in response ...

users
#1

well, when I think the list might be interested in what's going on,
I cc to the list;
          in that way all have the chance to be informed.

#2

On any of the lists I moderate, or used to moderate, doing that would
get me off the list, and my moderation duties revoked, faster than a New
York Second.

The appropriate sequence is:
* Approve the message;
* If nobody else has responded 48 hours later, then, if able to do so,
address the issue(s) in the message;

One of the reasons that selecting good list moderators is difficult, is
that the job, in essence, requires the moderator to stop participating
in the list.

jonathon

#3

well, when I think the list might be interested in what's going on,
I cc to the list;

On any of the lists I moderate, or used to moderate, doing that would
get me off the list, and my moderation duties revoked, faster than a New
York Second.

While I agree with that comment...

The appropriate sequence is:
* Approve the message;
* If nobody else has responded 48 hours later, then, if able to do so,
address the issue(s) in the message;

... there is simply no legitimate reason that a moderator should have to
wait 48 hours before replying to a list message just because they
approved it. They are free to respond immediately - but only to the LIST
message.

Anne's mistake is she is replying to the message in the moderation queue
before she approves it.

Also, she mentioned something about editing a message before approving
it. That would also get your list moderator status revoked in my book.
Either approve the message or reject it, but never ever edit it then
approve it.

One of the reasons that selecting good list moderators is difficult, is
that the job, in essence, requires the moderator to stop participating
in the list.

Baloney. They can perform moderator duties with one hat, and participate
with another.

#4

* If nobody else has responded 48 hours later, then, if able to do so,
address the issue(s) in the message;

... there is simply no legitimate reason that a moderator should have to
wait 48 hours before replying to a list message just because they

The theory, supported by research, is that active moderator
participation, results in a reduction in participation by list members,
with the highest impact being amongst the low-frequency posters.

One of the reasons that selecting good list moderators is difficult, is
that the job, in essence, requires the moderator to stop participating
in the list.

Baloney. They can perform moderator duties with one hat, and participate with another.

Well, no. What happens when the moderator is an active participant on
the list, is that their messages tend to be seen as "authoritative" by
people who can browse list messages. One side effect, is that
questioning information provided by the list moderator becomes
difficult/awkward.

jonathon

#5

The theory, supported by research, is that active moderator
participation, results in a reduction in participation by list members,
with the highest impact being amongst the low-frequency posters.

Link(s) please?

Regardless, you do know that using identities, it would be entirely
achievable for a moderator to interact on the list and 99% of the list
participants wouldn;t know they were the same person.

Well, no.

Well, yes.

What happens when the moderator is an active participant on
the list, is that their messages tend to be seen as "authoritative" by
people who can browse list messages.

Only if they are posting as the moderator. If they post as a simple
participant, then most won't even know they are a moderator.

One side effect, is that questioning information provided by the list
moderator becomes difficult/awkward.

Not at all, as long as they are civil, and the moderator can hold their
god complex in check.

#6

This would assume that posters know that someone is a moderator. It never occured to me that Anne is a moderator here.

Virgil