BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?

Subject: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 03:40 AM

It is claimed on another thread that some Mudcat members are/were under the impression that this is an unmoderated forum.

1. Does anybody believe this now?
2. Do you think it should be moderated?
3. Did you join believing the site to be unmoderated?
4. Does moderation make you want to leave again?
5. How many unmoderated sites do you know of? {Please supply URLs to confirm}

To my mind an unmoderated site would give free rein to bucketmouths, and personal insults, pornography, unlimited spam, and proselytising by extreme political groups. It would mean for those who [allegedly] never venture downstairs, the prospect of non music topics being posted in the musical section and vice versa. I for one would almost certainly leave, and while that might please some, the other people who would also undoubtedly leave in such a situation would definitely be a loss to this site we all like so much.

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 03:41 AM

It depends on what the moderators do.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 03:44 AM

A typical legal answer there, I think we know what they do, and what you mean is it depends on how they do it. Surely that is up to those who own/run the site, this site is not a free for all, it is not owned by it's members, we must live by their rules or not participate!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 03:45 AM

A strange thread to be posted by one of the rudest,most humourless dinosaurs on mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 03:52 AM

Thanks for those few kind words, I shall treasure them!
Giok ☺ ☻

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 03:57 AM

Of course it should be moderated, and it is done very well. Only real abusers are deleted. Without moderation, it would be flooded with nonsense messages, like those periodic outbreaks of revivals of long- deceased threads by a message made up of random letters. And abusive flaming would be uncontrolled too.

Over the last few years, the moderators have kept at bay such flooding, spam, abusive and racist posts, paranoid obsessives, religious and political maniacs, without straying too far into the realms of blandness and conformity.

I appreciate that there is often a degree of culture clash involved. "Folk" means different things across the pond, we in Europe are almost all commies compared to the most liberal mainstream USA thought, and ordinary American opinions can seem almost mediaeval to Europeans. (NOT trying to be patronising, just pointing out a fact).

So in short, the forum is very well run by culturally sensitive people. Long may it continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 04:17 AM

1. Pass

2. I can't see unmoderated working on web sites.

3. Didn't think about then but did find the "sales pitch" (ie. no rules, etc. difffered from reality in more than one way.

4. No

5. No web sites but I use several unmoderated newsgroups.

Although I've seen newsgroups that have fallen apart, the ones I use run with fewer rows than the majority of moderated web sites I use but
I think there is a big difference between the usenet situation where moderation "can't" be (or is extremely messy) done and a sort of public ownership and a web site where it is known to be easily "doable" and site owners are identifiable. There is a user expectation with one that does not exist with the other and I think on the ones that work, that does lead to greater discipline from the posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Grab
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 05:19 AM

1. Thanks (?) to Shambles, we all know this is a moderated forum.

2. Yes - any forum that allows anonymous posting needs to be moderated.

3. IIRC I joined in 2000. I knew at the time that it was moderated.

4. No, and in fact I'd leave if it wasn't moderated. Doubt this'd be a huge loss to the Mudcat community (I don't value myself that highly :-) but anyway.

5. None. Unmoderated news/email groups, but that's it. And they're prone to spam, so I only look at them when I have a specific issue I need addressing.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 05:27 AM

It is claimed on another thread that some Mudcat members are/were under the impression that this is an unmoderated forum.

Closed threads and deleted posts

Of course it should be moderated, and it is done very well. Only real abusers are deleted.

Why would you confidently state such a thing to our forum when you have no idea of knowing what is 'silently deleted' on our forum, no way of knowing who deleted it or of knowing the the whole imposed action was simply personally motivated?

As an adult - wouldn't you prefer to be able to make the choice for yourself about what posts to read, respond to or ignore?

