On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:55:24 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

> On 26/10/09 11:42, Andy Leighton wrote:
> 
>> I honestly don't understand why you are so het up about this.  The only
>> possible ramifications are that some people get their posts
>> auto-approved (so they hit the group more quickly*)
> 
> By the time a moderator considers a post from someone who is effectively
> on the greylist they may decide the post does not add value and reject
> it, because a similar point has already been made by someone on the
> whilelist who has jumped the queue. The effect it to make whitelisted
> posters appear to be more valuable contributors.

Tough!

That is not our problem. Our job is not to institute some abstract notion 
of fairness between posters. We can't do that and we should not try.

Our job description, in its entirety, is as follows:

  "Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil, 
  pleasant, and of interest to cyclists. 

  The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively 
  feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group."

That's all. That's all we do, that's all we're authorised to do, that's 
all we can do.

So long as the group remains '...civil, pleasant, and of interest to 
cyclists...' we have done our job. Take your notions of abstract justice 
up with someone else - it is not our problem.

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/

	Morning had broken. I found a rather battered tube of Araldite
	resin in the bottom of the toolbag.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:55:31 +0000, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>This may be a pick up for Mark though I doubt he wants the jms in his 
>church either.

I expect the "Church" of Scientology would be a logical choice for
this one.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt