I would hate to see an established forum which includes such important
players disappear or degenerate, so I think the time has come for this
group to become moderated.
I don't think it need be an either/or choice. It can be Ken Caldeira
and other moderators, so that the time and blame are shared. It can be
some people moderated (e.g. newbies and rule-violators) and most not.
Or most could be denied and a few allowed (which would most certainly
not include me).
Many of the discussions here are interesting, insightful and valuable,
but they are also outside the guidelines. I suggest a second,
unmoderated group for these. It can have the same purpose and
guidelines sans guideline #3 ("ALL POSTS MUST ADD NEW INFORMATION.").
Maybe call it "geo-re-engineering". Providing this alternative should
take the bulk of the time and social burden off the moderators. It may
even be a sufficient solution in itself.
Kind regards,
Brian Alano
On Dec 19, 2:00 pm, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> I think there are two basic options:
>
> 1. I can moderate this group more ruthlessly and reject any message that
> does not actually transmit new relevant information or raise a question that
> has not already been discussed at length. ( In this case, I will make many
> enemies as I reject messages from well-intentioned people. ) I will not have
> time to give each submitter of a rejected posting my reasons for rejecting
> the posting.
>
> 2. I can abandon this group to people with much more time on their hands.
>
> So, for me, the question is down to tightening the reigns, or letting them
> go.
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