Or at least be in a position to see and judge if what you state to be true is the case?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 05:32 AM

Re Grab's 5. I think my newserver (the free x-privat.net) filters most of the spam out - once in a while I do see a reply to what was obviously spam that I haven't seen. In general, on the occasions I do see spam, what I find is:

usenet: usualy ignored.
web sites: posts telling the mods it should be deleted, "how dare you post this here" posts, etc.

for me, that does demonstrate the differences between user expectation, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 05:35 AM

As adults we are able to accept that we can't always do what we want with no regard for the feelings of others, and so accept social strictures as a necessary adjunct of our social interactions.
To rail against such conventions of normality is immature and selfish.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: bfdk
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 05:37 AM

1. No
2. Yes
3. No, I probably wouldn't have joined, had the site been entirely unmoderated.
I think we (some of us) sometimes forget, that "moderation" isn't just about weeding out unwanted threads, spam and what have you, it's also about linking between related threads, moving threads back and forth between BS and Non-BS, adding lyrics to the database and sundry other tasks. The moderators here do a fine job, I reckon.
4. No
5. None

fted, I don't know *who* you are, but in your assessment of Giok I know *what* you are: Wrong!

Best wishes,

Bente

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 05:41 AM

As an adult I'm quite happy to put my trust in the moderators. I don't want to have to wade through reams of spam to find something that makes sense. As for deletions being personally motivated you've been assured time and again that that is not the case. I suspect you're forgetting to hit the submit button half the time, I really do think the moderators have got better things to do than delete your posts immediately you make them as you've implied in the past. I don't believe your 'silently deleted posts' are even getting to the website. After all, we've no way of knowing that you made those posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: skipy
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 05:46 AM

Giok! Of course it needs moderating!
All you have done today by creating this thread is invite shambles to another party!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 06:12 AM

What I'm doing is asking people to express their feelings away from the recriminations and blame culture that some threads express.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 07:45 AM

When I came onto Mudcat I was not aware of how it was organised but the fact that there was, on the whole, adult discussion without the idiot, meaningless chatter that seems to dominate a number of sites gave me reason to stay.

The site works for me just as it is. To my knowledge I have never had a post deleted and, IMHO, the moderators do a good job in weeding out the crap. I certainly would leave if there was no moderating being undertaken.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: kendall
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 08:01 AM

Leave it alone!It works just fine as it is.
Giok, you left the door open and the chief mal content got in.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Grab
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 08:02 AM

Jon, the thing is that on Usenet there isn't a mechanism for stopping spam - once it's sent to the group then it's sent. Hence you either ignore it or you get the hell out of Dodge. Most people have taken the latter option, which is why Usenet is dying a death.

I don't often see "how dare you" posts on websites, I guess mainly bcos most users are smart enough to know the spammer doesn't give a crap and isn't stopping around to read the replies anyway.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Mooh
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 08:06 AM

When joining, I gave no thought to whether or not the forum was moderated, it looked like a cool place to be. It still looks like a cool place to be. Feels like home now after all these years. There's no place like home.

We have some strict rules at my house, and we have some really lax rules at my house. Enforcement is usually dependent on the violator's intent. We like to be happy and understanding, tolerant and forgiving. There's no place like home.

I like the way this forum, this cyberhome, is moderated. Kinda feels like home. There's no place like home.

Unmoderated equals anarchy. Moderated equals something just short of anarchy. Just this moment I had to separate dog from cat, caution a teenager, give opinion on the bride's attire, apologize for monopolizing the computer, and ignore my spelling. A-moderating I go. There's no place like home.

Silly idea? Yup. Kinda like when we wave the rules instead of ruling the waves, jump on the beds, leave the lights on, and throw food at dinner. There's no place like home.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 08:12 AM

In my opinion this site is moderated vey well,more fairly than concertina net, but thats only an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 08:17 AM

the thing is that on Usenet there isn't a mechanism for stopping spam - once it's sent to the group then it's sent.

I think the thing there is there isn't a consistant mechanism for stopping spam. With the service I use, I see less spam than I do at Mudcat (where I'm also more aware of spam I haven't seen).

Don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased that spam is deleted here, just stating honestly that it doesn't affect me in the ways it does you on usenet. I do wonder how big a problem spamming forums is going to become though - I don't think it has really hit yet - and whether manaul moderation will suffice (as far as I understand it MC does at times automaticaly block posts containing certain words, eg pok er). I'm starting to get a couple daily at folkinfo - still not sure how it will pan out and whether I'll end up doing more than manual deletion and perhaps an IP block...

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 08:40 AM

Not having been around as long as some Catters , but long enough to feel I CAN have my Two Pennorth , I am quite happy with this site just
the way it is . Max 'owns ' the site , as far as I know , and has nominated a number of people to help with the day to day running . These anonynous (apart from Joe Ofer) people all have lives outside the Cat , and seem to be doing a grand job !

