If you give the OP the power to censor those that contribute to a thread for no other reason that that the OP doesn't like the opinion of the poster then Pogo is correct that all you have is a soapbox and not a discussion. There is no point in calling this forum "structured discussion" if the OP can ban dissenting opinions. Without dissenting opinions there is no discussion that merits the term. For example an SDZ thread was created that had a rule that "banned" all posters with clown avis because the OP wanted to just have a "discussion" about the passengers in the clown car. Fair enough, the OP rule was that it wasn't an "structured discussion" at all, just a place for members who shared the same political leaning to state why one rightwing candidate was preferable to another. I don't have a problem with that as long as no one mistakes that for a "structured discussion" because it wasn't. But what it highlighted was the need for a place where opinions could be expressed amongst a group of like minded posters. And that might well be what is needed and what FF was trying to do herself. The current SDZ is set up in a way that if FF wants to start a thread and specifically states that anyone who disagrees with her "definitions" is excluded from participating then sobeit. Her thread, her rules, she gets to say whatever she likes in her thread and if anyone breaks that rule she reports them and their posts are removed. No additional powers need be granted to the OP. And yes, SDZ threads limited to like minded posters are not true "structured discussions" but if there is a need for them then let's let them happen. Who knows, it might even reduce some of the incivility around here if posters have a place to express themselves without fear of being contradicted irrespective of how bizarre those opinions might be. At least it might be worth experimenting with, cereal_killer. Give it a try for a couple of months and if it doesn't work you can shut it down again. No harm, no foul?