Moderating groups (was Grrr! )

[Keith Robison]

Tom Schneider (toms at kaylor.ncifcrf.gov) wrote:
: Please note the policy in the FAQ about irrelevant postings.  (The faq is at
: ftp://ftp.ncifcrf.gov/pub/delila/bionet.info-theory.faq.)

: We have the option of making bionet.info-theory be moderated.  Although this
: means that irrelevant postings won't be seen on the group, it has two
: disadvantages:

: 1.  Someone has to look at all the postings and approve or deny posting.  I
: would suggest that in questionable cases the posting should be approved.
: Advertisements and silly questions would not be.

: 2.  There would be a delay in the postings, depending on how quickly the
: person can do their moderation duties.

: I have not wanted to be the person to do the moderation, but might be
: convinced otherwise if a lot of people are be for it.  On the other hand I do
: send out private mail to people about their irrelevant postings, and if I
: were to moderate, I would simply deep six the posting and be done with it.

: So what is the general opinion?

One solution to consider (though I have no clue if the code exists)
would a simple scheme of automoderation:  

	1. We consider b.i-t a simple little club (it is after all! :-).  
	2. Member's posts are automatically passed through.
	3. You get to be a member by making _one_ on-topic post.

In other words, the program would do what many moderators probably
do on a group like this -- automatically pass through the regulars,
and give scrutiny to the newcomers.  The first post ever made by
a person might be slightly delayed, but otherwise the system would
be minimally intrusive and require little work by the moderator.
(the system might also automatically send the group's FAQ to
a first time poster regardless of whether it is accepted or not)  

Keith Robison
Harvard University
Department of Cellular and Developmental Biology
Department of Genetics / HHMI

robison at mito.harvard.edu