Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How to post to group
40 views
Skip to first unread message
David Makowsky
May 22, 2013, 10:29:29 AM5/22/13
to
[ Moderator's Comment: There was a list that allowed discussion of
moderation but I don't think it still works so discuss 9t on the main
group HPG ]
Can someone please tell me how to get a posting to the group for discussion that is directly related to the moderation of the group.
We have people who are allowed to post(either the moderator[s] let it through or the post is not sent for moderation) items that are insulting. Often times these posts are factually incorrect. However attempts to respond, many times to correct the factual inaccuracies, are not allowed through moderation either because they are deemed insulting (though a lot less insulting than what was allowed to be posted) not relevant to the topic of the group, and/or another reason which is also not actually justified even if technically correct.
The moderators share blame for the original post (they can disagree with this, but they are objectively wrong, PERIOD) that goes unchallenged by not allowing the response unless they pull the original.
Unfortunately any attempt to discuss this in the group will automatically be moderator rejected because such discussions (moderation) are explicitly not allowed. That would be fine if there was another place the readers of the group could see the discussion simply because they subscribe to the group without having to do (and actually know to do) anything extra.
Please note I could do without having this discussion if the moderators would either allow the responses or pulled the originals.
Any ideas?
moderation but I don't think it still works so discuss 9t on the main
group HPG ]
Can someone please tell me how to get a posting to the group for discussion that is directly related to the moderation of the group.
We have people who are allowed to post(either the moderator[s] let it through or the post is not sent for moderation) items that are insulting. Often times these posts are factually incorrect. However attempts to respond, many times to correct the factual inaccuracies, are not allowed through moderation either because they are deemed insulting (though a lot less insulting than what was allowed to be posted) not relevant to the topic of the group, and/or another reason which is also not actually justified even if technically correct.
The moderators share blame for the original post (they can disagree with this, but they are objectively wrong, PERIOD) that goes unchallenged by not allowing the response unless they pull the original.
Unfortunately any attempt to discuss this in the group will automatically be moderator rejected because such discussions (moderation) are explicitly not allowed. That would be fine if there was another place the readers of the group could see the discussion simply because they subscribe to the group without having to do (and actually know to do) anything extra.
Please note I could do without having this discussion if the moderators would either allow the responses or pulled the originals.
Any ideas?
David Makowsky
May 22, 2013, 12:14:48 PM5/22/13
to
One thing I forgot to mention, and why I believe this is important, is that I have received private emails from others indicating they sometimes do not post because they are afraid of the insulting responses that will follow. That should not happen in a moderated group.
Shelly
May 22, 2013, 2:56:43 PM5/22/13
to
Moshe, others, and I objected to not being able to post things about
moderation. In fact it was Moshe who coined the phrase "The Vicars".
This was an arbitrary decision enforced by one of the moderators (the
one who ran the software). This was somewhere around 10 years ago. He
set up a separate mailing list for this purpose, but that proved
useless. Eventually, because of a series of events that followed
(specifically an email blast that I sent out that ticked them off), it
led to my withdrawing from this group for quite a few years. I was
invited back under my conditions for return (auto-approval being the big
one), and I returned a few years ago.
There is auto-approval for some people. Anyone can request it, and
there are specific rules that the moderation team is supposed to follow
in granting that status and those rules are spelled out in detail in the
charter. The other creators of this group and I went on long and hard
on what were the specific rules and procedures for granting and removing
auto-approval.
If a post is [objectively] insulting TO AN INDIVIDUAL IN SCJM, then the
post should be rejected. If by one with auto-approval, then that poster
should be warned that further such posts would result in removal of
auto-approval. By objectively, I mean that it is not just in the eyes
of the target. Insulting a political person or group does not count
(IMO). I also do not know if the moderators have the ability to remove
a post once it is out there.
As for not allowing an insulting response to an insult that was posted,
I believe that is a proper action even though it is not fair, and I say
that as one who has been insulted more than once by certain posters.
