I seem to go between being autoposted and moderated.  After being autoposted 
for my posts a couple of weeks ago, I am now moderated on the posts I made 
today (which were on house ownership issues)

I don't object to being moderated, but would like to know what I have done 
in a post to be returned to moderation. If I have used 'inappropriate words' 
that kick the moderation software to act, it would be helpful to know, so 
that I can avoid such words.

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:05:17 -0000, Helen put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>I seem to go between being autoposted and moderated.  After being autoposted 
>for my posts a couple of weeks ago, I am now moderated on the posts I made 
>today (which were on house ownership issues)
>
>I don't object to being moderated, but would like to know what I have done 
>in a post to be returned to moderation. If I have used 'inappropriate words' 
>that kick the moderation software to act, it would be helpful to know, so 
>that I can avoid such words.

If there was a publisly available list of such words, then it would be
pointless having it as those likely to fall foul of it would simply
find other ways of saying the same ting - eg, by using alternate
spellings or synonyms.

Mark
-- 
Visit: http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones
Listen: http://www.goodge.co.uk/files/dweeb.mp3 - you'll love it!

Helen wrote:
> I seem to go between being autoposted and moderated.  After being autoposted 
> for my posts a couple of weeks ago, I am now moderated on the posts I made 
> today (which were on house ownership issues)
> 
> I don't object to being moderated, but would like to know what I have done 
> in a post to be returned to moderation. If I have used 'inappropriate words' 
> that kick the moderation software to act, it would be helpful to know, so 
> that I can avoid such words.
> 
> 
IIUC, it may be simply that the part of the original post that you are 
responding to had one of these words - it may not have been you at all!

The system checks the whole of the post and not just the words you have 
added.

Thus one norty word in the OP and every following posts that included 
that part of the original would be manually moderated - included any 
posted by moderators themselves (who aren't any whiter than white...)

-- 
Sue

SAFSD OGSAO SAFOI IFSOS KDSAO IOIAS MSIOS DIOIS FIOSF ISFIO SFOIS FOISF 
DPOSU ERJOJ REEIO ETJOI TREIT IIETO ETJEE ++

Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:05:17  
uk.net.news.moderation Helen 

>I seem to go between being autoposted and moderated.  After being autoposted
>for my posts a couple of weeks ago, I am now moderated on the posts I made
>today (which were on house ownership issues)
>
>I don't object to being moderated, but would like to know what I have done
>in a post to be returned to moderation. If I have used 'inappropriate words'
>that kick the moderation software to act, it would be helpful to know, so
>that I can avoid such words.

Think of it another way.  To the best of my knowledge I have always been 
manual and prefer it that way because I don't have to double think :)

-- 
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:15:05 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mark Goodge 

>On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:05:17 -0000, Helen put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>I seem to go between being autoposted and moderated.  After being autoposted
>>for my posts a couple of weeks ago, I am now moderated on the posts I made
>>today (which were on house ownership issues)
>>
>>I don't object to being moderated, but would like to know what I have done
>>in a post to be returned to moderation. If I have used 'inappropriate words'
>>that kick the moderation software to act, it would be helpful to know, so
>>that I can avoid such words.
>
>If there was a publisly available list of such words, then it would be
>pointless having it as those likely to fall foul of it would simply
>find other ways of saying the same ting - eg, by using alternate
>spellings or synonyms.

There was a list published here.  It may, of course, have changed.

-- 
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
news:dgpj02pd3grilu1mmrekoipfc485n25687@news.markshouse.net...
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:05:17 -0000, Helen put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>I seem to go between being autoposted and moderated.  After being 
>>autoposted
>>for my posts a couple of weeks ago, I am now moderated on the posts I made
>>today (which were on house ownership issues)
>>
>>I don't object to being moderated, but would like to know what I have done
>>in a post to be returned to moderation. If I have used 'inappropriate 
>>words'
>>that kick the moderation software to act, it would be helpful to know, so
>>that I can avoid such words.
>
> If there was a publisly available list of such words, then it would be
> pointless having it as those likely to fall foul of it would simply
> find other ways of saying the same ting - eg, by using alternate
> spellings or synonyms.
>

I'm not asking for that, for the reasons you state.

It would be useful if the mods stated why you are on mod when you are 
previously not.

I don't think I am a controversial poster, most of my posts are on very 
boring legal topics.

Helen wrote:
> "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
> news:dgpj02pd3grilu1mmrekoipfc485n25687@news.markshouse.net...
> 
>>On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:05:17 -0000, Helen put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>
>>
>>>I seem to go between being autoposted and moderated.  After being 
>>>autoposted
>>>for my posts a couple of weeks ago, I am now moderated on the posts I made
>>>today (which were on house ownership issues)
>>>
>>>I don't object to being moderated, but would like to know what I have done
>>>in a post to be returned to moderation. If I have used 'inappropriate 
>>>words'
>>>that kick the moderation software to act, it would be helpful to know, so
>>>that I can avoid such words.
>>
>>If there was a publisly available list of such words, then it would be
>>pointless having it as those likely to fall foul of it would simply
>>find other ways of saying the same ting - eg, by using alternate
>>spellings or synonyms.
>>
> 
> 
> I'm not asking for that, for the reasons you state.
> 
> It would be useful if the mods stated why you are on mod when you are 
> previously not.
> 
> I don't think I am a controversial poster, most of my posts are on very 
> boring legal topics. 
> 
> 
This is just a guess - but I think that you had the word "daft" in one 
of those posts? Obviously not aimed at a poster..

-- 
Sue

"Palindr?me"  wrote in message 
news:120k6nee00017b9@corp.supernews.com...
> Helen wrote:
>> "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
>> news:dgpj02pd3grilu1mmrekoipfc485n25687@news.markshouse.net...
>>
>>>On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:05:17 -0000, Helen put finger to keyboard and
>>>typed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I seem to go between being autoposted and moderated.  After being 
>>>>autoposted
>>>>for my posts a couple of weeks ago, I am now moderated on the posts I 
>>>>made
>>>>today (which were on house ownership issues)
>>>>
>>>>I don't object to being moderated, but would like to know what I have 
>>>>done
>>>>in a post to be returned to moderation. If I have used 'inappropriate 
>>>>words'
>>>>that kick the moderation software to act, it would be helpful to know, 
>>>>so
>>>>that I can avoid such words.
>>>
>>>If there was a publisly available list of such words, then it would be
>>>pointless having it as those likely to fall foul of it would simply
>>>find other ways of saying the same ting - eg, by using alternate
>>>spellings or synonyms.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not asking for that, for the reasons you state.
>>
>> It would be useful if the mods stated why you are on mod when you are 
>> previously not.
>>
>> I don't think I am a controversial poster, most of my posts are on very 
>> boring legal topics.
> This is just a guess - but I think that you had the word "daft" in one of 
> those posts? Obviously not aimed at a poster..
>

I did use the word 'daft' - it was about a friend of mine and used to 
illustrate the point about buying a house.

Is 'daft' really on the list?

Helen wrote:
> "Palindr?me"  wrote in message 
> news:120k6nee00017b9@corp.supernews.com...
> 
>>Helen wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
>>>news:dgpj02pd3grilu1mmrekoipfc485n25687@news.markshouse.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:05:17 -0000, Helen put finger to keyboard and
>>>>typed:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I seem to go between being autoposted and moderated.  After being 
>>>>>autoposted
>>>>>for my posts a couple of weeks ago, I am now moderated on the posts I 
>>>>>made
>>>>>today (which were on house ownership issues)
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't object to being moderated, but would like to know what I have 
>>>>>done
>>>>>in a post to be returned to moderation. If I have used 'inappropriate 
>>>>>words'
>>>>>that kick the moderation software to act, it would be helpful to know, 
>>>>>so
>>>>>that I can avoid such words.
>>>>
>>>>If there was a publisly available list of such words, then it would be
>>>>pointless having it as those likely to fall foul of it would simply
>>>>find other ways of saying the same ting - eg, by using alternate
>>>>spellings or synonyms.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not asking for that, for the reasons you state.
>>>
>>>It would be useful if the mods stated why you are on mod when you are 
>>>previously not.
>>>
>>>I don't think I am a controversial poster, most of my posts are on very 
>>>boring legal topics.
>>
>>This is just a guess - but I think that you had the word "daft" in one of 
>>those posts? Obviously not aimed at a poster..
>>
> 
> 
> I did use the word 'daft' - it was about a friend of mine and used to 
> illustrate the point about buying a house.
> 
> Is 'daft' really on the list? 
> 
> 
Blind moose. Well, ok, no idea. (no eye deer? ) Ah well, its late and I 
should be in bed. I was up at 3 - don't ask.

