Oops, "Private" reply didn't work. Message was deleted, but already broadcast via email.

So your suggested change is to satisfy the needs of just over 20 members. Is there any reason why they can't mute topics or change their subscription to Following Only with First Message Also? That

I think "impersonal" would be worse. They'd be screaming to you offlist about it - "what happened?" "why am I being blocked?" etc. In the past I've trtied to avoid the hard conversations by setting up

John and Paul- Thanks for the inspirational talk, but that's not how our group works. Maybe it's because we began with in-person meetings (and still have video meetings). In any case, I didn't make

Tommy- Also, the group has about 250 members who receive special notices from the moderators, but only a couple dozen are subscribed to receive email distributions of member posts. It was more in the

Paul Gray. You speak absolute sense. If you run a group you take on the resp[onsibility over what is published irrespective of legal requirements that vary across borders anyway. Its that lack of

Duane- That's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. As I said, we've already been through some acrimony, which itself drove some people away, and all we got were some vague promises that were not then

Tommy- We choose a new topic every two weeks with the online discussion leading up to a video meeting (although the two excessive posters don't attend the meeting). For our last three topics the

In all things, there's one thing to remember: you are the Moderator, essentially the police officer of your Group. If you are the Group Owner, you have the final say in all matters pertaining to the

Maybe you should find out exactly what they'd support. If you got what you asked for and they didn't support it, think of the time and effort that would be wasted. Duane

Jim I don't think you stated this but how many posts a day are you talking about? tommy0421

Andy, Donald, and Peter- Different groups operate differently Our group IS close to a democracy: the website moderators cannot act unilaterally, and achieving an adequate consensus on anything is a

I could see some groups wanting to auto-moderate above a certain number of messages and other groups wanting to auto-reject, to give their moderators less work to do (and the offenders would just

The folks in my groups who feel that way get the digest or the daily summary. As others have pointed out, this seems like something of very limited utility and a band-aid for using our abilities as

Jim . . . <JimF56s@...> wrote: You already effectively have that by moderating these people's posts, then checking at 6 PM and deciding if they've reached their limit and whether

Andy- If feasible, I would just hold the affected messages until some set time each day when they would all be distributed at once. (Or they could automatically be merged into a single email, but

If you have group rules/guidelines that state you will accept a maximum number of posts per person per day then just reject those that exceed the limit and refer the posters to the guidelines when

On that basis, I could not argue for it for the reasons I gave. Regards Andy

Jim, I still wonder what you would have the group interface do, when someone exceeds their quota. Reject all messages from them until the next week? Queue them up for a Moderator to deal with? That

Andy and Pete- Oh, we've tried, to the point of some nastiness that drove others away. But some people just cannot limit themselves (despite having agreed to try), and for better or worse it isn't a