Date   

moderated Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I have not actually encountered a situation prior to today where this would have mattered to me, but now I have, and I'll use the actual example.

Mark has locked the topic on disallowed groups, and although I know that I could e-mail to support@groups.io to contact him directly, many a random member would not.  I clicked through to his profile thinking, "Oh, I'll just send a PM, as what I'd like to tell him really isn't support related," but that option does not exist.

On many (and I'd say most) other sites that support a web interface similar to groups.io, if one clicks through on a member name to their profile, one of the functions available there is to send a private message (PM) to said member if they have not blocked private messaging.

It appears that certain groups do, in its entirety, but most don't.  If the feature is available, and the option is blocked by the member, it would be nice if the profile page indicated that PMs are not accepted in place of the PM link or button, though that's not essential.

Since you can't reply to a locked topic my usual, "Reply then use the private button," technique will not work for those.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


locked Re: Not permitted groups

 

Hi All,

Thanks again for the feedback. Here's the text that I pushed to the site this morning. I'm going to re-lock this topic after I post this. If you have any suggestions for changes, please send them directly to me (as an aside this definitely illustrates that I need to add the ability for moderators to be able to set the reply to of an individual topic, without having to resort to hashtags).

Thanks,
Mark

Please ensure that your group adheres to our Terms of Service. We at Groups.io believe in freedom of expression, and it is our intention to respect different perspectives and enable them to co-exist seamlessly and effortlessly. We do not permit the following:
 
- Pornography, adult content or nudity (this will link to the existing pornography page).
- Harassment of any kind.
- Groups that share media, or content, whose distribution would be in violation of copyright law.
- Groups dedicated to the promotion of extreme, hateful, or exclusionary ideas, including but not limited to, the alt-right.
- Groups dedicated to the promotion of conspiracy theories, including but not limited to: Gamergate, Pizzagate, and Qanon.
- Groups that are designed strictly to use our directory as an advertisement for something other than the group itself.
 


moderated Re: Language

 

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:20 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
All kidding aside, that's not spamming, that's targeted harassment.
Exactly right. I actually wanted to correct that after writing it.
 
--
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


moderated Re: Language

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:53 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I had a disgruntled banned member who saved all her emails from the group from years ago and sent multi-page screeds to all of them disparaging the group. Now THAT's spamming. :) Her account was removed altogether. 
All kidding aside, that's not spamming, that's targeted harassment.   Yes, the target is big, but not indiscriminate.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


moderated Re: add mod choices "reply and lock topic" or "reply and moderate topic" #suggestion

 

I don’t see thst problem. It would happen nearly instantaneously. Letting mods reply to locked topics would be slightly better but seems much harder to implement.

On Oct 10, 2018, at 10:53 PM, Michael Pavan <michaelpavan@comcast.net> wrote:

"reply and lock" and "reply and moderate” would still require that Moderator to rush their reply before someone else can reply because the topic has yet to be locked or moderated until the Moderator’s notifying reply has been sent…

Better yet either:
-allow Moderators to not be subject to the lock or moderation;
or
-the lock or moderation begins immediately, but that Moderator is allowed one more reply.


Self-moderation may function as a safe guard for Moderators who post without adequate proof-reading, however if this is desirable why should not everyone get a “Is this really what you want to post” notice as an extra step in the posting process.


On Oct 10, 2018, at 2:30 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com> wrote:

When I plan to lock or moderate a topic, I usually announce in a reply that I'm doing so, and then I have to rush to do it before someone else can reply. To avoid that, I am suggesting including moderator options "reply and lock" and "reply and moderate" under the "more" menu, thus eliminating the problem.

--
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


moderated Re: add mod choices "reply and lock topic" or "reply and moderate topic" #suggestion

Michael Pavan
 

"reply and lock" and "reply and moderate” would still require that Moderator to rush their reply before someone else can reply because the topic has yet to be locked or moderated until the Moderator’s notifying reply has been sent…

Better yet either:
-allow Moderators to not be subject to the lock or moderation;
or
-the lock or moderation begins immediately, but that Moderator is allowed one more reply.


Self-moderation may function as a safe guard for Moderators who post without adequate proof-reading, however if this is desirable why should not everyone get a “Is this really what you want to post” notice as an extra step in the posting process.

On Oct 10, 2018, at 2:30 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com> wrote:

When I plan to lock or moderate a topic, I usually announce in a reply that I'm doing so, and then I have to rush to do it before someone else can reply. To avoid that, I am suggesting including moderator options "reply and lock" and "reply and moderate" under the "more" menu, thus eliminating the problem.


moderated Re: Language

 

Yeah our spammer did sneak back in but hasn’t posted (I increased NuM to 4 and moderate potential troublemakers at the drop of a hat). It was just a little anecdote, ancient history now thanks to Mark. :)


On Oct 10, 2018, at 8:59 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I really don't think the exact mechanism of banishment is relevant.

