David Harris wrote:
> >
> I was the moderator who closed that thread, and I've just gone back and
> looked at it. The original post started out with a comment on being a
> tech writer; the rest of the thread, including all three responses (and
> there were three, not just one), was about job recruiters. It did not
> seem to me that the scams under discussion were those specifically
> targeted at writers, since only the beginning of the first post in the
> thread said anything about writing. I still think I made the right
> decision.
>
> dmh

I think it will always be a right moderator decision that keeps
threads from violating the charter. That's what a moderated
forum is all about, and the main job of the moderators, after all.

But, as moderators, we have multiple tools in our kit, some "heavy,"
some "light." The trick is using the best tool for each problem,
which is something moderators probably learn with experience.
For example, I came up with this rough draft of a hierarchy:

Heavy
| Request for (punative) action from originating ISP
| Blacklisting
| Thread closure
| Moderator caution to tighten focus in thread, posted in thread
| Note to offender(s)/line walker(s) off-line
| Participating in thread with post to bring back to topic
Light

I would be leery of casting this hierarchy in stone, such that
moderators are required to go from lightest to heaviest in order.
There are times when starting heavy is the appropriate response,
and too many strict rules can hamstring the moderators as much as
they can hamstring the newsgroup.

But I think it is equally important for the mods to be flexible,
practicing with the entire tool kit rather than always grabbing
at the trusty hammer, as it were.

Important note: I mean absolutely NO criticism of the David
as the moderator in this particular case. I wasn't on-line at
the time, and he was, and I don't second-guess the guy in the field.
I'm just typing my thoughts as they form, for everyone to discuss.

I'd prefer the multiple tool approach to "loosening" the charter.
I suspect so would the net ghods.

Carol Flynt