On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:43:28 +0000, smr  wrote:
> 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.

Sure but Todal has said that ulm also use a watch-list - which must work
something similar to what Danny describes above.  The watch-list is an
aid to moderation no more.

-- 
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_