We have censorship every time we walk out the door. Even in our homes if we do not censor what we say and how we treat another it will have ramifications.
When we go to the store, we are censored. We have complete freedom to buy what we want and what we can afford. We are not free to throw things, say anything we want to another,to push others out of our way or to walk up to another customer and mock them.
We are censored when we go out to eat. Same rules apply.
When you drive down the road, you can go where you choose and as often as you choose, but there are behaviours that are censored.

You can drink alcohol if you choose, but you are censored where it can impact another.
Any business you can start you are free to do so, but how you carry it out is censored. It seems censorship is only to be feared it situations like this. Concern for harmful impact on another in situations like this are viewed as somehow restrictive and stifling, yet in everyday life most would not want to get rid of common sense censoredship.
Uncensored behaviour in places like the above would soon put them out of business. Yet here it seems to make it more interesting and grow

No Neil ... Rule #777 is ...

NO JESTING

It's JEST common sense.

And I sure hope this doesn't get censored.

Keep in mind, once you have a set of rules, it must be exhaustive enough to explain what common sense is to everyone who will say "Where EXACTLY is that in the rules"

AND we need a team of 5 people to review and enforce, if the thoughts are that this Admin is going to read every post and argue with every violator, or imagined violator then it is best to go back to square one.

AND if the thoughts are, that those who violate should be banned, so they can come under another name in 5 minutes, it is time to go back to square one as well.

AND

AND

AND....

And we have it yet once again

AND, it seem... those with the weakest position get snarky the fastest...

AND... they respond with a zillion word post, trying to defend their statement, AND few read more that 100 words in anyones long babble..

No, because not everyone here is Adventist. Not everyone here is a Christian. The OP was for an idea of what rules "we" wanted.

You can play along or not, up to you.

Does this actually happen Stan? Perhaps we could make a rule against that also.

I am very well aware that is what your opinion is concerning me, that is fine. I have no problem with your straight forward honesty concerning opinions you consider babble. Perhaps it is considered a weak opinion, then maybe you can explain why Redwood brings up personal attacks a zillion times.

If I wee to take the following remark by you

AND, it seem... those with the weakest position get snarky the fastest...
and use it in every post I could over and over, would you need a team of five exhaustively reading to figure out what to do, what my motive was, and rather quickly I believe?

Folks, the system we've had in place for years clearly is not working. What's wrong with trying this out? What's wrong with trying to work together to establish a set of rules that nearly everyone agrees on, and trying to live by them?

Yes, it will take work. What on Earth is worth it, if it doesn't require at least a little back-bone?

I agree with Liz who said, "I believe everyone was to write down what rules were important to them. Eventually a recurring theme will emerge, and thus the "official" rules will be born. "

Can we not work together on this??

You can ban the IP address, that would eliminate this problem.