Re: replacing fossil fuels

On Jul 6, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:

> We don't need to confer about this kind of thing.  The only time we  
> need to agree is on those very, very rare occasions when we see the  
> need to shut someone out.

I've found, on the lists/communities I mod, that if none of the mods  
approve a post given ample opportunity to do so, if it sits in the  
queue long enough, a quick poll of the other mods for "is this post a  
problem?" will usually arrive at some consensus as to whether to  
reject it or not.  (Although the first person to ask is usually the  
one who ends up tasked with telling the offender what the problem was..)

> And yes, the spambots attack regularly.

They do indeed.  Although the most foolproof test of all seems to be  
having a human read the first few posts from a new member and only  
approve posters who seem to be posting mostly on topic and from a  
perspective of interest in the discussion.  Even if someone were to  
try to write a bot script to fake enough seemingly on-topic replies to  
gain unmoderated access and not just try to blast out as much spam as  
it can before it's killed, that faking process itself would be ..  
*rather* non-trivial.  :D

"Oh yeah? Well, I speak LOOOOOOOUD, and I carry a BEEEEEEEger stick --  
and I use it too!"  **whop!**   -- Yosemite Sam