2003-3-17 14:28:00
Gleyns wrote:
Hi JJ
As an ordinary member, I doubt that my opinion would hold much sway but for what it's worth, I think we should have an unmoderated list but with clear rules, that if breached, attract swift and unequivocal action.
From memory, we became moderated because of one particularly difficult individual who no longer seems to be a problem. Before he came along we did quite well.
So it's a matter of limiting the exercise of responsible freedom through moderation or creating an environment where people have to be accountable for their actions, and if not, face the prospect of banning.
Having said all that, I don't see all the posts that are rejected so maybe it's a bigger problem than I'm aware of. May I ask what percentage of posts get rejected?
JJ:
I would guess that about one out of 20 posts are rejected.
That individual you speak of is no longer a problem because of moderation. Every time we kick him off the list he signs back on under a new name. We suspect he is still here and would create a problem again the moment moderation would cease. As it is, we can usually recognize him after about two posts.
Lately most of the posts we have rejected have been long political articles from other web sites. Some of them have been very long and would have caused irritation because of their content and length - as well as leading the group far off topic.
If we had not had a moderated list, I would probably be writing on Chapter 12 instead of 26 because of the attention it would have required from me. Before moderation we received incessant complaints from members because of distractions. Now it is not perfect but much improved so I do not see any reason to change that which seems to work.
Copyright 2003 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved