Hi

Firstly I must confess that I have never bothered to actually read the rules nor have I made any commitment to memorise the recent changes. Mainly as I have no intention to be deliberately difficult or pointlessly argumentative.

However I am not sure that all who participate to this forum share these values. In this I am not concerned with those who may lack familiarity with English, the writing on the period etc. The problem is the few, who have the age, education, military service etc etc which should have honed their thinking and reasoning. But somehow none of this seems to come through in their mails.

So for the most part I keep a mental checklist of past commentators. Often following threads based on the contributors not the topic. I also skip comments from an equally select few who I see as “less collegial commentators”. I am sure that should anyone unintentionally offend that, an explanation of this would elicit an appropriate acknowledgement. The problem is for those that do not subscribe to any such a code of behaviour. In which case it is sad, that even in the Napoleon-Series there sometimes needs to be a responsible adult to make the children play nicely.

I do not see there is a concern that a proponent of particular view need have concern. The problem lies with those who resort cheap and derogatory comments. Especially when requested to support their assertions with some sort of relevant evidence.

In which case, a periodic intervention of a moderator is a small price to pay. That Robert is trying to make a clear a definitive rule with no ambiguities is the right thing, but possibly impractical. Also, in my opinion, a cooling off period is not a new, radical or an unreasonable idea. Also, neither is permanent expulsion an unreasonable solution for repeat offenders. Particularly if that is what it takes to preserve the spirit of the Napoleon-Series.

Note - I'm not saying explusion is nice, I'm just saying that sometimes it is a necessary evil.

Regards
Scott