[Imc-aotearoa-ed] discussion required

[ksimpson at ihug.co.nz]

I think so too. Ken
>
> I dont know about designating the NF group as a spammer,
> surely we need to continue to approach it on an individual
> basis, they dont seem to have any sort of staying power
> compared to other spammers, perhaps a slight alteration to
> the ed policy in which if a article is attracting a flurry
> of that sort of activity (i.e. racist, sexist etc) we can
> invoke that those posts can be removed without prior
> discussion but then inform the list after.
> This could be applied for a given period of time i.e. 7
> days and then revoked back to these posts requiring
> discussion before being hidden, unless the editorial
> alteration be re-invoked. It seemed to work well when we
> did with the first lot of NF posts. it would be a shame to
> hide them all, as they do make themselves look
> particularly silly which can only be a good thing just
> some thoughts kieran
>
>
> > Hi. I think the NF are heading that way. However,
> > editorial policy requires us to vet each post for racism
> > , sexism etc. which could be a lot of work with these
> > guys when they get going. Ken
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm unsure what we are doing about these nazi posts,
> > > so I've put this up for discussion. Perhaps we should
> > > designate NF type posts as official spammers?
> > >
> > > seeya,
> > > finn
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-aotearoa-ed mailing list
> Imc-aotearoa-ed at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-aotearoa-ed
>