--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stan...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Indeed, the fact that you have wrongly represented my > > > post AND removed it has now left the readers of this > > > forum with the impression that I did, in fact, do what > > > you said I did BECAUSE THEY NOW HAVE NO WAY OF > > > CONFIRMING THAT I DIDN'T BECAUSE YOU'VE REMOVED THE POST!!!!! > > > > I saw it before it was deleted, and I'll confirm that > > all Shemp did was post a link. > > > > I'd also be interested to hear the explanation of why > > Shemp's post was deleted but Edg's explicitly sexual > > post of a couple of weeks ago was allowed to remain. > > I have in the past requested that links to pornographic imagery not be posted > to FFL (IIRC, it was cardemaister who posted a link.) This is a touchy issue > because it was pornographic imagery uploaded to the FFL files/photos that got > FFL listed as an adult group. It was because of that situation that Rick > asked me to be a moderator in the first place. If memory serves me, during > the most recent argument over racist language, the person who had uploaded > the porn said that he would still like to have FFL shut down. > > Here is what the FFL guidelines actually state: > > "8) Posting of "adult" material, either text or photos, is prohibited. > Violation of this guideline may result in expulsion from the group." > > It is possible that in being extremely protective of FFL's existence I've > overstepped my bounds. Personally, I think the guidelines should include a > ban on links to pornography, but I leave that up to Rick's judgment. > > As for Edg's post, I didn't read it. My ADD wiring doesn't allow me to focus > on stuff that doesn't interest me, so I don't see a lot of what gets posted > here. My primary focus as moderator is on managing subscriptions and keeping > an eye on the files/photos section, and I leave it up to the other moderators > to catch the stuff that I miss in FFL traffic.
OK. Seems to me if inappropriate posts threaten FFL's existence as a group for general readers, somebody, or a team of somebodies, needs to be monitoring *all* the posts. When spotty monitoring results in one person being publicly sanctioned while others equally or more "guilty" are not, that's not fair; but more importantly, it doesn't work very well to protect the group.
