locked Re: Proposal: All groups must be moderated or new user moderated
Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I need to sanity check the lingo here, please, and then ask a question, because as stated this proposal confuses me. I thought:
If I have all of that right, is the proposal really to require all groups be "moderated" (or have NuM set), or did you mean "restricted"?
This matters a lot to me.
Our neighborhood list moves a LOT of email, quite a bit of it is timely in nature. A requirement that moderators must approve every message would be awful, and would - in fact - cause us to go looking for some other provider (again). NuM is better, but not critical in my mind given our past experience. (We rarely had new users cause issues in Y!G, and so far it hasn't been an issue here either, even with over 200 new members in the last week thanks to the nearby wildland fire.)
That said, we are a restricted group. Users have to prove they are human to get in, which helps with the spam issue a lot.
So, are we really talking about making all groups be Moderated or NuM? I hope I've just misunderstood the terminology involved.
For the record, I have no issue with not allowing Open groups as defined above. In the modern internet they aren't much better - and possibly much worse than - the comment sections at any news site. Getting rid of that option is just fine in my mind. But let's not throw out un-moderated groups as well. That's not a good idea.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 08:51 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote: