"Leo" wrote:

That's just weird.

You're telling me.

When your posts were rejected, were you advised of the specific reason
for rejection? Given an opportunity to explain, or revise the
offending post?

Yes, I was. One rejected posting I had actually intended to be sent to the
moderators (who saw it anyway) so I saw no reason to resubmit it. Others, I
simply opted not to change my comments, due to the timeliness of the
discussion or what not. I bounced my offending posts off a friend of mine,
who thought while my rhetoric was a little strong, my posts were not
offensive in any way. (He's absolutely right -- I have strongly held
opinions on subjects, and am not afraid to express them.)


And where was the 'three strikes' rule documented - I
read over the charter just after the group was established, and I
don't recall that being stated.

It isn't stated anywhere. I never heard of it until I received the "you are
suspended" email.


I'm all for moderated groups, normally - they provide valuable
filtering of off-topic and malicious posts.

Yes, exactly. .telecom is an excellent example of that, back in the 90's. I
haven't read it in years (I'm pretty much out of the telecom segment these
days) but in all the time I participated in that forum, I can't say Pat was
ever unfair in his moderation practices. Of course, he rejected dozens of my
postings, but I never experienced any silly bans.


It is silly, really. Anyone with any net.knowledge can have an unlimited
number of names, IP addresses, etc. There's really no way to "ban" someone.
I could still be posting there today, if I really wanted to.