USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives
Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2007-09 > 1189548599
From: "DC & Alice Allen" <>
Subject: Re: [ABChat] GC and Penalties
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:09:59 -0700
References: <187863.96702.qm@web80611.mail.mud.yahoo.com><009801c7f4b6$6969e000$6401a8c0@Greta>
In-Reply-To: <009801c7f4b6$6969e000$6401a8c0@Greta>
With my limited experience as a DISCUSS co-moderator, for the most part the moderation rules set up by Scott seemed to work fairly well for most list members. There were a few who had problems keeping the lid on, but there was also a lot going on at the time to provoke them.
All the Rootsweb lists are set up with a "moderated" box should the list admin deem it necessary to moderate any list members. It simply means that they cannot post to the list without a pass-through from the admin. In effect, that makes them "read-only" members of the list. It was George's & my practice to allow posts through from moderated members that were acceptable in terms of the list rules. Some admin's may not do that, I don't know. This has been my only experience with putting someone on "moderated" status, I don't have these problems with any of my county or surname lists.
AliceA
USGenWeb Project CC for
Marshall Co., KS
Geauga Co., OH
Seneca Co., OH
Clark Co., WA
NENC CC Rep
DISCUSS List co-moderator
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 9/11/2007 at 3:57 PM wrote:
>Does anyone know if the GC has a target for "turn around." i.e., for
>making
>a decision in the cases it hears?
>
>I think we need to be open to revising the penalties again. The goal is
>not
>to punish but to keep the lists functioning in a way that promotes
>participation and the exchange of ideas about issues. What I've heard is
>that the current penalties have not been effective, but maybe that's not
>so.
>Those of you who have been on more national lists for longer periods of
>time
>might think about what has proved effective or ineffective, and share your
>thoughts.
>
>Remember, the draft says these are "guidelines, not requirements." What is
>actually done will depend on the specific situation. Should we recommend a
>range instead, e.g., three days to a month? Should we identify the current
>guidelines as 'extremes'?
>
>Also we need to be careful how we use the words "moderation" and
>"read-only"
>and "banned." Nowhere does the draft recommend banning someone from a
>list.
>Since all the lists with the exception of Discuss are archived, we could
>only "ban" someone from it. A good idea? I don't think so, but what do
>others think? The most severe form of discipline is being placed on
>"read-only" status in the case of lists that ordinarily allow everyone to
>post.
>
>If anyone wants to suggest revised wording for this section (4b), please
>do.
>It would help if you use the subject line "Section 4b."
>
>Greta
>
>
This thread: