William Elliot wrote: > On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Cliff B wrote: > >> Others have already put their hands up to be moderators I think. >> However I'm happy to help in any way I can. I would suggest however >> that the filtering be done by poster rather than by post. A great >> deal of work involved if each post is to be checked. >> > Many posts can be discarded just by the subject. > It's apparent that some posters need to be ousted. > One poster with more alias than corrupt congress has lobbists > will have to be summarly ousted, every time he dares to enter. > > So far I've two or three who are willing to be moderators. > Are you also willing to moderate? Sci.math.research has > four rotating moderators. > > There's two aspects to a platform. > One is what is on topic. > > Discussions about math, elementary through advanced > and related topics such as math history, math education, > math texts and books (except solution manuals), mathematicians. > > The other is about decor, which can be developed as the group forms. > > Any comments about the platform I've just penned? > > ----
I'm for a moderated group and although I really, really don't want to devote the time to it I reluctantly offer to be a co-moderator if there are sufficient volunteers to ease the burden and I don't disagree too much with the policy.
I suspect it might become easier with time as the people who habitually submit posts that would be censored by the moderators will eventually stop trying.
For my part, I wouldn't ban Plutonium, and I wouldn't ban JSH; the latter has the courtesy to alert everyone when he starts a thread. Herc is marginal and Musatov is almost a definite. I would also censor all abusive replies to the above and any other messages.