--- In [email protected], "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nonsense Rick, you're being too nice and too permissive. > If they have a personal question about these limits, have > them send it to you directly. If they feel they have to > go to the 'whole list', count it agin them. They are > playing you off with this 'attack' crap. It is just more > of the same.
Actually, the reporting of an attack in a public post was the method suggested by Rick himself: I often can't read > all the posts, especially during the work week, so if > anyone indulges in personal attacks, point it out to > Alex and me, perhaps by posting something with "attack" > in the subject, such as "Barry attacked me, boo hoo." I think it does make more sense to send such reports by private email to the moderators. Questions about the new regulations, however, until someone draws up and posts a detailed description, ought to be public so everyone else can benefit by the responses. It will also save the moderators having to answer similar questions over and over in individual private emails, as well as reducing the number of posts they have to scan of those put on moderation because they didn't understand what would cause them to be put on moderation. Moderation, in other words, whether by numbers of posts or by content or both, can't possibly work well-- for either users or moderators--unless everyone is perfectly clear what the parameters and the consequences of infraction are and how they will be administered. Hopefully, by the end of the day, this will all have been hashed out, a formal post by one of the moderators will have been made describing the new rules, everyone will know what's expected of them, and we can start fresh tomorrow without any more "process" posts.
