Brad wrote : Unfortunately Matthew, your use of the term (and it IS the correct term) "Moderator" negates your argument, does it not?
Mmmm if you take the term to mean "mediator" then fine, personally I was just thinking of the GM in his data entry role. I stick with what I said though, I sure wouldn't like the GM to e-mail me about my conduct in a game. Allies should be able to sort out their team 'mate'.
On a recent forum discussion the issue of Harad/Corsairs declaring the same way was mooted. Many players thought that was a bad thing and gave accounts of how in various games both FP & DS had ganged up to wipe out those positions. Others have also told me how they have deliberately antagonised neutrals to make them declare for the other team - as they had already attracted enough neutrals to their team to make the game interesting.
To my mind both of those scenarios are disgraceful! Should the GM step in, deliver slaps to their hands 'you naughty boys' and see that they do what I think they should do? Of course not!! The GM getting involved in situations involving team mates is highly dangerous. Like RD said exceptions should be made for where people are sworn at (I was in game 65 but will let that pass...) or have their parentage questioned!
Just my tuppence worth tho' of course Brad my old china 
Matthew
The Profit (sic)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]