Re: I wanna show you a t-shirt design I made, it is related to the group... look!



On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:15:08 GMT, pashby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter
Ashby) wrote:


Cue instead pointing out how as always you have got the situation wrong.
The point is that Mark has stated that he makes allowances for known
white listed posters in not stamping on not relevant stuff posted in the
group. The point is he conveniently forgot that he knew pg, so didn't
extend that discretion to him.

PG was using an expired email address. The moderbot thus presents the
post to Mark for moderation. Mark quickly looks at the content (not at
the identity of the poster) and quickly decides it's OT.

I think you're imagining Mark having all the time in the world to
consider each post in leisurely fashion, see who the poster is, think
through the broad implications of accepting or rejecting...But it's
not like that. He's got a job, a life, a wife and baby daughter. He
mods ukrc as a service to us all, and I think we should cut him some
slack. I can see how PG might be legitimately peeved, but it's not
like he's been deprived of the chance of making some really trenchant
point in an argument.

I think that, were I the moderator (which God forbid!), and had I the
leisure to read each post slowly and decide whether I knew the poster
or not, I'd have let PG's through. Those conditions do not apply.

Doubtless you or him will come back all
legalistic riffing on the Charter, ignoring the fact that as moderator
he is ignoring the charter requirements in the group amongst whitelisted
posters. This just throws the partial way he uses his discretion, or
not, into sharper relief.

The whitelist consists of those who have shown they can, broadly, be
trusted to observe the charter, so Mark doesn't have to manually
moderate every post. If someone shows they can't be trusted, they're
removed from the whitelist for a probationary period. If someone uses
a new email address, or one that's not been posted from in a while (6
months, I think), that email address won't be on the whitelist and the
moderator will have to decide what gets through and what not. None of
that is about partiality - atheists, muslims, mormons, catholics and
complete nutters can be on the whitelist, while people Mark is in
close agreement with can be on manual.

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: habemus moderator novum
    ... Debbie Gaunt has kindly agreed to take over from me as moderator. ... accept her idiosyncrases of charter interpretation as pleasantly as you've ... I'll also be a deputy on occasion. ... I hope you'll all support Mark graciously. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: I wanna show you a t-shirt design I made, it is related to the group... look!
    ... The point is that Mark has stated that he makes allowances for known ... the identity of the poster) and quickly decides it's OT. ... I think that, were I the moderator, and had I the ... he is ignoring the charter requirements in the group amongst whitelisted ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: Change of Charter
    ... remove Mr Goodge from his position the charter needs to be changed. ... procedure for appointing a moderator would need to be inserted in to ... which Mark currently does voluntarily. ... necessity in any community Karol Wojtyla ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Change of Charter
    ... Having re-read the charter it does state ... What the charter doesn't allow for, and Mark or another moderator ... moderators apply sanctions fairly and across the board. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: One way to combat spam in sci.math ...
    ... The same goes for substantially identical replies to posters not adhering to ... suggestion the original poster does the same next time. ... somebodies need to start a sci.math.mod moderated math newsgroup. ... BTW a periodic notice about the Mark of Quasi will quickly clue in ...
    (sci.math)