H & Matt, I don't see what's wrong with a bit of censorship - for whatever reason (which needn't be our business) the site owners have a rule about no profiteering which is clearly expressed at the top of this forum.
It's their site, so it's up to them what appears on the site, and in my book they don't even need to justify WHY there might be limitations, although some explanation helps people understand (and I've done that already I hope)
With the new site format and software, they've been able to "appoint" someone (OK, I was the mug that volunteered!) to keep an eye, and try to enforce their rules, and I'm doing it in what I think is a reasonable way. I've noticed that the number of people attempting to bypass the rule has diminished since thread editing started...so it's having the desired effect. I've been told I'm doing it right, too.
I haven't deleted or altered much in any other area - I can only think of one, plus one merge, so only where threads are clearly against policy are they "at risk".
I think it's quite reasonable for a site to determine it's content and to take action to reduce or eliminate unwanted content.
I'm not even going to state my own position on censorship or profiteering, cos it really doesn't matter what I think. I'm just doing a job....
And you are all making me feel bad about it now!!! Waaaaahhhhh!!!
Serious point - I really haven't got much more to say about this than I've already said, but anyone who wants to discuss the way the site is run or moderated should feel free to message Chris Considine.
