as well as a few other rec.ponders who like to cross post and stir the
pot. A moderated group for carol to flee to in relative saftey, and
then go unleased and stir up trouble for others. A moderated group is
not in the usenets best interests, as much as eliminating Carol from
usenet would be. There is no way anyaone other than just a few would
get a fair shake in a moderated group, no matter who they swear their
first born too. Its like closing the barn door after the cows got out
is what making a moderated rec.ponds group amounts to.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:02:30 -0600, RTB wrote:

as well as a few other rec.ponders who like to cross post and stir the
pot. A moderated group for carol to flee to in relative saftey, and
then go unleased and stir up trouble for others. A moderated group is
not in the usenets best interests, as much as eliminating Carol from
usenet would be. There is no way anyaone other than just a few would
get a fair shake in a moderated group, no matter who they swear their
first born too. Its like closing the barn door after the cows got out
is what making a moderated rec.ponds group amounts to.

Who said Carol was getting in? If Carol was going to flee to a moderated
group she would have done so years ago, but apparently she's happy with the
status quo of unmoderated RP, even though much the wrath is directed at
her. So point again? ~ jan
-----------------

Also ponding troll free at:
http://groups.google.com/group/The-Freshwater-Aquarium

~ janj wrote:

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:02:30 -0600, RTB wrote:

as well as a few other rec.ponders who like to cross post and stir the
pot. A moderated group for carol to flee to in relative saftey, and
then go unleased and stir up trouble for others. A moderated group is
not in the usenets best interests, as much as eliminating Carol from
usenet would be. There is no way anyaone other than just a few would
get a fair shake in a moderated group, no matter who they swear their
first born too. Its like closing the barn door after the cows got out
is what making a moderated rec.ponds group amounts to.

Who said Carol was getting in? If Carol was going to flee to a moderated
group she would have done so years ago, but apparently she's happy with
the status quo of unmoderated RP, even though much the wrath is directed
at her. So point again? ~ jan

I wouldn't stop her "getting in", and how would you? She'd start with a new
nym, and she'd be fine as long as she behaved.
--
derek

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
~ janj wrote:
Who said Carol was getting in? If Carol was going to flee to a moderated
group she would have done so years ago, but apparently she's happy with
the status quo of unmoderated RP, even though much the wrath is directed
at her. So point again? ~ jan

I wouldn't stop her "getting in", and how would you? She'd start with a
new
nym, and she'd be fine as long as she behaved.
--
derek
================================
If Jan were a moderator she'd reject every one of my *on-topic* posts
unread. There would be no one to stop her. I don't think trying to hide
behind a new nym would work.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:44:48 -0600, Köi-Lö wrote:

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
~ janj wrote:
Who said Carol was getting in? If Carol was going to flee to a moderated
group she would have done so years ago, but apparently she's happy with
the status quo of unmoderated RP, even though much the wrath is directed
at her. So point again? ~ jan

I wouldn't stop her "getting in", and how would you? She'd start with a
new
nym, and she'd be fine as long as she behaved.
--
derek
================================
If Jan were a moderator she'd reject every one of my *on-topic* posts
unread. There would be no one to stop her. I don't think trying to hide
behind a new nym would work.

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

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:44:48 -0600, Köi-Lö wrote:

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
~ janj wrote:
Who said Carol was getting in? If Carol was going to flee to a
moderated
group she would have done so years ago, but apparently she's happy with
the status quo of unmoderated RP, even though much the wrath is
directed
at her. So point again? ~ jan

I wouldn't stop her "getting in", and how would you? She'd start with a
new
nym, and she'd be fine as long as she behaved.
--
derek
================================
If Jan were a moderator she'd reject every one of my *on-topic* posts
unread. There would be no one to stop her. I don't think trying to hide
behind a new nym would work.

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? 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. 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.

Keep in mind Jayne that they already have an exclusive pond-aquaria group
where they can post.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

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

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:44:48 -0600, Köi-Lö wrote:

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
~ janj wrote:
Who said Carol was getting in?

I wouldn't stop her "getting in", and how would you? She'd start with a
new
nym, and she'd be fine as long as she behaved.

If Jan were a moderator she'd reject every one of my *on-topic* posts
unread. There would be no one to stop her. I don't think trying to hide
behind a new nym would work.

Of course it wouldn't, because you're incapable of setting up a new
identity, and using it without treating everything as an attack on you for
which you must retaliate. Carol, I've supported your right to be here for
years - now develop a sense of personal responsibility.

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

I like that.
--
derek

"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 ~~~~ }((((({*

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:05:01 -0600, Köi-Lö wrote:

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...

[...]
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.

We are in luck. Derek has volunteered to be a moderator. At this point,
it looks like there will be sufficient volunteers to be moderators that
George will not need to be one.

--
Jayne

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:44:48 -0600, Köi-Lö wrote:

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
~ janj wrote:
Who said Carol was getting in?

I wouldn't stop her "getting in", and how would you? She'd start with
a
new
nym, and she'd be fine as long as she behaved.

If Jan were a moderator she'd reject every one of my *on-topic* posts
unread. There would be no one to stop her. I don't think trying to hide
behind a new nym would work.

Of course it wouldn't, because you're incapable of setting up a new
identity, and using it without treating everything as an attack on you for
which you must retaliate.

Derek... at this point YES! Because just about everything on this NG has
been an attack on me for the last 2 years or more. There's been constant
insults if someone disagreed with what I posted, among other things.
Remember you said you killfiled a lot of troublesome posters. Well then,
you probably missed a lot. ;-)

Carol, I've supported your right to be here for
years - now develop a sense of personal responsibility.

That I have Derek. I'm personally responsible for myself only, not what
obsessed trolls do. I've done everything to help this group recover for 2
years. I've stayed here despite the vicious personal attacks and slander,
the flooding, trying to answer questions others ignored or didn't see or
would not reply to in fear of being attacked themselves. I've withstood the
verbal abuse, the obscene messages concerning myself, the idiotic smut
impersonations, threats and porn in my e-mail and generally baseless
mindless accusations. Is spent hours on the phone with ISPs and sent many
messages to ISPs and NSPs to try and get the trolls out of here. How much
more responsible can I get? Now Derek, which posters here are so perfect
that they feel they can cast stones at others? I do thank you for your past
support by the way, and you are one of the few I would trust as a moderator
here.

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

I like that.

I do as well but it would depend on the relationship between them and and
who they've already made their minds up about. And who removes them and
replaces them with more fair-minded or neutral people if they do decide to
run the group like the Google fish-pond group?

--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:05:01 -0600, Köi-Lö wrote:

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...

[...]
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.

We are in luck. Derek has volunteered to be a moderator. At this point,
it looks like there will be sufficient volunteers to be moderators that
George will not need to be one.

I saw that. Now knowing who George is I can't comment on which direction he
would go.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

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.

Jayne, please don't believe what this woman has to say regarding myself.
She loves to twist words and read between the lines that which isn't even
directed at her.

So far George has found about 6-8 people interested in moderating. I, being
a TEAM player, will abide by the group decision.

Is there anyone on rec.ponds that you would trust as a moderator?

Hmmm, that's kind of like asking the fox, "Who would you like to see guard
the hen house tonight?"

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

Not a newsgroup, but a google group, big difference, imo, and it is 90%
aquaria, not ponds. If one doesn't like a moderated RP, fine, don't join.
Sheesh. ~ jan

~Keep 'em Wet~
Zone 7a
Remove Z to E-mail

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

I like that.

Me too, it was one of the first things I mentioned to George. ~ jan
---------------
~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~

~ janj wrote:
That would depend on how the moderation policy were set up. For example,
the policy could require two moderators voting to reject a post.
I like that.

Me too, it was one of the first things I mentioned to George. ~ jan
---------------
~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~

And George is?