When Joe particpates as a poster, I know him to the same extent I know shambles, his opinions and know what he means.

It's nonsensical to include the moderation duty which Joe performs (and Max says can be done anonymously) and shambles can't in your "character analysis".

Well I also very seldom know what Jon means. I have little ideas what the above means.

But it is not a popularity contest between the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and any ordinary poster. It must be quite clear to most posters by now what the price is of being seen to hold and try to openly express any views different to those held by the current holder of that post.

For people to post and express satisfaction at the current level of censorship when they are not aware of what it is and what it is increasing turning into is bad enough. It makes even less sense for these posters to publicly rubbish any poster who does experience the full extent of this personally motivated censorship as a matter of routine and who is trying to bring this to their attention.

In order for any poster to make a judgement - the first step is to establish what the extent of censorship is. This can't be done if the censorship action is not recorded and posts just vanish.

Are the arguments made in this thread - for not recording ALL censorship action - really very convincing?   

The best way to permanantly curtail any so-called anti-censorship campaign - is to bring and end to censorship. Or if you can't do that, at least to always to be seen to be keeping any that may be necessary, out in the open.

The request to give a name and to always be prepared to stand by one's views and actions - is one that is often made by one poster to another (usually a nameless guest). Perhaps it is not too unreasonable for our forum to expect the same open and accountable approach from those who feel qualified to impose their judgement upon and censor the invited posts of others?