It seems to me that oftentimes, the stongest advocates of anarchy are the ones who want to take over, enthroning themselves as petty tyrants.

I think that is making my point well. If you create a system of censorship that assumes that anyone expressing a different course (just asking for a fair and accountable one) is advocating anarchy and that they would wish to set themselves up - in your place - and this assumption is not correct - then you are burning the wrong witches and these measures will be counter-productive. And they currently are.

A policeman friend of mine always told his young 'coppers' that 'assumption is the mother of all cock-ups'.

Joe am I free to make copy and pastes and dublicate postings or am I not?

It would appear that the answer to this depends on how Joe is feeling on the day and which other volunteer - who may consider me to be a "royal pain" gets to it first?

P.S. Why is it wrong for me to express my opinion if I consider a thread (or a person) "tedious"? If everyone else can express their opinion here, why can't I?

If the main contention that the volunteers are there to protect us from abusive postings and name-calling - is it really setting the right example - if you and other volunteers are seen to be passing judgement based on your persoanal tastes or taking part in expressing that abuse and calling other posters names like 'idiot and troll' and using words like F***? This is a double standard. The mesaage that is giving is saying don't do as I do - do as I say.

The answer to that would be fairly obvious should volunteers wish to been seen as censoring in an objective fashion as is the claim and defence made currently. Is your 'job' to be seen to be encouraging contributions from everyone - all over the world or to be inhibiting contributions that you do not personally care for or may not be able to 'figure-out'?   

If our roles were reversed - I suggest that you may see the need to ask me to produce some rules and for me to be seen to be consistently enforcing them. Otherwise you may accuse me of doing my 'job' in a biased, or arbitary fashion.

Do you not see that it is not possible to both run with the fox and
hunt with the hounds?

Should not those who volunteer to judge us and to censor our contributions be expected to be judged in turn and by the same if not higher standards? If they are not - then they have no defence from being accused of witch-hunting for that is exactly what it is. When the obvious witches have been burned - there is nothing to protect less obvious targets from receiving the same treatment.

There is only one way these unacountable systems can go - unless a serious and urgent review takes place - based on what the volunteers are actually doing rather than what we are told they are.