The Memorial thread link you referred us to, Shambles, does not serve your agenda well. It very clearly shows a thinking Joe Offer trying to establish and maintain coherent ground rules with the help of others' input; it does not come close to showing an arbitrary authoritarian.

That is a matter of opinion - I posted it to demonstrate a fact that the same mistakes are just repeated.

Why was the Guest Posting thread closed? Who did it and why did they not use the so-called correct procedure when exactly this same mistake was made earlier over The Memorial thread?

The claim Joe and Co are doing a good job is well-supported.
That Joe and Co intend to a good job is also accepted by me.
These are opinions - largely based on the fact that they are fine well-intentioned folk - which I also accept.

The real questions are:

What exactly is that job?
How can the effectiveness be evaluated?
How can you decide when censorship goes over the line - when then is no line?
Is it really helpful to anyone that those who would volunteer to censor our contributions to our forum - are shown to be receiving uncritical support - based on the belief that they are doing a good (if undefined) job - rather than any evidence of a focused and organised system.

The old chestnut about name-calling abusive postings is a nonsense when the volunteers themselves are PROVED to indulge in the same thing and create the example of a double standard and actually encourage this name-calling agaist selected targets - for example - Forums Discussion Groups If that is the purpose of this policing - can it be proved to have succeeded?

My 'agenda' supported by the evidence that I will continue to supply and much evidence that I will not be aware of and that others may be - is that this system is not working as it is claimed and defended by many and that it is a cock-up - badly in need of an objective review - not that evil folk are conspiring together.

If folk wish to supply evidence that proves that the current system of censorship - on the grounds of an individual volunteer's personal taste - is successful in causing anything other than yet nore division, bad feeling and threats - then please produce this evidence in support of your opinion that Joe and Co ARE in fact doing a good job.

This system was set-up in response to some ill-defined outside threat to - take over The Mudcat. It responds to even the mildest criticsm as if this were this attempt. It is just time to stop and examine what exactly the function of the volunteers should be and how this can be tightened - up to protect contributors from them.

Is this system so perfect that it cannot be improved? Even its most vocal supporters accept that mistakes are being made - but seem to accept these - as long as they affect someone else.