"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...
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.
That's probably what it would take making sure none of the regulars who
indulged in the troll-fest and personal attacks being one of them.
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?
Jayne, at this point who can anyone trust here? Sometimes you can't tell
the trolls from the legitimate pond posters. The trolls impersonate others
creating more distrust and confusion. Does anyone know who's still here or
who left for good? There may be several trustworthy people but they're
lurking, not posting. The only one I would trust that I still see posting
is Derek. I don't know who George is.
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?
I think I'd trust someone with no connection to this NG at all before some
of those I still see here. The ones who kept feeding the trolls and who
kept the pot stirred for whatever reason they have. Why would anyone trust
them?
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.
Someone who was not involved in the flame wars of the past 2 years and not
one of those who keep stirring the pot with personal attacks - and still
are!
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.
That sounds reasonable as long as it's not someone who plans to reject every
message someone sends and her/his good buddies allow the abuse. They'd
never admit they'd do such a thing of course. :-) It's a technique used
to discourage posters from posting anything. How can be know before hand
what their relationships are?
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
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*