I agree that some people will probably have their accounts deleted.  That is the ultimate "permanent ban on posting privileges" provided you don't have one of those people who repeatedly tries to sneak back in under a different guise (and generally has a tell that's so instantly recognizable that it's laughable that they'd try).

I chose that wording simply because that's exactly how we do it "on that other site."  The only time an account is actually deleted is if a member requests it, and even then removal of an account does not strike any of the content that they posted while they had an account.

We actually purge all spam messages, and if you had a robo-spammer or tag team that can take some effort!
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


--
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


moderated Re: Language

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I really don't think the exact mechanism of banishment is relevant.

I agree that some people will probably have their accounts deleted.  That is the ultimate "permanent ban on posting privileges" provided you don't have one of those people who repeatedly tries to sneak back in under a different guise (and generally has a tell that's so instantly recognizable that it's laughable that they'd try).

I chose that wording simply because that's exactly how we do it "on that other site."  The only time an account is actually deleted is if a member requests it, and even then removal of an account does not strike any of the content that they posted while they had an account.

We actually purge all spam messages, and if you had a robo-spammer or tag team that can take some effort!
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


moderated Re: Language

 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 08:49 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
and go back to:   Spamming is strictly prohibited and will lead to an immediate and permanent ban on posting privileges.
I would say "will lead to removal of your account." I had a disgruntled banned member who saved all her emails from the group from years ago and sent multi-page screeds to all of them disparaging the group. Now THAT's spamming. :) Her account was removed altogether. 
 
--
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


moderated Re: Language

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:38 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
Scrap the whole thing.
and go back to:   Spamming is strictly prohibited and will lead to an immediate and permanent ban on posting privileges.

If one wishes to remove "strictly," fine.  I just think it's important that it be made crystal clear that spamming, any kind of spamming, is a swiftly and irrevocably punishable offense.  It's not a suspension, or being put on moderated status, but a "You're OUT!," offense.

Those who come to spam come for no other reason.

An odd off-topic message or off-topic topic "among friends" isn't spam, though both seem to really annoy the more anal retentive in any group.  For myself, unless the behavior is constant on the part of a specific member, I think that in all groups each of us occasionally wants to ask "folks we know" in cyberspace about something that's not strictly on topic for a group and that's fine if not abused.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


moderated Re: Language

 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 07:58 PM, Sharon Villines wrote:
personal discriminations
and I still find that term odd.

Gender based should have a en dash.
It's a style issue. They're going out of style, and I would not use unless meaning is unclear. I'm fine without it.
 
--
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


moderated Re: Language

Jim Higgins
 

Received from Brian Vogel at 10/11/2018 03:06 AM UTC:

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 02:55 PM, Sharon Villines wrote:
Spamming, indiscriminately sending copies of the same message to a large number of people. is not permitted.
As an aside, this is a really restrictive definition of spamming.  People posting a single message, utterly unrelated to the group or ongoing topic, that is of a promotional nature or meant to drive traffic to a given website is spamming.

Worse than that. That definition didn't mention anything about on or off topic. And it's the nature of groups to send messages "to a large number of people." And "indiscriminately" is waaaaay too vague. Scrap the whole thing.

Jim H


moderated Re: Moderator vs Manager

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

This is semantic hair-splitting, and I shan't be participating further.

There is someone in charge.  Even if it's the group owner.  Sites such as these do have someone who can stop things in their tracks if they so choose.

Pretending that online forums are structurally "a group of equals" is a convenient fiction.  It's not that participants can't create that environment and if they wish to they can do that no matter what the structure of the venue.

It has nothing to do with terminology.  (And this is coming from someone who firmly believes that language can and does influence thought
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


moderated Moderator vs Manager

Sharon Villines
 

4a.
Re: Moderator vs Manager
From: Brian Vogel
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:46:38 EDT

I also disagree strongly. I don't know when it is finally going to sink in for some people that venues have cultures and the meaning of terms within those venues is very well established. The term "moderator" and the role is very well known. The moderator is also absolutely not an equal when they are exercising the role, and they are nothing but an equal when they are not. That's a fact.
But not all lists have a moderator with the ability to censor, stop discussion, etc. That’s a fact.

They were established by a person who was willing/able to set up the group and have several “moderators" who can “manage” the list when the “owner” disappears or is dead. The group list is for communications between equals. I have about 20 of those just now. I also have other lists that I do own and do moderate. I consult on the rules, but in the end, I decide.