Yep, appreciate that it was entirely innocent. But  that is what it 
could have been.

Unless you are going to go through every single word of every single 
post, including all the bits that you didn't write, etc, then you have 
to expect that, periodically, the modbot will put you on manual moderation.

Which is possibly why expecting the mods to tell each and every one who 
has had that done to them, on each and every occasion, is perhaps asking 
a bit much.

Hell, I spend what seems like my whole life on manual moderation. It 
could be something to do with my name being "Sue".

Bugger, the cherry brandy has run out - one of those days.

-- 
Sue

"Helen"  wrote in message news:46ujmcFcq63pU1@individual.net...
>
> "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
> news:dgpj02pd3grilu1mmrekoipfc485n25687@news.markshouse.net...
>> On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:05:17 -0000, Helen put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>>>I seem to go between being autoposted and moderated.  After being 
>>>autoposted
>>>for my posts a couple of weeks ago, I am now moderated on the posts I 
>>>made
>>>today (which were on house ownership issues)
>>>
>>>I don't object to being moderated, but would like to know what I have 
>>>done
>>>in a post to be returned to moderation. If I have used 'inappropriate 
>>>words'
>>>that kick the moderation software to act, it would be helpful to know, so
>>>that I can avoid such words.
>>
>> If there was a publisly available list of such words, then it would be
>> pointless having it as those likely to fall foul of it would simply
>> find other ways of saying the same ting - eg, by using alternate
>> spellings or synonyms.
>>
>
> I'm not asking for that, for the reasons you state.
>
> It would be useful if the mods stated why you are on mod when you are 
> previously not.
>
> I don't think I am a controversial poster, most of my posts are on very 
> boring legal topics.

I think you were whitelisted for a while. After just checking I find that 
you aren't at the moment.  I'll sort that. Possible explanations might 
include the fact that there is a new moderation server and all the settings 
had to be moved over, or the fact that you quoted a trigger word and were 
automatically removed (if indeed this happens, and I remain to be 
convinced).

"Helen"  wrote in message news:46um6kFd4uo0U1@individual.net...
>
> "Palindr?me"  wrote in message 
> news:120k6nee00017b9@corp.supernews.com...
>> Helen wrote:
>>> "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
>>> news:dgpj02pd3grilu1mmrekoipfc485n25687@news.markshouse.net...
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:05:17 -0000, Helen put finger to keyboard and
>>>>typed:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I seem to go between being autoposted and moderated.  After being 
>>>>>autoposted
>>>>>for my posts a couple of weeks ago, I am now moderated on the posts I 
>>>>>made
>>>>>today (which were on house ownership issues)
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't object to being moderated, but would like to know what I have 
>>>>>done
>>>>>in a post to be returned to moderation. If I have used 'inappropriate 
>>>>>words'
>>>>>that kick the moderation software to act, it would be helpful to know, 
>>>>>so
>>>>>that I can avoid such words.
>>>>
>>>>If there was a publisly available list of such words, then it would be
>>>>pointless having it as those likely to fall foul of it would simply
>>>>find other ways of saying the same ting - eg, by using alternate
>>>>spellings or synonyms.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not asking for that, for the reasons you state.
>>>
>>> It would be useful if the mods stated why you are on mod when you are 
>>> previously not.
>>>
>>> I don't think I am a controversial poster, most of my posts are on very 
>>> boring legal topics.
>> This is just a guess - but I think that you had the word "daft" in one of 
>> those posts? Obviously not aimed at a poster..
>>
>
> I did use the word 'daft' - it was about a friend of mine and used to 
> illustrate the point about buying a house.
>
> Is 'daft' really on the list?

Doesn't seem to be at this moment. Maybe someone removed it earlier.

There are certainly a number of trigger words which would catch a perfectly 
reasonable post from any whitelisted person including a moderator. The word 
"lie" for instance.

In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 5 Mar 2006 17:02:29 -0000, "The Todal"
 wrote:
}I think you were whitelisted for a while.

At the current posters address ?

> After just checking I find that you aren't at the moment.  

Agreed

>I'll sort that. Possible explanations might include the fact that 
>there is a new moderation server and all the settings had to be moved over,

No. The old database for lists was just copied across. Only posts and
history databases were changed.

