[original sin]

Mike is not a moderator.
He is simply granted access to non-public areas and the software thinks he's a moderator. It's a software flaw.

OK yet when Tim raised this question in site feedback it was you who finally made this point Mike had posted but had left the impression that he was indeed a moderator

I have said at least one time and I'm going to say it again:

There has never been a connection between that promise and these meet & greets. This is just your opinion and it is in fact splitting hairs to suggest that these m&g were arranged for the promise. I had a discussion regarding this as the registering topics were opened for public access and some people were moaning about the 8 people limit and the limited amount of Meet & Greets. That promise wasn't our idea, in fact all of us have been quite suprised to find something like this on a public forum. Furthermore we have never been contacted on how to fulfill that promise. With these points in mind the 1st message talking about that "forgotten promise" was hijacking the thread and directing the discussion into another personal argument. The arguments did not stop - now you can continue in Fight Club.

I disagree totally – This forum was used for the offer and there should be no difference between any M&G’s offered. I believe this to preserve the integrity of the forum and show support of all users. Would it have really hurt those who have the contact to have asked the questions?

I have absolutely no problem with the Fight Club. I installed the Fight Club because I simply don't like these I-need-to-have-the-last-word-on-this-disussions.

When things are left unanswered, is it not acceptable to seek clarification?
If someone dismisses my thoughts. Do I not have a right to reply?
If someone makes a personal attack on me. Should I not respond ?
When someone is making a blatant slur. Should this not be remedied?

Just for fun, check the posts in Fight Club and do a topten list of messages there. You might be surprised who has the highest postcount. Looks like, if these people wouldn't be around, there would be no need for the Fight Club.

Or as has been suggest earlier, it can be used by some who set out to provoke members just to achieve the goal of getting the thread into fight club.
Many subjects that have ended up there have either had a personal slant or have been discussions on basic acceptable behaviour standards.
The reason some and no doubt myself have high post counts in this section is because we do hold strong views and are not intimidated by the fact that the topic is in fight club. Which I see as, an attempt to name and shame, which puts people off expressing their views.

Anyway, I have no problem to get rid of the Fight Club. This however would mean that I'd tell my moderators to lock threads as soon as they drift to off-topic. Is it that what you want?

Seems to me that we need to reach a mutual understanding of what is acceptable and as I do not agree this thread was off topic, we are at odds to start with.
I believe that topics should only be locked if there are personal inflammatory remarks, obvious misleading information or lies. I think that moderators should call these people out and let normal discussion continue.

For those who think I'm trying bury this topic:
I don't mind if somebody opens a new topic in "Genereal Messages" dealing exactly (and only) with "The broken promise".
Start one, keep it on topic and discuss. I have absolutely no problem with that.
In fact, I'm wondering why nobody did this as of now.

I don’t see why we need to set up a new thread when we had an open discussion, which was imho on topic, if a split was need it could have and should have been left in General Messages. Why do you not transfer it back there?