Continuing down that path doesn't benefit the group in any way.
--
Shelly
--
Shelly
henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net
May 22, 2013, 5:42:09 PM5/22/13
to
Henry Goodman
David Makowsky
May 23, 2013, 8:20:29 AM5/23/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:42:09 PM UTC-5, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
[ Snip ]
> Thanks Shelly for the above. What usu8ally happens is that 2 posters get into > an argument which gets more and more intemperate. At some point we moderators > decide that the insult is too bad to post and reject that post although it is > not much worse than the previous post by the other protagonist; inevitably the > person whose post was rejected is aggrieved. Similarly a thread starts on-
> topic but gets more and more off-topic until we moderators decide that enough > is enough. A recent case was a thread which started with a question about IDF > policy towards prosecution of crimes by soldiers and went into some discussion > about a particular American case which I knew nothing about and which is
> clearly totally off-topic.
Regarding the insults.As someone who has been the victim of having a response to an insult I agree with the above. At the time it happens I am p*ssed off, but shortly thereafter I recognize that the fewer the insults the better no matter what. Even if the "other guy" gets the last word. We are all adults (I hope) so deal with it. However, the first insult should not have been there in the first place. The piece containing the original article needs to be removed. Part of me thinks if that is not possible then no one should be allowed to post without moderation. I do realize that would only give the moderators more work to do and many times a post with what one person might consider an insult has good value and what one person may not perceive as an insult someone else may not.
It is the off-topic stuff I have a problem with. A response to a post on the same topic as the post it was responding to should be treated the same way as what it was responding to, especially if the post being responded to totally mis-characterizes a prior post.
The particular American case (My post and the one in which what I wrote was mis-characterized by faulty attempts to read my mind) was entirely in line and the point I was trying to make was entirely appropriate with what had originally been posted. Others "hijacked" what I said and attacked me for something that wasn't even my point. Attempts to point this out were rejected as being off topic despite the fact that what I posted was entirely in line with the original post. I believe examples that might help explain things and provide context to something posted that is in line with this group should not be rejected even if the specifics of those examples are not themselves in line with this group. It was this that drove me to write the original post on this subject. BY the way I was actually just venting (Which I have done with the moderators from time to time knowing they will reject it). I really did not think it had a chance of getting through.
Getting back to the insults, I know for a fact based on emails I have received that some people are afraid to post because they believe they may be subject to insulting responses from someone who is not moderated. This should not happen in a moderated group.
[ Snip ]
> Thanks Shelly for the above. What usu8ally happens is that 2 posters get into > an argument which gets more and more intemperate. At some point we moderators > decide that the insult is too bad to post and reject that post although it is > not much worse than the previous post by the other protagonist; inevitably the > person whose post was rejected is aggrieved. Similarly a thread starts on-
> topic but gets more and more off-topic until we moderators decide that enough > is enough. A recent case was a thread which started with a question about IDF > policy towards prosecution of crimes by soldiers and went into some discussion > about a particular American case which I knew nothing about and which is
> clearly totally off-topic.
It is the off-topic stuff I have a problem with. A response to a post on the same topic as the post it was responding to should be treated the same way as what it was responding to, especially if the post being responded to totally mis-characterizes a prior post.
The particular American case (My post and the one in which what I wrote was mis-characterized by faulty attempts to read my mind) was entirely in line and the point I was trying to make was entirely appropriate with what had originally been posted. Others "hijacked" what I said and attacked me for something that wasn't even my point. Attempts to point this out were rejected as being off topic despite the fact that what I posted was entirely in line with the original post. I believe examples that might help explain things and provide context to something posted that is in line with this group should not be rejected even if the specifics of those examples are not themselves in line with this group. It was this that drove me to write the original post on this subject. BY the way I was actually just venting (Which I have done with the moderators from time to time knowing they will reject it). I really did not think it had a chance of getting through.
Getting back to the insults, I know for a fact based on emails I have received that some people are afraid to post because they believe they may be subject to insulting responses from someone who is not moderated. This should not happen in a moderated group.
paj...@gmail.com
May 23, 2013, 8:20:59 AM5/23/13
to
Cindy and I have both posted messages in previous threads about this type of bullying. People will correct me if I have the history wrong but so far this year, the two people that bullied me through email have not posted here.
If you feel you are being bullied and the person has a gmail account, Google has an abuse report form:
https://support.google.com/mail/contact/abuse?hl=en&rd=1
This is specifically for email.
It will be up to the moderators to address on-group bullying.
If you feel you are being bullied and the person has a gmail account, Google has an abuse report form:
https://support.google.com/mail/contact/abuse?hl=en&rd=1
This is specifically for email.
It will be up to the moderators to address on-group bullying.
Shelly
May 23, 2013, 10:12:08 AM5/23/13
to
On 23/05/2013 08:20, David Makowsky wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:42:09 PM UTC-5, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
>
> [ Snip ]
>
>> Thanks Shelly for the above. What usu8ally happens is that 2 posters get into > an argument which gets more and more intemperate. At some point we moderators > decide that the insult is too bad to post and reject that post although it is > not much worse than the previous post by the other protagonist; inevitably the > person whose post was rejected is aggrieved. Similarly a thread starts on-
>> topic but gets more and more off-topic until we moderators decide that enough > is enough. A recent case was a thread which started with a question about IDF > policy towards prosecution of crimes by soldiers and went into some discussion > about a particular American case which I knew nothing about and which is
>> clearly totally off-topic.
> Regarding the insults.As someone who has been the victim of having a response to an insult I agree with the above. At the time it happens I am p*ssed off, but shortly thereafter I recognize that the fewer the insults the better no matter what. Even if the "other guy" gets the last word. We are all adults (I hope) so deal with it. However, the first insult should not have been there in the first place. The piece containing the original article needs to be removed. Part of me thinks if that is not possible then no one should be allowed to post without moderation. I do realize that would only give the moderators more work to do and many times a post with what one person might consider an insult has good value and what one person may not perceive as an insult someone else may not.
It is more than that. If all posts were moderated, the time delay from
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:42:09 PM UTC-5, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
>
> [ Snip ]
>
>> Thanks Shelly for the above. What usu8ally happens is that 2 posters get into > an argument which gets more and more intemperate. At some point we moderators > decide that the insult is too bad to post and reject that post although it is > not much worse than the previous post by the other protagonist; inevitably the > person whose post was rejected is aggrieved. Similarly a thread starts on-
>> topic but gets more and more off-topic until we moderators decide that enough > is enough. A recent case was a thread which started with a question about IDF > policy towards prosecution of crimes by soldiers and went into some discussion > about a particular American case which I knew nothing about and which is
>> clearly totally off-topic.
> Regarding the insults.As someone who has been the victim of having a response to an insult I agree with the above. At the time it happens I am p*ssed off, but shortly thereafter I recognize that the fewer the insults the better no matter what. Even if the "other guy" gets the last word. We are all adults (I hope) so deal with it. However, the first insult should not have been there in the first place. The piece containing the original article needs to be removed. Part of me thinks if that is not possible then no one should be allowed to post without moderation. I do realize that would only give the moderators more work to do and many times a post with what one person might consider an insult has good value and what one person may not perceive as an insult someone else may not.
post to appearance would make interactive conversation prohibitive and
the news group would become worthless. That was why we tried to devise
a system where "trusted" posters could get through immediately
(auto-approval). It is also why it took so long to thrash out the rules
for gaining/losing/re-acquiring auto approval took so long.
>
> It is the off-topic stuff I have a problem with. A response to a post on the same topic as the post it was responding to should be treated the same way as what it was responding to, especially if the post being responded to totally mis-characterizes a prior post.
>
> The particular American case (My post and the one in which what I wrote was mis-characterized by faulty attempts to read my mind) was entirely in line and the point I was trying to make was entirely appropriate with what had originally been posted. Others "hijacked" what I said and attacked me for something that wasn't even my point. Attempts to point this out were rejected as being off topic despite the fact that what I posted was entirely in line with the original post. I believe examples that might help explain things and provide context to something posted that is in line with this group should not be rejected even if the specifics of those examples are not themselves in line with this group. It was this that drove me to write the original post on this subject. BY the way I was actually just venting (Which I have done with the moderators from time to time knowing they will reject it). I really did not think it had a chance of getting through.
>
> Getting back to the insults, I know for a fact based on emails I have received that some people are afraid to post because they believe they may be subject to insulting responses from someone who is not moderated. This should not happen in a moderated group.
--
Shelly
David Makowsky
May 23, 2013, 11:52:47 AM5/23/13
to
I don't remember the others so I don't know for certain if they were referring to bullying within the group of in emails.
Shelly
May 23, 2013, 12:56:06 PM5/23/13
to
post, to be bullying there has to be a credible threat to recipient. I
don't see how that is possible in either email or via a post. So,
please explain yourself, preferably with an example (no names, please).
--
Shelly
malcolm...@btinternet.com
May 23, 2013, 1:23:40 PM5/23/13
to
is bullying (it's only bullying is the objective is to humiliate and
dominate, not if the objective is revenge or to eliminate a competitor),
and not all bullying involves making threats, credible or otherwise.
Bullying can also be libel (false negative statements about someone) or
detraction (true negative statements about someone which are not
necessary to avoid harm to a third party), or simply exclusion. So
using Hebrew or Yiddish terms with the objective to exclude someone who
doesn't understand them from the conversation could be bullying.
It also depends who the target is. It's not bullying to treat robustly
someone who can hold their own socially (this is "joshing"). Some people
on the ng are highly intelligent, confident, articulate and outgoing.
Others less so. The same behaviour can be bullying or not, depending on
whether it is directed at the weak or the strong.
David Makowsky
May 23, 2013, 5:05:04 PM5/23/13
to
I used bullying when I meant insulting. I apologize.
The point was there are people who do not post (I have been told such in emails) because they are afraid of a very insulting response from someone who is not moderated (If moderated there is no way it would get through).
The point was there are people who do not post (I have been told such in emails) because they are afraid of a very insulting response from someone who is not moderated (If moderated there is no way it would get through).
Harry Weiss
May 27, 2013, 9:04:02 PM5/27/13
to
Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> Moshe, others, and I objected to not being able to post things about
> moderation. In fact it was Moshe who coined the phrase "The Vicars".
> This was an arbitrary decision enforced by one of the moderators (the
> one who ran the software). This was somewhere around 10 years ago. He
> set up a separate mailing list for this purpose, but that proved
> useless. Eventually, because of a series of events that followed
> (specifically an email blast that I sent out that ticked them off), it
> led to my withdrawing from this group for quite a few years. I was
> invited back under my conditions for return (auto-approval being the big
> one), and I returned a few years ago.
FYI the vast majority of posts reject as modpolicy are those " why didn't
> Moshe, others, and I objected to not being able to post things about
> moderation. In fact it was Moshe who coined the phrase "The Vicars".
> This was an arbitrary decision enforced by one of the moderators (the
> one who ran the software). This was somewhere around 10 years ago. He
> set up a separate mailing list for this purpose, but that proved
> useless. Eventually, because of a series of events that followed
> (specifically an email blast that I sent out that ticked them off), it
> led to my withdrawing from this group for quite a few years. I was
> invited back under my conditions for return (auto-approval being the big
> one), and I returned a few years ago.
the mods reject x's post."
Ken
May 28, 2013, 2:20:05 AM5/28/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:05:04 PM UTC-7, David Makowsky wrote:
> I used bullying when I meant insulting. I apologize.