}or the fact that you quoted a trigger word 

The poster did not trigger on any words.

}and were automatically removed (if indeed this happens, 
}and I remain to be convinced). 

It doesn't. It was in fact designed to do this, but I am not perfect :)

There is no trace of this poster in the system and no trace that she has
been deleted either, at least as far back as last Christmas. Before that I
can't check.

{R}

{R} wrote...
> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 5 Mar 2006 17:02:29 -0000, "The Todal"
>  wrote:
> 
>>I'll sort that. Possible explanations might include the fact that 
>>there is a new moderation server and all the settings had to be moved over,
> 
> 
> No. The old database for lists was just copied across. Only posts and
> history databases were changed.


I can confirm that we are using a slightly older version of the 
whitelist. It'll be properly current again soon.


> There is no trace of this poster in the system and no trace that she has
> been deleted either, at least as far back as last Christmas. Before that I
> can't check.


The pre-penultimate (sp?) post by this poster on 19 Feb was an autopost. 
It's one of those transitional things I mentioned.


-- 
Adam Upham (one of the ulm mods).
ULM charter: http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 19:38:42 <dufeo5$jka$1@emma.aioe.org> 
uk.net.news.moderation Adam Upham 

>{R} wrote...
>> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 5 Mar 2006 17:02:29 -0000, "The Todal"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>I'll sort that. Possible explanations might include the fact that 
>>>there is a new moderation server and all the settings had to be moved 
>>>
>>   No. The old database for lists was just copied across. Only posts 
>>and
>> history databases were changed.
>
>
>I can confirm that we are using a slightly older version of the 
>whitelist. It'll be properly current again soon.
>
>
>> There is no trace of this poster in the system and no trace that she has
>> been deleted either, at least as far back as last Christmas. Before that I
>> can't check.
>
>
>The pre-penultimate (sp?) post by this poster on 19 Feb was an 
>autopost. It's one of those transitional things I mentioned.


Ummm

Ultimate is last
pre-penultimate is the one before the last one?

So we should expect nothing more.

What a way for a group to die :(
-- 
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

Wm... wrote...
> Sun, 5 Mar 2006 19:38:42 <dufeo5$jka$1@emma.aioe.org> 
> uk.net.news.moderation Adam Upham 
> 
>> The pre-penultimate (sp?) post by this poster on 19 Feb was an 
>> autopost. It's one of those transitional things I mentioned.
> 
> Ummm
> 
> Ultimate is last
> pre-penultimate is the one before the last one?


I think you missed the pen.
That's just quickly looking at my newsreader anyway - my newsfeed has 
been a bit intermittent recently so ICBW if I missed a few. In any case, 
she was whitelisted at least as recently as Feb 19.


> So we should expect nothing more.
> What a way for a group to die :(

wtf?


-- 
Adam Upham.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 20:28:12 +0000, Wm... put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>
>Ummm
>
>Ultimate is last
>pre-penultimate is the one before the last one?

The last one is the ultimate.

The one before last is the penultimate.

The one before the one before last (ie, the one before penultimate) is
antepenultimate.

Mark
-- 
Visit: http://names.orangehedgehog.com - British surname distribution profiles
Listen: http://www.goodge.co.uk/files/dweeb.mp3 - you'll love it!

Mark Goodge wrote...

> The one before the one before last (ie, the one before penultimate) is
> antepenultimate.


Thank you. Wot he said :)


-- 
Adam Upham.

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:14:15 <dufkb8$nkf$1@emma.aioe.org> 
uk.net.news.moderation Adam Upham 

>Wm... wrote...
>> Sun, 5 Mar 2006 19:38:42 <dufeo5$jka$1@emma.aioe.org> 
>>uk.net.news.moderation Adam Upham 
>>
>>> The pre-penultimate (sp?) post by this poster on 19 Feb was an 
>>>autopost. It's one of those transitional things I mentioned.
>>  Ummm
>>  Ultimate is last
>> pre-penultimate is the one before the last one?
>
>
>I think you missed the pen.

Indeed

pre-penultimate is the one before the one before the last one.

aka the third before the end.

>That's just quickly looking at my newsreader anyway - my newsfeed has 
>been a bit intermittent recently so ICBW if I missed a few. In any 
>case, she was whitelisted at least as recently as Feb 19.
>
>
>> So we should expect nothing more.
>> What a way for a group to die :(
>
>wtf?

