Much posting over many years has taken place on the subject of anonymous posts. Whatever one's own view may be - it is not really possible to ignore the fact that anonymous posting it is thought by many - not generally to be a very acceptable practice.

This would suggest that now flying in the face of all of this and insisting on the need for anonymous posting on the part of an unknown number of volunteers who think it a good idea to intentionally conceal their identity and feel qualified to impose their judgement upon others from this very priviliged position - will generally not thought to be a good thing for ensuring harmony and civility.

This after all is supposed to be the stated object of all this imposed censorship. If the purpose of these anonymous volunteers is simply to look-out for and bring possible problems to the attention of those who names we do know - surely this function can be better undertaken by all contributors? Why take the risk with the forum and insist on justifying all these anonymous volunteer judges?

I would suggest that one way to obtain harmony and civilty would be for everyone to feel that they were all contributing on an equal basis. Probably the best way to ensure that harmony and civilty will never be achieved is to insist on the justice of having many different levels of contributors. If yet further division is the intention - I suggest that this is the way to go.