1. You can take it up with the management, let your reasons be known and they will decide on the validity of your argument - that's the way it's done here.

Tried that.

2. You can accept and live with it and maybe try to recognize why that decision was made.

Tried that.

3. You can decide that you can't live with the way things are done here and leave.

Tried that.

4. You can continue to voice your complaints and endure the abuse heaped upon you by those who are fed up or until the management pulls the plug on you.

OK - I will try that. Thanks for the advice.

It does look as if heaping abuse on posters who post views other posters may not agree with - is now officially encouraged. So I will just have to learn to live with this.

Actually I thought I had clearly demonstrated that I have learned to live with that?

My concern is not over being subject to this abuse - as anyone who feels they have to resort to indulging in or encouraging this personal abuse and name-calling has lost any credibilty and is only demonstrating their worst aspect.

My concern is the example of the double standard of posting behaviour that the encouraging of this personal abuse against certain targets is setting.

Is my view that all posters should feel safe from abuse - to simply post their views (even if these views are judged to boring).

If posters are not now safe to do this and that is way it is now to be done here - I and I suspect many other posters would not wish to be seen as supporting it in any way. Especially as many of support our 'modrators' because they are assured that it is our 'moderators' role to protect posters from abusive personal attacks.


For the issue under discussion in this thread is NOT the right of Max to do as he wishes with his website nor the posting of one individual long-term member.

The issue is that all posters on our forum are asked and expected to support thread closures and 'silently deleted' posts and entire threads - in what is referred to a 'moderation' when this is seen in practice to be something other than what our 'moderators' assure our forum that it is.

Foe example - I am not sure what part in protecting posters from spam posts - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team intentionally posting it plays? Perhaps this can be explained?

You can support this or not - but all I am trying to do is to enable our forum to be able for the first time to express an informed opinion on the true nature and current level of all the imposed editing actions which are undertaken in their name.

Our forum will only be able to judge if all this undertaken in order to protect their interests - is really proportionate - when all such impositions are recorded in editing comments and all editing comments are limited to only where some form of editing action has been judged to be necessary.   

Our forum may not have the right to question Max's right to decide what remains on our forum and to take measures to remove anything he decides should not remain.

But perhaps simply asking to know the, why and where of the instances when such action has been imposed - is not too much for posters to our forum to expect?

Even if this is only for the practical reason of a poster who knows they have posted by cannot find their posts - will then always know if imposed editing action is the reason for the non-appearance of their invited contribution.


But I was not aware that I or any other poster needed your permission or indeed permission from any other poster to post their views? But that is now the way it appears to be now done here.

I well remember a time when this was not the way it is done here.

Why do posters now feel that they have some right to post only to publicly judge the worth of their fellow posters and to tell them what they should post or not? And feel they have some right to to post personal abuse should they not be in agreement?

The answer is that the such judgment is the posting example set by our 'moderators'.

And until a different example is set - posters will be encouraged to follow this example.

If certain fellow posters wish to and are seen to be encouraged by our 'moderators' to post only name-calling insults of their fellow posters - as far as I am concerned as the target of many of these posts - they can do this as such posts are pretty easy to ignore - but this example will be followed.

So when the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team publicly complains that he judges our forum is not a place to goof off of have a discussion and when champions even more limitations and restrictions to be imposed on posters - perhaps he can take some responsibilty for what he is complaining about?

And accept that perhaps if any more limitations and restrictions were to be be imposed - these should be on the activities of our 'moderators'?

As far as I am concerned Max has always deserved our forum's gratitude for the opportunity he has presented posters with. What we make of our forum - has always been down to all of its posters.

As a start - i suggest that if our forum is expected to be seen to support our 'moderators' and the imposed editing actions undertaken by them in our name - perhaps they could reasonably expect to always be informed of the true nature and current level of these actions?