Here's my opinion on editing/closing, etc. I think that whoever has the idea to run a site should run it the way they see fit. I may or may not agree with it. If I had a vision of the way things should be, I'd go and start my own forum. If I disagree, I'd go to a site that expresses my views more plainly.

Teresa it is nice to have some sensibly expressed views to discuss - even if I may not agree with them. I think you may accept that it is not universally welcome - but you have not said if the current imposed deleting/closing is effective or necessary on our forum. Probably the most important point.

However, I would probably agree with most of the above but first I would like you to consider it from a slightly different angle.........I and many other long-term contributors certainly did (and still mostly do) support the idea you refer to - Max's original concept - that is why we stay.

A noisy minority became a little dissapointed with some aspects (as the forum grew larger) and instead of doing as you sensibly suggest - accepting the forum as it was or going away and finding somewhere to do their way - they stayed and complained to Max about just about everyone and everything.   

Measures were introduced to address these complaints and conventions became guidelines and guidelines in their turn have now become hard and fast rules for volunteers to impose upon other posters.

For here we are now and many of the same people are still are here and still making the same complaints. I am not one of them as I like the forum (warts and all). I think it would be fair to say that although Max may have introduced some of these measures - these current judgements and compulsory editing actions (that many think have always been the case and others think are not required at all) are not part of the original concept. One that has attracted the posters it has and as result has created a fine discussion forum   

Mudcat is not a democracy. As long as we're extending political metaphors, I suppose you could call it a benign dictatorship. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

I see nothing benign about any dictatorship. And I see very little that is benign here about some posters imposing their judgement on the worth of other posters and threatening them with exclusion. If these self- appointed volunteers (and I see Joe Offer is now referred to as Chief Administrator) do not like the contributions that Max has invited - perhaps it is those who should go away and start their own sites - as you suggest?

If the management of the forum was done by a co-op or a paid membership of users, maybe I'd feel different. But that's not the 'cat.

If it works (and it has for many years despite the complainers) why allow volunteers to fix it?