If you state to our forum, the FACT that selective censorship actions are being imposed on your posts only and the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team publicly confirms this as a FACT - what worth is the uniformed opinion of at least two posters expressed on this thread   - that they do not believe this to be the case? They are welcome to express it on ou forum but no one has to just accept it - do they?

It remains a fact that I am sure our 'moderators' would confirm to anyone who may doubt it - that I attempted to post (nothing more controversial than simply a link to another forum) - many times before I gave-up the attempt and that each time I made the attempt - it was being 'silently deleted' by persons unknown.

Another word for uninformed judgement is injustice.

But the talk here is of moderation - but in mainly simplistic terms as if it were a tap that was either on or off. As has been pointed out there are many ways of achieving an end without using drastic measures like 'silent deletion' and thread closures as the first and only option and to do this anonymously. The most effective method of moderation is by first being seen to be setting a good example.

"Moderator" can be a very difficult and thankless job. In a large community, it's impossible to please everyone, all the time. A successful moderator learns to accept this. It takes a great deal of maturity and self confidence to follow through in enforcing the rules fairly and evenly, while treating *all* site users with respect and dignity. "Disciplinary actions" should be conducted in private, remain confidential, and be allowed to be forgotten.

A moderator may have access to information about site users which is to be kept private and confidential. In my opinion, disclosing that information to anyone, other than the site owner and other staff members who need to know that information is irresponsible and a breach of trust.

A moderator who feels the need to disclose privileged information in order to gain an advantage, in what he or she may view as a competition with a member or guest, should take a good long look at her/himself and ask if it's time to take a break from moderating. That person is destroying something that a site can never get back.

I would agree but would go a lot further. And suggest any known or anonymous 'moderator' no matter how well-intentioned they may be, who now feels they have been setting (following or supporting) a poor example from their privileged position should also do this - rather than just plough on and allow themselves to be further compromised by the views and actions of other 'moderators' and our forum further damaged (in the manner that Ragdoll describes) in the process.

And any 'moderator' who has openly expressed their preference for our forum to be changed to exclude the public - should seriously question if their efforts in a 'moderating' role can ever now be seen by our forum as their best efforts - to maintain our forum to be freely open for the public's contributions, as it has always been from the very start.