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: skipy
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 09:10 AM

Very rare for me agree with leadfingers 100%!
Today I do!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 09:23 AM

1. Does anybody believe this now?

I never did believe a viable site would be unmoderated.

2. Do you think it should be moderated?

Yes.

3. Did you join believing the site to be unmoderated?

No. Moderation means nothing to me (take that any way you like).

4. Does moderation make you want to leave again?

No. (See Number 3, above.)

5. How many unmoderated sites do you know of? {Please supply URLs to confirm}

None that amount to a hoot in Hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 09:29 AM

The practical distinction is between slightly and heavily moderated. I have been on boards where every post had to be reviewed by the moderator before posting. The practice on the Mudcat is more on the lines of "minimalist" corrections after the fact and only under certain conditions. It seems much more efficient to me.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 09:42 AM

Amos, I don't use it but going by my experience at the BBC boards, I think "premod" can be useful where you have a troublesome poster who you want to keep an eye on but not ban (at least not yet) - I think that is one small bit they may have got right for thier setup! In other circumstances, I think it is a PITA.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 10:02 AM

Just don't diss a moderator. The post will go away really fast. Diss a member the mod doesn't like and it will stay there forever. Need proof?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Wesley S
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 10:16 AM

This is the only forum the I visit where guests are allowed to post. All of the other forums require membership.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 10:35 AM

well, in Usenet, there IS such a thing as a killfile (that means you can tell your newsreader program to ignore or delete posts based on various criteria).....In Mudcat there is no real way to do this, so genteel moderation is **NECESSARY**

'Some' online forums are set up to have an 'ignore' button, but that is mostly useful when people are chatting 'live', as in our chat room.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 11:14 AM

not whether or not moderation
but the problem being who is moderating
and what is moderated and why
also don't let moderators give opinions about other members
since they have historically been among the worst flamers

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Wesley S
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 11:32 AM

Guest - Have you ever offered to become a moderator yourself? It might be easier to change the situation you don't like from the inside. It looks like your only other option to to start your own forum and run it any way you like.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: GUEST,Another guest
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 11:37 AM

WS, that still doesn't address the issues that take place here. The final out for so many people here is that old saw, 'If you don't like it, leave." Hell, wouldn't want to actually address the problem, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Wesley S
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 11:48 AM

I'm not trying to sound confrontational - it's just the options as I see them. What recourse do you have? I can't imagine that the rules are going to change here because the guests don't like it. Do you?

Have I always agreed with with all of the decisions that the moderators have made? No - but not enough to bitch about them. All in all I thing the moderators do a good job. If I objected to how the place was run I would offer to help and change things from within or go off and start a forum and run it the way I wanted a forum run.

What choices do you have? What is your solution?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 12:06 PM

1. no
2. yes
3. no
4. no
5. don't know of any worthwhile venues that are truly unmoderated.

The notion that "adults" should be left to wade through the reams of garbage that would ensue in a truly unmoderated forum is nonsense, and would send me away posthaste. The response to "how do you know what's being deleted?" is "I don't, but I only have the word of people whom I consider, from their postings, to be whiners and generally malcontent non-contributors that anything worthwhile is deleted" - We judge by what we see, and the moderation I see appears pretty light-handed and moderate. I suspect I wouldn't be as easy-going in my own forum, in the face of some of the crap that's LEFT up. I've deleted less offensive stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 12:10 PM

As an adult I'm quite happy to put my trust in the moderators.

Do you also think that as an adult you are unable to be left to decide for yourself what to read, respond to or ignore? And why would you place your trust in someone to this for you, especially someone who does not trust you enough to stand by their actions with a name?

I don't want to have to wade through reams of spam to find something that makes sense.

Spam is not the issue - is it, we all know what it is and how to deal with the little that may get through our automatic filters.

As for deletions being personally motivated you've been assured time and again that that is not the case. I suspect you're forgetting to hit the submit button half the time, I really do think the moderators have got better things to do than delete your posts immediately you make them as you've implied in the past. I don't believe your 'silently deleted posts' are even getting to the website. After all, we've no way of knowing that you made those posts.

