Sad day to find out that our list is moderated. *sigh*.
Sometime on Nov 15, q cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Sad day to find out that our list is moderated. *sigh*.
Who told you that the list is moderated? The list is completely unmoderated. New users are put on moderation when they join to determine if they're real users or not. Once they show a level of cluefulness that only real users can have, they are taken off moderation. If they then start spamming, they are put back onto moderation.
On 16-Nov-06, at 1:00 AM, Philip Tellis wrote:
If they then start spamming, they are put back onto moderation.
that means it is moderated. 'Moderated' does not imply that *every* member is moderated. It implies that the list admins may moderate any member if they choose to do so. Since the list admins have reserved that right here, this list *is* moderated. If you compare with Ilugc, that is not a moderated list. Members can either post or get booted out. The list admin there does not abrogate to himself the power of censoring member's posts. In my opinion, spammers need to be booted, not put in jail and reformed.
Sometime Today, KG cobbled together some glyphs to say:
On 16-Nov-06, at 1:00 AM, Philip Tellis wrote:
If they then start spamming, they are put back onto moderation.
that means it is moderated. 'Moderated' does not imply that *every* member is
too bad. you don't get to decide what it means. the list admins do. also, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant. this is the way it is, deal with it.
On 16-Nov-06, at 2:11 PM, Philip Tellis wrote:
On 16-Nov-06, at 1:00 AM, Philip Tellis wrote:
If they then start spamming, they are put back onto moderation.
that means it is moderated. 'Moderated' does not imply that *every* member is
too bad. you don't get to decide what it means. the list admins do. also, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant. this is the way it is, deal with it.
only my opinion irrelevant? or opinions of all list members apart from the admins irrelevant?
On 11/16/06, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:
the list admins do. also, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant. this is the way > it is, deal with it.
List admins make their decision based on users opinion .. right? I hate the way some other admins (guess who) manage lists ... this is my list .. I am the admin .. you need to adjust with my views .. else you may unsubscribe.
I am not against the way you deal with new users. But I am against the way you replied to a user's opinion.
Regards
On 16/11/06 08:04 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 16-Nov-06, at 1:00 AM, Philip Tellis wrote:
If they then start spamming, they are put back onto moderation.
that means it is moderated. 'Moderated' does not imply that *every* member is moderated. It implies that the list admins may moderate any member if they choose to do so. Since the list admins have reserved that right here, this list *is* moderated. If you compare with Ilugc,
Err, no. A moderated list is one where every mail is approved by the admin(s). This list does not fit that definition.
Devdas Bhagat
On 16-Nov-06, at 3:48 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
member if they choose to do so. Since the list admins have reserved that right here, this list *is* moderated. If you compare with Ilugc,
Err, no. A moderated list is one where every mail is approved by the admin(s). This list does not fit that definition.
true http://www.netlingo.com/lookup.cfm?term=moderated%20mailing%20list so we call it a partialy moderated mailing list?
On 16 Nov 2006, Philip Tellis spake thusly:
Sometime on Nov 15, q cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Sad day to find out that our list is moderated. *sigh*.
Who told you that the list is moderated?
I got an email saying so.
The list is completely unmoderated. New users are put on moderation when they join to determine if they're real users or not. Once they show a level of cluefulness that only real users can have, they are taken off moderation. If they then start spamming, they are put back onto moderation.
I was not aware of the procedure. I thought we generally consider people sane till proven insane, or something like that. ;)
On 16/11/06 17:54 +0530, quasi wrote: <snip>
I was not aware of the procedure. I thought we generally consider people sane till proven insane, or something like that. ;)
Innocent until proven guilty is only true for courts. Around here, it's guilty until proven to post properly, if only because so many people have their quoting style broken by webmail and Microsoft MUAs.
Devdas Bhagat
-
benjamin -
Devdas Bhagat -
Dileep M. Kumar -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Philip Tellis -
quasi