"Köi-Lö" wrote in message
...
[snip]
But keep in mind that the POST would have to go through to begin with. If
it's stopped in it's tracks because a moderator or two are convinced (just
an example) the cheaper food is trash, or the roof liner is toxic....
there would be no discussion!
[snip]

Your example above triggered a thought, so I'm focussing on just that
paragraph. The moderation guidelines should be written so that any content
that isn't obviously an immediate threat to health or life of fish,
wildlife, or ponders (!) should be allowed through to post, but then others
would have to post a rebuttal. In that case, also, a moderator might post
useful links.

More importantly, perhaps, if moderators were doing such a poor job that
content they personally disagreed with, based on subjective criteria, was
consistently being rejected, then anyone would still be free to post to the
unmoderated rec.ponds or any other relevant newsgroup or forum. Over time
poor moderation of RPM would result in little/no traffic. I.e., RPM would
cease to exist.

That's why it's important to read and critique the RFD when it's posted,
despite all the (mostly) useful discussion on rec.ponds. This is an
endeavor we all need to be involved with, to try to produce the best set of
guidelines we can come up with, based on our diverse experiences.

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003