I think a post from a unknown guest that contains the words, what "we allow", on a forum set up for our contributions does rather make the point that will continue to concern many, especially as this practice looks set to be automatically defended, as if concerns about the practice from other (lesser) contributors to our forum were totally unfounded and can safely be ignored, by those who know best.

It would be nice for once if it was ever accepted that, even though it was all being done for the best of reasons, that perhaps a mistake is being made The practice of having unknown volunteers who can judge and delete our contributions is never going to unite us all. It will futher divide us all yet again, for no gain to our forum, which we all appear to rightly value.

Especially as the occasions for this editing are stated and supposed to be so rare. They would appear to be so rare that those unknown, appointed and keen to flex their editing muscles, seem to be fighting to get in there and pass judgement first, before someone else does....

Our forum is about our contributions - not some unknown volunteers finding nit-picking reasons to delete these contributions, at the slightest excuse. I fear that this is what many of these volunteers do think and I fear the effects on our forum, of this thinking, and just as damaging - its unquestioning and automatic defence. Perhaps time can be taken to review the situation, before this defence continues and digs and even bigger hole?

Is there any real reason why the process of who is chosen and why plus the names of those appointed to judge us, cannot be a matter of public knowledge? The point often made about guests is that one cannot cantact them via PMs. If these volunteers can judge and delete our contributions and contact us by PMs - Is it too much to expect and ask that these volunteers are known to us - to enable us to cantact them?

With their agreement I can see no reason why this cannot and should not be done now. If they do not agree, perhaps they are not the right people? Can this be done please, if this present editing system is to continue? This is the Mudcat Discussion Forum set up for out contributions - not the FBI or CIA.

Joe says [in the best shade of 'Big Brother' brown]
Messages are deleted if we think they are likely to cause some sort of harm. Jeff and Max and I can see every post that has been deleted; and we can undelete posts, completely intact, if we override the decision to delete a message.

Now this again is news to me and things must have changed, yet again. The point was often being made to me by Joe in the recent past, that when deletions are made by volunteers, that it was too late and NOT possible to undelete them.

If it is now thought to be possible - is there an example somewhere of where this has in fact happened?

Fionn says (but is ignored).

It seems obvious to me that the interference of moderators can never hope to reach an intelligent judgment on every comment ever posted here. They would do far better to stand back and trust the forum itself to deal with the issues, and then we would be spared the sanctimonious and contradictory explanations that follow their inconsistent interventions.

The question that is never answered of course is what happens when Jeff and Joe get it wrong - or is this just too inconceivable?

Max as the owner of the site is god, and can never get it wrong, so as the occasions for this kind of editing are so rare, as stated, what is wrong with leaving the final decisions to him on these rare occasions?

'All animals are equal but Max is more equal than others' - is something we must all accept and could respect. I don't think that this omnipotence can really be delegated. Can it?