Louise,
? ? ? ? ? In your case, why could you not send a message out to the existing group notifying the group of your intent to move? ? As a part of that message you might (I don't know what mechanisms are available) ask people for some sort of response (perhaps to a poll) as to whether they wish to remain on the group or not. ?If people are actually constantly reading, but not posting (that is, they're lurkers), then they should still respond that they wish to be carried over. ?For anyone who responds no or does not respond, cull them from your group.
? ? ? ? ? ?I would also include information about where the new group is located on Groups.io and information on how to subscribe, too. ?If someone is infrequently checking their e-mail and were culled, this allows them to resubscribe of their own volition when they realize the group's been moved in their absence.
? ? ? ? ? ?I don't understand why there should be any impact on an archive. ?That should be ported in its entirety, if that's possible. ?Current membership in a newly established Groups.io group is not necessary to keep old posts from former members in an archive. ?They stay there if the member drops out, don't they? ?I've never seen an archive purge former members' posts (without cause, that is).
Lena,
? ? ? ? ? ? I actually agree with the banning of members if:
- if the welcome message to a group explains the issues with spam marking/unmarking, whitelisting, and how to use the Groups.io "Mute this Topic" mechanism
- it can be determined that the user actually performed the act of marking a group message as spam (as opposed to an e-mail filter outside their control doing so)
- they have received a single counseling from a moderator/owner after having manually marked one, perhaps thoughtlessly, and do so again
I have repeatedly said, and I will say it again, that users of any medium can and should be expected to understand the features, constructs, and limitations of that medium. ?They cannot be expected to divine these and need direct guidance and education. ?If, however, they refuse the guidance and education their membership should be terminated.
Groups are just that, groups, and when the actions of a single member are disruptive or risk damaging the larger group in a substantial way, they've been warned, and they persist in their behavior(s) then banning is the appropriate response. ?There seems to be a set of owners who believe that "membership count" is the ultimate metric for a group; it isn't. ? I've watched groups die because either they were entirely unmoderated and a small group of troublemakers arrived and polluted the group with so much garbage that it was no longer worth the effort or they were moderated but the moderator resisted removing problem members even after being repeatedly petitioned to do so. ?When you've got a member that is clearly driving other members crazy and not contributing anything of value on a routine basis they're not worth having in the group.
Brian?
