The following 'editing comment' appears in the Rules of Engagement thread

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
Joe Offer

No complaint that a posters contribution has be subject to any form of editing action cannot be seen to be either bogus or valid - if no record of the imposed judgement is recorded. Surely if a post is judged to warrent such extreme action - there should be no harm in recording in the thread that it in fact took place - the reasons for it and who was responsible.

For without this - there is no deterrent value in a censorship action which is only reactive and which currently offers no protection for posters from personally motivated editing actions nor offers any editor protection from any accusation that such actions are pesonally motivated.

How can any action be expected to be viewed by our forum as not being personally motivated, when it is imposed anonymously or by two moderators who publicly state that certain posters should be banned and the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who sets the example of posting abusive personal attacks, judging a poster's worth and publicly calls them names?