--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], gullible fool <fflmod@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Richard and Judy, Rick said he wanted to try out > > > limiting the quantity of posts first and maybe move on > > > to doing something about the quality of posts later. > > > The hope is that it won't be necessary to moderate for > > > quality because members will use their five posts > > > carefully. > > > > Oh, hm, I guess I must have misinterpreted this > > from Rick (message #135736 from last night): > > > > Me: > > Try requiring Barry to stop and see what happens. > > > > Rick: > > It's probably a time zone thing, but at this point, he has > > stopped and you haven't. Tomorrow the ax falls. > > > > And this (message #135730): > > > > So starting tomorrow if either of them [i.e., Barry or Judy] > > mentions the other in an offensive or defensive tone, they'll > > be switched to moderated status. In other words, their posts > > will require moderator approval before showing up on the list. > > > > Oh, wait, I see. It's *just* Barry and me who > > are subject to moderation. It's still perfectly > > OK for Vaj to attack Lawson. > > > > Thanks for clarifying. > > > Since I don't really have much to say today, I > thought I'd be generous and use the second of > my five allotted posts to remind Judy that > she's used up four of her five already.
Posts reporting attacks aren't supposed to count, actually. I should think posts requesting clarification of the new regime wouldn't count either, since obviously we can't be sure we're observing the new rules if we're not clear how they apply. Rick? gullible fool? Alex? Could you clarify, please? Do "process" posts concerning the new rules count toward the five-posts-a-day total? Perhaps one of you could make a formal post explaining the whole thing in detail so as to eliminate any confusion.
