Personally I'd trust Joe Offer to carry out this kind of role more than I'd trust just about anyone else. I wouldn't do it if you paid me, and I wouldn't do it anywhere near as well either.

We will never know if anybody could do the W.G role any better than Joe, (or even if the role is even necessary) because it would appear that no one is ever going to get the opportunity. For there is not a role, vacant or otherwise nor a job description or rules– there is just Joe. This makes it almost impossible to express any suggestion or fault with the role. Without this being seen as a personal attack on Joe's integrity and undoubted good intentions as to how he would like to shape our forum, by making his value judgements upon our contributions to our forum.

As you say it is unpaid and it is not a function I would care to undertake even if it were paid. However it must have its advantages and attractions – as the present W.G shows no sign of handing over and there appears to be no shortage of willing disciples, eager to pass final judgement on the suitability of other people's postings on a forum set aside for their contributions.

As for trust Kevin – I fear that there is no one who should ever willingly be entrusted with such God-like powers over their fellow man (except our creator Max). We can perhaps understand why Gods may wish to delegate these troublesome powers (to their son for example) – but the last experiment did not end too well – did it?

Perhaps in the unlikely event of you or I being given these current arbitrary powers over Joe and all the other posters on our forum – it may then be possible to get a job description, rules and a clear idea who has the power to do what and when. I certainly suspect that if I were appointed to decide over the suitability of Joe's postings and started censoring those that did not conform to my personal concept of order – that he would be among the first people asking to see some rules………………

Mudcat is not a democracy, it is at best a benevolent dictatorship. I dont have a problem with that, after all, I do have a choice as to wether I "live" here or not.

Bassic you make some good points. However I fail to see how any dictatorship can ever be considered as benevolent. It rather depends on the forum (or Royalty) that you find when first entering and whether there is any real justification for any insidious changes. The flooded canyons that now form Lake Powell and Lake Mead in the US West, are attractive to those who sail and rent houseboats. If you had entered them earlier there would have been different and more varied attractions.

Unlike Shambles, I accept that these are the rules and get on with it.

Mick all I am asking for is to see what these censorship rules are (especially for the BS section) so that we can have the choice. For the answers we are given are dishonest. They are that there are no hard and fast rules – when there are obviously many and that posts are only censored rarely and for certain reasons – when it is clear that this is simply not true as the examples given in this thread demonstrate.

When asked – Joe says that he does not see a need for these hard and fast rules to be spelt out. To protect us – I suggest that we do need these rules to be spelt out– so that that the first time we find out that such a rules exists – is NOT when we transgress it. In any other sphere, this would be seen as a modest and reasonable request – why does it generate such hostility when expressed on our forum? I can't delete your threads and posts, as and when I feel like it – but the Witchfinder General can (and frequently does). ……What are the rules, who can censor what and when?

I want you to know that the clones are very judicious in their use of the edit. And each time the edit or delete is used it is run by Joe or Jeff.

Mick you may well believe this to be true but why should anyone take your word for it, when the evidence provided here demonstrates that the opposite is true? I gave the example of the Memorial Thread and linked to it. If you read it, you will see that the editorial action was already taken before anyone else was aware of it. Such action is not reversable and although Joe said that he did not agree with the action taken - it was too late.

This is not an attack by me on individuals but a request for clarity that will not only inform us but will also protect these individuals from criticism. Every business has a list of who is authorised to do what and when - it should not be too difficult to have such a list, and for people to follow it, should it? If the forum must be run like a Government Department and it would appear that it must - we may as well do it properly.