If you have a problem with the way the forum is run including the site team, you should address that in private to the owner.
I already have. However I felt it was fair for Al to see my reply to his assumed motivation for my posts on fuel consumption so I moved it here instead of leaving it on the fuel thread where it didn't belong.
John Baker and Doug Cole started Trawler Forum in 2007 in large part as a reaction to the heavy-handed moderation and censorship on what was then the main forum for this kind of boating, Trawlers and Trawlering (T&T). T&T was a mailing list and as such had a number of deficiencies like the inability to post photos as well as other features that the newer forum applications made possible. So there were other reasons for them to create a new forum, but the extremely restrictive control by T&T's administration was a big one.
John and Doug wanted a discussion site where opinions could be expressed freely and there was a fair degree of latitude on where a discussion could go. So the rules they drew up were fairly loose. What this meant, of course, is that topics could generate strong disagreements and even a degree of confrontation depending on the personalities of the participants. John and Doug are smart enough to know that this is the price one pays for the freedom to communicate freely but but they felt it could be made to work. And it did as evidenced by the rapid growth of the forum to the point where it is today.
Some participants don't see it this way. For whatever reasons, disagreement and confrontation make them very uncomfortable. Or they want posters to conform to the way they think posts should be written, or not exceed a certain number of references to something, and so forth.
So they do what they can to prevent it. This is fine when it's just an individual participant but when the administration itself begins to try to exert this kind of control then it's not an ideal situation in my opinion.
Unlike what one of the site team members does with me, I'm not going to make any assumptions about why he feels the way he does or why he executes his role on the site team the way he does because I don't know him and I know nothing about his character or personality. All I know is what I observe on the forum itself and what a few members have expressed.
I believe disagreeing on a particular subject is fine. I believe strongly defending one's position is fine. I believe that poking some fun or sarcasm at the opposing opinions is fine. But I believe that making assumptions about an individual's motives for writing what they write and then accusing them publicly of having these assumed motivations is crap, frankly. Particularly when it's someone they don't know the first thing about.
Awhile back in some thread or another some posters were speculating all over the map about who you and your wife are and why you do what you do and so on. Remember that? Did you two think that was an okay thing for people to be doing in that particular thread? I didn't but maybe I'm the exception, I don't know.
What started this exchange is exactly the same thing. And I happen to think it's not worthy of someone who wants a role in the running of this forum.
If you don't agree that's fine. But what's more important is that if you don't agree your
motivation for not agreeing is none of my damn business nor is it something I'm going to speculate about or accuse you of on this forum because I have no idea what makes you tick.