Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.

My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
> Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

Probably not.

>
> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
am.

>
> Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
> is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.
>
> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
inevitable.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>
>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.
>
> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
> am.

No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.

>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>
> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
> inevitable. 

I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:ihvk03t3vsurnelkrnq1gg2okvf0fkm31u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
>> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day 
>>> time.
>>
>> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9
>> am.
>
> No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
> is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.
>
>>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable 
>>> or
>>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>>
>> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have 
>> been
>> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was
>> inevitable.
>
> I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
> finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
quite so fussy as before.

I think moderators sometimes need to be reminded to do a bit of moderating 
and posts such as yours are helpful.  If many of the moderators are 
currently too busy to moderate, then we will need more people on the team. 
Or the users will have to get used to lengthy delays, as do sometimes appear 
on other groups. Those who are whitelisted and who carefully avoid what they 
guess to be the trigger words, will get through quickly.

Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant) may be on 
the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post going through on the 
whitelist so that a moderator can check that there isn't a flamewar going 
on.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
> quite so fussy as before.

I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:dr5l039q8pumtscfs0i7sm6jqq4e0qog5m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't
>> quite so fussy as before.
>
> I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Quite. I decided that "fraud" was a reasonably safe word to use after all.

Maybe I should return to the Moderation Team? ;0)

"The Todal"  wrote in
news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 



> 
> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
> 
> 

I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
otherwise?

-- 
Percy Picacity

Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.

My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
> Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

Probably not.

>
> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
am.

>
> Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
> is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.
>
> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
inevitable.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>
>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.
>
> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
> am.

No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.

>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>
> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
> inevitable. 

I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:ihvk03t3vsurnelkrnq1gg2okvf0fkm31u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
>> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day 
>>> time.
>>
>> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9
>> am.
>
> No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
> is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.
>
>>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable 
>>> or
>>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>>
>> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have 
>> been
>> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was
>> inevitable.
>
> I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
> finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
quite so fussy as before.

I think moderators sometimes need to be reminded to do a bit of moderating 
and posts such as yours are helpful.  If many of the moderators are 
currently too busy to moderate, then we will need more people on the team. 
Or the users will have to get used to lengthy delays, as do sometimes appear 
on other groups. Those who are whitelisted and who carefully avoid what they 
guess to be the trigger words, will get through quickly.

Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant) may be on 
the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post going through on the 
whitelist so that a moderator can check that there isn't a flamewar going 
on.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
> quite so fussy as before.

I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:dr5l039q8pumtscfs0i7sm6jqq4e0qog5m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't
>> quite so fussy as before.
>
> I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Quite. I decided that "fraud" was a reasonably safe word to use after all.

Maybe I should return to the Moderation Team? ;0)

"The Todal"  wrote in
news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 



> 
> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
> 
> 

I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
otherwise?

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
> otherwise?

Yes.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

Tony

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>"The Todal"  wrote in
>news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 

>> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
>> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
>> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
>> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
>> 
>
>I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
>otherwise?

I suspect that several who have used the word about me thought they
were insulting me :-)
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.

My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
> Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

Probably not.

>
> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
am.

>
> Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
> is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.
>
> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
inevitable.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>
>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.
>
> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
> am.

No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.

>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>
> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
> inevitable. 

I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:ihvk03t3vsurnelkrnq1gg2okvf0fkm31u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
>> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day 
>>> time.
>>
>> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9
>> am.
>
> No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
> is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.
>
>>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable 
>>> or
>>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>>
>> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have 
>> been
>> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was
>> inevitable.
>
> I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
> finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
quite so fussy as before.

I think moderators sometimes need to be reminded to do a bit of moderating 
and posts such as yours are helpful.  If many of the moderators are 
currently too busy to moderate, then we will need more people on the team. 
Or the users will have to get used to lengthy delays, as do sometimes appear 
on other groups. Those who are whitelisted and who carefully avoid what they 
guess to be the trigger words, will get through quickly.

Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant) may be on 
the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post going through on the 
whitelist so that a moderator can check that there isn't a flamewar going 
on.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
> quite so fussy as before.

I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:dr5l039q8pumtscfs0i7sm6jqq4e0qog5m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't
>> quite so fussy as before.
>
> I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Quite. I decided that "fraud" was a reasonably safe word to use after all.

Maybe I should return to the Moderation Team? ;0)

"The Todal"  wrote in
news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 



> 
> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
> 
> 

I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
otherwise?

