form their own conclusions. That is what I believe a Discussion Board should be. If you think a Moderator can micro manage all comments, every hour of every day, and sanitize all comments that anyone may find offensive, then dream on. That may be possible when there are only a half dozen people regularly posting. But when a forum attracts more attention, that perfect situation becomes more difficult. And the main goal is to have the forum attract more attention. Believe it or not, a moderator is not glued to a Fourm 24/7. Many times I return to find a topic has taken off with many comments and an in depth discussion - and at times disagreeing. And the choice becomes what to do. I err on the side of allowing people to speak their minds and those reading to make up their minds. The best forums are those that self moderate. Ignore those who are trying to create trouble. Don't directly respond to someone who has an issue with someone. Just do as you did here, and support that someone if you feel he needs it. IMO, Jeff Searle's reputation speaks for itself. And so do the positive comments in his favor. And the negativity generated from those who try to disparage him, also tells a story IMO. But the message is there for people to arrive at using their own devices. I am the Moderator by default. I do talk with Lee about what's best. The Croton Society is a loosely run society. As far as I can tell, the Directors don't regularly discuss policy, nor can they direct me as to what they exactly want done in every instance. There are many considerations to take into account. And some of them may not be apparent to all of you. Do you want this forum to be an exclusive Florida "club?" Or do you want to make outsiders feel welcome? Do you want to give the impression that if they dare disagree with the Florida clique that they will be given a hard time? Or do you want to present a venue where people are free to speak their mind as long as they do so appropriately? So, if my method of moderating is not what is desired, it is very easy for me to make someone else the Moderator. Perhaps this might be better. I would not mind in the slightest. So why don't you all decide if you can agree on a way you want to run the Forum, and find a volunteer willing to read all the posts several times a day, and manage all the personalities (new and old) the way the Directors wish them managed. I would still manage all the technical aspects of providing the security and preventing hacking attempts and managing registration verification. And I would also continue to suggest and assist in the actual maintenance and "nuts and bolts" of the Encyclopedia and it's entry management. But the new moderator could decide and handle who gets to say what when.