Yes, but whose problem is it.
#1 One version says that since Phil owns the forum and Phil makes money out of it by selling a service that people are willing to pay for, then it is in his interest to keep it as a forum that most people ARE willing to pay for. This won't happen if Phil's standards aren't at least close to those of the majority so the majority are satisfied.
Presumably this requirement can be translated as being a forum that is informative or serves as a substitute religion or agony-aunt column or whatever and since that is most likely to mean that extremists of any persuasion are not welcome, wouldn't cracking down on those extremists that also solve the problems of the vast majority of members.
So then the problem is, whose standards should be applied. Mine??, yours????
No!!!! Phil's
Why??
Go to #1 above
Don't agree??
Then find another forum or start one of your own.
Easy!!!!
I think that ultimately it must be Phil's standards as he owns the forum, but I would hope that he would apply those standards sensibly and with regard to the differing views on this subject. It's quite clear that many people think that it's a storm in a tea cup and that there is nothing wrong with a robust argument, which can always be ignored. And of course there are those for whom an argument, even though it doesn't involve them, seems to cause them some distress, to the extent that they constantly complain and even start new threads to complain. For myself I find this odd. If a row starts in a thread and it's a thread or subject that has little interest I simply watch it with a detached amusement. It's not about me, it doesn't affect me, why should I get all worked up?
So yes, it's Phil's forum and, to really get me banned, I am going to say this. Perhaps because he's trying to be nice and moderate, Phil can be his own worst enemy. For ages now he has vacillated and huffed and puffed about the forum rules and how people will be banned, but no constructive system emerges and now we have this latest and, in my view, utterly pointless opinion poll, the main purpose of which has been to give the serial complainers a platform to denigrate those whom they don't like.
If Phil wants some advice from another small businessman who runs his firms with what I hope is a firm but fair hand, he should stop this procrastination and put in a simple system to curb what he may consider is a member's excesses. I don't want to lose any of my staff as hiring new ones is expensive and time-consuming. If people are misbehaving I give them a verbal warning. If it continues they get a written warning and eventually a final written warning after which it's the sack. We sack hardly anyone.
So first of all, declare a general amnesty and allow everyone to start afresh, with a plea that people should not only be more polite in their posts but, and in my opinion, more importantly, should refrain from allowing personal animosities from previous clashes to influence their dealings with other members.
He should then ban transgressors for two weeks, or a month, whatever period he considers suitable. After three bans he should ban them completely.
To impose the ultimate sanction immediately is unfair and unjust. Some of us have very different views on what is considered acceptable debate. My tolerance level is quite high, some seem to be incredibly low and members need to learn what Phil's level is, which is why short-term bans will at least enable us to understand what he considers unacceptable.
So to Phil, in a nutshell, delete this pointless thread, which has done nothing whatsoever to create harmony and has increased the disharmony with which you are unhappy. Scrap the poll and start again with a fair and sensible system of moderation.
