moderated Re: New moderation setting proposal #suggestion

Ken Schweizer

I agree, as owners/moderators we need to take control of our groups. If there is a need to show the difference between authoring and hijacking a message it can be accomplished by approving the authored message immediately and waiting a day to approve or reject with a reply to the hijacked message.

If the hijacker is there to cause disharmony their banning is for a reason other than the hijacking.

Adding a new algorithm to simply simplify the moderator's life only adds another path that "could" cause issues down the road.




"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." God


From: [] On Behalf Of David Grimm
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [beta] New moderation setting proposal #featurerequest


On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:11 PM, Chris Jones wrote:

Once a "troublesome member" realised that they could start a topic unmoderated, but that replies were held for moderation, they might start posting replies with a slightly amended subject line in an attempt to circumvent the moderation delay.

The benefit of just moderating the individual(s) concerned is that it is totally unambiguous in its scope. Then they set up another membership in an attempt to frustrate the process... :(

Not to tell anyone how to run their group, but on mine, any member who goes through this much trouble to avoid moderation proves to me that their primary purpose on the group is to cause trouble, which gets them banned. (And so no one thinks I am a meanie, I DO communicate with them privately first.)


Join to automatically receive all group messages.