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
> otherwise?

Yes.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

Tony

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>"The Todal"  wrote in
>news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 

>> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
>> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
>> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
>> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
>> 
>
>I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
>otherwise?

I suspect that several who have used the word about me thought they
were insulting me :-)
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
> Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

Probably not.

>
> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
am.

>
> Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
> is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.
>
> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
inevitable.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>
>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.
>
> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
> am.

No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.

>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>
> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
> inevitable. 

I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:ihvk03t3vsurnelkrnq1gg2okvf0fkm31u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
>> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day 
>>> time.
>>
>> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9
>> am.
>
> No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
> is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.
>
>>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable 
>>> or
>>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>>
>> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have 
>> been
>> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was
>> inevitable.
>
> I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
> finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
quite so fussy as before.

I think moderators sometimes need to be reminded to do a bit of moderating 
and posts such as yours are helpful.  If many of the moderators are 
currently too busy to moderate, then we will need more people on the team. 
Or the users will have to get used to lengthy delays, as do sometimes appear 
on other groups. Those who are whitelisted and who carefully avoid what they 
guess to be the trigger words, will get through quickly.

Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant) may be on 
the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post going through on the 
whitelist so that a moderator can check that there isn't a flamewar going 
on.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
> quite so fussy as before.

I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:dr5l039q8pumtscfs0i7sm6jqq4e0qog5m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't
>> quite so fussy as before.
>
> I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Quite. I decided that "fraud" was a reasonably safe word to use after all.

Maybe I should return to the Moderation Team? ;0)

"The Todal"  wrote in
news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 



> 
> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
> 
> 

I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
otherwise?

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
> otherwise?

Yes.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

Tony

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>"The Todal"  wrote in
>news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 

>> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
>> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
>> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
>> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
>> 
>
>I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
>otherwise?

I suspect that several who have used the word about me thought they
were insulting me :-)
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
> Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

Probably not.

>
> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
am.

>
> Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
> is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.
>
> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
inevitable.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>
>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.
>
> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
> am.

No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.

>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>
> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
> inevitable. 

I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:ihvk03t3vsurnelkrnq1gg2okvf0fkm31u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
>> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day 
>>> time.
>>
>> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9
>> am.
>
> No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
> is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.
>
>>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable 
>>> or
>>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>>
>> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have 
>> been
>> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was
>> inevitable.
>
> I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
> finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
quite so fussy as before.

I think moderators sometimes need to be reminded to do a bit of moderating 
and posts such as yours are helpful.  If many of the moderators are 
currently too busy to moderate, then we will need more people on the team. 
Or the users will have to get used to lengthy delays, as do sometimes appear 
on other groups. Those who are whitelisted and who carefully avoid what they 
guess to be the trigger words, will get through quickly.

Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant) may be on 
the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post going through on the 
whitelist so that a moderator can check that there isn't a flamewar going 
on.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
> quite so fussy as before.

I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:dr5l039q8pumtscfs0i7sm6jqq4e0qog5m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't
>> quite so fussy as before.
>
> I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Quite. I decided that "fraud" was a reasonably safe word to use after all.

Maybe I should return to the Moderation Team? ;0)

"The Todal"  wrote in
news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 



> 
> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
> 
> 

I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
otherwise?

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
> otherwise?

Yes.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

Tony

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>"The Todal"  wrote in
>news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 

>> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
>> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
>> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
>> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
>> 
>
>I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
>otherwise?

I suspect that several who have used the word about me thought they
were insulting me :-)
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
> Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

Probably not.

>
> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
am.

>
> Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
> is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.
>
> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
inevitable.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>
>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.
>
> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
> am.

No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.

>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>
> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
> inevitable. 

I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:ihvk03t3vsurnelkrnq1gg2okvf0fkm31u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
>> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day 
>>> time.
>>
>> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9
>> am.
>
> No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
> is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.
>
>>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable 
>>> or
>>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>>
>> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have 
>> been
>> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was
>> inevitable.
>
> I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
> finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
quite so fussy as before.

I think moderators sometimes need to be reminded to do a bit of moderating 
and posts such as yours are helpful.  If many of the moderators are 
currently too busy to moderate, then we will need more people on the team. 
Or the users will have to get used to lengthy delays, as do sometimes appear 
on other groups. Those who are whitelisted and who carefully avoid what they 
guess to be the trigger words, will get through quickly.

Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant) may be on 
the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post going through on the 
whitelist so that a moderator can check that there isn't a flamewar going 
on.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
> quite so fussy as before.

I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:dr5l039q8pumtscfs0i7sm6jqq4e0qog5m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't
>> quite so fussy as before.
>
> I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Quite. I decided that "fraud" was a reasonably safe word to use after all.

Maybe I should return to the Moderation Team? ;0)

"The Todal"  wrote in
news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 



> 
> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
> 
> 

I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
otherwise?

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
> otherwise?

Yes.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

Tony

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>"The Todal"  wrote in
>news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 

>> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
>> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
>> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
>> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
>> 
>
>I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
>otherwise?

I suspect that several who have used the word about me thought they
were insulting me :-)
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
> Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

Probably not.

>
> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
am.

>
> Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
> is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.
>
> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
inevitable.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>
>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.
>
> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
> am.

No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.

>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>
> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
> inevitable. 

I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:ihvk03t3vsurnelkrnq1gg2okvf0fkm31u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
>> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day 
>>> time.
>>
>> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9
>> am.
>
> No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
> is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.
>
>>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable 
>>> or
>>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>>
>> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have 
>> been
>> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was
>> inevitable.
>
> I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
> finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
quite so fussy as before.

I think moderators sometimes need to be reminded to do a bit of moderating 
and posts such as yours are helpful.  If many of the moderators are 
currently too busy to moderate, then we will need more people on the team. 
Or the users will have to get used to lengthy delays, as do sometimes appear 
on other groups. Those who are whitelisted and who carefully avoid what they 
guess to be the trigger words, will get through quickly.

Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant) may be on 
the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post going through on the 
whitelist so that a moderator can check that there isn't a flamewar going 
on.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
> quite so fussy as before.

I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:dr5l039q8pumtscfs0i7sm6jqq4e0qog5m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't
>> quite so fussy as before.
>
> I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Quite. I decided that "fraud" was a reasonably safe word to use after all.

Maybe I should return to the Moderation Team? ;0)

"The Todal"  wrote in
news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 



> 
> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
> 
> 

I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
otherwise?

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
> otherwise?

Yes.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

Tony

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>"The Todal"  wrote in
>news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 

>> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
>> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
>> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
>> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
>> 
>
>I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
>otherwise?

I suspect that several who have used the word about me thought they
were insulting me :-)
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
> Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

Probably not.

>
> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
am.

>
> Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
> is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.
>
> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
inevitable.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>
>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.
>
> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
> am.

No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.

>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>
> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
> inevitable. 

I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:ihvk03t3vsurnelkrnq1gg2okvf0fkm31u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
>> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day 
>>> time.
>>
>> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9
>> am.
>
> No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
> is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.
>
>>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable 
>>> or
>>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>>
>> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have 
>> been
>> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was
>> inevitable.
>
> I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
> finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
quite so fussy as before.

I think moderators sometimes need to be reminded to do a bit of moderating 
and posts such as yours are helpful.  If many of the moderators are 
currently too busy to moderate, then we will need more people on the team. 
Or the users will have to get used to lengthy delays, as do sometimes appear 
on other groups. Those who are whitelisted and who carefully avoid what they 
guess to be the trigger words, will get through quickly.

Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant) may be on 
the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post going through on the 
whitelist so that a moderator can check that there isn't a flamewar going 
on.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
> quite so fussy as before.

I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:dr5l039q8pumtscfs0i7sm6jqq4e0qog5m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't
>> quite so fussy as before.
>
> I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Quite. I decided that "fraud" was a reasonably safe word to use after all.

Maybe I should return to the Moderation Team? ;0)

"The Todal"  wrote in
news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 



> 
> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
> 
> 

I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
otherwise?

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
> otherwise?

Yes.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

Tony

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>"The Todal"  wrote in
>news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 

>> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
>> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
>> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
>> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
>> 
>
>I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
>otherwise?

I suspect that several who have used the word about me thought they
were insulting me :-)
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
> Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

Probably not.

>
> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
am.

>
> Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
> is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.
>
> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
inevitable.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>
>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.
>
> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
> am.

No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.

>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>
> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
> inevitable. 

I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:ihvk03t3vsurnelkrnq1gg2okvf0fkm31u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
>> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day 
>>> time.
>>
>> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9
>> am.
>
> No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
> is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.
>
>>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable 
>>> or
>>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>>
>> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have 
>> been
>> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was
>> inevitable.
>
> I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
> finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
quite so fussy as before.

I think moderators sometimes need to be reminded to do a bit of moderating 
and posts such as yours are helpful.  If many of the moderators are 
currently too busy to moderate, then we will need more people on the team. 
Or the users will have to get used to lengthy delays, as do sometimes appear 
on other groups. Those who are whitelisted and who carefully avoid what they 
guess to be the trigger words, will get through quickly.

Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant) may be on 
the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post going through on the 
whitelist so that a moderator can check that there isn't a flamewar going 
on.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
> quite so fussy as before.

I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:dr5l039q8pumtscfs0i7sm6jqq4e0qog5m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't
>> quite so fussy as before.
>
> I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Quite. I decided that "fraud" was a reasonably safe word to use after all.

Maybe I should return to the Moderation Team? ;0)

"The Todal"  wrote in
news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 



> 
> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
> 
> 

I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
otherwise?

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
> otherwise?

Yes.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

Tony

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>"The Todal"  wrote in
>news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 

>> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
>> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
>> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
>> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
>> 
>
>I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
>otherwise?

I suspect that several who have used the word about me thought they
were insulting me :-)
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
> Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

Probably not.

>
> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
am.

>
> Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
> is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.
>
> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
inevitable.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>
>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.
>
> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
> am.

No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.

>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>
> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
> inevitable. 

I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:ihvk03t3vsurnelkrnq1gg2okvf0fkm31u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
>> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day 
>>> time.
>>
>> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9
>> am.
>
> No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
> is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.
>
>>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable 
>>> or
>>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>>
>> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have 
>> been
>> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was
>> inevitable.
>
> I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
> finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
quite so fussy as before.

I think moderators sometimes need to be reminded to do a bit of moderating 
and posts such as yours are helpful.  If many of the moderators are 
currently too busy to moderate, then we will need more people on the team. 
Or the users will have to get used to lengthy delays, as do sometimes appear 
on other groups. Those who are whitelisted and who carefully avoid what they 
guess to be the trigger words, will get through quickly.

Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant) may be on 
the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post going through on the 
whitelist so that a moderator can check that there isn't a flamewar going 
on.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't 
> quite so fussy as before.

I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:dr5l039q8pumtscfs0i7sm6jqq4e0qog5m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>> I have made some adjustment to the trigger words list, so that it isn't
>> quite so fussy as before.
>
> I infer that citing the Fraud Act was not helpful :-)

Quite. I decided that "fraud" was a reasonably safe word to use after all.

Maybe I should return to the Moderation Team? ;0)

"The Todal"  wrote in
news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 



> 
> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
> 
> 

I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
otherwise?

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
> otherwise?

Yes.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

Tony

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>"The Todal"  wrote in
>news:56vhq4F2b4otfU1@mid.individual.net: 

>> Any word that could be used as an insult (eg fool, liar, pedant)
>> may be on the trigger words list, and this merely stops the post
>> going through on the whitelist so that a moderator can check that
>> there isn't a flamewar going on. 
>> 
>
>I have always taken "pedant" as a compliment:  do some regard it 
>otherwise?

I suspect that several who have used the word about me thought they
were insulting me :-)
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
> Are there enough moderators available for ULM?

Probably not.

>
> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.

The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
am.

>
> Over the past week ten posts were held for between 11 and 15 hours, which
> is simply outrageous even if some of those hours included unsocial ones.
>
> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.

I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
inevitable.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:17:16 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:mdqk03lni9vbt30n50aitacahumdu28fn6@4ax.com...
>
>> I see now that the last post which was manually accepted was at 8:01 am,
>> over 6 hours ago, and I believe that is far too long during the day time.
>
> The clock must be on GMT, since actually I did some moderating at about 9 
> am.

No, the clocks look just fine.  A post which was held since 08:25:01 today
is now shown to have been manually accepted nearly seven hours later.

>> My thanks to the moderators for what they do, but I would ask that they
>> discuss and consider whether the present service levels are acceptable or
>> whether some improvements are warranted and are possible.
>
> I hesitate to point the finger but I think one or two moderators have been 
> too busy to do any moderating at all for a while.  I suppose this was 
> inevitable. 

I has only asked whether any changes were needed or possible and not for
finger pointing.  Maybe you and your brethren would consider this.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:ihvk03t3vsurnel