On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> Taking this concept further, if you post to three different mailing lists
> that
> you are not a member of, and your held message gets approved each time with
> no
> rejections, we think you're probably okay in general and will let you post
Hi Barry,
Keep up the good work! In response to your last email:
With the "global user" concept, would the individual list moderators
be able to assign a "poor" status for one list only?
Or will all the lists be stuck with the status assigned on a global basis?
vince heuser
On Jan 19, 2010, at 05:42 PM, Marlon Menezes wrote:
>An alternate approach to moderation could be via a "user reputation score"
>as is often found in many web based discussion forums. A person with a
>higher user reputation score could have fewer restrictions posed on him, in
>terms of the number
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Adam McGreggor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 05:42:13PM -0600, Marlon Menezes wrote:
> > Individuals with larger networks on sites such as facebook etc could be
> given a higher
> > starting reputation score as opposed to a ID that has little or no prior
> > his
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 05:42:13PM -0600, Marlon Menezes wrote:
> Individuals with larger networks on sites such as facebook etc could be given
> a higher
> starting reputation score as opposed to a ID that has little or no prior
> history or network to back that person's identity. This will help
Let me state that I am not a IT person, so some of my questions/comments may
not be the most appropriate lingo that is used by you folks. It is also very
likely that my issues/ideas have been raised before, though I have not been
able to find it in the archives. I have been moderating non-commercia
