Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

19032Re: [infoguys-list] Re: [NNPI] Investigators needed for W/C Surveillance- Gil...

Expand Messages
  • Bob Hrodey
    Jun 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On 6/24/2013 11:18 AM, RickyG wrote:
      > I understand the gripe.
      > My only issue with this is that apparently there are more moderators here than just myself. The only posts that I have noticed that seemed to have gotten through by the other moderators was SPAM that I deleted from the group. So, if the other moderators are not going to help me out a little, then why are they moderators?
      > Okay, if the other moderators don't want to moderate the group, that is fine with me. Give up your moderator status, and I'll assign someone at my office to just watch the group daily and put the legitimate posts through. There are times when I simply can not get to the group to put posts though. It is not like I am the only moderator here.
      **Agree in part, disagree in part.**
      **I'm with Sue and with everyone else who feels that the usefulness of
      these lists (note that I am NOT singling out infoguys) is being
      emasculated by poorly thought out and/or executed moderation.**
      **We see this all the time... We'll download e-mail and along comes a
      block of five, ten or fifteen messages from "Group X" which seeks
      assistance in East Armpit, NJ tonight! June 23rd. Only trouble is the
      message was released by the moderator on June 25th and that's when we're
      first seeing it. There used to be an "espionage-like" group run by a
      so-called computer scientist. She would frequently pull this crap and
      then excuse it by saying the internet screwed up and the messages were
      "trapped someplace." Apparently this so-called computer scientist had
      not learned how to analyze full message headers. Had she known how to do
      that, she'd have realized that most of the folks on her list could do
      exactly that and thought she was a self-righteous, holier than thou
      liar**... but I digress.**
      **For these lists to be be both moderated in the present form of the
      term moderation and remain effective in their primary mission: timely
      delivery of information and locating of subs to handle assists, one of
      two things must happen:**
      **1) somebody has to monitor the lists 24/7 and proactively moderate.
      Anything else is a joke, or**
      **2) switch to "reactive moderation" by posting (at time of list joining
      and perhaps an automated message once per week) the list rules which
      shall be clear, concise and unambiguous. Remove the need for message
      approval for everyone. The first time you screw up, you're placed in
      purgatory where your posts will be moderated and MAY be approved the
      same day or maybe not, for 30 days. The second offense is a capital
      offense and you are banned from the list. No whining, no crying. We're
      all supposedly adults.**
      **Life has choices, choices have consequences. The choices we have are
      the result of the choices we've made!

      The rules, by the way, do not have to include "works and plays well with
      others," "no criticizing others (computer puke was great on that one,
      except for her own soap boxing)"

      I would not tolerate out and out slander such as calling somebody's
      mother or wife a whore (unless you post video or a scanned receipt
      backing it up), or calling somebody a thief, etc. Just the facts, Maam
      and let us figure it out.

      I've always felt that by moderating a group, the moderator/listowner was
      buying into liability that they needn't buy into. If you run this
      unmoderated and I post that John Q. Public is pedophile who lives at
      4521 Main St, East Armpit, NJ and he isn't... well, my bad. If he
      finds out about it and suffers a loss, he can certainly go after me. If
      I post that and the moderator here let's it slip through - and everyone
      knows that each post is personally approved by a moderator - hasn't that
      moderator just bought into my liability? I mean, he (allegedly) read
      it, considered it and then published it. I think the situation is
      analogous to that of a newspaper publisher. Anyone can say anything
      about anyone but once it's approved for publication and you cannot prove
      it you have a problem. So why - other than some computer scientist
      control freaks need to feel "wanted" and "needed" would you every stick
      your head on the chopping block?



      Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
      Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
      Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, & P.A.W.L.I.
      Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
      email: inquiry@... or rth@...
      Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic