Your second sentence is the weakest element of SWC.

Secondly I doubt if anyone is against the rules of engagement around here but it is the abysmal quality of the moderation with repeated examples of bias that degrades SWC.

As to posts that you see fit to edit. It should be the norm for the 'editor' to idicate that the post has been edited and why. This Soviet style censorship in unacceptable IMHO.

Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
SWC has clearly set terms of reference and rules of engagement, which are all set out at:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/faq.php

SWC respects the right of members to post using psuedonyms. members are not required to provide an introduction on joining, nor are 'credentials' required. We are a "broad church" of experience, interests and standpoints. We are not a political board, although politics is ever present.

On a number of issues, in the past and today, members engagement changes and lurches into sniping or personal attacks. Members often contact a Moderator when concerned, a few post their dismay. It maybe appopriate for a Moderator to then take action.

SWC is open for non-members (with a few exceptions) to read and has an excellent reputation for its content. Sometimes the wrong word(s) can damage SWC.