toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
What WRB said, 2x........
The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go
to seek help. At least that's my understanding. Too often, an OP
receives a chastation for not crossing their "I's" or dotting their "T's".....or
for saying something a "Moderator" doesn't like. Supposed to be
Owners helping Owners, but rarely is a question answered by someone other than a
"Moderator". I was a Helper Responder in an old Excel Newsgroup and I
know how difficult it is for Non-teckies to ask questions, let alone understand
the answers given by Super-Teckies......but it's the Super-Teckie
Helper Responder's obligation to make the effort to TRY to communicate, and in
no way should the OP go away feeling embarrased for asking.....(even if
they ask the same dumb question more than once). Many times, in both beta
and GMF, I've personally had to delete an entire "fireback" message I'd
typed in answer to some unthoughtful response......
As suggested by WRB, POLLS, (with good questions),
might be a good answer for suggestions/improvements/fixes....I love
data over arguments.
This is where Chuck gets down off his Soap-Box now
and partakes of additional medication.
My best to all
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 12:57
Subject: [beta] Restrict "Set Moderator
Privileges" Permission #suggestion
On GMF under the topic "Membership Metrics” there was an exchange between a contributor
and a moderator. Following that exchange,
the contributor posted:
very silly of me to think that things might have improved in three months
and "I" not notified.
The moderator responded:
"If something is wrong that can have serious effects, it's usually
fixed within a matter of hours once It's been reported. Feature
suggestions, once posted on beta, get added to the pile and may or may not
be implemented. There was a feature added a couple of months ago that
I requested in late 2015, so no need to get impatient. The best
way, I think, to keep up with things is to read the #Changelog on this group
when it's posted. Even better is to follow the beta group, but I
know that not everyone will do that."
In my opinion some moderators are less than properly receptive to
change. I don’t agree, so
I attempted to post this response to the above:
"I cannot envision “serious effects” greater than a moderator
“permissions” that allows a moderator to demote or eliminate a group’s
owner. This has long been under discussion. Reasonable consensus
has been reached that this should be changed so as to be impossible.
All argument against is based on “what if”, or “it’s been that way for
so long, what’s YOUR problem.
I sometime wonder if all of us are speaking the same language.
When an important “fix” is apparently “lost in the pile” a way to
“bump” consideration and invoke higher priority would seem appropriate.
Any suggestion(s) as to what to do when there IS just cause to get
“…message was not approved” for the following reason:
agree that having that moderator permission allow any effect on owners is a
bad thing, it is not in the same order of magnitude as something that blocks
message delivery or otherwise impairs ongoing operation of the
There are enough topics discussing the Moderator permissions
issue, we don't need to bring that discussion into this topic.”
OK, fine. I’ll bring this matter HERE for discussion. I
believe it inappropriate that ANY moderator presume to unilaterally
interfere with legitimate discussion on any “issue”. Whether we
discuss it HERE or THERE, there MUST be an acceptable place and way for such
The subject above is the issue: "Protecting the original
Owner from rogue co-Owners #suggestion”. Maybe this subject should
have been submitted as a “Bug". It certainly isn't a “Feature”.
It should be obvious that certain existing moderators presently enjoy
the power to demote or remove an existing or rightful owner SOLELY because
checkbox descriptions were unclear
as to disclose the full range of actions thus “authorized”. These
checkboxes are part of the initial process of setting up a group here.
It’s just plain wrong not to timely disclose what is being thus
The result is an ongoing unnecessary and undesired threat to the
internal harmony and even continued existence of each such group. It
should be self-evident that ending this problem of long standing should
receive support, not resistance; and higher priority from within Groups.io
. After all, this problem was NOT
created by those owners, but by Groups.io