@Rusty, realizing that I had to first get complimented by you before I could take your argument seriously, humbled me a little (though as
@chance pointed out, acting so harsh in post #152 really wasn't making that easy for me during post #154). You may recall that you and I have a long history of not getting along, and thanks to a childhood of being bullied (we could debate what constitutes as having been bullied, but instead please take my word for it), my first reaction was to keep my guard up around your arguably-strong criticism of my character.
You might actually be right about me no acting tactful enough, "graceful" enough.
Regarding tactfulness, I am who I am, unfortunately. There is only so much I can do about my ability to emotionally empathize with others. I don't have autism (thank God) but I am very logically (rather than emotionally) minded, and as such, that is how I treat those who are under my leadership. Some will agree that my methods are simply just other valid ways to go about this. I think that most people would agree to that, hence why I encourage others to form their own opinion about my past methods. All that said, I will in the future, if there is a future, try to work on this.
Regarding graceful, you might say some of the decisions I made in originally constructing this club --ahem, this group-- were born from me being slightly socially inept, and too whimsical, but I believed then, as I do now, that a little bit of whimsy can be a wonderful thing when we simply stop being ashamed of it! When I look back at the mistake that was the group motto, part of my gets a warm feeling from the inviting and friendly nature of the word choice. After all, aren't many video games whimsical, and does that often add to the experience? I can see it from your perspective now, and I agree that one man's warm feelings from a motto can be another man's new-born skepticism of the quality of the reviews/ mental maturity of the reviewers. The same goes for any other decision I made that was similarly very whimsical. That is why I agreed to tone everything down. I only kept the name of the group, did I not? I'm not sure why we are still talking about this as though I didn't already learn my lesson many months ago.
Regarding humility, however, I firmly disagree with you. I am definitely no anarchist, despite being moderately-libertarian. One reason among others is because I believe anarchy is incompatible with the teachings of Christianity, of which I am firmly a part of. I believe mankind is naturally inclined to do the selfish thing. Without the authority of my monotheistic God (and by extent the law and order he so strongly asserted), the United States would be a horrendously worse place to live in. Rules such as "If a man [...] swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word" are God's prophet's rules, not my own, and I will enforce them as hard as he would want me to, even in a slightly casual setting such as this. Putting God's rules before my own is what I call being humble. Feel free to call me out on individual things, and one by one, I can double check to see if that is what the Bible would have wanted me to do or say. If I find I was in the wrong, then I will apologize and fix my ways.
You and I define respect differently. I think holding people accountable, is showing them respect. You believe being kind and forgiving is how to show respect, and while I can appreciate those values, I think it is a misguided way to view respect.
EDIT:
@chance I like your idea regarding the one review barrier to membership. If the group survive, or if I get a chance at starting over, I'll remember that. Thank you for being a mediator. I'm sorry you don't like the idea of the review clubs, and I'd love to hear your reasons why.