In this case I tend to refer to my list as "fully" moderated. We approve
everything, and sometimes edit posts. We have a panel of 8 moderators currently to
keep up with the work because we normally write polite messages to out susbscribers
to tell them why we are rejecting posts.
Before I put the list into full-time moderation I did turn it on once or twice for
short times, and I did use to play peacemaker and mother when things got out of
hand. At that point I referred to myself as the list-owner, and the person who
lent a hand referred to herself as co-listmom
> At 08:05 AM 5/3/99 +1200, Olwen Williams wrote:
> >people like it as it is. One reason for moderating (apart from stopping flame
> >wars) was that many people complained about the level of mail, and the
> >off-topic posts.
> Can you define "moderating"? Reading this thread, it seems that one who
> tries to keep the posts on topic (by pressuring the poster) is sometimes
> considered a moderator. I figure the list is not moderated if a post
> makes it to the subscribers without human approval. Is that what you meant?