Like I said, Roger, it appears you are not capable of carrying on a direct discussion with somebody who gives a full, logical presentation of his thinking. You have to edit out all the parts that make a statement make sense and give it balance.
Here are your proposed "rules," quoted in full, with my comment below each one:

Could all proposed imposed censorship actions be referred to Max, limited to the offending post only, rather than the entire thread and every action subsequently agreed to, be clearly recorded in the thread in question?

Max no longer has the time to review offending posts, so in January, 1998, he chose to delegate authority to Joe and later also to Jeff, who supervise a number of volunteers in this work. Joe and Jeff are responsible for reviewing all volunteer editing actions. Entire threads are deleted or closed on relatively rare occasions, when the entire thread becomes combative and the problem cannot be resolved by the deletion of a few offending posts.

Could the ability to close any thread for any reason, be limited to Max and any requests for closure be made directly to him only? And could all threads (except) these � remain open?

Same as above.

Could all other editing duties be limited to a few known posters who would always be acting as fellow posters unless it was clearly stated they were commenting in their editing duties?

That is why editing comments are made in a different color and within the message to which they apply, so that they are clearly identified as such.

Could editing duties be limited to:
only privately referring any proposed candidates for imposed censorship to Max.

See above regarding Max's 1998 decision to delegate.

only responding to any requested changes to a poster's own contributions and recording this in the thread.

Inappropriate and personal-attack messages are deleted against the poster's wishes - this is only logical. Max's delegation of authority to delete "inappropriate" messages (his wording) dates to January, 1998. It makes no sense to publicize and explain the deletion of messages - the point of deletion is to remove such messages so that they no longer disturb the peace of our community. And of course, it is impossible to directly notify the posters of anonymous messages - and these are the vast majority of offensive messages that are deleted.

only changing anything with the poster's knowledge and prior agreement and recording this in the thread

Same as above. Occasionally, thread and message titles are changed for indexing purposes, but the contents of messages are not edited unless they are problematic. There seems to be no need to ask permission to resolve technical problems or duplications, and it seems illogical to ask a poster permission to remove his/her offensive post.

Could any poster undertaking these duties who is seen to exceed the above or sets any example like the posting of any abusive personal attacks or responding in kind to any they may receive, or be seen to post only personal judgements of the worth of their fellow posters � be relieved of their editing duties?

Ask Max. Is referring to a constant complainer as a "buffoon" a just cause for removal?

OK, so there you have it. You have posted your "rules" in half-a-dozen posts. I will respond in only one. If Shambles has any further discussion of this matter, I ask that he conduct it here, instead of taking it out of context and putting it in another thread.
-Joe Offer-