You (for any you) had ought to try to acquaint yourself with the mores and folkways of the place you're entering before trying to make terminology mean something it doesn’t.
I have been functioning in this space for over 20 years. I was in several groups in Mark’s first groups venture. I have at times belonged to over 35 groups on 5 different platforms and have “moderated" 20-30. More acquainted I could hardly be.

“Manager" is a more accurate term for many groups. I would have no authority to censor or correct a group of faculty members, for example, or the members of a cohousing community. If anything they moderate themselves and each other.

Sharon
——
Sharon Villines, Washington DC

"T.J. Maxx Recreates In-Store Shopping Experience With New Website That Randomly Scatters Products All Over The Place" — The Onion


moderated Re: Language

 

The same error is in the suggested change. Needs ‘or’ before ‘gender based’

On Oct 10, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Sharon Villines via Groups.Io <sharon=sharonvillines.com@groups.io> wrote:

Re: Language
From: J_Catlady
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:28:11 EDT

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Sharon Villines wrote:

There will be no racial, ethnic, gender based insults or any other personal discriminations.
Unfortunately I don't have time to proof-read the whole thing, but the sentence above stands out for its lack of the word "or" before "gender based." It's an actual grammatical error.

There would also preferably be a comma after "insults," but that lack is a matter of preference rather than correctness. The term "personal discriminations" also seems a bit odd. But those two are minor compared to the grammatical error.
And unfortunately, I didn’t write that sentence. I suggested:

Racial, ethnic, gender based insults, or any other personal discriminations will not be tolerated and can lead to …
Gender based should have a en dash.

Sharon

--
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


moderated Re: add mod choices "reply and lock topic" or "reply and moderate topic" #suggestion

 

Makes sense.


On Oct 10, 2018, at 7:48 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:32 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
"if I am replying to a locked or moderated topic..."
I am discussing my experience under the software on the other site on which I moderate.  Moderators may respond to a locked topic and on rare occasion I do.

Even though we could moderate a topic in the manner that term is used here, we do not.  There is never a post-by-post review of any given topic, which is what "moderated topic" means here.

All I'm trying to get at is that, via the software, moderators there do not have any restrictions on the the topics to which they can respond.  That's just a way the software is written (or, perhaps I should say, is written to allow - as I had absolutely nothing to do with the initial setup of that site, so it could be how the site owner and admin elected to use the available options in settings).
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


--
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


moderated Re: Language

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 02:55 PM, Sharon Villines wrote:
Spamming, indiscriminately sending copies of the same message to a large number of people. is not permitted.
As an aside, this is a really restrictive definition of spamming.   People posting a single message, utterly unrelated to the group or ongoing topic, that is of a promotional nature or meant to drive traffic to a given website is spamming.

In a group related to, say, apple growing in northern climes, someone chiming in with a single post regarding testosterone boosting miracle herbs is spamming.

Most people recognize spam when they see it.  I don't think it needs to be closely defined, as it cannot be.

 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


moderated Re: Language

Sharon Villines
 

Re: Language
From: J_Catlady
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:28:11 EDT

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Sharon Villines wrote:

There will be no racial, ethnic, gender based insults or any other personal discriminations.
Unfortunately I don't have time to proof-read the whole thing, but the sentence above stands out for its lack of the word "or" before "gender based." It's an actual grammatical error.

There would also preferably be a comma after "insults," but that lack is a matter of preference rather than correctness. The term "personal discriminations" also seems a bit odd. But those two are minor compared to the grammatical error.
And unfortunately, I didn’t write that sentence. I suggested:

Racial, ethnic, gender based insults, or any other personal discriminations will not be tolerated and can lead to …
Gender based should have a en dash.

Sharon


moderated Re: add mod choices "reply and lock topic" or "reply and moderate topic" #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:32 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
"if I am replying to a locked or moderated topic..."
I am discussing my experience under the software on the other site on which I moderate.  Moderators may respond to a locked topic and on rare occasion I do.

Even though we could moderate a topic in the manner that term is used here, we do not.  There is never a post-by-post review of any given topic, which is what "moderated topic" means here.

All I'm trying to get at is that, via the software, moderators there do not have any restrictions on the the topics to which they can respond.  That's just a way the software is written (or, perhaps I should say, is written to allow - as I had absolutely nothing to do with the initial setup of that site, so it could be how the site owner and admin elected to use the available options in settings).
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


moderated Re: add mod choices "reply and lock topic" or "reply and moderate topic" #suggestion

 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 07:22 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
even to have to approve my own posts.  It's an extra step I just don't want to have to take.
It just gives me an extra chance to imagine how the intended audience might receive what I've written. I sometimes find off-key notes in a post that way, and can correct them. :)
 
--
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

10881 - 10900 of 29417