On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:49:53 -0600, Köi-Lö wrote:

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...


That would depend on how the moderation policy were set up. For example,
the policy could require two moderators voting to reject a post.

--
Jayne
======================================
No good Jayne. She's already as much as admitted she'd reject every
*on-topic* message I posted. Who would the second moderator be?

There very well may be a moderation team of 4 or 5 moderators.

Someone
neutral from outside the group or one of her close long time friends? And
how would anyone know who THEY were? Many of us back-channel and no one
knows who's really close or not. Which brings us back to favoritism and
politics.

Is there anyone on rec.ponds that you would trust as a moderator? I have
seen you say elsewhere that you like the idea of a neutral outsider. How
would you determine if a specific outsider were trustworthy? If you can
clarify what you are looking for (not necessarily now, but during the RFD)
it should be possible to have a moderator on the team that you trust.

Plus the time element involved between sending a message and it
appearing on the group having to have gone through 2 or more moderators
could cause hardship for those with emergency situations.

It is possible for there to be different threshholds for approval and
rejection. For example, if one moderator can approve but it takes two to
reject, speed is not affected.

Keep in mind Jayne that they already have an exclusive pond-aquaria group
where they can post.

I do not think that exclusive moderaton policies are likely in the new
group

--
Jayne