Alt.astrology.tropical is moderated and run by a team rather than by a single moderator.
There are 8 panel members, and pulled from that panel are at least three active moderators
at all times.

>From the time this group was created, it was agreed upon by the panel that we wanted a
lightly moderated group, and that free discussion of astrology and all related ideas was
our goal. We try to keep that goal always in mind, and try to adhere to the a.a.t. charter
in both letter and spirit. That is not always easy.

Anyone who has not had the pleasure of moderating a newsgroup will probably not understand
how difficult it can be to anticipate and extinguish inflammatory discussions that can
easily become flame wars, and at the same time promote free discussion, as well as make
sure posters are not hindered by odious, unfair, or heavy-handed moderation policies.

There can be a fine line between moderation and censorship, and the a.a.t. moderators
often have to walk this line while deciding if a post should be approved or rejected. This
is especially true when debates heat up, and also because some posters tend to disguise
personal attacks as debate.

Though it might seem as if it should be easy to figure out whether a post is abusive or
not, sometimes it is not immediately clear, and a moderator is often forced to consider
the poster's intent when making such a decision. Is the poster attacking an idea or
statement, or is the poster attacking another poster personally?

Let me try to give some very simple examples of what does, and does not qualify as a
personal attack:

"You are an idiot." is a personal attack.

"Your ideas are idiotic." is also a personal attack.

"I think that idea/statement is idiotic." is not technically a personal attack, but will
be taken as one by 9 out of 10 posters because it infers that the person who expressed the
idea or statement is also an idiot.

"I think that idea/statement is ridiculous/untrue/obviously false/etc." Is acceptable, and
even though some posters with thin skins may view it as a personal attack, the attack is
on the idea or statement, not the person.

Of course, these are very simple examples, and easy to sort out. But it is possible and
quite tempting, for some, to be abusive using much subtler language and phrasing, and this
is the thing that makes it difficult for the moderators. So let me be as clear as possible
here:

It's perfectly ok to challenge ideas and concepts, and even the general validity of
astrology (if such challenges are in a thread prefaced by the term: in the subject line.
The reason for this is that many posters would rather not participate in such threads, and
the VALIDITY tag clues them in on what the thread is about).

It is NOT ok to challenge the intellect, sanity, integrity, or character of a poster, no
matter how subtly or slyly done, and this is grounds for rejection of your post.
If you think you have had a post rejected, you will either get notice of that by email
(unless you have a munged email addy for spam prevention purposes) or you can check the
rejected threads list at the stump site to make sure.

A poster who indulges in personal attack will have the offending post rejected, with a
request to modify the post to exclude the offending sections. If a second attack is
rejected, the poster will be issued a warning. Three posts rejected in the space of 2
weeks will be grounds for a vote by the panel to reject all posts by the offending poster
for a limited period of time, usually one week for the first offense. If offenses keep
occurring from the same poster, the panel will have to decide whether that poster should
be allowed to post to a.a.t. at all.

We do not want a black list at a.a.t., but we do not want the headaches caused by trying
to moderate the submissions of a poster who refuses to follow the rules of this group,
either. We do this for free because we enjoy it, and we pay the costs of administration of
the group as well. We all have busy lives and jobs outside of a.a.t., and no one needs the
extra stress and aggravation such posters can cause.


There is another area of concern besides personal attack. Sometimes, a poster will make it
clear that he no longer wishes to discuss a certain issue (or any issue at all) with
another poster. If the second poster then continues to interject comments (addressed to
that poster or not) in an attempt to inflame or belittle the poster, or derail the
discussion, we consider that harassment.

Certainly, the first poster could and should simply ignore the offender when at all
possible. But the mod panel is just as interested in protecting posters from harassment as
we are in promoting free discussion, and there comes a time in such situations when enough
is enough. If a poster asks you to leave him or her alone because of obvious antagonism
between the two of you, we expect you to do so. If you do not, the same process of
warnings and rejections outlined above for personal attacks will be applied to you.

All of our posters know very well what their own intent is, so do not harass or attack
others on a personal level, and there shouldn't be a problem. We ask that you exercise
personal courtesy and restraint at all times towards other posters, and remember that
"It's only UseNet."

Inevitably, when such occasions as described above arise, the moderators will make
mistakes, or make decisions that others disagree with. The a.a.t. charter provides for a
procedure for posters to raise issues of moderation and discuss them on the group itself.
If you disgaree with a moderation decision, you may start a new thread entitled "RFD:"
(where RFD stands for Request For Discussion, and you insert the sub line of the thread
containing the post in question.)

For instance, if one of your posts was rejected, you may bring the issue up for
discussion, ask why your post was rejected, present any arguments you may have as to why
it should not have been rejected, and even call for a panel vote on the issue.
Or, if a post was approved that you feel was abusive towards you, you may bring that issue
up also.

As long as you are not abusive to the moderators, you may discuss whatever you wish
pertaining to moderation and policy, and call for a panel vote if you want one. Vote
requests will be dealt with within 2 days if at all possible, and the results will be
posted in the RFD thread itself.

I hope this sufficiently explains the a.a.t. mod system and policies, but if you have more
questions, please feel free to send an email to the moderators contact address, and we'll
answer you as promptly as possible.