On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 01:56 PM, Chris Jones wrote:

that does not necessarily make spotting a second membership application a reliable process.

Right. It's very easy for someone to fake their way into a group, even with the new info on the geographical location, etc.
 
--
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

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:40 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:

Why don't you restrict membership and stop them at the gate when they try to rejoin?

I was only being slightly serious! The group I moderate operates restricted membership anyway but that does not necessarily make spotting a second membership application a reliable process.

Chris

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:11 PM, Chris Jones wrote:

Then they set up another membership in an attempt to frustrate the process... :(

Chris,
Why don't you restrict membership and stop them at the gate when they try to rejoin?
 
--

Bob Bellizzi

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:11 PM, Chris Jones wrote:

Once a "troublesome member" realised that they could start a topic unmoderated, but that replies were held for moderation, they might start posting replies with a slightly amended subject line in an attempt to circumvent the moderation delay.

The benefit of just moderating the individual(s) concerned is that it is totally unambiguous in its scope. Then they set up another membership in an attempt to frustrate the process... :(

Not to tell anyone how to run their group, but on mine, any member who goes through this much trouble to avoid moderation proves to me that their primary purpose on the group is to cause trouble, which gets them banned. (And so no one thinks I am a meanie, I DO communicate with them privately first.)

Dave

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:38 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:

that didn't make your "moderate the first post" idea a bad one, back in November.

BTW it was Helen's idea, and a brilliant one at that. It is so useful that I want to make it an optional group setting, since I now set all my group members to it and have to do that by hand. (My own humble idea was to make the entire thread that someone starts moderated, which I have ended up using much less often.)
 
--
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

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:38 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:

The idea will fly or it won't, but it strikes me as entirely symmetrical and complimentary to what we already have in place. Don't like it? Don't use it.

Please understand that I am not arguing against it. I'm arguing against its ultimate value. I have nothing against adding it, and if it turns out it gets implemented and I like it, I'll use it, and if not, then not. I still see the two situations as entirely asymmetrical.
 
--
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

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 07:04 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

The “price” of putting a member on full mod whose common issues are with new topics is probably an order or magnitude greater than the “price” of putting a hijacker on full mod.

Not at all true.

Some people initiate a bad thread using a new subject line. Others initiate a thread (bad or good) by hijacking an existing one. In both cases, a new thread is started, and has gone out to the other subscribers. The damage, if any, is done. Right?

Now, the hijacked thread has the same subject line as one that you want to keep. Others reply to it, spreading the disease. No matter whether the thread is objectionable or not, you have to engage in a split-and-mergefest to tidy up the message archive.

Are you still following me?

Yes, I could just put the person on moderation altogether. That capability has been around for a long time. But somehow, that didn't make your "moderate the first post" idea a bad one, back in November. I don't see how it makes my "moderate the reply" idea a bad one here in August.

The idea will fly or it won't, but it strikes me as entirely symmetrical and complimentary to what we already have in place. Don't like it? Don't use it.

Thanks,
Bruce

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:04 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

an order or magnitude

typo, order of magnitude

And actually, regarding the assumption that hijackers reply to more topics than they start, I think it's almost by definition, since they tend to hijack topics rather than start their own. So if you put them on mod, then worst case scenario is once in awhile you'd have to approve a new topic they start. I just don't see the added value. But, as I said, go for it! I have nothing against 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

They’re not analogous because of the magnitudes involved. The “price” of putting a member on full mod whose common issues are with new topics is probably an order or magnitude greater than the “price” of putting a hijacker on full mod. In the former case, putting someone on mod who tends only to create “bad first posts.” you’d end up having to possibly approve dozens of appropriate replies just in order to catch the relatively few bad topics they start. Hence the separate category makes sense. In the latter case, putting a hijacker on mod has the relatively low price of having to approve the much smaller number of topics they presumably start. 

--
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

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:44 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

I see those as not analogous. But go for it.

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/18123

Bruce

I see those as not analogous. But go for 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

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:11 PM, Chris Jones wrote:

Once a "troublesome member" realised that they could start a topic unmoderated, but that replies were held for moderation, they might start posting replies with a slightly amended subject line in an attempt to circumvent the moderation delay.

That same argument was put forward -- in reverse -- for the topic origination overrides...didn't stop it from being implemented.

Bruce

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:02 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

And if so, what would be the real downside in simply putting them on moderation?

From my own viewpoint that would be the easier option.

Once a "troublesome member" realised that they could start a topic unmoderated, but that replies were held for moderation, they might start posting replies with a slightly amended subject line in an attempt to circumvent the moderation delay.

The benefit of just moderating the individual(s) concerned is that it is totally unambiguous in its scope. Then they set up another membership in an attempt to frustrate the process... :(

Chris

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:59 PM, Duane wrote:

Exactly.  If they start a new topic, everything is fine.  It's when they use reply for a post totally unrelated to the topic they've replied to (hijacking the thread) that a problem occurs. 

Oh, I see. But how often do they start topics as opposed to replying to other topics? Presumably an order of magnitude less? And if so, what would be the real downside in simply putting them on moderation?
 
--
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

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:46 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

equivalent to putting them on moderation only for replies, not for first messages of any new topics they start

Exactly.  If they start a new topic, everything is fine.  It's when they use reply for a post totally unrelated to the topic they've replied to (hijacking the thread) that a problem occurs.  I've got folks that do it regularly as well.  My first thought when I read Bruce's post was to moderate them constantly.  Then realized that it's only their erroneous replies that cause a problem, not new topics.

Duane

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:32 PM, Ken Schweizer wrote:

we could add an infinite number of new moderation types

I think the recent new types (moderating all topics a person starts and moderating the first message of all topics a person starts) make sense and are useful. I don't see the usefulness of the request here, which is equivalent to putting them on moderation only for replies, not for first messages of any new topics they start.  
 
--
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

Could I ask, is there any reason not to just put such members on moderation?

--
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