> In all things I suggest the old standby of this particular Rule of Engagement: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So what you'd never like done to yourself, don't do to someone else unless there is an understanding beforehand. When even this is not possible, those who are charged with the responsibility of maintaining conduct should use only the necessary force which causes the least amount of damage.

I couldn't agree more. The usual sequence of events when I remove somebody from chat goes like this. They do something. I explain to them, in a calm and polite manner, that their behaviour isn't appropriate for this chatroom, and why not. Nine times out of ten, this makes them erupt into a frenzy of abuse, usually in capital letters and multiple exclamation marks. Then I kick them for being abusive.

There is a short pause and then they come back foaming at the mouth and demanding to know why they were kicked. I explain to them, in a calm and polite manner, what I explained to them previously.

We then repeat the above steps three or four times until I get bored and ban them.

The only way my new policy differs from the above is that I'm only going to explain things ONCE from now on. I have no intention of kicking people unless they know why, and I always give people the benefit of the doubt. But only ONCE.

Personally, I think if people can't spot the obvious difference between their own behaviour and that of everybody else in the room, then anything I say is unlikely to work. I'll be polite, and I'll be fair, and I don't think I've ever shown personal anger or dislike towards the kickable. But I'm not a social worker and if people blow that one fair chance I give them, I'm not wasting the rest of my day trying to make them a better person. They're out.

Brunnen-"constantly amazed by people who seem to think the normal rules of conversation don't apply online"G