The problem here are assumptions and imposed action taken based on these assumptions. does it mean that just because a 'moderator' may not understand a contribution - that is wise for them to act only on assumptions?

Whatever this was or was not intended to be could have been established (if required) by leaving everything as posted until the poster could have been contacted by PM and given the opportunity to explain. As the threads were not offensive and NOT candidates for any urgent imposed editting action.

They may have been thought or assumed to be offensive to some 'moderator's' sense of order - but our forum's threads and posts can be ordered - without any need for judgement and censorship based only on assumptions and personal taste and automatically imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission.

Or are threads and posts that our 'moderator's cannot understand being adding to the list for automatic interferance and imposed censorship action. Why cannot a thread's originators be contacted first, before any action is decided and imposed?

One of the advantages of membership stated is that of being able to post and to receive PMs. The originator in this case was not only a member but also a 'moderator' themselves. What message is being given when their fellow 'moderators' automatically impose censorship action based on assumptions - without first contacting the 'moderator'/member who originated the thread.

There may be occasions when a contribution is so obviously offensive that immediate censorship action may be judged to be requred. I suggest that such cases are in fact rare and in most cases - there is always time for the originator to be contacted first (where possible) and a considered decision arrived at.

Or is one of the problems the apparent lack of communication between 'moderator's? That as they all seem to be on watch at the same time - any hesitation involved in contacting an orgiinator will mean that another one may have already jumped-in and imposed some form of censorship action?

If so - what change is proposed to address this?