--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 17, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > > I second that, moderating is needed by someone otherwise this list > > is down the tubes. Really, that was likely their goal all along. > > One of them even said she'd do this till she died. That doesn't > > sound much different from an Islamic terrorist. The list has been > > destroyed by insurgents, quite literally. > > > > > > How would you suggest it be moderated? If someone volunteered > > to do it, what criteria would they follow? How would they be > > objective? > > I seem to remember New Morn came up with some nice ideas that seemed > worth implementing. IIRC it was something like first time you're > banned for posting a couple of days and then each time thereafter, > longer. It seems to me there would have to be a limit, a "three > strikes and you're out" kinda thing. I really don't think it would be > hard to implement because it really is a case of 'a couple of bad > apples spoiling the whole bunch'.
Notice that Vaj says nothing about criteria or ensuring objectivity, which was the main point of Rick's question. Perhaps he's thinking of volunteering...
