Being the moderator is a labor of love and we should be highly appreciative of the individual. I think it can be executed without too much trouble. Pick four categories: Cat. I Technical discussion of an idea already on the table. This requires moderation to screen out below par and redundant contributions and commentary if desired. Cat. II Introduction of a new idea or one the contributor thinks is a new idea. Essentially no moderation. If they are truly new or appear to be new they go through. Cat. III Geo Political but socially acceptable. No moderation or commentary required. Mostly reports of meetings, speeches etc. Comments on same. Let the reader beware. Cat. IV Reference to a website or article with an included topic. No moderation. Everyone on their own.
Readers can decide based on the category and the original contributor indicated in the Subject line if they want to bother to open. Other categories might be better but clearly #1 is the most important and requires some attention. -gene -----Original Message----- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ALittleSlow Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:56 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: REGARDING DETERIORATION OF GEOENGINEERING GOOGLEGROUP I would hate to see an established forum which includes such important players disappear or degenerate, so I think the time has come for this group to become moderated. I don't think it need be an either/or choice. It can be Ken Caldeira and other moderators, so that the time and blame are shared. It can be some people moderated (e.g. newbies and rule-violators) and most not. Or most could be denied and a few allowed (which would most certainly not include me). Many of the discussions here are interesting, insightful and valuable, but they are also outside the guidelines. I suggest a second, unmoderated group for these. It can have the same purpose and guidelines sans guideline #3 ("ALL POSTS MUST ADD NEW INFORMATION."). Maybe call it "geo-re-engineering". Providing this alternative should take the bulk of the time and social burden off the moderators. It may even be a sufficient solution in itself. Kind regards, Brian Alano On Dec 19, 2:00 pm, "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@stanford.edu> wrote: [snip] > I think there are two basic options: > > 1. I can moderate this group more ruthlessly and reject any message > that does not actually transmit new relevant information or raise a > question that has not already been discussed at length. ( In this > case, I will make many enemies as I reject messages from > well-intentioned people. ) I will not have time to give each submitter > of a rejected posting my reasons for rejecting the posting. > > 2. I can abandon this group to people with much more time on their hands. > > So, for me, the question is down to tightening the reigns, or letting > them go. > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