Paul- What would be the point of me maintaining to our forum that 'silently deleting' posts was happening when it was not - especially when our 'moderators' are not denying it?

But the points you make here are exactly the reason why the request is now being made - that all cases where any form of imposed editing action has been judged necessary is always indicated by an editing comment to that effect and that all editing comments are limited to where some form of editing action has been imposed.

Then should a post not appear and no editing comment to explain its non-apperance (or closure) - all posters will know they have made a mistake or the site was not functioning. And our forum would then be able to judge (by seeing all of these editing comments) the true nature and current level of censorship and be able for the first time to make an informed opinion on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 12:16 PM

"WS, that still doesn't address the issues that take place here. The final out for so many people here is that old saw, 'If you don't like it, leave." Hell, wouldn't want to actually address the problem, right?"

Another Guest, I want this to be non confrontational and non personal thread, and an honest asessment of Mudcat in particular with an eye on how other sites get on.
I quote your post above for one reason only, and that is to point out that both sides in the mod/non mod discussion on Mudcat, have used this 'If you don't like it go away' ploy so neither has the monopoly in suggesting that version of the final solution.
It sounds good but really says nothing, and as you so rightly say doesn't address the situation.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 01:22 PM

This is the only forum the I visit where guests are allowed to post. All of the other forums require membership.

Isn't this is a bit like saying all the other galleries I vist don't have the Mona Lisa - so the Louvre should throw-out theirs?

Are you saying that requiring membership is good thing simply because all the other sites you visit now require it? Perhaps they are just very ordinary sites?

The Mudcat Discussion Forum - in always being seen to encourage contributions from the public - has perhaps just aimed higher than these other sites? I suggest that any disadvantages that may be caused by this ambition are far outweighed by the advantages.

But we have discussed this issue and been assured that a change to a members-only forum is NOT on the cards.
Music posts by Guests to be reviewed
Proposal for members only posting of BS

But sadly this issue remains one that is now permanently confused with the issue of moderation. As our forum is now very aware - (because they openly state it) - that many of our current (known) 'moderators' are still in favour of such a change. To my mind this opens the question of just how committed these 'moderators' can be in demonstrating that a forum open to the public can function or whether they have a vested interest in demonstrating that it cannot function - without their preferred restriction being imposed.

To avoid this and other possible conflicts - perhaps our 'moderators' could either now be asked to choose to either moderate or to post their opinions but not to do both?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Wesley S
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 01:29 PM

Would you be willing to be a moderator Shambles? Or would that upset your applecart as the outsider?

I'm making a statement of fact. The forums I visit on a regular basis all require membership - except this one. Check out the Mandolin Cafe sometime. They actually talk about mandolins there.

Can you please point out ONE forum that is run to your liking? Is there a forum that is run to your lofty ideals?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 01:33 PM

Please do not respond to those who would wish to sidetrack this thread, it is not about '1 person' it is about the correct way to keep order on a web site.
Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 01:44 PM

I would suggest that if folks don't want conversation with a poster, they should just ignore that poster. If such a poster has been given a thread to discuss these things, that is where they should post, and leave this one on topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Wesley S
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 01:59 PM

Noted. Thanks. Every once in a while I ignore my own advise of "do not engage".

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: frogprince
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 02:48 PM

1. Does anybody believe this now? No
2. Do you think it should be moderated? Yes
3. Did you join believing the site to be unmoderated? No
4. Does moderation make you want to leave again? No

I was about to make a facetious suggestion, to the effect that "deleted" posts be sent to a special thread, titled (ta-da)
"Deleted Posts", so that anyone who actually wanted to could read said posts, and no one could claim the deletion was done...how the heck do you spell "surrepticiously"?... But, on second thought, would there be some merit in actually doing that for a limited time, to give the discontented or paranoid an actual picture of what the moderators here are up against?

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 03:43 PM

frogprince - it probably wouldn't help much as the 'discontented or paranoid' would only suggest that not all deleted posts had been put on the thread.......

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Grab
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 03:44 PM

And why would you place your trust in someone to this for you, especially someone who does not trust you enough to stand by their actions with a name?

