Fenixp: 'Explain to them why they might be wrong'? There is a very simple metric to how this works: Either majority of board participants enjoy the boards without moderation, or majority of board participants feel like this forum calls for moderation. There's no right or wrong involved in that equation - as soon as majority of people here want moderation, I'm sure GOG will get around to introducing it sometime within nearest ... Decades. As it stands, majority does not want moderation, therefore there is no need for introducing it. You can't explain to somene that he, in fact, doesn't enjoy being here and interacting with people more than he gets attacked and abused.
As I said a few times previously - this is not a change that will happen on appeal of minority. It would be completely counterproductive. When I say "If you don't like it here, perhaps you should find moderated boards you like more", I don't mean it aggressively or out of spite - what I mean there is that, perhaps, this is just not an approach for you.
You're completely right, of course. Still, the majority settles for good enough and won't take the risk to try and make it better. That's the kind of change that comes from authority on high. GOG are entirely in their right to let this "majority" dictate how the forum runs, though again, some would argue they should take some responsibility and leadership on their own turf. At present, that's not a priority for them, nor do they have resources to spare. However, the good enough approach contains the inherent risk that the forum grows and changes to a point where their interference becomes necessary but also far too difficult to implement, not having any groundwork to base it on. Say what you will about them, but GOG hasn't shown much of an aptitude for foresight.
All in all, this is still 13 pages of why, for good or ill, nothing will change.
I don't think you quite got my point of view. I wouldn't defend something by calling it lawlessness ;)
