Moderator =

Someone who mediates disputes and attempts to avoid violence.

ALL those who feel qualified to be moderators on our forum will perhaps accept that in order mediate in any disputes - they cannot be seen to be part of it?

If they wish to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters - (in order to prevent abusive personal attacks as it is claimed) - they cannot be seen to indulge in setting or following the example of posting this or of posting any other form of personal judements of their fellow posters.

Posters may well be publicly judged by some of our known moderators to be 'buffoons' or called worse names. But those who post only these public judgements have to accept that all posters are Max's invited guests and have the same rights to have their words remain as posted on our forum as everyone else - no matter how they and their motives are judged or whatever names they are called.

Such public posting as we see evidenced here by some moderators - only brings all of our forum's moderators conduct into question. And any poster who questions the fairness of this current system - is encouraged to be seen a making personal attacks on all those in that role - even when many of them remain anonyous.

The issue is not which side is right or wrong - but that all of our forum are being publicly invited by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to openly support one side of a dispute. All that is needed on our public discussion is a way that we can all agree to disagree and not be bullied into accepting one view or of leaving.

Perhaps if our moderators are really interested in fairness and in bringing peace - they can be asked to choose to be either a moderator or a fellow poster? Then some form of lasting peace will at least have a chance.