Some details on a moderated pianotech

[Bill Ballard]

At 10:25 PM -0700 5/5/04, jason kanter wrote:
>Filtering out "OT" automatically isn't as reliable or easy as it would seem.
>Most filters are not case sensitive, so the filter needs to distinguish
>between "OT" and "pianotech" ... or if you filter for "OT " with a space
>after the T, you filter out "aliquot " as well ...

I just now checked to see whether the filters on my long-in-the-tooth 
Eudora 4.2 were case sensitive. NO THEY WEREN'T!. (Why should I 
expect a low-grade text manager like an email client app to care 
about such sophisticated distinctions such as UC/LC, let alone 
details like tracking and leading and drop caps.?) Then there are all 
the other exceptions you provide.

>and if you filter for
>"OT:" with a colon, you miss the ones without a colon ... much easier to do
>it manually.

If we really decided to make individual filtering work, it would have 
to be based on an agreed marker ("OT: ") and individuals sticking 
faithfully to that protocol. Lord knows they're unreliable enough at 
noticing when the subject matter in the body of their post nothing to 
do with what subject field. Should we depend on them to make sure an 
"OT" has a ":" and a " " after it? Don't even mention a person's 
commitment to make sure that their judgement of what needs the "OT" 
stamp will keep everyone else happy.

As an example, this is from a post in the thread "Unsubscribing"
At 10:47 AM +0000 5/6/04, marc avery wrote:
>Sarah, Avery,
>I didn't know that you guys were Texans!  So am I.  Small world huh?

So I'll now assume that app filtering won't work.

At 9:20 AM +0200 5/6/04, Richard Brekne wrote:
>......to meet the obviously significant number of irritated 
>subscribers half way on this

I counted the posts on this thread (17). 7 writers thought the plan 
wasn't necessary, 5 thought it was a good idea (but didn't mention 
any personal problem with "OT" posts). But where is this significant 
number of irritated users who should be chiming in that the plan is 
necessary because such posts simply don't belong on PTx. Even the 
five who thought it was a good idea worth a try are maybe 1% of 
(what?) a 300 name list.

At 9:20 AM +0200 5/6/04, Richard Brekne wrote:
>I dont really see any down sides to this suggestion.

I agree. It's only the folks who choose PTx-m whose mail delivery 
will be affected. Those of us with the regular PTx will able to post 
back and forth in real time, leaving the "-m" people in the dust. 
Jason and Ric have convinced me. I'm actually changing my vote to yes 
for the parallel moderated list. My only two qualms at this point are 
1.) consistency of the moderation -all moderators should be on the 
unmoderated list so that they can see on a daily basis what other 
moderators let pass and compare it to what they let pass. and 2.) the 
decorum on the unmoderated list. In the past, the number of people 
complaining about OT posts has been a moderating influence on us 
OTers. How wild and wooly things get once they're out of Dodge City 
remains to be seen. But I personally think I can deal with it.

So, yes, I'm on board with the parallel lists, as described by Andy. 
(It's actually not that far from David Skolnik's idea of last winter.)

Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.

"All God's Children got Rhythm"
     ...........Ivy Anderson in "A Day at the Races"
+++++++++++++++++++++