Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:59:56  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:59:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:18:03 +0000, Tom Crispin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paranoia?  No.  The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list is
>>>> enirely defensible.  Concealing its implementation, or attempting to
>>>> conceal its implementation, by censoring posts (if that was the
>>>> intent) is indefensible.
>>>
>>> Er, Tom?  It was in the debate around the RFD.  It's a normal feature
>>> of moderated newsgroups.
>>
>> That is why I said, "The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list
>> is enirely defensible."
>
>On uk.legal.moderated we have a blacklist (currently empty), a watchlist
>(quite a few names, intended to remind the moderators that an apparently
>innocuous message might contain a coded insult directed at another poster)
>and a whitelist (huge, but the names can come off and go back on depending
>on how animated a discussion happens to be and whether there is a risk of it
>deteriorating into a slanging match).

Just for reference, TomC, I think I am on the watch list for ulm.

I don't mind that.

I don't think I am being censored if a post of mine to that group gets 
refused.

Sure, I might moan post the event as you and other people are doing but 
is it really a big deal?  If your (or my) words are so important we 
should rephrase and try again rather than moan although the initial 
rejection can be baffling.

Chin up, Tom

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days