Formerly a daily forum participant, I don't post very often anymore because the forum has become so confrontational. I don't like confrontation, so I usually opt out of participation.

This topic is important enough to venture out of the shadows.

I think trying to divide the forum into good guys and bad guys then suggesting the bad guys go away is not the best solution. Dividing people generally leads to flame wars as both groups try to dominate and win. It also tends toward some form of speech or activity suppression that groups impose on one another ("don't dump a bunch of songs" or "Don't keep bumping songs back to the top") neither of which is a PGMusic rule.

I think what worked in the past in many forums is to cultivate a culture of open communication where ideas are discussed without attacking those who present the ideas. I've noticed that forums which allow Ad Hominem attacks pretty much always implode or turn into shark dens where only the most persuasive communicator's opinion is tolerated and everybody else has to get in line or get bullied.

When ideas are discussed without personal attacks (open or passive aggressive) it has the effect of uniting rather than dividing. Studies show that consensus based decisions tend to eliminate dissention, because it isn't consensus until everyone buys in.

My 2 cents.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ey71h8ep047758h/AAC12jNM0Hz9Q8zsh5iDeqNHa?dl=0