Simple. Because we (that is, those of us who believe the moderation here is good) trust them to spend some of their time doing a job which we believe will improve the appeal of the site. Ultimately it's Max's decision whether this happens or not, but I've got a good idea myself (from running my own board) what the result would be. I suspect I'd stick around for a bit until the spam, flames and random crap got too much, but I couldn't see myself staying. I joined the Mudcat in the knowledge that it was a forum that accepted anonymous posts from anyone, and that it was therefore moderated to prevent abuse.

Frogprince, that's a neat idea. In fact, if changes were going to be made, then an automatic comment could be added to say "post from XXX deleted", which'd keep Shambles happy. Trouble is that Max or Jeff are going to have to code up any changes, which means that they need to be convinced the setup as it stands ain't working. Shambles has already tried to persuade them and failed - I guess that doesn't mean they won't change their minds, but I'd think they'd need a good reason to go to all that trouble, and the reason ain't turned up yet. All we have is the possibility that if a moderator chose to make personally-motivated decisions *AND* Max allowed them to keep doing that, then things could go bad. I don't believe there's any evidence this has happened so far (in spite of assertions to the contrary). If Max believes the mods are still doing OK in running *his* site then that's good enough for me.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: fat B****rd
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 03:52 PM

I just post where I feel like, or not as the case may be, and don't get involved in all the tedious bollocks that goes on. Love and Peace from Charlie S.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: GUEST, Anonymus guest
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 04:35 PM

Please don't moderate off the 'Will this thread reach 85 billion posts' thread. It may seem nonsense to some of you, but to a few of us it means the world. In fact show your support by posting on it right now. Sorry to interrupt this sensible debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: dwditty
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 04:46 PM

I have "rights" here? Why the heck should I? Moderate, schmoderate. It "don't" mean a thing either way.

dw

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: kendall
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 07:33 PM

I don't know how many moderators or clones we have here, but I personally know 5 of them and not one is a bad person.They are good people trying to do a thankless job to the best of their ability. My opinion, for what it's worth.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 08:23 PM

When I first came on to Mudcat I didn't know if it was moderated or not but there were always interesting discussions going on and I learned a lot. I have never been a prolific poster, being more the quiet type, but I did enjoy browsing the threads. However, things deteriorated to the point where I just didn't want to wade through all the nastiness and nonsense, much less post and get flamed, and I didn't visit Mudcat because I just didn't enjoy it much anymore. I couldn't believe the childishness and nonsense that cluttered the place. Yes, certainly I could ignore it but it just made me not want to bother with the site anymore. What changed things was when I went to the Getaway and met some Mudcatters and realized how nice some of them are in person, and that I really do have a lot in common with many of the folks who post here.

As for whether or not it should be moderated, the answer is YES and if it were up to me I would see to it that more posts were deleted, and I would ban a couple of people permanently. Personally I think the mods are overly generous! I visit a couple of other forums and all have membership requirements (in some cases it's a nominal fee and in others at least it is required to register). None of them would put up with half the crap that still goes on in Mudcat land,although it has gotten better in the last couple of months.

Subject: RE: BS: Unmoderated forum, silly idea?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 08:38 PM

My opinion, for what it's worth.

As you (along with the rest of our forum) currently have no way of knowing the true nature and current level of censorship - your opinion is not worth a lot. Would it not be better to have all cases where imposed censorship was judged to be necessary always indicated by an editing comment of explanation and all editing comments limited to only this? So that your opinion would then be worth something?

I don't believe there's any evidence this has happened so far (in spite of assertions to the contrary). If Max believes the mods are still doing OK in running *his* site then that's good enough for me.

I suspect that Max's view is similar - if our forum believes the mods are doing OK in running *his* site then that is good enough for Max. But how can our forum currently make any informed judgement?

As for evidence - here is plenty for those who are prepared to accept it. But no amount of evidence will ever be enough to convince those who simply are not prepared to accept it. The point of the suggestion is so that our forum would never again be asked or expected to take sides - or to believe accusations or assurances as they are now - but could plainly see the true nature and level of censorship for the first time and be able to judge and form an informed opinion from the evidence.

If there is nothing to hide - a change to such an open approach as suggested will only prove this to be the case and finally put and to all the division, all the name-calling and witch-hunts. The fact that such a suggestion to change to a more open approach is so violently opposed in some quarters - it could look as if there was something to hide.