Sun, 26 Nov 1995 07:10:43 +0200
|
I guess I'll never understand Anglo-Saxons :-) All right, so you want an
option to be able to edit people's postings in their back while they
naively think that nothing of the sort is happening. Then one day one of
your victims will find out and let the world know, and boy will you be
embarrassed. Then your list will spend a fortnight talking about
censorship and similarly fascinating and on-topic issues. Switching to
full moderation would incur the risk that people decide Big Brother took
over and leave the list, so you won't do it. Instead you'll apologize
until you're red in the face and swear never to do it again and could
everyone please stop sending the hate mail (yes, and above all, could
everyone please stop cc:ing *ME* on the hate mail because, sorry to
disappoint you but I'm not the Anti-Christ pulling the ropes in the
background). So, why don't I just save myself the time and not bother
implementing it. If I wanted to use REVIEW for newcomers, I'd make it the
default option and explain in the welcome message that all newcomers are
set to REVIEW until they've posted X messages or for Y days, whichever
takes longer, and every time they post rubbish that I have to filter,
they start over with X and Y. Then if a newcomer seems sincere and
clueful I'd reset the flag right away, and he'd be very happy. Even if he
decided to go public about this favour, there wouldn't be any particular
problem, assuming of course that what he posted WAS interesting and on
topic. Technically these two systems accomplish exactly the same thing,
operationally they are perfectly legitimate and consistent with the goal
of keeping people on the list talking about what the list is about, but
culturally one is called "segregation" whereas the other is "fair". The
"fair" system is already implemented and doesn't involve the risk of a
sudden flame fest on your list. I don't see any advantage to the
segregatory system.
Eric
|
|
|