On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:32:39 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

> On 26/10/09 13:15, Simon Brooke wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:55:24 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> The effect it to make whitelisted
>>> posters appear to be more valuable contributors.
>>
>> Tough! That is not our problem.
> 
> At the moment it's not a problem for me either, I don't subscribe to
> non-moderated groups, and the only moderated lists I use are
> announce-only lists.
> 
> But I'm interested to see how well new created moderated groups are
> working, and what effect they are having on existing non-moderated
> groups - actual or perceived cliquism included.

Claims of cliquism are inevitable, and not something which I believe we 
should be unduly concerned about. If the moderated group attracts lively 
and friendly discussion, it's bound to develop into a group of friends, 
anyway, even if it didn't start that way.

I think all we can (and should) do is seek to promote that lively and 
friendly discussion. The inevitable whines and complaints of those who 
refuse to moderate their own behaviour and must consequently be moderated 
by others are just that - inevitable - and those who by their own 
behaviour exclude themselves will always seek someone else to blame.

C'est la vie. Get on with it.

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and 
every moderation decision is unexplained and final.