|
Blocking senders
Early on, before we even got around to the first draft of the RFD, the
subject of "blacklisting" or blocking posters based on IP number, nym, or any of a number of different criteria. The suggestion was met with a resounding "NO." Even if someone were to hold hostage and threaten to kill a cute kitten unless we "blacklisted" someone, we still wouldn't block a poster. We aren't even looking at ways to do it, so we may not even be able to do it even if we wanted to. If a post is civil and about ponds, there is little doubt that it would be approved, no matter who submitted it. Let me make it perfectly clear, we will allow anyone to post no matter how many cute kittens someone threatens to kill. There are NO plans to moderate RPM on anything other than content. Of course, if someone threatens cute bunnies we may have to rethink that... -- Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA Hell hath no fury like a bird in the hand. |
Blocking senders
So we are free to kill as many kittens rthen? I am not into hostage keeping, as you got to feed the useless captives. I rather kill em............ I guess one could always send em to Carol Gulley "collect" or mayabe to San Antonio area collect to Gail! Then their refusal to pay collect charges would result in "Their" killing of the kittens......no such thing as a cute kitten. Dead kittens and cats rule! Only good cat or kitten is a flat roadkill or otherwise dead one. On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis wrote: Early on, before we even got around to the first draft of the RFD, the subject of "blacklisting" or blocking posters based on IP number, nym, or any of a number of different criteria. The suggestion was met with a resounding "NO." Even if someone were to hold hostage and threaten to kill a cute kitten unless we "blacklisted" someone, we still wouldn't block a poster. We aren't even looking at ways to do it, so we may not even be able to do it even if we wanted to. If a post is civil and about ponds, there is little doubt that it would be approved, no matter who submitted it. Let me make it perfectly clear, we will allow anyone to post no matter how many cute kittens someone threatens to kill. There are NO plans to moderate RPM on anything other than content. Of course, if someone threatens cute bunnies we may have to rethink that... ------- I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know! |
Blocking senders
Oh, and just to make it clear not that it matters I have no intentions
of participating in any moderated forum anyhow. Always been against any regulation of what I feel like saying or my beliefs and Nazi's went out in 1945.......I'll be damed if some one is gonna tell me what I can or can not say and to who I can not say what I want! Just ain;t gonna happen.....But its not my loss then either is it............ On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis wrote: Early on, before we even got around to the first draft of the RFD, the subject of "blacklisting" or blocking posters based on IP number, nym, or any of a number of different criteria. The suggestion was met with a resounding "NO." Even if someone were to hold hostage and threaten to kill a cute kitten unless we "blacklisted" someone, we still wouldn't block a poster. We aren't even looking at ways to do it, so we may not even be able to do it even if we wanted to. If a post is civil and about ponds, there is little doubt that it would be approved, no matter who submitted it. Let me make it perfectly clear, we will allow anyone to post no matter how many cute kittens someone threatens to kill. There are NO plans to moderate RPM on anything other than content. Of course, if someone threatens cute bunnies we may have to rethink that... ------- I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know! |
Blocking senders
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis
wrote: Early on, before we even got around to the first draft of the RFD, the subject of "blacklisting" or blocking posters based on IP number, nym, or any of a number of different criteria. The suggestion was met with a resounding "NO." Even if someone were to hold hostage and threaten to kill a cute kitten unless we "blacklisted" someone, we still wouldn't block a poster. We aren't even looking at ways to do it, so we may not even be able to do it even if we wanted to. If a post is civil and about ponds, there is little doubt that it would be approved, no matter who submitted it. Let me make it perfectly clear, we will allow anyone to post no matter how many cute kittens someone threatens to kill. There are NO plans to moderate RPM on anything other than content. Of course, if someone threatens cute bunnies we may have to rethink that... I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be hitting the reject button. :-) ~ jan |
Blocking senders
~ janj wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis wrote: [ . . . ] I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be hitting the reject button. :-) ~ jan One of the joys of not being a potential moderator, mentor or member of the B8 Board is that I can be very picky about whose posts I read. Galen is one of them. -- Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! ! ~Semper Fi~ |
Blocking senders
|
Blocking senders
~ janj wrote:
On 21 Dec 2006 05:20:47 GMT, wrote: ~ janj wrote: On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis wrote: [ . . . ] I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be hitting the reject button. :-) ~ jan One of the joys of not being a potential moderator, mentor or member of the B8 Board is that I can be very picky about whose posts I read. Galen is one of them. One of them you DO read, yes? ~ jan Yeees, dear! -- Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! ! ~Semper Fi~ |
Blocking senders
I would not care how many kittens a person threatened to kill on another board, but I would consider a pond post threatening to kill kittens as OT and not suitable for a pond discussion. The rest of the context would be important to see. Random discussions of animal cruelty are not really pond discussions. I note that Tristan does not like the idea of a moderated group. That is certainly his prerogative and he would be free to not perticipate. Perhaps a calm rpm would help rp to have fewer trolls. Or maybe those who could not resist attacking others would simply not do that on rpm or perhaps even not participate in rpm. Most of those outcomes would allow posters wishing for a friendly, interactive group about ponds to participate. Perhaps even in two groups. Phyllis |
Blocking senders
One of the joys of not being a potential moderator, mentor or member of
the B8 Board is that I can be very picky about whose posts I read. Galen is one of them. Nick One of them you DO read, yes? ~ jan Yeees, dear! Nick :-} ~ jan |
Blocking senders
"Tristan" wrote in message
... So we are free to kill as many kittens rthen? I am not into hostage keeping, as you got to feed the useless captives. I rather kill em............ I guess one could always send em to Carol Gulley "collect" or mayabe to San Antonio area collect to Gail! Then their refusal to pay collect charges would result in "Their" killing of the kittens......no such thing as a cute kitten. Dead kittens and cats rule! Only good cat or kitten is a flat roadkill or otherwise dead one. I have read your on-topic posts in rec.ponds and the aquaria newsgroups. You have a lot of experience and a lot to offer others on the subjects of ponds and aquariums. I honesty do not understand why you are so determined to make other people hate you so much they will cease reading your posts - of any kind. It is a deep mystery to me. Gail |
Blocking senders
"~ janj" wrote in message
... On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis wrote: Early on, before we even got around to the first draft of the RFD, the subject of "blacklisting" or blocking posters based on IP number, nym, or any of a number of different criteria. The suggestion was met with a resounding "NO." Even if someone were to hold hostage and threaten to kill a cute kitten unless we "blacklisted" someone, we still wouldn't block a poster. We aren't even looking at ways to do it, so we may not even be able to do it even if we wanted to. If a post is civil and about ponds, there is little doubt that it would be approved, no matter who submitted it. Let me make it perfectly clear, we will allow anyone to post no matter how many cute kittens someone threatens to kill. There are NO plans to moderate RPM on anything other than content. Of course, if someone threatens cute bunnies we may have to rethink that... I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be hitting the reject button. :-) ~ jan What Jan said. Gail |
Blocking senders
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:52:29 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote: "~ janj" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis wrote: Early on, before we even got around to the first draft of the RFD, the subject of "blacklisting" or blocking posters based on IP number, nym, or any of a number of different criteria. The suggestion was met with a resounding "NO." Even if someone were to hold hostage and threaten to kill a cute kitten unless we "blacklisted" someone, we still wouldn't block a poster. We aren't even looking at ways to do it, so we may not even be able to do it even if we wanted to. If a post is civil and about ponds, there is little doubt that it would be approved, no matter who submitted it. Let me make it perfectly clear, we will allow anyone to post no matter how many cute kittens someone threatens to kill. There are NO plans to moderate RPM on anything other than content. Of course, if someone threatens cute bunnies we may have to rethink that... I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be hitting the reject button. :-) ~ jan What Jan said. Hey gang, maybe y'all should re-read the thing. I said nothing about receiving a post that threatened us to take some action. I mentioned that we had no plans to "blacklist" anyone, and that threats of any kind (I used killing kittens, but it could have been puppies or anything) were quite unlikely to make us do so. Threatening *posts* are an entirely different matter. -- Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA Hell hath no fury like a bird in the hand. |
Blocking senders
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:52:29 GMT, "Gail Futoran" "~ janj" wrote in message Galen Hekhuis wrote: [ . . . ] Hey gang, maybe y'all should re-read the thing. I said nothing about receiving a post that threatened us to take some action. I mentioned that we had no plans to "blacklist" anyone, and that threats of any kind (I used killing kittens, but it could have been puppies or anything) were quite unlikely to make us do so. Threatening *posts* are an entirely different matter. Playing Devil's Advocate here. So, if I say that, if you don't post my post to rpm, I will kill YOU, would be treated differently than if I said I would kill a baby kitten or all your koi? -- Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! ! ~Semper Fi~ |
Blocking senders
On 21 Dec 2006 22:21:44 GMT, wrote:
Playing Devil's Advocate here. So, if I say that, if you don't post my post to rpm, I will kill YOU, would be treated differently than if I said I would kill a baby kitten or all your koi? I don't care if you threaten me, my kittens, my koi, (my tractor is a different story), or much of anything, I still won't be "blacklisting" folks. If you kill me, I sure won't be "blacklisting" anyone. Now if you send me a threatening post, that's entirely different, and the post may be returned, indeed, it may have a number of things done with it, such as forwarding the post to various people and agencies. It probably wouldn't get posted, as it is difficult for me to imagine how one could make a "civil" threat, although there is something to be said for making such threats public. Anyway, the whole thrust of the article was to say that "blocking senders" was not on the table, nor did I feel that any threats would be effective in making us block a particular sender. -- Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA Hell hath no fury like a bird in the hand. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter