On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:35:07 +0000, Pedt <"\"@
@\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote:

>You appear to be suggesting that urcm operates on
>a) You're on the auto/pass list and your post goes through on the nod 
>(unless you hit a trigger word perhaps, it's not been mentioned about 
>triggers);
>b) if you are not in a) then your post goes through a moderator who 
>makes a decision on the post;
>c) people can be put on a watch list over and above b)
>d) blacklisted.

That is how I interpreted Simon's explaination.

>I'd be interested in a rationale for b) not being appropriate.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On 26 Oct 2009 19:43:08 GMT, Simon Brooke
<stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:

>>>You appear to be suggesting that urcm operates on a) You're on the
>>>auto/pass list and your post goes through on the nod (unless you hit a
>>>trigger word perhaps, it's not been mentioned about triggers);
>>>b) if you are not in a) then your post goes through a moderator who
>>>makes a decision on the post;
>>>c) people can be put on a watch list over and above b) d) blacklisted.
>> 
>> That is how I interpreted Simon's explanation.
>
>That's correct.

So urcm has a:
- pass-list
- approval queue
- watch-list
- block-list

How does the watch-list work?
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:51:48 +0000, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>On 26 Oct 2009 19:43:08 GMT, Simon Brooke
><stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>You appear to be suggesting that urcm operates on a) You're on the
>>>>auto/pass list and your post goes through on the nod (unless you hit a
>>>>trigger word perhaps, it's not been mentioned about triggers);
>>>>b) if you are not in a) then your post goes through a moderator who
>>>>makes a decision on the post;
>>>>c) people can be put on a watch list over and above b) d) blacklisted.
>>> 
>>> That is how I interpreted Simon's explanation.
>>
>>That's correct.
>
>So urcm has a:
>- pass-list
>- approval queue
>- watch-list
>- block-list
>
>How does the watch-list work?


You do not need to know

There was never any intention that the management of URCM would be
fair, open, and honest.

--     
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and
every moderation decision is unexplained and final. "
Simon Brooke (Moderator)

On 26/10/2009 19:51, Tom Crispin asked:
> How does the watch-list work?

A moderator observes a pattern in the posts made by a particular poster 
that suggest that this poster is likely to cause problems.  This is, of 
course, subjective.

The moderator shares his observations with the other moderators, who 
will discuss whether the concerns are valid and whether the poster 
should be placed on the watch list.  If there is agreement, then the 
user will be placed on that list.

When we are moderating posts, any post from a poster on the watch list 
will have a big red notice at the top of it reminding us that this user 
is on the watch list.  We will then be particularly alert to anything 
dubious about the post, particularly with reference to the poster's 
history, and will be more likely to discuss the post with the other 
moderators before passing it.

I think this is the right way to go about it, but am open to alternative 
suggestions.

-- 
Danny Colyer  <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down.  This should be every boy's 
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

Danny Colyer wrote:
> On 26/10/2009 19:51, Tom Crispin asked:
>> How does the watch-list work?
> 
> A moderator observes a pattern in the posts made by a particular poster
> that suggest that this poster is likely to cause problems.  This is, of
> course, subjective.
> 
> The moderator shares his observations with the other moderators, who
> will discuss whether the concerns are valid and whether the poster
> should be placed on the watch list.  If there is agreement, then the
> user will be placed on that list.
> 
> When we are moderating posts, any post from a poster on the watch list
> will have a big red notice at the top of it reminding us that this user
> is on the watch list.  We will then be particularly alert to anything
> dubious about the post, particularly with reference to the poster's
> history, and will be more likely to discuss the post with the other
> moderators before passing it.
> 
> I think this is the right way to go about it, but am open to alternative
> suggestions.
> 

It seems like an amazing amount of hassle for the moderators behind the
scenes, tbh. I'm used to just writing something, sending it to (in my
case) ulm and if it doesn't show for a day or so checking the moderation
queue to see what happened. It goes to show there's more to everything
than it seems at first glance when you get down to how it actually works.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:37:59 +0000, Danny Colyer
 wrote:

>On 26/10/2009 19:51, Tom Crispin asked:
>> How does the watch-list work?
>
>A moderator observes a pattern in the posts made by a particular poster 
>that suggest that this poster is likely to cause problems.  This is, of 
>course, subjective.
>
>The moderator shares his observations with the other moderators, who 
>will discuss whether the concerns are valid and whether the poster 
>should be placed on the watch list.  If there is agreement, then the 
>user will be placed on that list.
>
>When we are moderating posts, any post from a poster on the watch list 
>will have a big red notice at the top of it reminding us that this user 
>is on the watch list.  We will then be particularly alert to anything 
>dubious about the post, particularly with reference to the poster's 
>history, and will be more likely to discuss the post with the other 
>moderators before passing it.

That is a useful explaination, Danny.  Thank you for your time.

Is there any way that a poster will know what list they are on other
than making a good guess?
Post approved instantly - pass-list
Post usually approved in minutes - approval-queue
Post takes several hours in some cases - watch-list
Post never appears - block-list

And is the watch-list, distinct from the approval queue, an additional
reason why some posts appeared very quickly and others took several
hours?
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

Tom Crispin wrote:

> Is there any way that a poster will know what list they are on other
> than making a good guess?

FSVO "good", though as to whether you're on a list... well, "so what?"
would be my personal reaction.

> Post approved instantly - pass-list

or mod having a window open on a virtually empty queue and taking a few
seconds to click "approve".   This happened to you the other day and led
you to what looked like a not-so-good guess.

> Post usually approved in minutes - approval-queue

or email is not always as instantaneous as we'd like.

> Post takes several hours in some cases - watch-list

Or no mods having time right there and then.  We do have other stuff to
do, and you don't need to be on a watch-list for things to go back for
more thought.  Do quite a few of those and you may graduate there, but
in any case being on the watch-list doesn't guarantee long approval
times.  If a watched poster writes something completely uncontentious
then it should drop through quickly.

> And is the watch-list, distinct from the approval queue, an additional
> reason why some posts appeared very quickly and others took several
> hours?

I note you're using past-tense there, so as of the date of your original
wondering IIRC (ICBW) there wasn't anyone in the watch-list at that point.

But aside from the block list (when you'd be wasting your time posting)
I wonder how useful the information would be in any case?

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:47:38 +0000, Peter Clinch
 wrote:

>But aside from the block list (when you'd be wasting your time posting)
>I wonder how useful the information would be in any case?

If I knew that a post of mine was likely to take several hours to be
approved I might not bother answering queries for fear of my delayed
post being rejected on the grounds of repetition as someone else
replied first.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

Tom Crispin wrote:

> If I knew that a post of mine was likely to take several hours to be
> approved I might not bother answering queries for fear of my delayed
> post being rejected on the grounds of repetition as someone else
> replied first.

Even if you're on the watch-list that's typically no reason for 
hours of delay: if what you're saying is straightforward then there 
would be no problems passing it, so...

 >> What's a good tyre for doing A

 > I use Brand X Supers for that, bloggs.com have a good price

We don't need high levels of consultation, checking, double 
checking, peeking at bloggs.com for hidden messages etc. to see 
that's not an issue because we know Tom really uses stuff and 
passes on straightforward, honest advice on such matters.

If it's a complex multi point post about something where the 
watched poster has caused us some headaches in the past the watch 
list is /then/ a useful thing to put some "be careful" red ink at 
the top, not necessarily a "don't pass this without checking with 
everyone first" alert.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/