Nuxx:3969bdab-c682-468f-aac5-7960accfc03b@q37g2000vbi.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!q37g2000vbi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3969bdab-c682-468f-aac5-7960accfc03b@q37g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 00:55:22 -0700 (PDT) References:   <0tk925tu9futl1k2kcmedg94sdg2iuhlbi@4ax.com>  <874ouz2fho.fsf@toy.config>    <78lk15F14frjkU2@mid.individual.net> <59BI223ZlaJKFweq@[127.0.0.1]> Lines: 39 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1244015722 30946 127.0.0.1 (3 Jun 2009 07:55:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:55:22 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: q37g2000vbi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3182 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:52661 uk.rec.cycling:4594

On Jun 2, 11:36=A0pm, "Wm..."  wrote: > Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:32:08 <78lk15F14frj...@mid.individual.net> > uk.net.news.config Matt B  > > >Alan Braggins wrote: > >> In article , Ian Smith w= rote: > >>> What it says it wants to civil and pleasant discusion. =A0If n, d or = j > >>>can participate in civil and pleasant discussion, then they should be > >>>permitted to do so. > >> =A0Absolutely. But moderators should be allowed to use their past and > >>present > >> behaviour as a guide to the chances of them doing so in future. > > >Why? =A0Wouldn't it be better if /all/ posts could arrive on the > >moderator's desk anonymously - that way there'd be no fear of favour? > > In general, I'd say no. =A0But that is, once again, an initial mod policy > issue. > > ulm decided anonymous posts were ok but they are rarely used, why would > anyone want to post to urcm anonymously?

That's not what he meant. He just meant that the posts should be "anonymised" before the relevant moderator sees them. (Obviously they could subsequently read the group "normally" once they'd made their decisions.)

> In urcm's case I think I see what you are saying, you are suggesting > moderate on content not the poster.

Correct.

> Well, from what I have seen, so > far, it won't make much difference. =A0Is that any help?

Then there shouldn't be any problem with such a policy, "just in case".