Date   

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


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

 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 07:21 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
I just don't feel any need to keep myself on moderation because I'm the gatekeeper of moderation and am acutely aware of what's moderated.
I only do it to give myself a chance to edit my posts.
I agree with you on being aware of the responsibility of being a moderator.
And I, too, use the web interface most of the time. I use email basically only as a preview, and sometimes to respond when I'm out of the house.
But I don't understand what you mean by "if I am replying to a locked or moderated topic..." (emphasis added), because currently you can't respond to a locked topic. I do see another post by you below and will check to see if you amended this there.
 
--
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

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I guess I shouldn't say "unmoderate," per se, but even to have to approve my own posts.  It's an extra step I just don't want to have to take.

--

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

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 09:59 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
It seems like the other way ("reply and lock") would be much easier to implement, though.
Perhaps, I really can't say.  I find the idea of moderators being "superusers," group owners being "super superusers," and Mark (or the site admin) being "God," as far as permissions go, with each level always having set privileges that include the ability to add to any thread under their respective control much easier to implement.  It also seems to me that with increasing responsibility it's implicitly expected that those having it will be more cautious and circumspect in their actions.  I know I am.

It's so interesting how one's own experience shapes how one views this.  As a moderator I do not want to have to "unmoderate" a topic, even momentarily, if I want to post to it myself.  It sounds like you're just the opposite.  I just don't feel any need to keep myself on moderation because I'm the gatekeeper of moderation and am acutely aware of what's moderated.

But, a lot of that also comes from the fact that I use the web interface almost exclusively, where the graphics that come with topics indicating something is moderated or locked are virtually impossible to miss.  If I am replying to a locked or moderated topic it's a very conscious choice.
 
--

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

 

It seems like the other way ("reply and lock") would be much easier to implement, though. I don't know how difficult it would be to make exceptions to locked topics for moderators. I also would not want exceptions for moderators to moderated topics, because I myself want to keep myself on moderation. So in that case, "reply and moderate" would just be very convenient.
--
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

 

Yes, that's true. Locking a topic first, and then responding to it as moderator, would have the same effect.
--
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

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 08:15 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
That's not related to this issue, although I agree with that suggestion as well. This issue is being able to lock or moderate a topic quickly enough, before anybody jumps into the conversation. 
The title of this topic is "reply and . . .".   That directly implies the topic already exists.   Being able to lock same, or impose moderation on same, then retain the ability to add to it as a moderator or owner gives the same end result.

If you're talking about "post initial and lock/moderate" that's a different issue.  But I'd say in way more than 90% of cases if you post a new topic and the next thing you do is lock/moderate it the chances of a "jump in" is very slim indeed (and you can remove it, if necessary).

--

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

10921 - 10940 of 29451