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" provi

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

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 track

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 tr

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

#suggestion

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.

#suggestion

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 leve

#suggestion

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

#suggestion

Wouldn't it just make more sense for group owners or moderators to have permission to reply to any topic, locked or moderated or not, since they are the very folks doing the locking or moderating? Tha

#suggestion

I have actually seen people try to argue that this position is wrong and autocratic. Well, I invite them to have a look at groups (and plenty of examples exist in archival, but utterly dead form) wher

Of the member. All rules I cited, except those clearly of an "overarching the site" nature, are applicable to the member doing thing X or Y. Of course, if an entire group suddenly went south with its

I just lifted these particular bits verbatim. I actually prefer the updates you've proposed for the most part. I'm more interested in the concepts embodied to be adopted in some form, if the consensus

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 "mo

What I offered are suggestions not fiats. I'm sure Mark will take or leave what has been offered, depending on whether he sees it as useful. I see no reason for having more than one account. I am mode

At the moment, the most prominent examples do tend to fall on the far right. That's very simply a fact. If anyone can find the equivalent of alt-right, and I do mean equivalent, not what the alt-right

I would also warn those who insist that anything explicitly banned is interpreted as a challenge that anything not explicitly banned is implicitly allowed. It is better to clearly set forth the overal

I disagree with Shal in regard to the use of the phrase "including, but not limited to." I find it to be incredibly useful to give concrete examples of the sort of thing being described. One could als

And mine. Groups software has always managed replies such that they go to who they're intended to go to based on the configuration of the group. If you don't trust that it's going to accurately do tha

#suggestion

Jim, It is your original proposal that's senseless. On Groups.io, as in any groups software that has a forum interface, your Reply goes back out to the group as the group is formed. I will admit that

#suggestion

You're 100% correct. My point, however, is that this goes back a lot longer than groups.io. Groups.io is a "new kid on the block" of a medium that's very old (cyber-speaking) with conventions and soci

#suggestion