Blocking senders

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis
wrote:

Early on, before we even got around to the first draft of the RFD, the
subject of "blacklisting" or blocking posters based on IP number, nym, or
any of a number of different criteria. The suggestion was met with a
resounding "NO." Even if someone were to hold hostage and threaten to kill
a cute kitten unless we "blacklisted" someone, we still wouldn't block a
poster. We aren't even looking at ways to do it, so we may not even be
able to do it even if we wanted to. If a post is civil and about ponds,
there is little doubt that it would be approved, no matter who submitted
it. Let me make it perfectly clear, we will allow anyone to post no matter
how many cute kittens someone threatens to kill. There are NO plans to
moderate RPM on anything other than content. Of course, if someone
threatens cute bunnies we may have to rethink that...

I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch
threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be hitting
the reject button. :-) ~ jan

~ janj wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis
wrote:
[ . . . ]
I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch
threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be
hitting the reject button. :-) ~ jan

One of the joys of not being a potential moderator, mentor or member of the
B8 Board is that I can be very picky about whose posts I read. Galen is one
of them.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

On 21 Dec 2006 05:20:47 GMT, wrote:

~ janj wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis
wrote:
[ . . . ]
I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch
threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be
hitting the reject button. :-) ~ jan

One of the joys of not being a potential moderator, mentor or member of the
B8 Board is that I can be very picky about whose posts I read. Galen is one
of them.

One of them you DO read, yes? ~ jan

~ janj wrote:
On 21 Dec 2006 05:20:47 GMT, wrote:

~ janj wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis
wrote:
[ . . . ]
I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch
threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be
hitting the reject button. :-) ~ jan

One of the joys of not being a potential moderator, mentor or member of
the B8 Board is that I can be very picky about whose posts I read. Galen
is one of them.

One of them you DO read, yes? ~ jan

Yeees, dear!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

One of the joys of not being a potential moderator, mentor or member of
the B8 Board is that I can be very picky about whose posts I read. Galen
is one of them. Nick

One of them you DO read, yes? ~ jan

Yeees, dear! Nick

:-} ~ jan

"~ janj" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis
wrote:

Early on, before we even got around to the first draft of the RFD, the
subject of "blacklisting" or blocking posters based on IP number, nym, or
any of a number of different criteria. The suggestion was met with a
resounding "NO." Even if someone were to hold hostage and threaten to
kill
a cute kitten unless we "blacklisted" someone, we still wouldn't block a
poster. We aren't even looking at ways to do it, so we may not even be
able to do it even if we wanted to. If a post is civil and about ponds,
there is little doubt that it would be approved, no matter who submitted
it. Let me make it perfectly clear, we will allow anyone to post no
matter
how many cute kittens someone threatens to kill. There are NO plans to
moderate RPM on anything other than content. Of course, if someone
threatens cute bunnies we may have to rethink that...

I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch
threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be
hitting
the reject button. :-) ~ jan

What Jan said.

Gail

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:52:29 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
wrote:

"~ janj" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:52:56 -0500, Galen Hekhuis
wrote:

Early on, before we even got around to the first draft of the RFD, the
subject of "blacklisting" or blocking posters based on IP number, nym, or
any of a number of different criteria. The suggestion was met with a
resounding "NO." Even if someone were to hold hostage and threaten to
kill
a cute kitten unless we "blacklisted" someone, we still wouldn't block a
poster. We aren't even looking at ways to do it, so we may not even be
able to do it even if we wanted to. If a post is civil and about ponds,
there is little doubt that it would be approved, no matter who submitted
it. Let me make it perfectly clear, we will allow anyone to post no
matter
how many cute kittens someone threatens to kill. There are NO plans to
moderate RPM on anything other than content. Of course, if someone
threatens cute bunnies we may have to rethink that...

I don't know about you Galen, but if a post comes thru on my watch
threatening to kill anything if we mods don't do something, I'll be
hitting
the reject button. :-) ~ jan

What Jan said.

Hey gang, maybe y'all should re-read the thing. I said nothing about
receiving a post that threatened us to take some action. I mentioned that
we had no plans to "blacklist" anyone, and that threats of any kind (I used
killing kittens, but it could have been puppies or anything) were quite
unlikely to make us do so. Threatening *posts* are an entirely different
matter.

--
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Hell hath no fury like a bird in the hand.

Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:52:29 GMT, "Gail Futoran"
"~ janj" wrote in message
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
[ . . . ]
Hey gang, maybe y'all should re-read the thing. I said nothing about
receiving a post that threatened us to take some action. I mentioned
that we had no plans to "blacklist" anyone, and that threats of any kind
(I used killing kittens, but it could have been puppies or anything) were
quite unlikely to make us do so. Threatening *posts* are an entirely
different matter.

Playing Devil's Advocate here. So, if I say that, if you don't post my post
to rpm, I will kill YOU, would be treated differently than if I said I
would kill a baby kitten or all your koi?

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

On 21 Dec 2006 22:21:44 GMT, wrote:

Playing Devil's Advocate here. So, if I say that, if you don't post my post
to rpm, I will kill YOU, would be treated differently than if I said I
would kill a baby kitten or all your koi?

I don't care if you threaten me, my kittens, my koi, (my tractor is a
different story), or much of anything, I still won't be "blacklisting"
folks. If you kill me, I sure won't be "blacklisting" anyone. Now if you
send me a threatening post, that's entirely different, and the post may be
returned, indeed, it may have a number of things done with it, such as
forwarding the post to various people and agencies. It probably wouldn't
get posted, as it is difficult for me to imagine how one could make a
"civil" threat, although there is something to be said for making such
threats public. Anyway, the whole thrust of the article was to say that
"blocking senders" was not on the table, nor did I feel that any threats
would be effective in making us block a particular sender.

--
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Hell hath no fury like a bird in the hand.

Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On 21 Dec 2006 22:21:44 GMT, wrote:

Playing Devil's Advocate here. So, if I say that, if you don't post my
post to rpm, I will kill YOU, would be treated differently than if I
said I would kill a baby kitten or all your koi?

I don't care if you threaten me, my kittens, my koi, (my tractor is a
different story), or much of anything, I still won't be "blacklisting"
folks. If you kill me, I sure won't be "blacklisting" anyone. Now if
you send me a threatening post, that's entirely different, and the post
may be returned, indeed, it may have a number of things done with it,
such as forwarding the post to various people and agencies. It probably
wouldn't get posted, as it is difficult for me to imagine how one could
make a "civil" threat, although there is something to be said for making
such threats public. Anyway, the whole thrust of the article was to say
that "blocking senders" was not on the table, nor did I feel that any
threats would be effective in making us block a particular sender.

Good! I, in fact, would never threaten harm to anyone or anything.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~