I have commented on the actual issues, saying that I disagree with the significance you place on what I regard as relatively minor incidents, that I am satisfied with the way Joe and the others carry out the tasks which they have volunteered to do, and that my answer to the question posed in the modified thread heading above is "No".

The problem when you should dare to claim that Joe and Co are not operating as they claim they are doing is that you are asked to provide evidence - and when you do provide that evidence is is dismissed as minor.

Bill D in one of his posts claimed that allowing just one abusive post was one too many. The evidence I have provided is just what I have come across - I am sure there is much more but it is enough to demonstrate and support my claim.

The question is not really if our forum is over-policed but if it needs to be policed at all. Or how can you prevent our forum from becoming over-policed? I would suggest that uncritical praise and support - in the face of the evidence provided and minimising this evidence - is not the way this is done.

The signifigance of the evidence provided is that it IS evidence.