{Bevis ... and I thought that I was wordy {g}}
"Then why are you so concerned about them editing then? Do you think maybe they'll edit others vindictively?"

I'm not concerned about anyone being vindictive. I simply would like to know why the mods do what they do. To say that it's for zapping spam, for example, as I induced Lash LaRue to do, makes a considerable difference. We shouldn't be left guessing.

We're building up mores and habits by what we do here, and it isn't played against a user contract, like the agreement we "signed" to use the old, or new, DC boards. Rob made a point of saying to all comers that no such contract was to be found here at "his damn board." That makes it even more important for us to know, clearly, what the accepted rules are in each local area. Such as LHQ.

"... So what do you want defining? What is spam? That's a pretty difficult thing to define at the best of times."

If the mods have rules of thumb, that's a sizable first step -- if they tell them to us, that is. Say, no non-Legion-related images. Or as EDE said, not putting a Dawnstar (or any other) image in every thread.

I'm not asking for law books or philosophic rigor. It's simply that any stab at narrowing this down -- even informally -- begins to give the rest of us some guidance, wastes less of everyone's time (outside a thread like this {g}), and lessens misunderstandings.

"... the only reason I even mention it is to shut you up."

At least you're candid about this. I think I'll just let that one pass.

Not about "{rueful smile}", etc., though: I don't care for the Instant Gremlins, or emoticons, and I won't use them. (The Legion smilies will soon be an exception.) I am a verbal person. I use "rueful" to suggest that something's meant to be wry or sardonic. It's just as sincere as anything else I say. I mark all sarcasm explicitly.

You deserve to know all that, but I'm not going to hem in what has become one of my own verbal trademarks around here, not for anyone. And feel free to come back with anything you like ... but some discussion should go, methinks, to e-mail or IMs when it gets too overdetailed.

"... If anyone here actually thought that then why would they have voted her in?"

The same democratic illusion -- see my last post above. Voting doesn't create or reflect communal knowledge, either. ... Since we're on the subject, I might have felt better with Rob instead choosing moderators he trusted. He didn't do that, so we have to mutually sort out what's wanted and expected after the fact.

As for expectations of knowing anyone's "private life" -- well, I didn't express them, so I won't talk about them. I think my sense was clear enough earlier.