A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group

In article ,
Nigel Cliffe wrote:
One thought; do "whitelists" still work for Usenet moderation?

Yes. They're a standard approach and one we should adopt.

A moderator could promote someone to the whitelist as
they had been a person of good standing. Thereafter postings from that
person go through automatically without requiring the moderator to act.
Obviously there is a risk that the "approved" person steps out of line, but
that just means the moderators have to remove the "approved" status after
the event and revert to moderating postings from that individual.

Yes.

If years served is anything to go by, I've probably been around the group
far longer than most (over 20 years on usenet).

Is that you volunteering to be a moderator ? :-)

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On 2009-05-22, Nigel Cliffe wrote:

One thought; do "whitelists" still work for Usenet moderation? Or are they
too easily abused ? A moderator could promote someone to the whitelist as
they had been a person of good standing. Thereafter postings from that
person go through automatically without requiring the moderator to act.
Obviously there is a risk that the "approved" person steps out of line, but
that just means the moderators have to remove the "approved" status after
the event and revert to moderating postings from that individual.

I think that's the usual practice.

On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:06:12 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Adam Funk" wrote in message
news
On 2009-05-21, Ian Jackson wrote:

Would someone who is familiar with the process like to start it up?

Yes. I'm in discussions with Control and the Committee. I should be
able to post either a draft of an RFD (just here), or a full formal
RFD (to uk.net.news.config and .announce), very shortly.

Looking forward to it; thanks.

Yay! So am I.

But I betcha there are those who are not :-)



Do you mean Lou Knee?

I can assure you that I am.

Lets go for it
--

The BMA view of helmets:

The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries. This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:26:53 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 19:39:53 +0100, Judith M Smith
wrote:

Coincidence or nym shift?

Easy. You nym-shifted. Again.

HTH

Guy


Yes - it was intentional

Chapman - Lou Knee - tries to hide fact

judith - judith m : same details no attempt to hide fact


Sorry Not in the same category


I have received some particular email to my private email address
which I would rather not - hence I have changed my details

Is that OK with you?

At least I am honest about things I do and say

Did you post as Lou Knee?


--

Posts from IP Address: 80.254.146.36

to URC over 6 years = 7

Guy Chapman : 5
Lou Knee: 2

Coincidence or nym shift?

On Thu, 21 May 2009 09:42:12 -0700 (PDT), RudiL
wrote:

On 21 May, 17:28, Alistair Gunn wrote:
Ian Jackson twisted the electrons to say:

We need to think about who we should have as moderators. *My
preference would be to have a large moderation panel, say at least six
people.

Is it possible to have a system whereby there's more than one moderator,
and approval is required from more than one but less than all of the
panel?

Electing the panel (and any future replacements for it) is likely to be a
"fun" experience too! *:-(
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

I vote for letting Ian be one moderator, and he gets to choose/invite
a second. Then the two of them by mutual agreement choose and invite
the third, and so on until there are a suitable number (the moderators
themselves to decide how many that is). I don't know what the normal
procedure for a moderated group is

Regards,
Rudi


Yes quite right - we wouldn't want any real volunteers and then
voting or any such thing.

What are Ian Jackson's credentials?

"The rest of what you write is nonsense worthy of trolls so I'm going
to killfile you. " This in a reply to Mark Goodge who is the current
moderator of uk.religion.christian.

So quite balanced and willing to see another's point of view.

He is I understand also an active Liberal Democrat.


Yep - lets go for him - stuff this pretence at fairness and balance.

Also he can be quite honest sometimes:
"But I am so embittered and stressed
about this whole subject now that I should not be one of the
organisers."

(a different subject)

--

Posts from IP Address: 80.254.146.36

to URC over 6 years = 7

Guy Chapman : 5
Lou Knee: 2

Coincidence or nym shift?

Ian Jackson wrote:
In article ,
Nigel Cliffe wrote:
One thought; do "whitelists" still work for Usenet moderation?

Yes. They're a standard approach and one we should adopt.

[.....]

If years served is anything to go by, I've probably been around the
group far longer than most (over 20 years on usenet).

Is that you volunteering to be a moderator ? :-)


I'd consider the possibility. Depends in part on who else is moderating,
the moderation policy, and the amount of work it generates.

If/when the moderated group proposal gets further, feel free to contact me
via email.



regards

- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/