So, that's mostly the facts, plus a small dose of my personal opinion. It's unfair to condemn me for my opinion if you fail to state my opinion correctly

I AM fair, but I AM human. And I'm here to enjoy myself, not to be put on trial.

Joe expects to be treated fairly and not to be placed on trial, but is that realistic as he is also keen (far too keen, I think) to judge others – He claims that he is fair- but who is to be the final judge of that? Well Joe is. So what of those who feel that Joe has or will treat them unfairly? They may expect to want pass judgement too – and they will. On and on it will go, just like this thread, which remember Joe himself started, before Jeff's technical changes made all this overt CONTROL unnecessary.

Joe claims to want to make people happy. People may well BE happy if their post appears where and how they intended, they may not be so happy with Joe's judgement of their intentions after they find he has already taken action. They may well be happier if they are consulted first, so why can they not be consulted?

Kat said; Joe hasn't done anything like what you are characterising over the past few days and like I said, you certainly remember how to beat something into the ground.

And Roger, you've done a LOT of presuming about Joe, stating things that just are not true.

Amos said Roger, you're being patently unfair. Joe has not been hunting for witches, and his TPC guidelines seem to be workable enough.

You are welcome to your opinions but the FACTS are in this thread and they tell a quite different story. Did I demand the thread be re-linked? Or did I ask politely and was that politely-made request granted?

The list of subjects, threads and manner of post that Joe has expressed his strong reservations about are many and the contributors to these may not think any future judgements made on them, by Joe to be fair. But of course although Joe expects to be treated fairly on not to be placed on trial, WE should have no such expectations, but just have to accept a management decision? I just do not think that the many hats Joe wants to wear, can work and fear the attempt will result in even more problems, without a re-think.

Jack the Sailor

I don't expect it but I do not see any contrition, oblique or otherwise. The error referred to, is what Joe's refers to as his original 'mistake' - in linking the thread and following my wishes? Subsequently deciding that my wishes were to be ignored and Jeri overruled, because as Joe explains, his opinion is unquestionably superior to mine (and everyone else it would appear), is justified and supported as a necessary management decision.

I seriously question not Joe's worth or indeed his fallibility, he is not alone it that, but I do question his suitability and ability to operate this function, without creating even more argument and conflict. The lightest of light touches are required and what has been demonstrated is not that vital quality. Or recognise that folk will see his views/commentslikes and dislikes as editorial policy, even when they are not in brown text. Perhaps the brown text can be limited and confined only to matters of fact?

Amos sad: In the business world this sort of thing happens quite often, and everyone decides to either suck it up, walk, or work to improve it over time.

If this were the business would or a Government Dept, it may indeed make more sense (however many businesses do fold because of these things). But that is one of the reasons we go online. This isn't the business world and it doesn't make sense here. Order is not so important here as the friendly free exchange of views and mutual respect. Imposing order at the expense of this, with a heavy touch, whilst maintaining it is the opposite, and at the risk of yet more hostility, certainly makes no sense.

Don't see why it shouldn't make virtually everyone happy. There is bound to be a gray area as to what belongs where, but that is just one of those things to live with, not whine about.