The problem is that the way the volunteer system works, you have to be logged on as a member to use the system. In other words, all volunteers are people who use a consistant name or handle for their posts at Mudcat.

As always the facts do not always support the blind defence of all aspects of the current 'system'. For that is not the case when in order to protect their identity after a 'logged-on' anonymous volunteer had imposed and deleted a posters's entire thread - the anonymous volunteer then posts as a guest - to defend their action (Using - Guest Unrepentant Clone). Actions like this could easily be seen as flaunting this trusted position and taunting lesser untrusted posters from this anonymous role.

But these nit-picking details are not really the point as anonymous posting has hardly been generally popular in the past history of our forum - has it? Why would anonymous posting be thought to be generally any more acceptable now.

How can the rest of ordinary (untrusted) Mudcatters be said (by Joe Offer) to have been shown to place their trust in any volunteer whose identity in unknown and intentinally withheld from them?

As it is divisive - perhaps it is time that volunteers were given the choice of being known ( as to their credit, many are quite prepared to be) or of not being a volunteer?