Let us look in detail at the recent and favoured methods of censorship we are currently expected support and examine who these measures actually affect the most.

The imposed deleting of entire threads throws out all the positive contributions made in the thread, along with the bathwater and prevents any new postive contributions from being made and posibly altering the thread's course as a result.

The imposed closure of entire threads prevents any new postive contributions from being made and posibly altering the thread's course as a result.

The imposed deletion of the offending posts only - is slightly less counter-productive but for some reason, seems to be less favoured.

It is accepted that these methods are reactive and none of them - actually prevents the offending posts from first appearing.

Members who are thought to have offended - can be contacted by personal messages and threatened with having all of their future posts blocked. Any subsequently blocking will prevent any future posts thought to be offending from this member - but will also prevent any positive ones from them.

Such action against 'guests' - may be possibly but more difficult.   

Who is entrusted to impose this censorship?

Well we are told Max has entrusted Joe and Jeff and the number and identity of the rest of our volunteer censors are intentionally witheld.

Do any of these counter-productive measure prevent anything? Or could it be that in practice they acually make things worse?

None of us may like seeing the offending posts here - but that does not mean that we have to support the only answer proposed - especially as this cannot prevent the ofending posts from appearing.

Are there alternatives to this censorship?