Non-members can still post on this message board.

… and it will only take 1 of many moderators to approve the post for it to become visible.

So the message board is still very much open to all.

I was just wondering how long will it take for messages posted
by non members to show up. Not looking for exact amount of time
because I understand it is not an easy process to moderate this board.
I’ve been waiting for 35 min for one to show… and it was non inflamatory


For the first couple of days it might be a while (particularly if you’re posting late at night) because staff is handling the moderation until we firm up moderation rules and appoint moderators. After that it shouldn’t be that long at all.

I was led to understand that “moderation”, at this time, is equal to simply this…

Delete posts from posters who have been banned from the message board…allow the remainder to post.

Is this correct, Nick?

Ahh, No.

Good to have you back Jim.


Good Morning JB. :cool:


It goes slightly beyond that: non-member posts that are clear personal attacks, libel, or slander will be moderated. That includes non-members who have not been officially banned. But otherwise, non-members should have similar access to the board to what they had before.

No waiting for members, non members will need patience during our transition.
The wait time is an inconvenience but hopefully not a deterrent to our guests.

If you mean “libel” and “slander” in their true legal sense, you have to take into consideration that both are required to be “untrue” and written in “malice”. The “truth” of a statement is usually hard to judge from simply one post.

“Personal attacks” are also relative.

I’ve read some very bloody arguments with two professional electrical inspector teachers who hated each other, personally. Their opposing views on the issues made for interesting reading. It wasn’t until one of them took the fight “off the board” and tried to affect the other’s employment that NACHI chose to get involved, and we booted the offender out of the association and removed his rights to post.

Professional differences often become personal, during the discussion, and later the two debaters find and agree on common ground.

None of this can be determined by one who is outside of the discussion who is reading one single post.

NACHI lost its 2008 Member of the Year last night when his thread was uncerimoniously deleted where he was dealing with what he considered a very important issue.

Each deletion offends and diminishes, in a very public day, that person’s worth to the community. How many “offenders” do you think will want to post again?

The banned should be banned and their posts should never see the light of day.

If you get enough complaints (you have a little triangle on each post in which to report them) for any particular post, you can move it to “Spam” where the poster and those offended by it can discuss it.

Censorship will kill this board and this board needs to be here.

One other point that not too many will disagree with…Anyone who considers himself able to judge libel, slander or personal attack from one single post - and anyone with a desire to determine on his own what others should read - is unworthy for the job and should not be selected as a moderator.

I do mean libel and slander in their true legal sense (mostly libel in the case of the message board). If a non-member is defaming a member, they have no place on this board.

Personal attacks are definitely relative, and I think we should err on the side of caution. If a non-member is clearly attacking a member, particularly if it’s in an profane way, they shouldn’t be allowed to post. Disagreements do not count as personal attacks.

You have the capacity to handle non-members in any manner you wish and those who you have described as libelous, slanderous, and defaming should simply be banned. To be banned, they need only convince you since they have no other rights to post other than those granted, by courtesy, in expectation of theirs.

Erring on the side of caution for personal attacks should be to allow them until there is a complaint. That is the caution that will preserve the integrity of the message board. Putting a moderator in-between two people trying to have an argument is going to antagonize both.

Your moderation should not exceed those who are banned from making any post and determining what non-member to ban is at your discretion.

Not the way I understand it.

From what I’ve seen there will be no deletion of non-member posts. All non-members posts go into a queue for aproval before they appear on the board. Thus any post that would need deletion, should, in theory never see the board.

The little triangles are worthless, mine was removed, after I reported one post. In other words, no matter what anyone said about me, I could not complain or report it.


You don’t have the “Report Post” button?

I do since I rejoined, but before I did not.

What I don’t get about the new rule, is what does it prevent?

If someone were to post Spam or Inflammatory Remarks, then other members would hit the Report Post Icon to report it to the moderators immediately. Thats when a post should deserve moderation.

I see this as increasing the moderating tasks more than assisting in the duties to diminish their work load.

I know first hand, because I moderate on which has over 40,000 members and which has over 45,000 members and several Roofing related sites. If I had to add Moving Approved Posts to the duties, I wouldn’t have time to keep up.

I just try to offer practical real world experience commentary to assist those that run into typical situations, but have not actually done the roofing or ventilation tasks before themselves.

I don’t know how long it took to get posted. The one answer to another thread and this question both were not available for me to see, so I left the forum last night to wait for the response to this question.

It sucks the wind out of the continuity of a discussion, like one thread which requested questions to be considered for a roofing guide book. I never would have posted more than one situation, had I not gotten instant response and feedback.

I am sure you put some thought into this action, but it probably had more to do with inflammatory posters, which I do not consider myself to be.

See if you guys in charge can reconsider that rule please. As diplomatically as this statement can be said, this rule Sucks, in my own humble opinion.

Or, the very least, have an option for a gratis affiliate membership for posters considered worthwhile to have on board, since I do not plan on opening up a Home Inspection business to compete with you guys. Maybe some sort of probationary status for an unknown personality new to posting on this site could be considered.

Does that seem reasonable to you?



Once we have more moderators, posts will not sit in the queue for very long. Also, it has been suggested that non-members who have a track record of good posts could be promoted to a usergroup that is not moderated. Over the next few weeks we’ll decide if that’s necessary.

Thank you for the consideration.

I also left similar, but extended comments in a couple of other threads.

I do have a lot of experience or advice on how to maintain documentation for moderated members and posts from those other large forums I moderate on.

It need not be so time consuming and difficult by adding so many addditional tasks to the volunteers.


Glad to hear my suggestion is being considered.