On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 03:19:46PM -0600, Donald Good wrote:
> >>> Louise Lawrence <[log in to unmask]> 01/14 4:35 PM >>> wrote
>
>>Definitely.  I'm *solely* speaking about situations where a subscriber
>>has *not yet* done anything, however.  Using review as a
>>*preventative*, or monitoring measure beforehand, when one can see
>>things heating up on list, or even if there has been some sort of
[...]
>>This way I will have been able to keep the list peaceful,
>>and no one has become upset by their knowledge of having been placed
>>on review for a "potential", for something they have not done.
>
> What you are talking about here is a probationary period for new
> subscribers.  I agree with others who have said that it is better to
> be candid with your subscribers.  If you put this probationary policy
> in the welcome or new subscriber response so that it is understood up
> front that it applies to all new subscribers, then (IMHO) most users
> will not be offended or defensive.  Those that are will likely be the
> ones that you don't want.

No, Louise is talking about the same thing I see on my list. Some
long-term subscribers have "hot buttons," and I can often see the
potential for a flame war before it happens. Being able to silently
review the more volatile folks -- who may normally be valued
contributors to the list, and not on review -- can head off trouble.
If it never starts, no one is the wiser that they were temporarily set
to "review."

The alternatives of possibly letting a flame war start, or preventive
review with notice to the subscriber, have serious disadvantages. The
disadvantages of the first alternative are obvious, and the second is
likely to offend the reviewed subscribers who, after all, have done
nothing -- yet.


A related question: Are subscribers on a moderated list notified that
their messages have been sent to the moderator? If so, what is the
procedure for turning this notification off?

-rex
--
Photons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic.