Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated
wrote: On 10 Jan 2007 15:33:42 -0800, "KC4UAI" wrote: an_old_friend wrote: KC4UAI wrote: wrote: snip you missed it I object to the fact that one of the pronent (paul) of the moderated aserts from himself preveledges that he attacks me for for when I do the same thing particaularly when this person proposes to be a moderator One on the team of many, and hopefully more folks will be willing to help with the moderation tasks. snip Second, are you saying that you don't think the criteria used to evaluate prospective postings are acceptable or that you don't think it will be used fairly? I don't know that I understand the criteria so I don't know/. some RRAP poster such Dave Heil have argued that My sexuality is relavant to RRAP as somehow reflecting on my trustworthness and other charter related isses I conceed he has SOME point in this but how your crtieria would deal with this I don't know. Given the inclusion in the moderating team a man that has expressed strong antiBLGT views I don't realy excpect even handed treament I would not expect that any of this would be "in play" in a new group. Read the proposed criteria and decide for yourself. I for one don't intend to be heavy handed in the moderation. Stay on topic and be respectful to others and I'm not going to reject your posts. snip Nowhere does the proposed policy list "disagreement with the moderator's personal views" as grounds for rejection of posts. so what? your moderator are indeed stil human Thus the appeals process. I don't expect that we will always get it 100% right the first time, but I hope we can keep things in the center of the road most of the time by getting a number of folks all looking at it objectively. You and I have had debates on these forums in the past. have we realy? I honestly don't recall any Perhaps we haven't, but I thought I was responding to a different person "an old friend" with whom I recall having a few debates over the last year. I cannot speak for the whole team, nor can I address posts of yours I haven't read, but I don't seem to recall any of your posts that I would have rejected based on the conditions in the proposed RFD. where I recall post of my own that I would HOPE you would rejected I would also HOPe that I would not find need to resort to those tactics I hope that if the RFD ends up generating the new group that merely the threat of being moderated would keep things under control and the actual moderation task will be very limited. Indeed from reading Ruals Post I believe I am personaly am one of the targets of this effort. Indeed Paul seem to begin to complain about RRAP when I choose to finaly RESPOND in something like kind to the treatment that he began to object I can recall posts and private email from Pual derected at my posts and I saw no posts from him comending the posts that drove to those unpleasent tactics Having been involved in the formation of the RFD and involved in the debate of the moderation policy, I don't think any of these personal issues matter to the proposed group and certainly is not part of any discussions the proposed moderators have had by my mail records. I for one would not stand by and let personal differences knowingly impact moderation decisions by me or others in the team. This is why the appeal process in the RFD was included and why we are even now appealing for more volunteers to help with the moderation tasks. -= bob =- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Were the moderated newsgroup proponents just blowing smoke? | Policy | |||
VOTE, Moderated or Free Speech? | Policy | |||
Conversion To Moderated Group | Policy |