On 5/19/11, m.r...@5-cent.us <m.r...@5-cent.us> wrote: >> As already said, this sounds really complicated. Coming from an IRC >> and vBB admin background, I'll suggest moderation using the reactive >> approach instead of a automated process. > > Not really. The perl script was written, um, around 1993 or '94, and it > was based on one from talk.lang.russian? something like that. > <snip>
<context>skeptic about automated censorship and 'communities' void of human expression</context> The primary concern was that it would take a lot of tuning to get an automated filter working without bouncing perfectly legit posts. After all, this discussion about a need for moderation may very well fall into "obvious" off-topic. And being the continual victim of apparently some kind of automated filter on several mailing lists (including this one it seems as some of my posts never show up), I'm rather distrustful of automated moderation. For example, a perfectly acceptable, from my POV, joke about a statement somebody made that lightens up the mood and give everybody a good chuckle may be considered OK by most subscribers but again, automated censors do not have a sense of humour. If the filters are too lax, then the moderators would keep getting verification requests. After a while if false positives rate are too high, moderators will feel frustrated too or start ignoring anything they didn't come across first hand. Hence I feel it's better to rely on the human flagging process. After all, if only the automated filter and maybe one person feels a thread/post should be a bounce, is that really deserving of a bounce? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos