On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:48:17 +0000, 
   	       Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:56:39 -0000, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than others. 
>>Surely they should not be. Troublesome is a very subjective concept anyway. 
>
> I think you're wrong there, in this specific: if somebody has a
> lengthy history of posting offensive content, and virtually no history
> of posting problem-free content, then it is reasonable to blacklist
> them.  

I think Todal is talking about the awkward squad - those that do have
reasonable signal but also generate, or lead to the generation of, noise.

From his explanation of how ulm works he has no problems with
blacklisting and whitelisting of posters.  There is obviously those
who are neither black or whitelisted which must be reviewed.  He also
mentions a watch-list - which I assume highlights posts from certain
people (the troublesome posters) in the third group.  If he believes
that the troublesome posters should be treated no differently - then
surely he must think the watch-list is a bad thing.

-- 
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_