You know, it just occured to me, that under the new model, I can't figure out how to let my list admins do something they used to be able to do...
I have a list that's normally unmoderated, posting by subscriber only. Every now and then things get too heated, and the list owner steps in and flips the moderate switch until people play nice again. Under the new rules, to do that, the only way I see for him to do that is to go in and click "moderate" next to each of 300 names... Or he has to call me and I try to whip up a little python proc to run under withlist to flip everyone's bits... Did I miss something? (Yes, I followed the discussions, but this particular regular even just didn't register at the time...)
"RJ" == Ron Jarrell <jarrell@vt.edu> writes:
RJ> You know, it just occured to me, that under the new model, I
RJ> can't figure out how to let my list admins do something they
RJ> used to be able to do...
RJ> I have a list that's normally unmoderated, posting by
RJ> subscriber only. Every now and then things get too heated,
RJ> and the list owner steps in and flips the moderate switch
RJ> until people play nice again. Under the new rules, to do
RJ> that, the only way I see for him to do that is to go in and
RJ> click "moderate" next to each of 300 names... Or he has to
RJ> call me and I try to whip up a little python proc to run under
RJ> withlist to flip everyone's bits... Did I miss something?
RJ> (Yes, I followed the discussions, but this particular regular
RJ> even just didn't register at the time...)That's definitely not a use case that's come up yet <wink>, so no I don't think you've missed anything.
Let's tease out what you really want...
Would you be happy with an emergency switch that applied to all postings, from members and non-members alike, even if the non-members are on the "accept these non-members" list?
Should anybody's postings be able to go through without being caught by the emergency switch?
Should there be a magic header that lets messages go through even though the switch is pulled? Urgent: headers?
Once the emergency switch is pulled, what should happen to postings? Should they just get held for approval? Would it make any sense to reject or discard them? Should that even be configurable?
Once I understand what the use cases are I can decide how hard it would be to support this feature.
-Barry
On 3/12/02 12:56 PM, "Barry A. Warsaw" <barry@zope.com> wrote:
Let's tease out what you really want...
(oreos, thanks... And soy milk)
- Would you be happy with an emergency switch that applied to all postings, from members and non-members alike, even if the non-members are on the "accept these non-members" list?
Yes. Sometimes, you need a "time out, let's settle down" switch.
- Should anybody's postings be able to go through without being caught by the emergency switch?
Only the list admins.
- Should there be a magic header that lets messages go through even though the switch is pulled? Urgent: headers?
Maybe configurable. IMHO, if you push the Big Red Button, only the admins are allowed in until the Halon is gone....
- Once the emergency switch is pulled, what should happen to postings? Should they just get held for approval? Would it make any sense to reject or discard them? Should that even be configurable?
I'm sure someone would want auto-reject, but IMHO, you're looking at short-term, emergency moderation, so they go into the approval queue, so if nothing else, the admin can review them and send back a personal note explaining why the person should chill... (grin)
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.chuqui.com/
The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging.
"CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> writes:
>> - Would you be happy with an emergency switch that applied to
>> all postings, from members and non-members alike, even if the
>> non-members are on the "accept these non-members" list?
CVR> Yes. Sometimes, you need a "time out, let's settle down"
CVR> switch.This is in cvs now, complete with Rude Solo Light <wink>. For messages held while in emergency mode, no notifications are sent to the list owner or to the sender (I suspect both would be highly annoying, and no, I don't want to add yet another knob to control this).
Messages get through if they have an Approved: header with the list owner or moderator password. That seems to be the only unspoofable token we can rely on.
Enjoy, -Barry
At 11:22 PM 3/14/02 -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
"CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> writes:
>> - Would you be happy with an emergency switch that applied to >> all postings, from members and non-members alike, even if the >> non-members are on the "accept these non-members" list? CVR> Yes. Sometimes, you need a "time out, let's settle down" CVR> switch.This is in cvs now, complete with Rude Solo Light <wink>. For messages held while in emergency mode, no notifications are sent to the list owner or to the sender (I suspect both would be highly annoying, and no, I don't want to add yet another knob to control this).
Messages get through if they have an Approved: header with the list owner or moderator password. That seems to be the only unspoofable token we can rely on.
Will they still go through if released with the usual mechanism of going to admindb and accepting it?
At 03:56 PM 3/12/02 -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
"RJ" == Ron Jarrell <jarrell@vt.edu> writes:
RJ> You know, it just occured to me, that under the new model, I RJ> can't figure out how to let my list admins do something they RJ> used to be able to do...
RJ> I have a list that's normally unmoderated, posting by RJ> subscriber only. Every now and then things get too heated, RJ> and the list owner steps in and flips the moderate switch RJ> until people play nice again. Under the new rules, to do RJ> that, the only way I see for him to do that is to go in and RJ> click "moderate" next to each of 300 names... Or he has to RJ> call me and I try to whip up a little python proc to run under RJ> withlist to flip everyone's bits... Did I miss something? RJ> (Yes, I followed the discussions, but this particular regular RJ> even just didn't register at the time...)
That's definitely not a use case that's come up yet <wink>, so no I don't think you've missed anything.
Oh good :-).
Let's tease out what you really want...
Well, for the case of this list, and drawing on the experiences of another list I'm on, but don't host, that has done this more than once:
- Would you be happy with an emergency switch that applied to all postings, from members and non-members alike, even if the non-members are on the "accept these non-members" list?
I think that would suffice - in these cases it's usually a flame war that's broken out, and the admin/moderator wants everything to just *stop* temporarily, but generally not be lost.
- Should anybody's postings be able to go through without being caught by the emergency switch?
Well, it'd probably be nice if the addresses listed as admins/moderators could still post. Bonus points I suppose for that to be configurable, but, jeez, if you can't trust the other moderators, your list is screwed.
- Should there be a magic header that lets messages go through even though the switch is pulled? Urgent: headers?
I don't think so; otherwise anyone who's sussed the trick defeats the purpose.
- Once the emergency switch is pulled, what should happen to postings? Should they just get held for approval? Would it make any sense to reject or discard them? Should that even be configurable?
Base state would be "held for approval." Then the admin can either let them through later, or pick out eggregious ones to nuke before letting things go. Given the existing tools, it's simple enough to just reject or discard them all from the admindb page if so desired.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 03:56:37PM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
Let's tease out what you really want...
- Would you be happy with an emergency switch that applied to all postings, from members and non-members alike, even if the non-members are on the "accept these non-members" list?
A list level master-override switch to moderate everyone temporarily; yeah, that's what I think he's asking.
- Once the emergency switch is pulled, what should happen to postings? Should they just get held for approval? Would it make any sense to reject or discard them? Should that even be configurable?
I'd assume he simply wants one more list-level "should postings be treated as moderated" flag that could be toggled in realtime, that would be checked right before (or after) the per-user one. In general, I think that's a good idea.
It probably needs a Rude Solo Light, though.
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
"If you don't have a dream; how're you gonna have a dream come true?" -- Captain Sensible, The Damned (from South Pacific's "Happy Talk")
"RJ" == Ron Jarrell <jarrell@vt.edu> writes:
>> It probably needs a Rude Solo Light, though. Cheers, -- jra
RJ> Bwahah... *I* actually get that :-) Now we divide the people
RJ> who do sound engineering from the ones who don't...Heh, I get it. One of the, er, perks of going wireless is that I get to double as the sound guy for the cheap gigs. :)
-Barry
participants (4)
-
barry＠zope.com -
Chuq Von Rospach -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Ron Jarrell