I thought the same thing.

-- 
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:53:59 <dufmlo$ua0$1@emma.aioe.org> 
uk.net.news.moderation Adam Upham 

>Mark Goodge wrote...
>
>> The one before the one before last (ie, the one before penultimate) is
>> antepenultimate.
>
>
>Thank you. Wot he said :)

I am glad we cleared that up without trying to kill each other.

-- 
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:38:42 +0000, Adam Upham
 wrote:
}{R} wrote...
}> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 5 Mar 2006 17:02:29 -0000, "The Todal"
}>  wrote:
}> 
}>>I'll sort that. Possible explanations might include the fact that 
}>>there is a new moderation server and all the settings had to be moved over,
}> 
}> No. The old database for lists was just copied across. Only posts and
}> history databases were changed.
}
}I can confirm that we are using a slightly older version of the 
}whitelist. It'll be properly current again soon.

Yes you are correct and I am wrong, I thought I had update the lists but it
must have got missed :(

}> There is no trace of this poster in the system and no trace that she has
}> been deleted either, at least as far back as last Christmas. Before that I
}> can't check.
}
}The pre-penultimate (sp?) post by this poster on 19 Feb was an autopost. 

Indeed looking at the original lists Helen was on it, she must have been
added between the time I copied the database say January and when we went
live on it on March 1st.

{R}

{R} wrote:
> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:38:42 +0000, Adam Upham
>  wrote:
> }{R} wrote...
> }> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 5 Mar 2006 17:02:29 -0000, "The Todal"
> }>  wrote:
> }> 
> }>>I'll sort that. Possible explanations might include the fact that 
> }>>there is a new moderation server and all the settings had to be moved over,
> }> 
> }> No. The old database for lists was just copied across. Only posts and
> }> history databases were changed.
> }
> }I can confirm that we are using a slightly older version of the 
> }whitelist. It'll be properly current again soon.
> 
> Yes you are correct and I am wrong, I thought I had update the lists but it
> must have got missed :(
> 
> }> There is no trace of this poster in the system and no trace that she has
> }> been deleted either, at least as far back as last Christmas. Before that I
> }> can't check.
> }
> }The pre-penultimate (sp?) post by this poster on 19 Feb was an autopost. 
> 
> Indeed looking at the original lists Helen was on it, she must have been
> added between the time I copied the database say January and when we went
> live on it on March 1st.
> 
> {R}
Look, you have probably spelled this out somewhere and I have forgotten, 
or was in my own little World at the time, etc, etc but:

If a white-listed poster includes a norty word (perhaps in the included 
text) such as to be manually moderated for that post - does that 
automatically remove white-list?

Is it then up to the moderator to work out whether the poster was 
previously on the white list and then add them back/or not (depending on 
the latest post)? I can see moderators having difficulty remembering who 
was, or weren't previously white listed.

Or does the moderator get a little box to tick, saying, "Previously 
White-listed poster, re-instate?" Or something similar - eg alongside 
the identification of the norty word, the words "White-Listed Poster"?

-- 
Sue

In uk.net.news.moderation on Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:01:17 +0000, Palindr?me
 wrote:

}Look, you have probably spelled this out somewhere and I have forgotten, 
}or was in my own little World at the time, etc, etc but:

Whatever your predilections are :)

}If a white-listed poster includes a norty word (perhaps in the included 
}text) such as to be manually moderated for that post - does that 
}automatically remove white-list?

It was designed to.
It was implemented badly and in fact does not change their status on any
list at all.

}Is it then up to the moderator to work out whether the poster was 
}previously on the white list and then add them back/or not (depending on 
}the latest post)? I can see moderators having difficulty remembering who 
}was, or weren't previously white listed.

No.

And I have added a feature where if the poster is white listed or watch
listed it will say so on the end of the From: Line.

So the reaction would probably be, Oh this is a white listed poster and he
has been caught by a trigger word, quick skim for the norty word and
accept.


OR Oh this bugger is watchlisted, I will read the post very very carefully
and make a careful decision about this post.

}Or does the moderator get a little box to tick, saying, "Previously 
}White-listed poster, re-instate?" Or something similar - eg alongside 
}the identification of the norty word, the words "White-Listed Poster"?

Not necessary as his listed status is unchanged by the trigger word status
:)

{R}