As far as I can make out, during the period between then and now, there has been no significant change in policy. All that has happened is that the system has had newer and more visible (and useful IMO) enhancements such as the ability to close threads and to rename thread titles. I'd also suggest that the FAQ made knowledge that posts could be deleted more open.

Jon I was making the simple point that despite what you say about the FAQ - there are still many people who are under the impression that this is an unmoderated site. And that still none of our volunteers have posted to correct this impression and to give a true picture of the extent of this imposed editing and to change the 'cloud- cookoo land' that many long term posters are under and the myth that many insist on trying to defend.

There is the 'spin' but truth is that the list of contributions that will receive routine imposed editing is long, getting even longer and threatens to become endless. And all done as a reaction,with questionable effect, in making any difference to the problem, it is supposed to deal with.

These reasons can all be summed up as that personal judgement will be made in secret, on the worth of the contribution and reactive editing action will be automatically be imposed (and defended) in secret, whatever the nature or level of the supposed offence.

This censorship, which can better better described as the single summary punishment, will be imposed without consultation with other volunters and without the prior knowledge of the contributor, often at the request of fellow posters who are encouraged to post (now also in secret) to do this.

This one punishment will be automatically imposed for offences which range from a (supposed) personal attack to just being unlucky enough to have posted to an entire thread that is deleted or closed because it is easier to do this than for the vounteer to make the effort or take the time just to delete the 'offending' few postings.

It is a time for more imagination and honesty and for a far better example to be set. Especially by those who volunteer to judge the worth of other's contributions and who wish to shape our forum by imposed editing action based on this judgement, rather than by the encouragement of our forum to be shaped by setting an example of positive contributions.