[Imc-aotearoa-ed] ed removals

[Brian van Dam]

HI Duncan and Clare,
                                    Some good points being drawn out 
here. Clare has clarified what she meant, and I agree that there is 
little point in adding comments to a post indicating the likelihood of 
hiding that post - better to focus our efforts on a quick response on 
the Ed list. I always add the comment to a post immediately prior to hiding.

Separate to that, I think the vote/consensus thing has reared its head 
again. The way I understand it, we use consensus, but there are 
practical limits cos of time (we don't want posts in breach of the 
AimEdPolicy staying up longer than they have to). So, editors can hide 
`immediate action' posts immediately and e-mail the Ed List for 
retro-decision within 24 hours (i.e. if no-one objects it stays hidden).

The e-mail to the Ed List and 24 hour `thinking space' has to happen 
first in all other cases, except where a spammer has been identified 
(which justifies immediate hide and e-mail reasons for saying its spam 
to Ed List). So, it seems you should have classified this one as a 
Victor spam D, and hidden it immediately.

That said, we do need a tidy set of parameters for what is on/off topic, 
as spam can best we deemed to be off topic stuff that just clogs the 
system. Otherwise it is hard to say what is spam. This is a broad and 
difficult issue (kinda like trying to enumerate all the possible things 
that could go wrong with GE) - I'll add it to the twiki ToDo list.

By the way, we can't find the identity of post authors - that is the 
whole point of open publishing:) Which leaves us with the points Clare 
made about spammers like Victor - we have to operate off common post 
names, etc as there is no way to check whether an author is actually who 
they say they are. I have even wondered about a few posts made under the 
`rovin' name - were they published by the rovin I know?

Cheers,
            Brian.