--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <geezerfreak@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > This is an attempt at humor, right? > > > > > > No. > > > > Oh, that's too bad. > > > > > And this makes 11 for you. Way over the limit. > > > Whoops, there's yet another one. 12. > > > > Apparently some of us still aren't quite clear on > > the process here. > > With all due respect, the only person on this > forum who seems to be "not quite clear" on the > process -- and why it was implemented -- is > yourself.
Well, not exactly, in several respects. > > In the first place, posts asking for clarification > > of the new regime, according to Rick, were not to > > be counted toward a person's total. > > That was yesterday. Rick made it *clear* that > such questions were in effect for only one day. I guess you missed this later post of Rick's, responding to me: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:13 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] 4 Post Notice (was Re: ++Attack++) [Me:] Questions about the new regulations, however, until someone draws up and posts a detailed description, ought to be public so everyone else can benefit by the responses. It will also save the moderators having to answer similar questions over and over in individual private emails, as well as reducing the number of posts they have to scan of those put on moderation because they didn't understand what would cause them to be put on moderation. [Rick:] I agree. No such detailed description has yet been posted, and *obviously* there are still questions to be answered, given geezerfreak's confusion about my post count. > That means that, according to your own calculations > below (based on midnight your time), you have already > made three posts today, and have only two more left. Well, that depends on whether Rick stands by his agreement above. One of those three was a "process" post asking about when an individual poster's "day" begins, which has not yet been established. > (Yahoo [or at least the French Yahoo] shows posts from > you at 12:34 your time, 12:39 your time, and 13:07 > your time -- I think that the Yahoo timestamp should > be the only measure of when a post was made, since > there can be delays and anyone can claim whatever > they want along the lines of "But...but...but I made > that post *before* midnight...") Yes, this is something else that needs to be established. Going by the Yahoo timestamp makes sense in one respect, but it does mean one might inadvertently go over one's limit if a post is delayed, especially if one is posting close to the end of one's "day" and one's limit, whenever that is determined to be. So that solution is a potential source of confusion. > If Rick decides to make Fairfield time the definitive > midnight (which I think is appropriate), That would be fine with me as well. Will he continue to be the official "counter," though? I had thought he wanted to appoint someone to do that chore. you have > made one post today, and have four left. Again, depending on whether Rick abides by his agreement above. Whatever > your "count," I would suggest that you use them > more wisely than you have been doing so far. Thanks for the suggestion, but I think each of us will probably make our own decisions as to the wisdom of our posts. In my experience, as I've already said, moderation works well only when all the rules are clear to everyone. Even with the very best of intentions, one can't follow rules unless it's clear what the rules *are*. It therefore appears to me to be "wise," in the interests of facilitating moderation, for clarification questions to be asked and answered as they arise, and for them to be asked publicly so others can benefit by the answers. > I suspect that any attempt to "ask for clarification" > today (especially since you could have done so yester- > day, when it was permitted) Thanks for acknowledging that such questions asked yesterday did not count toward the total. Hopefully geezerfreak will see your post and realize his error. will be seen as you trying > to circumvent the rules that everyone else seems to > be having no problem respecting. I don't think that will be the case among reasonable people. The question about when one's "day" begins doesn't seem to have occurred to anybody yesterday, including Rick It didn't occur to me until Rick had posted his list shortly before midnight EST, and by the time I saw it, it was past midnight. > This is my second post of the day, and it *definitely* > goes against my "count." I'm willing to abide by both > the "letter of the law" and its spirit. It remains > to be seen what you will do. Everyone's watching. Good > luck. Again, I suspect "everyone" (but you, possibly) will be grateful that I raised the question about when one's "day" begins. And the "letter of the law" depends on what Rick says it is, not what you say it is. If Rick agrees that asking for clarification of the rules should not count against one's total until a detailed description of those rules has been posted, then not counting my post asking when one's "day" begins will be fully within the "letter," you see. As to the "spirit of the law" in other respects, I might remind you that the kind of deliberate baiting you're doing in the post I'm responding to is one of the main reasons Rick decided to institute moderation on this forum. He's made it exceedingly clear that it won't be tolerated, *especially* in the case of you and me. I suspect that the only way to keep you (and perhaps a few others) from indulging in baiting is to put you on moderation. If Rick does that in your case, he'll probably feel the need to put me on moderation as well, to be "fair," but that's fine with me; I'm perfectly willing to undergo that restriction for the sake of the restraint it will put on you. RICK, PLEASE NOTE: In fact, I hereby *request* that Rick put both you and me on moderation immediately. I would make one other suggestion to Rick, which is that he, or his designate, should be the only person to comment publicly on whether participants are observing the rules, both in letter and in spirit. That will eliminate another source of potential baiting and help ensure that all participants' posts are on topics this forum was designed for.
