On 08 May 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:

* Reject postings from posters who cherry-pick the articles to reply
to, to ones they have an answer for.

Eh? I don't think I can believe you mean that - you would reject
postings from anyone unless they regularly make postings on a topic
about which they are clueless or have nothing to bring to the
discussion?

We don't want anyone here who only speaks when they know the answer,
nosiree.


If you must have moderation, have:

1: no personal abuse of anyone living

2: no untraceable posters (easily automated - robomod sees an
unfamiliar from / reply-to, it emails the apparent poster and holds
the posting until it gets a reply, then puts the name on the 'valid'
list. Any address that doesn't post for a month (say) drops off the
valid list).

I would suggest a retrospective moderation type process as used by
uk.religion.christian - a new poster goes through step 2, after which
the system automatically approves all subsequent posts. If someone
violates step 1, they are moved off the valid list and onto a manual
list. Any post by someone on the manual list goes to a human
moderator before approval.

Admittedly, this lets one bad post through per nym, but it greatly
cuts down the workload on moderators, and eliminates
moderator-induced delay. Nym-shifters need to work through step 2
every time they shift.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|