I like your idea, Gervase - that would indeed be a way to bypass any unwanted censorship, making this whole discussion moot.

I also lean towards the emphasis on readers for Mudcat. That has indeed been historically its purpose (see the discussion in "Mudcat Ecperiment Works"): as a resource, akin to a library, where indeed much of the content is contributed by (some) of the readers. Over the years it has become a place to meet socially, and as more and more Mudcatters have met each other physically, new levels of communication have been reached. These levels include the occasional sharp langage and judgement, just as you would in outside life. But the original purpose - to be a resource - is not invalidated by that. So, if there was ever a need to choose between what is good for reader and what is good for writers, I favour the former.

In this context, many of the editorial decisions that are being disputed here, make perfect sense.

By the way Roger, I betrayed no confidence - you did mention your knowledge of the feelings of others in the terms I stated, sometime in March; it was around the time of the discussion of the meaning of "we". I know this, because I discussed it off-line with someone (not the editorial team, by the way).