I understand the frustration, but I think that would be a step backwards and would limit the exposure we can give the class to outsiders. And we benefit by getting insight into how outsiders see the class, whether well-reasoned or not.

Although much of the non-constructive debate over the last week has been a result of some poor use of logic, poorly organized writing and poorly considered reaction to it, I think it has thrown up some interesting issues that we haven't all had an opportunity to think about carefully in the past. Having had the opportunity to dissect all of the arguments, I think we are in a better position than when this started to respond in the future to people in a way that will avoid some of the bickering we've seen.

I have suggested to the GC that they develop kind of a position paper or FAQ file around issues like this that lays out in a fairly systematic way the thinking behind the way the class has chosen to do things - not to preclude further discussion but as something we can refer people to without having to rehash the same arguments over and over again. However it does also require a certain amount of discipline on the part of some of our more excitable members (I'm not looking at anyone in particular <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) to sometimes just point people towards existing information rather than getting dragged into debates around entrenched positions that don't actually lead anywhere.

I believe Mary already has the ability to remove individuals who are abusive - and maybe has done so before. Moderation that involves someone checking everything before it is published would completely change the dynamics of the discussion here - and not in a good way.

There may be a case for a different environment for communication related to official class business, discussion of proposed rule changes etc, but that could be handled pretty easily by an email reflector and I think should be used sparingly.