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.

Fair enough but one should also factor in pre-existing biases when
considering people's early reactions.  I think Tom would be the first
to say he was an opponent of moderation in this case - which will 
inevitably colour his perceptions of how the moderation process works.

-- 
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_