>
>
>
> The point was there are people who do not post >>(I have been told such in emails) because they are >afraid of a very insulting response from someone >who is not moderated (If moderated there is no >way it would get through).
I, for one, often lurk, but don't often post. Why? Because often when I post, somebody will post a response that tries to explain how I'm wrong, or how this one word demonstrates ..., or ....
> I used bullying when I meant insulting. I apologize.
>
>
>
> The point was there are people who do not post >>(I have been told such in emails) because they are >afraid of a very insulting response from someone >who is not moderated (If moderated there is no >way it would get through).
I still post when I think I have something to add that others haven't written, but usually I hold back and lurk for a day or two or three.
I don't hang out with very negative people in my real life. So why should I hang out with them on the Internet?
Or as everyone's mothers said, "If you don't have something nice to say, ..." (Which is a line I'm sure somebody will jump on: But if somebody is blatantly wrong, ....)
In summary: I just wanted to say David is basically right with his comment above. I just don't need the hassle.
Ken
Evertjan.
May 28, 2013, 5:26:48 AM5/28/13
to
Ken wrote on 28 mei 2013 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
> I don't hang out with very negative people in my real life.
[Strage and sorry your cypberlife is not part of your real life]
> I don't hang out with very negative people in my real life.
Probably the negative as you percieve it means that you only hang out with
people that agree with you?
That is a recipe for sectarianism, so the forming of sects.
Sects prohibit communication with others that do not agree with the
concepts of your "inner" group.
Discussion is, methinks, only interesting, if differences of views can be
discussed, then you can learn something from each other.
That's why Jewish studying is a continuum of discussions, read the Talmud,
and is called "lehrnen" in Yiddish.
And "lehrnen" [= studying] is one of the three things a "shul" [< school]
is for.
> So why should I hang out with them on the Internet?
life.
I would prefer not calling such discussion "hanging out", the latter being
just drinking, joking end passing the time without any usefullness, btw.
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Yisroel Markov
May 28, 2013, 12:19:13 PM5/28/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:26:48 +0000 (UTC), "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> said:
>Ken wrote on 28 mei 2013 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> I don't hang out with very negative people in my real life.
>
>[Strage and sorry your cypberlife is not part of your real life]
>
>Probably the negative as you percieve it means that you only hang out with
>people that agree with you?
>
>That is a recipe for sectarianism, so the forming of sects.
>Sects prohibit communication with others that do not agree with the
>concepts of your "inner" group.
>
>Discussion is, methinks, only interesting, if differences of views can be
>discussed, then you can learn something from each other.
I totally agree. Otherwise the group is an echo chamber or a
<exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> said:
>Ken wrote on 28 mei 2013 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> I don't hang out with very negative people in my real life.
>
>[Strage and sorry your cypberlife is not part of your real life]
>
>Probably the negative as you percieve it means that you only hang out with
>people that agree with you?
>
>That is a recipe for sectarianism, so the forming of sects.
>Sects prohibit communication with others that do not agree with the
>concepts of your "inner" group.
>
>Discussion is, methinks, only interesting, if differences of views can be
>discussed, then you can learn something from each other.
kaffeklatsch.
>That's why Jewish studying is a continuum of discussions, read the Talmud,
>and is called "lehrnen" in Yiddish.
>
>And "lehrnen" [= studying] is one of the three things a "shul" [< school]
>is for.
>
>> So why should I hang out with them on the Internet?
>
>For the same reason you should hang out with them in "real" [ = noncyber]
>life.
>
>I would prefer not calling such discussion "hanging out", the latter being
>just drinking, joking end passing the time without any usefullness, btw.
and ignore nitpicking, IMHO. And we have here a contingent of posters
that mostly knows how to disagree politely.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Ken
May 28, 2013, 1:17:21 PM5/28/13
to
Ken
0 new messages