Informed judgement would seem to mean "make all information about who did what and their reasons public"..... ????so some of us can consider, argue, bitch, complain, debate, harangue, recriminate, suggest, condemn, praise, ....and generally choose up sides over what is 97% minutiae and trivialities, and which will STILL need to be ruled on by administrative staff anyway?????

The current condition of uninformed judgement means that (certain) posters are actively encouraged to do all that is listed above anyway - by the example set by (some of) our 'moderators' - and are then asked to support the result - as an example of sensible moderation.

And those who have largely created it and constantly post to complain publicly about it - then take no responsibility, attempt to blame everyone else and ask Max to exclude the public and turn our forum into the private members club they aleady treat it as.

If there is nothing to hide - the suggested change will only prove this to be the case and supply us all with the facts about the true nature and current level of imposed censorship.

Informed judgement is not relevant!!

Tell that to a court - it is the only form of judgement that is relevant and may provide a little comfort to anyone who is jailed after judgement - for them to know that it was at least informed judgement that put them there.