Rules & restrictions arise from bad behavior. Bad behavior comes in several forms. Obviously, applying rules evenly is never easy, as those whose behavior is in question will often not agree with the decision and will complain. And 'bystanders' who SEE the application sometimes add to the furor and demand explanations, even when they are not directly affected.......and you wonder why the rule for volunteers is sorta.."do your job as best you can and try not to debate it"!!

   Joe & Jeff are arbiters of decisions, and 'sometimes' reverse decisions of volunteers. I can't imagine any other way it could work. There might be occasional changes in the details of how it works, but the large majority of members seem to agree that rules & restriction are needed! and with the basic system.

It is fascinating to me that 'the management' allows so much debate and complaining and 2nd guessing **OF** the rules!

It seems to be similar to the way the country (USA in this case, but maybe UK and others too)....There are laws; there are enforcers; there is a certain amount of freedom to challenge the law or its application..(the courts).....but NOT total freedom to harass and cause dissention interminably.
....yeah, the metaphor has its limits, and maybe a better one would be a private club or a family *shrug*.....anyway, THIS place is privately OWNED. The public is invited in to play...IF they play by the rules (which are pretty durn liberal!).

...and to make the point about the topic, closing threads IS the prerogative of the management, whether you choose to call it 'censorship', 'editing', 'interference', or whatever! Sometimes they are re-opened by request, sometimes not.

If I were in charge, ALL individual requests for thread closings OR re-openings would have to be made by PM and would be ignored if they were done in the thread....that is, I would not allow the decision to become a tedious bit of public bickering. (That is sort of a suggestion for Joe....)