I don't think anyone is trying to 'censor' things, but one person taking on the work of moderating a list that will only grow in participation is hardly useful.
Its more a matter of one persons ability to manage that workload despite best their best intentions.
It seems that getting rid of cross posting or setting up a new sanitized group (whichever works best) can fix matters in the short term.
Then the participants themselves can work collectively to keep things on topic, or point people to the proper venue for their off-topic messages (spreading the responsibility).
Spam and off topic posts are always an issue to deal with, but it seems like delaying the conversation til one person has the time to release messages from the flow, is not the way to facilitate collaboration.
I've come across this problem with every client that's wanted user-contributed content/discussion, and unless one has an army to moderate/prune (and even then) I always advise them against it.
Giving a pool of people moderator authority would also be helpful, but I think moderation should occur post publishing vs. creating a bottleneck and delaying what should virtually be real-time communication.
On Nov 11, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Sam Zimmerman wrote:
hi Bruce -
I and a few others attempt to moderate this group in the manner you describe. Unfortunately much of this has devolved to busy work because we've been hitched up to a high volume feed of totally unrelated discussions from all over the country. I spend all day monitoring the group and sorting through this stuff, probably at the expense of paying attention to more important conversations in other venues...