moderated Re: User-friendly message rejection after attempt to post to a locked thread #suggestion


 

Marv,

Sometimes you really want it locked. As one example, we have group members on moderation-bypass (status “P”) who may not realize when a topic is really closed, because the locking is not announced. It’s just done. Locking means you don’t want to allow ANY posts to a topic.

Another reason to lock instead of moderate is to disable Likes. Again, stopping all activity.

A third reason is not wanting to compose and send rejection notices. Locking (whether via the current bounce message or the proposed method) sends, or would send under the proposed idea, a boilerplate “This topic is locked.” 

A fourth reason is to eliminate the Reply button so that members responding via web realize they can’t post to the topic even before they’re tempted to reply. 

Etc. Locking is just a whole different ballgame from moderation.


On Apr 25, 2019, at 8:40 AM, Marv Waschke <marv@...> wrote:

Forgive me if I am missing something, but groups that want to avoid ugly bounce messages could put topics under moderation instead of locking the topics. Wouldn't that be an effective workaround that lets the individual group decide? I can't recall that I've ever locked or placed a topic under moderation so I don't have experience.

In other realms, I've seen "security by obscurity" (don't worry, those dopey criminals will never bother to figure it out) fail miserably, so I am inclined to close security gaps even when a breach appears improbable at the moment. If you accept the obscurity argument regularly, you end up with a porous system.
Best, Marv

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

Join main@beta.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.