Re: 1st CFV - Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated

[Fritz Wuehler]

In article <ke69er$urg$1...@dont-email.me>
"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Reposted here as my reply to David Damerell's canvassing for votes in URCM
> is likely to be rejected in that group.
>
> "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
> > "David Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> > news:ukl*us...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> >> Quoting Barry Salter <xur...@request.ukvoting.org.uk>:
> >>>FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2)
> >>>Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> >>
> >> Statement from the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated:
> >>
> >> Summary:
> >>
> >> We (unsurprisingly) still oppose this hostile CFV. It will
> >> - Still forbid reasonable approaches to moderation.
> >> - Violate the privacy of transgressive posters;
> >> - Lead to more rather than fewer complaints and arguments.
> >>
> >> We recommend a NO vote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Our full reasons are as follows:
> >>
> >> 1. The proposed charter change would forbid a variety of moderation
> >> techniques which the urcm moderators and moderators of other moderated
> >> groups find usef,ul, even though the current version does not preclude the
> >> use of a passlist.
> >>
> >> Examples of moderation techniques which the charter change would
> >> forbid include:
> >>
> >> - Poster-specific limits on number of articles posted per day. We
> >> have in the past considered this, as a useful approach employed
> >> with new users of some other discussion mediums as a counter to
> >> sock puppetry.
> >>
> >> It is likely that if lesser tools are not available, we will find that
> >> we need to make more use of bans.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. Transgressive posters, whom we find it necessary to ban, should not
> >> have their identities revealed. We do not think it appropriate that
> >> such disciplinary matters should be aired in public. To do so would
> >> be a breach of the poster's privacy, and dubious under the Data
> >> Protection
> >> Principles.
> >>
> >> It is also obvious that a requirement to announce each ban provides a
> >> very
> >> easy way for a maliciously inclined person to clutter up the group with a
> >> series of pseudonyms.
> >>
> >>
> >> 3. The proposal is likely to lead to many more rejected posters
> >> claiming that their posts were rejected because of the poster's
> >> identity rather than the content. The result will be an increase in
> >> noise in the uk.* management groups.
> >>
> >>
> >> 4. We observe that urcm has already been the subject of three previous
> >> hostile RFDs, one intending to replace the moderators.
> >>
> >> In other usenet hierarchies, this level of interference with a
> >> moderation team would not be tolerated. For example in the Big 8
> >> (rec.* etc., the B8MB say):
> >>
> >> It is highly unlikely that the board would publish proposals for:
> >> ...
> >> - removal of an active moderator or removal of a moderated group
> >> without the consent of the moderator.
>
>
> I think the purpose of the CFV is to try and improve the fairness of the
> moderation. I don't understand why you would not want this. The current
> moderation techniques are unfair because you appear to be moderating based
> on the identity of the poster and not the content of the material being
> posted.
>
> Please allow this reasonable response to appear.

If Mark had proposed moderation on content and left the rest of his
shit out I'd be voting for this proposal.

[Sara]

I thought it was rather off that a post was allowed recommending that
URCM readers vote "no" but that no follow-up discussion is to be allowed.

--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.

[kat]

Sara wrote:
> I thought it was rather off that a post was allowed recommending that
> URCM readers vote "no" but that no follow-up discussion is to be
> allowed.

Presumably, if you vote Yes, the moderators will ban you for life. ;-)


--
kat
>^..^<

[John Benn]

"Sara" <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:saramerriman-97B6...@news.eternal-september.org...

I thought canvassing for votes was not allowed.

[John Benn]

"Fritz Wuehler" <fr...@spamexpire-201301.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote
in message
news:e9e142a8378c4f39...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...

Perhaps the vote should simply be about moderating on content alone.

[Sara]

In article <ampfmc...@mid.individual.net>,

The irony being I have no intention of voting yes. I don't like seeing
propaganda for one side of an argument posted that no one is allowed to
discuss in the same place.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[Sara]

In article <ke860s$4pe$1...@dont-email.me>,

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >
> > If Mark had proposed moderation on content and left the rest of his
> > shit out I'd be voting for this proposal.
>
> Perhaps the vote should simply be about moderating on content alone.

Then raise an RFD followed by a CFV on that basis.

[Nick]

On 29/01/2013 10:33, Sara wrote:

> The irony being I have no intention of voting yes. I don't like seeing
> propaganda for one side of an argument posted that no one is allowed to
> discuss in the same place.
>

I think this sums up the root of my objections to urcm. This bias
argument has been made again and again and as we see from David's rude
and stupidly obstructive response it has had little effect.

Mark's CFV is to all intents and purposes a trivial change however it
can act as a proxy to indicate posters' unhappiness with the more
general behaviour of the moderator team. If passed it will not require a
change of moderation team but it will send a clear message to the
moderation team that posters want to be involved and want more
transparent (and presumably more justifiable) moderation. If not passed
it will give the moderators more authority to continue as they are.

So if you genuinely don't like this bias why don't you have any
intention of voting yes?

[kat]

"Sara" <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message

news:saramerriman-1E81...@news.eternal-september.org...

I do think it wrong if the arguments put Against cannot be challenged. It
suggests the moderators don't trust their posters.

>
> --
> Sara
>
> cats cats cats cats cats

purrrrrrrrrr. :-)


--
kat
>^..^<

[Sara]

In article <5107b4b8$0$33649$c3e8da3$9161...@news.astraweb.com>,

I think it's both poor;y thought out and worded.

I'm not here to bash the URCM mods at any cost and I don't think the
changes suggested here would work well.

[Anonymous]

In article <ke860s$4pe$1...@dont-email.me>

Too late now. You'll need to ask Mark why he chose to fuck up a
perfectly good idea "moderate on content" by including stuff other
people can't vote for.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-01-29, Nick wrote:

I don't there's anything wrong in principle with the CFV, but I don't
think it will reduce noise in UNNM (I agree entirely with Mark that
that would be a good thing) or have any other beneficial result; it
will just give troublemakers another supposed basis for complaint.

[The Todal]

It is also unduly defensive to portray the CFV as a "hostile" CFV.

As in "we (unsurprisingly) still oppose this hostile CFV".

As to the text of the CFV, my personal opinion is that it does not
achieve anything very useful. It does not clarify the rules under which
posts should be accepted or rejected, so this is still left to the whims
of the moderators.

The key innovation in the CFV is this:

If an individual is responsible for a significant number of posts which
are in breach of the charter, irrespective of whether they were rejected
due to their content or were approved, then that person may be banned
from posting to the group for either a fixed or indeterminate length of
time.

[comment: what's a significant number? What's "in breach of the charter"
- how about posting a witty but off topic post which does no harm? Why
not a requirement to give warnings before banning?]

In all cases when a person is banned, an announcement of that fact,
including the reasons for the ban and the length of the ban, shall be
posted to the group by the moderators. The ban may not take effect until
after this notice has been posted.

[Comment: I agree with the moderators that this could be seen as
violating the privacy of the banned poster, and also humiliating them in
public. The only reason to post an announcement, surely, would be if the
poster doesn't give a working email address]

Where a ban is of indeterminate length, a notice shall also be posted to
the group should the moderators choose to rescind it. No notice is
necessary when a fixed-length ban expires.

[Comment: this is also a distasteful way of doing things, humiliating a
poster

Any posts rejected as being by a banned poster must show the ban as the
reason for the rejection, both in the public moderation logs and any
rejection email sent to the poster.

[The Todal]

On 29/1/13 11:51, kat wrote:

It is also unduly defensive to portray the CFV as a "hostile" CFV. As
in "we (unsurprisingly) still oppose this hostile CFV".

As to the text of the CFV, my personal opinion is that it does not
achieve anything very useful. It does not clarify the rules under which
posts should be accepted or rejected, so this is still left to the whims
of the moderators.

The key innovation in the CFV is this:

If an individual is responsible for a significant number of posts which
are in breach of the charter, irrespective of whether they were rejected
due to their content or were approved, then that person may be banned
from posting to the group for either a fixed or indeterminate length of
time.

[comment: what's a significant number? What's "in breach of the charter"
- how about posting a witty but off topic post which does no harm? Why

not a requirement to give warnings before banning? Why not a requirement
that all the moderators should give their agreement before there is a ban?]

In all cases when a person is banned, an announcement of that fact,
including the reasons for the ban and the length of the ban, shall be
posted to the group by the moderators. The ban may not take effect until
after this notice has been posted.

[Comment: I agree with the moderators that this could be seen as
violating the privacy of the banned poster, and also humiliating them in
public. The only reason to post an announcement, surely, would be if the
poster doesn't give a working email address]

Where a ban is of indeterminate length, a notice shall also be posted to
the group should the moderators choose to rescind it. No notice is
necessary when a fixed-length ban expires.

[Comment: this is also a distasteful way of doing things, humiliating a

poster for no very good reason]

Any posts rejected as being by a banned poster must show the ban as the
reason for the rejection, both in the public moderation logs and any
rejection email sent to the poster.

[Comment: I suppose inevitably this will show whether someone who posts
under a different name has been identified as a banned poster. They may
then complain that they were wrongly identified. As there is no
procedure for appealing a ban, or appealing the fact that one has been
wrongly identified as a banned poster, I don't think this accomplishes
anything useful]

[Anonymous]

In article <amprdd...@mid.individual.net>

Please use the brain and heart that got you voted for.

If all the posters are versions of Judith what do you honestly
expect the mods to do?

Please think

[Anonymous]

In article <5107b4b8$0$33649$c3e8da3$9161...@news.astraweb.com>

Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 29/01/2013 10:33, Sara wrote:
>
> > The irony being I have no intention of voting yes. I don't like seeing
> > propaganda for one side of an argument posted that no one is allowed to
> > discuss in the same place.
> >
>
> I think this sums up the root of my objections to urcm. This bias
> argument has been made again and again and as we see from David's rude
> and stupidly obstructive response it has had little effect.

I can't find a posting from anyone called David in the groups you
posted to. Who is David? Where is David?

> Mark's CFV is to all intents and purposes a trivial change however it
> can act as a proxy to indicate posters' unhappiness with the more
> general behaviour of the moderator team.

I'd also say it represents frustration with the committee for no
taking a stronger stance.
Remember: no-one has to post to URCM or any other newsgroup.
It simply is not compulsory.

If you are very, very unhappy with how moderation is currently
working in a particular newsgroup,
surely the message should be "stop posting to the newsgroup, idiot"
rather than "I'm going to do my Christian best to
impose my values on your newsgroup"

> If passed it will not require a
> change of moderation team but it will send a clear message to the
> moderation team that posters want to be involved and want more
> transparent (and presumably more justifiable) moderation.

Not true. You are seeing the headline of Mark's proposal and
ignoring the detail. Go through the detail, I'd vote for a simple
content only proposal.

> If not passed
> it will give the moderators more authority to continue as they are.

Yes, Mark has fucked it up, big time. If he had said, content
only, he would have got support.

> So if you genuinely don't like this bias why don't you have any
> intention of voting yes?

Because of the rubbish Mark tried to squeeze into his RFD and CFV.

Maybe it is because of his experience of the group he moderates and
presumed would work for another group?

You should ask him not us. I don't know the answer, I do know how
I am going to vote.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-01-29, The Todal wrote:

> In all cases when a person is banned, an announcement of that fact,
> including the reasons for the ban and the length of the ban, shall be
> posted to the group by the moderators. The ban may not take effect until
> after this notice has been posted.
>
> [Comment: I agree with the moderators that this could be seen as
> violating the privacy of the banned poster, and also humiliating them in
> public. The only reason to post an announcement, surely, would be if the
> poster doesn't give a working email address]
>
> Where a ban is of indeterminate length, a notice shall also be posted to
> the group should the moderators choose to rescind it. No notice is
> necessary when a fixed-length ban expires.
>
> [Comment: this is also a distasteful way of doing things, humiliating a
> poster for no very good reason]

Having said earlier that I think Mark's proposal was OK in principle,
I do however agree with those comments.

[Nick]

On 29/01/2013 11:57, Sara wrote:

>
> I think it's both poor;y thought out and worded.
>
> I'm not here to bash the URCM mods at any cost and I don't think the
> changes suggested here would work well.
>

A yes vote isn't bashing the mods it is expressing a view that
moderation should be more transparent and they should justify excluding
posters. I can't think of a less bashing way of suggesting that they
modify their behaviour in a particular respect.

To me it seems as if you understand the problem but are unwilling to do
anything to help fix it.

[Nick]

On 29/01/2013 12:30, The Todal wrote:
> On 29/1/13 11:51, kat wrote:
>> "Sara" <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:saramerriman-1E81...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In article <ampfmc...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sara wrote:
>>>>> I thought it was rather off that a post was allowed recommending that
>>>>> URCM readers vote "no" but that no follow-up discussion is to be
>>>>> allowed.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably, if you vote Yes, the moderators will ban you for life. ;-)
>>>
>>> The irony being I have no intention of voting yes. I don't like seeing
>>> propaganda for one side of an argument posted that no one is allowed to
>>> discuss in the same place.
>>
>> I do think it wrong if the arguments put Against cannot be
>> challenged. It
>> suggests the moderators don't trust their posters.
>>
>
> It is also unduly defensive to portray the CFV as a "hostile" CFV.
>
> As in "we (unsurprisingly) still oppose this hostile CFV".

Indeed a quick Google of the phrase "hostile cfv" finds that in all the
years of usnet it hasn't been used for any other CFV apart from Mark's.

I remember being told in my job at a Bank that we weren't allowed to use
the term "hostile takeover" as it was rude and misleading. It is
astonishing to see hostile used in this context and shows just how much
the moderation team assume ownership of the group and the contempt they
have for any dissenting voices.

[snip]

>
> [Comment: I agree with the moderators that this could be seen as
> violating the privacy of the banned poster, and also humiliating them in
> public. The only reason to post an announcement, surely, would be if the
> poster doesn't give a working email address]
>

I believe this situation is entirely similar to publishing rejected
posts. The benefit being that the general posting population are made
aware of potential bias and censorship by the moderators.

Do you really think there are posters who would get banned and find it
humiliating, I mean in the uk hierarchy not some contrived example. A
strange answer too from a poster who makes deliberately humiliating
posts. It sounds a lot like a typical authoritarian pretext to deny
transparency.

[The Todal]

I am opposed to any bans on posters.

Yes, I think it is offensive and humiliating to make a public
announcement in a moderated group "the poster known as
Nick...@yahoo.co.uk has now been banned from this group" and giving no
right of reply, no opportunity to apologise or explain.

It would probably cause that poster to complain loudly in the public
groups that he has been unfairly banned, so that he can give his side of
the story and salvage a bit of dignity. So it wouldn't make anyone
happier or curb the argumentative posts in UNNM.

Do you mean that *I* make "deliberately humiliating posts"? If so, that
might be true but I would never do so and immediately switch off a
person's right to reply. In uk.legal.moderated we would never allow a
post (from a moderator or from anyone else) which would be hurtful or
offensive to another poster, and that would have to include "this person
has now been banned from the group".

[Barry Salter]

The requirement laid down in the voting instructions (but not formalised
in the Voting Procedures document[1]) is not to solicit votes from
"disinterested parties".

As the proposal directly affects urcm, readers of same are inherently an
"interested party".

If, on the other hand, David had made the post, on behalf of the
moderators, to somewhere like demon.service, that could be seen as
soliciting votes from disinterested parties, doubly so if he included
the instructions on how to obtain a ballot paper.

The last time a CFV was stopped due to soliciting was December 2004,
with uk.rec.gps, thanks to an "enthusiastic" proponent who decided to
crosspost part of the CFV to 15 groups that weren't included in the
original RFD.

Cheers,

Barry


[1] <http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html>

[Mike Bristow]

In article <5107ce13$0$48190$c3e8da3$40cb...@news.astraweb.com>,

Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/01/2013 11:57, Sara wrote:
>
>>
>> I think it's both poor;y thought out and worded.
>>
>> I'm not here to bash the URCM mods at any cost and I don't think the
>> changes suggested here would work well.
>>
>
> A yes vote isn't bashing the mods

For some, I think it is - but not everyone is bashing the mods. I don't
think Mark is, for example. I just think he's wrong ;-)

> it is expressing a view that
> moderation should be more transparent and they should justify excluding
> posters. I can't think of a less bashing way of suggesting that they
> modify their behaviour in a particular respect.
>
> To me it seems as if you understand the problem but are unwilling to do
> anything to help fix it.

Whereas, IMO, Mark's RFD/CFV as "We must do somthing! This is something!
Therefore we must do this!" - in truth, I think it is mostly pointless
(in that it mandates behaviours that the mods think they are doing), and
occasionally harmful (in that it mandates behaviours which I think will be
harmful) - but mostly, it will make little difference.

So even if we must do /something/, doing nothing is preferable to
this propsal.


--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[John Benn]

"Barry Salter" <sal...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:amqbll...@mid.individual.net...

Thanks for explaining Barry.

[Nick]

On 29/01/2013 16:07, Mike Bristow wrote:

> Whereas, IMO, Mark's RFD/CFV as "We must do somthing! This is something!
> Therefore we must do this!" - in truth, I think it is mostly pointless
> (in that it mandates behaviours that the mods think they are doing), and
> occasionally harmful (in that it mandates behaviours which I think will be
> harmful) - but mostly, it will make little difference.
>
> So even if we must do /something/, doing nothing is preferable to
> this propsal.
>

We seem to agree that the action proposed by the CFV is minimal.

However the actual vote itself is significant because a yes vote
expresses an aspiration for change that would not occur if the
moderators were just left to their own devices.

After three years this is the first time a test of poster sentiment has
been taken. A no vote will be taken as acceptance of the current status
quo and will in all likelihood mean moderation continues as is. A yes
votes will be taken as a sign there is an appetite amongst posters for
change and would probably embolden other to put forward more
constructive suggestions.

Saying I would like it to change but I won't vote for this CFV as it
isn't quite perfect almost inevitably means nothing will change.

[Rob Morley]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:06:16 +0000
Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> However the actual vote itself is significant because a yes vote
> expresses an aspiration for change that would not occur if the
> moderators were just left to their own devices.

I think the current proposal is pretty pointless, it doesn't offer any
improvement to the running of the group, and it is misleading to say it
has any other significance. I would like to see change in the way the
group is run, but I will either vote against this or just not bother.

[Clive George]

If you felt that way you should have helped Mark work his RFD/CFV into
something which would have got support. You didn't, and we're left with
a CFV many people feel they can't vote for.

You'll get another go three months after this CFV. If you're that
concerned, use that time wisely.

[Nick]

On 29/01/2013 13:40, The Todal wrote:

> I am opposed to any bans on posters.
>
> Yes, I think it is offensive and humiliating to make a public
> announcement in a moderated group "the poster known as
> Nick...@yahoo.co.uk has now been banned from this group" and giving no
> right of reply, no opportunity to apologise or explain.
>

Normally in these situations the explanations have already been made and
observers can decide for themselves. However if a notice of a ban is
posted, other posters will at least know and could come to unnm to see
any further discussion. If there is no notice there is even less chance
of a right to reply.

> It would probably cause that poster to complain loudly in the public
> groups that he has been unfairly banned, so that he can give his side of
> the story and salvage a bit of dignity. So it wouldn't make anyone
> happier or curb the argumentative posts in UNNM.
>

But that is the purpose of unnm isn't it?

> Do you mean that *I* make "deliberately humiliating posts"?

You know you do, you naughty boy!

> If so, that
> might be true but I would never do so and immediately switch off a
> person's right to reply. In uk.legal.moderated we would never allow a
> post (from a moderator or from anyone else) which would be hurtful or
> offensive to another poster, and that would have to include "this person
> has now been banned from the group".
>
>

Ok I accept there is a remote possibility a poster might hypothetically
get upset but that has to balanced against exposing a very real abuse of
the moderation process.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:29:41 +0000, The Todal put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>The key innovation in the CFV is this:
>
>If an individual is responsible for a significant number of posts which
>are in breach of the charter, irrespective of whether they were rejected
>due to their content or were approved, then that person may be banned
>from posting to the group for either a fixed or indeterminate length of
>time.
>
>[comment: what's a significant number? What's "in breach of the charter"
>- how about posting a witty but off topic post which does no harm? Why
>not a requirement to give warnings before banning? Why not a requirement
>that all the moderators should give their agreement before there is a ban?]

I deliberately left it vague because the current charter is about as vague
as it gets (deliberately so, I suspect) and my intention is to make an
incremental rather than radical change.

>In all cases when a person is banned, an announcement of that fact,
>including the reasons for the ban and the length of the ban, shall be
>posted to the group by the moderators. The ban may not take effect until
>after this notice has been posted.
>
>[Comment: I agree with the moderators that this could be seen as
>violating the privacy of the banned poster, and also humiliating them in
>public. The only reason to post an announcement, surely, would be if the
>poster doesn't give a working email address]
>
>Where a ban is of indeterminate length, a notice shall also be posted to
>the group should the moderators choose to rescind it. No notice is
>necessary when a fixed-length ban expires.
>
>[Comment: this is also a distasteful way of doing things, humiliating a
>poster for no very good reason]

If someone is sufficiently disruptive to justify a ban, I really don't
think that hurting their feelings is anything which the moderators need to
bother themselves with.

>Any posts rejected as being by a banned poster must show the ban as the
>reason for the rejection, both in the public moderation logs and any
>rejection email sent to the poster.
>
>[Comment: I suppose inevitably this will show whether someone who posts
>under a different name has been identified as a banned poster. They may
>then complain that they were wrongly identified. As there is no
>procedure for appealing a ban, or appealing the fact that one has been
>wrongly identified as a banned poster, I don't think this accomplishes
>anything useful]

Again, I didn't add any kind of formal appeal system to the proposal
because I didn't want to overburden the charter with verbiage. I would hope
that any appeals could be heard in unn.moderation and dealt with flexibly,
with the moderators being prepared to accept reasonable evidence that they
were mistaken. If, in practice, this proves not to be the case, then it may
indeed be necessary to formalise the appeals process. But we can cross that
bridge if and when we come to it.

Mark

--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:50:29 -0000, John Benn put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>"Fritz Wuehler" <fr...@spamexpire-201301.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote
>in message
>news:e9e142a8378c4f39...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...

>> If Mark had proposed moderation on content and left the rest of his
>> shit out I'd be voting for this proposal.
>
>Perhaps the vote should simply be about moderating on content alone.

Moderation on content alone would prohibit the use of a passlist, which is
extremely common and used by every other moderated group that I'm familiar
with. I could not support any proposal which removed that option from a
moderated group.

[Nick]

On 29/01/2013 18:19, Clive George wrote:
perfect almost inevitably means nothing will change.
>
> If you felt that way you should have helped Mark work his RFD/CFV into
> something which would have got support. You didn't, and we're left with
> a CFV many people feel they can't vote for.
>

Actually I did post my views on the RFD.

> You'll get another go three months after this CFV. If you're that
> concerned, use that time wisely.
>

This is the first vote in three years why do you think there will be
another in three months? If this CFV doesn't have support I will accept
URCM is a lost cause.

[Fritz Wuehler]

In article <5107ce6c$0$48190$c3e8da3$40cb...@news.astraweb.com>

you aren't Nick and you won't be voting so why trouble by posting?

> > [Comment: I agree with the moderators that this could be seen as
> > violating the privacy of the banned poster, and also humiliating them in
> > public. The only reason to post an announcement, surely, would be if the
> > poster doesn't give a working email address]
> >
>
> I believe this situation is entirely similar to publishing rejected
> posts. The benefit being that the general posting population are made
> aware of potential bias and censorship by the moderators.

Since you are newly created why should your opinion be of
importance?
The moderators have arrived at their opinion over time.

> Do you really think there are posters who would get banned and find it
> humiliating, I mean in the uk hierarchy not some contrived example. A
> strange answer too from a poster who makes deliberately humiliating
> posts. It sounds a lot like a typical authoritarian pretext to deny
> transparency.

You are forgetting one key issue: posting to a moderated newsgroup
is not compulsory.

[Fritz Wuehler]

In article <amq1qu...@mid.individual.net>

Ease up, Todal, Nick...@yahoo.co.uk has only just been invented
and the person with the hand up the bum of the puppet may not be up
to speed yet.

Tut tut

[Clive George]

On 29/01/2013 18:50, Nick wrote:
> On 29/01/2013 18:19, Clive George wrote:
> perfect almost inevitably means nothing will change.
>>
>> If you felt that way you should have helped Mark work his RFD/CFV into
>> something which would have got support. You didn't, and we're left with
>> a CFV many people feel they can't vote for.
>>
>
> Actually I did post my views on the RFD.

There's a difference between posting your views and helping Mark work it
into something which would have got support. One does require rather
more work than the other though.

>> You'll get another go three months after this CFV. If you're that
>> concerned, use that time wisely.
>>
>
> This is the first vote in three years why do you think there will be
> another in three months?

That's when you can do your own RFD/CFV, so if you're prepared to put in
the work, there will be another in three months. It's up to you.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <saramerriman-1E81...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>The irony being I have no intention of voting yes. I don't like seeing
>propaganda for one side of an argument posted that no one is allowed to
>discuss in the same place.

This is a very odd way of looking at it.

The proponent got to post their CFV, including its tendentious
rationale, to urcm. I think the moderators are entitled a rebuttal.

If you are concerned about a moderated newsgroup allowing the
propaganda for one side but not the other, what about the fact that
the proponent got to post their views to uk.net.news.announce, whereas
the moderators didn't ?

When a similar situaton arose regarding motions of no confidence in
the Committee, the Guidelines were (eventually) amended to allow the
Committee a right of reply.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Anonymous]

In article <pvtkt9x...@news.ducksburg.com>

I'm hoping Mark will withdraw it.

It wasn't as though he wasn't warned.

If he comes back with a plain content only RFD he will get support.

[Anonymous]

In article <51080f9c$0$21749$c3e8da3$c00c...@news.astraweb.com>

Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 29/01/2013 16:07, Mike Bristow wrote:
>
> > Whereas, IMO, Mark's RFD/CFV as "We must do somthing! This is something!
> > Therefore we must do this!" - in truth, I think it is mostly pointless
> > (in that it mandates behaviours that the mods think they are doing), and
> > occasionally harmful (in that it mandates behaviours which I think will be
> > harmful) - but mostly, it will make little difference.
> >
> > So even if we must do /something/, doing nothing is preferable to
> > this propsal.
> >
>
> We seem to agree that the action proposed by the CFV is minimal.

Wrong.

> However the actual vote itself is significant because a yes vote
> expresses an aspiration for change that would not occur if the
> moderators were just left to their own devices.

Wrong. The proposal includes words that should not be voted for.
We don't have a mechanism for voting for some of them but not
others.

> After three years this is the first time a test of poster sentiment has
> been taken. A no vote will be taken as acceptance of the current status
> quo and will in all likelihood mean moderation continues as is.

Why do you have a problem with that? No-where does it say you have
to post to a moderated newsgroup.

The problem is and should be yours.

> A yes
> votes will be taken as a sign there is an appetite amongst posters for
> change and would probably embolden other to put forward more
> constructive suggestions.

You really do not understand how uk.* works

> Saying I would like it to change but I won't vote for this CFV as it
> isn't quite perfect almost inevitably means nothing will change.

Exceot Mark will have been told to fuck off and mind his own
business and the UKRCM will do a bit of thinking.

# + #

[Mike Bristow]

In article <51080f9c$0$21749$c3e8da3$c00c...@news.astraweb.com>,

Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/01/2013 16:07, Mike Bristow wrote:
>
>> Whereas, IMO, Mark's RFD/CFV as "We must do somthing! This is something!
>> Therefore we must do this!" - in truth, I think it is mostly pointless
>> (in that it mandates behaviours that the mods think they are doing), and
>> occasionally harmful (in that it mandates behaviours which I think will be
>> harmful) - but mostly, it will make little difference.
>>
>> So even if we must do /something/, doing nothing is preferable to
>> this propsal.
>
> We seem to agree that the action proposed by the CFV is minimal.

Actually, I think the action proposed by the CFV is minimally /negative/.

I don't, for example, think that announcing the fact of someone's banning
is benifical at all; quite the reverse: it is unfair on the banee to
redicule them.

> However the actual vote itself is significant because a yes vote
> expresses an aspiration for change that would not occur if the
> moderators were just left to their own devices.

"We must do somthing! This is something!".

I don't think that this is the basis of a good RFC.

> After three years this is the first time a test of poster sentiment has
> been taken.

A straw poll was run in the group, although I don't recall the details.

> Saying I would like it to change but I won't vote for this CFV as it
> isn't quite perfect almost inevitably means nothing will change.

Making things worse isn't something I want to see.


--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Alex Potter]

The Todal wrote:

> If an individual is responsible for a significant number of posts which
> are in breach of the charter, irrespective of whether they were rejected
> due to their content or were approved, then that person may be banned
> from posting to the group for either a fixed or indeterminate length of
> time.
>
> [comment: what's a significant number? What's "in breach of the charter"
> - how about posting a witty but off topic post which does no harm? Why
> not a requirement to give warnings before banning? Why not a requirement
> that all the moderators should give their agreement before there is a
> ban?]
>
> In all cases when a person is banned, an announcement of that fact,
> including the reasons for the ban and the length of the ban, shall be
> posted to the group by the moderators. The ban may not take effect until
> after this notice has been posted.
>

And these clauses are the reason for my having voted "No". They are neither
constructive nor enforceable.

--
Alex

[Tim Jackson]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:38:27 +0000, Nick wrote...

> Mark's CFV is to all intents and purposes a trivial change however it
> can act as a proxy to indicate posters' unhappiness with the more

> general behaviour of the moderator team. If passed it will not require a

> change of moderation team but it will send a clear message to the
> moderation team that posters want to be involved and want more
> transparent (and presumably more justifiable) moderation.

I definitely see the CFV as a proxy to tell the mods that change is
needed.

> If not passed
> it will give the moderators more authority to continue as they are.

No doubt they will take it that way, but they would be wrong to do so.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Tim Jackson]

On 29 Jan 2013 19:03:34 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson wrote...

> The proponent got to post their CFV, including its tendentious
> rationale, to urcm. I think the moderators are entitled a rebuttal.

Your rebuttal included statement no. 4 (quoted below). This is
completely irrelevant to the current CFV.

You put the current CFV in the same category as an attempt to replace
the moderators, which the CFV does not attempt to do. You then point
out that such an attempt would not be permitted in the Big 8. Clearly
that is designed to invite the conclusion that the current CFV would not
be permitted in the Big 8.

That argument simply does not follow logically. If you have evidence
that is more relevant to the actual wording of the current CFV, why did
you not give it?

If anything is a tendentious rationale, that is. I think the CFV
proponent is entitled to a rebuttal, if he wishes. You obviously
believe that the correct place for a rebuttal to a tendentious rationale
is in urcm itself. I therefore look forward to your offer that you will
permit Mark to post one.


[Quote] =====================================

4. We observe that urcm has already been the subject of three previous
hostile RFDs, one intending to replace the moderators.

In other usenet hierarchies, this level of interference with a
moderation team would not be tolerated. For example in the Big 8
(rec.* etc., the B8MB say):

It is highly unlikely that the board would publish proposals for:
...
- removal of an active moderator or removal of a moderated group
without the consent of the moderator.

[End quote] =====================================

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>In article <saramerriman-1E81...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>The irony being I have no intention of voting yes. I don't like seeing
>>propaganda for one side of an argument posted that no one is allowed to
>>discuss in the same place.
>
>This is a very odd way of looking at it.
>
>The proponent got to post their CFV, including its tendentious
>rationale, to urcm. I think the moderators are entitled a rebuttal.

The rebuttal can be posted in the relevant management groups. Anyone who's
interested enough to follow the RFD and CFV will read it, those who aren't
interested, won't.

>If you are concerned about a moderated newsgroup allowing the
>propaganda for one side but not the other, what about the fact that
>the proponent got to post their views to uk.net.news.announce, whereas
>the moderators didn't ?

The CFV gets posted to UNNA, and then as you can see, everyone is allowed
to participate in discussion in the same location. No one is prevented
from taking part in the debate.

In my view, the rebuttal was driven by personal motives within the
moderation team developed over several years.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[kat]

"Anonymous" <nor...@breaka.net> wrote in message
news:561fd003a4f30b33...@breaka.net...
> In article <amprdd...@mid.individual.net>

> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Sara" <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:saramerriman-1E81...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > In article <ampfmc...@mid.individual.net>,
>> > "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sara wrote:
>> >> > I thought it was rather off that a post was allowed recommending
>> >> > that
>> >> > URCM readers vote "no" but that no follow-up discussion is to be
>> >> > allowed.
>> >>
>> >> Presumably, if you vote Yes, the moderators will ban you for life. ;-)
>> >

>> > The irony being I have no intention of voting yes. I don't like seeing
>> > propaganda for one side of an argument posted that no one is allowed to
>> > discuss in the same place.
>>

>> I do think it wrong if the arguments put Against cannot be challenged.
>> It
>> suggests the moderators don't trust their posters.
>

> Please use the brain and heart that got you voted for.

I did.

>
> If all the posters are versions of Judith what do you honestly
> expect the mods to do?
>

Resign. Because they would be rejecting everything and there would be no
group!


> Please think

You should.
>
--
kat
>^..^<

[Fritz Wuehler]

In article <r46gg8ddoqjq1rrrf...@news.markshouse.net>

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:50:29 -0000, John Benn put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
> >"Fritz Wuehler" <fr...@spamexpire-201301.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote
> >in message
> >news:e9e142a8378c4f39...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> >> If Mark had proposed moderation on content and left the rest of his
> >> shit out I'd be voting for this proposal.
> >
> >Perhaps the vote should simply be about moderating on content alone.
>
> Moderation on content alone would prohibit the use of a passlist, which is
> extremely common and used by every other moderated group that I'm familiar
> with. I could not support any proposal which removed that option from a
> moderated group.

Who asked for your support in the first place? It wasn't me. Fuck
off and look after your own newsgroup.

If God said you should do this then tell them to fuck off too.

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <510819fd$0$56390$c3e8da3$1920...@news.astraweb.com>

Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 29/01/2013 18:19, Clive George wrote:
> perfect almost inevitably means nothing will change.
> >
> > If you felt that way you should have helped Mark work his RFD/CFV into
> > something which would have got support. You didn't, and we're left with
> > a CFV many people feel they can't vote for.
> >
>
> Actually I did post my views on the RFD.

MID please

> > You'll get another go three months after this CFV. If you're that
> > concerned, use that time wisely.
> >
>
> This is the first vote in three years why do you think there will be
> another in three months? If this CFV doesn't have support I will accept
> URCM is a lost cause.

uk.rec.cycling is open to all

[Anonymous]

In article <MPG.2b7249121...@text.usenet.plus.net>

Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:38:27 +0000, Nick wrote...
>
> > Mark's CFV is to all intents and purposes a trivial change however it
> > can act as a proxy to indicate posters' unhappiness with the more
> > general behaviour of the moderator team. If passed it will not require a
> > change of moderation team but it will send a clear message to the
> > moderation team that posters want to be involved and want more
> > transparent (and presumably more justifiable) moderation.
>
> I definitely see the CFV as a proxy to tell the mods that change is
> needed.

I see you not knowing what you are talking about, again

> > If not passed
> > it will give the moderators more authority to continue as theu y are.

>
> No doubt they will take it that way, but they would be wrong to do so.

you needed reminding about the fact that Judith was a problem
person before the moderated cycling group was created.

try to be honest to yourself in your next posting

[Partac]

"Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message
news:98c229c5bc77e13b...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...

It might be the voices in his head.........

[Anonymous]

In article <slrnkggd7r...@cheddar.urgle.com>

Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> wrote:

> Making things worse isn't something I want to see.

> Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

Have you considered standing for a committee position when one is
next available?

No rush, just something to think about.

[Anonymous]

In article <ke9f4p$fcv$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>

Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
> In uk.net.news.config, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <saramerriman-1E81...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>The irony being I have no intention of voting yes. I don't like seeing
> >>propaganda for one side of an argument posted that no one is allowed to
> >>discuss in the same place.
> >
> >This is a very odd way of looking at it.
> >
> >The proponent got to post their CFV, including its tendentious
> >rationale, to urcm. I think the moderators are entitled a rebuttal.
>
> The rebuttal can be posted in the relevant management groups. Anyone who's
> interested enough to follow the RFD and CFV will read it, those who aren't
> interested, won't.
>
> >If you are concerned about a moderated newsgroup allowing the
> >propaganda for one side but not the other, what about the fact that
> >the proponent got to post their views to uk.net.news.announce, whereas
> >the moderators didn't ?
>
> The CFV gets posted to UNNA, and then as you can see, everyone is allowed
> to participate in discussion in the same location. No one is prevented
> from taking part in the debate.
>
> In my view, the rebuttal was driven by personal motives within the
> moderation team developed over several years.

and Mark made a fool of himself by thinking he knew the community

[Anonymous]

In article <cXE*bD...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <saramerriman-1E81...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >The irony being I have no intention of voting yes. I don't like seeing
> >propaganda for one side of an argument posted that no one is allowed to
> >discuss in the same place.
>
> This is a very odd way of looking at it.
>
> The proponent got to post their CFV, including its tendentious
> rationale, to urcm. I think the moderators are entitled a rebuttal.
>
> If you are concerned about a moderated newsgroup allowing the
> propaganda for one side but not the other, what about the fact that
> the proponent got to post their views to uk.net.news.announce, whereas
> the moderators didn't ?
>
> When a similar situaton arose regarding motions of no confidence in
> the Committee, the Guidelines were (eventually) amended to allow the
> Committee a right of reply.

Sara is on the same side as you and me most of the time Ian

[Paul Cummins]

In article <cXE*bD...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:

> I think the moderators are entitled a rebuttal.

Why - you (The Mods) don't own the group, we do. You just run it for us.

Currently, many of us think you are doing a bad job. We are trying to fix
this, by setting your employment terms.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <ke9f4p$fcv$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>

> In uk.net.news.config, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <saramerriman-1E81...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>The irony being I have no intention of voting yes. I don't like seeing
> >>propaganda for one side of an argument posted that no one is allowed to
> >>discuss in the same place.
> >
> >This is a very odd way of looking at it.
> >
> >The proponent got to post their CFV, including its tendentious
> >rationale, to urcm. I think the moderators are entitled a rebuttal.
>
> The rebuttal can be posted in the relevant management groups. Anyone who's
> interested enough to follow the RFD and CFV will read it, those who aren't
> interested, won't.
>
> >If you are concerned about a moderated newsgroup allowing the
> >propaganda for one side but not the other, what about the fact that
> >the proponent got to post their views to uk.net.news.announce, whereas
> >the moderators didn't ?
>
> The CFV gets posted to UNNA, and then as you can see, everyone is allowed
> to participate in discussion in the same location. No one is prevented
> from taking part in the debate.
>
> In my view, the rebuttal was driven by personal motives within the
> moderation team developed over several years.

personal motives are what actually drives most people.

pointing out that a person is driven by personal motives is sort of
redundant.

but I think Tony already new that and wanted to tell someone else

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <bf5gg8hg03m09o0ic...@news.markshouse.net>

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:29:41 +0000, The Todal put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
> >
> >The key innovation in the CFV is this:
> >
> >If an individual is responsible for a significant number of posts which
> >are in breach of the charter, irrespective of whether they were rejected
> >due to their content or were approved, then that person may be banned
> >from posting to the group for either a fixed or indeterminate length of
> >time.
> >
> >[comment: what's a significant number? What's "in breach of the charter"
> >- how about posting a witty but off topic post which does no harm? Why
> >not a requirement to give warnings before banning? Why not a requirement
> >that all the moderators should give their agreement before there is a ban?]
>
> I deliberately left it vague because the current charter is about as vague
> as it gets (deliberately so, I suspect) and my intention is to make an
> incremental rather than radical change.

Who (think uk.*) asked you to do this?

Be honest. Mark, the actual person, doesn't really care.

> >In all cases when a person is banned, an announcement of that fact,
> >including the reasons for the ban and the length of the ban, shall be
> >posted to the group by the moderators. The ban may not take effect until
> >after this notice has been posted.
> >
> >[Comment: I agree with the moderators that this could be seen as
> >violating the privacy of the banned poster, and also humiliating them in
> >public. The only reason to post an announcement, surely, would be if the
> >poster doesn't give a working email address]
> >
> >Where a ban is of indeterminate length, a notice shall also be posted to
> >the group should the moderators choose to rescind it. No notice is
> >necessary when a fixed-length ban expires.
> >
> >[Comment: this is also a distasteful way of doing things, humiliating a
> >poster for no very good reason]
>
> If someone is sufficiently disruptive to justify a ban, I really don't
> think that hurting their feelings is anything which the moderators need to
> bother themselves with.

So why don't you agree that Judith and people like her should be
UDP'd?

> >Any posts rejected as being by a banned poster must show the ban as the
> >reason for the rejection, both in the public moderation logs and any
> >rejection email sent to the poster.
> >
> >[Comment: I suppose inevitably this will show whether someone who posts
> >under a different name has been identified as a banned poster. They may
> >then complain that they were wrongly identified. As there is no
> >procedure for appealing a ban, or appealing the fact that one has been
> >wrongly identified as a banned poster, I don't think this accomplishes
> >anything useful]
>
> Again, I didn't add any kind of formal appeal system to the proposal
> because I didn't want to overburden the charter with verbiage.

You weren't wanted and now you're being told to fuck off.

Got it yet?

Your belief in god does not give you a righty to play god in other
people's affairs.

I am telling you to fuck off as you are not a cyclist.

Please withdraw your CFV to save all of us embarresment.

>I would hope
> that any appeals could be heard in unn.moderation and dealt with flexibly,
> with the moderators being prepared to accept reasonable evidence that they
> were mistaken. If, in practice, this proves not to be the case, then it may
> indeed be necessary to formalise the appeals process. But we can cross that
> bridge if and when we come to it.

You are more stupid than I thought. OK, that isn't fair, I know
you are a nic person.

I think you may really not be able to see what you have done wrong
in spite of other people pointing it out to you.

Is that fair, Mark?

[Anonymous]

In article <amr0kp...@mid.individual.net>

> You should.ou are.


You have broken the link that allowed us to vote for you, kat.

I think resignation is your only option now.

I liked you.

Speak to other people on the comittee and see just how wrong you
are, they are good people even if you have become dishonest.

[Clive George]

On 30/01/2013 01:38, Anonymous wrote:

> You have broken the link that allowed us to vote for you, kat.
>
> I think resignation is your only option now.
>
> I liked you.
>
> Speak to other people on the comittee and see just how wrong you
> are, they are good people even if you have become dishonest.

Even though I may disagree with what kat says sometimes, I reckon what
you've written there is quite high up on the list of most nonsensical
dribble you've ever written. And there's strong competition.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-01-30, Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> wrote:
> Speak to other people on the comittee and see just how wrong you
> are, they are good people even if you have become dishonest.

Will you stop fucking nym-shifting so I can killfile you once and for
all please.

[Tim Jackson]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:51:54 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous wrote...

> you needed reminding about the fact that Judith was a problem
> person before the moderated cycling group was created.

I need no reminder. I regularly criticise Judith.

That doesn't stop me critising the urcm mods as well. Their crap
moderation practices may be a reaction to Judith, but they are still
crap.

[Sara]

In article <4d5af5f58762d067...@remailer.paranoici.org>,

Do not ever associate me with you, please. It makes feel like I need to
take a shower.

--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.

[Sara]

In article <cXE*bD...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <saramerriman-1E81...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >The irony being I have no intention of voting yes. I don't like seeing
> >propaganda for one side of an argument posted that no one is allowed to
> >discuss in the same place.
>
> This is a very odd way of looking at it.
>
> The proponent got to post their CFV, including its tendentious
> rationale, to urcm. I think the moderators are entitled a rebuttal.
>

I think it should either be discussed, or not, but that you allow
yourselves to pot without anyone being able to discuss what you've
posted is poor form.

> If you are concerned about a moderated newsgroup allowing the
> propaganda for one side but not the other, what about the fact that
> the proponent got to post their views to uk.net.news.announce, whereas
> the moderators didn't ?
>

WTF?

> When a similar situaton arose regarding motions of no confidence in
> the Committee, the Guidelines were (eventually) amended to allow the
> Committee a right of reply.

--

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 01:47:04 +0100 (CET), Anonymous Remailer (austria) put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>
>In article <bf5gg8hg03m09o0ic...@news.markshouse.net>
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:29:41 +0000, The Todal put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>> >
>> >The key innovation in the CFV is this:
>> >
>> >If an individual is responsible for a significant number of posts which
>> >are in breach of the charter, irrespective of whether they were rejected
>> >due to their content or were approved, then that person may be banned
>> >from posting to the group for either a fixed or indeterminate length of
>> >time.
>> >
>> >[comment: what's a significant number? What's "in breach of the charter"
>> >- how about posting a witty but off topic post which does no harm? Why
>> >not a requirement to give warnings before banning? Why not a requirement
>> >that all the moderators should give their agreement before there is a ban?]
>>
>> I deliberately left it vague because the current charter is about as vague
>> as it gets (deliberately so, I suspect) and my intention is to make an
>> incremental rather than radical change.
>
>Who (think uk.*) asked you to do this?

Nobody asked me to do it. It was entirely my own idea, formed as a result
of reading repeated threads in unnm and deciding to test the waters with a
relatively minor change.

>Be honest. Mark, the actual person, doesn't really care.

If you don't believe it was my own idea, that is entirely your problem and
not mine.

>> >In all cases when a person is banned, an announcement of that fact,
>> >including the reasons for the ban and the length of the ban, shall be
>> >posted to the group by the moderators. The ban may not take effect until
>> >after this notice has been posted.
>> >
>> >[Comment: I agree with the moderators that this could be seen as
>> >violating the privacy of the banned poster, and also humiliating them in
>> >public. The only reason to post an announcement, surely, would be if the
>> >poster doesn't give a working email address]
>> >
>> >Where a ban is of indeterminate length, a notice shall also be posted to
>> >the group should the moderators choose to rescind it. No notice is
>> >necessary when a fixed-length ban expires.
>> >
>> >[Comment: this is also a distasteful way of doing things, humiliating a
>> >poster for no very good reason]
>>
>> If someone is sufficiently disruptive to justify a ban, I really don't
>> think that hurting their feelings is anything which the moderators need to
>> bother themselves with.
>
>So why don't you agree that Judith and people like her should be
>UDP'd?

If someone is seriously disruptive to a group then they may justifiably be
banned from it. That doesn't mean they should be banned from every group.
There may, indeed, even be some in which they are welcome.

Readers with sufficiently long memories may well remember Charles Hankel
and TLCA. They were deliberately, and seriously, maliicious in their
approach to the management groups as a result of a perceived slight against
their pet interests. But yet, in the groups which discussed things they
were genuinely interested in, they provided a positive input and were
generally welcomed by their fellow contributors. For all I know, you and
Judith may have groups like that yourselves.

>> >Any posts rejected as being by a banned poster must show the ban as the
>> >reason for the rejection, both in the public moderation logs and any
>> >rejection email sent to the poster.
>> >
>> >[Comment: I suppose inevitably this will show whether someone who posts
>> >under a different name has been identified as a banned poster. They may
>> >then complain that they were wrongly identified. As there is no
>> >procedure for appealing a ban, or appealing the fact that one has been
>> >wrongly identified as a banned poster, I don't think this accomplishes
>> >anything useful]
>>
>> Again, I didn't add any kind of formal appeal system to the proposal
>> because I didn't want to overburden the charter with verbiage.
>
>You weren't wanted and now you're being told to fuck off.
>
>Got it yet?

I've got that the moderators of urcm are convinced that this CFV is
"hostile", yes. Again, that is their problem, not mine.

>Your belief in god does not give you a righty to play god in other
>people's affairs.
>
>I am telling you to fuck off as you are not a cyclist.

You can tell me all you want. It won't make any difference.

>Please withdraw your CFV to save all of us embarresment.
>
>>I would hope
>> that any appeals could be heard in unn.moderation and dealt with flexibly,
>> with the moderators being prepared to accept reasonable evidence that they
>> were mistaken. If, in practice, this proves not to be the case, then it may
>> indeed be necessary to formalise the appeals process. But we can cross that
>> bridge if and when we come to it.
>
>You are more stupid than I thought. OK, that isn't fair, I know
>you are a nic person.

Are you suggesting that the moderators of urcm are not capable of acting
reasonably in this respect?

>I think you may really not be able to see what you have done wrong
>in spite of other people pointing it out to you.

You seem to be under the impression that I give the tiniest smidgeon of a
toss about the opinions of an anonymous liar. What you think is completely
irrelevent to this discussion.

>Is that fair, Mark?

Not to you, no. But then, I have no problems at all being unfair to a man
who labels all his posts with a metaphorical "Be unfair to me" sign.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[kat]

Anonymous wrote:
> In article <amr0kp...@mid.individual.net>
> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Anonymous" <nor...@breaka.net> wrote in message

>
>

> You have broken the link that allowed us to vote for you, kat.
>

I know all these IDs you are using make you seem schizophrenic, but until
now I didn't realise you were posting for all of them at once.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Anonymous]

In article <MPG.2b72a125...@text.usenet.plus.net>

Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:51:54 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous wrote...
>
> > you needed reminding about the fact that Judith was a problem
> > person before the moderated cycling group was created.
>
> I need no reminder. I regularly criticise Judith.
>
> That doesn't stop me critising the urcm mods as well. Their crap
> moderation practices may be a reaction to Judith, but they are still
> crap.

Do you think Mark's CFV will fix things or not? The chances are
that like many people you only know about URCM as a problem group
becuase of Judith.

I suggest we fix the actual problem. If URCM's charter was changed
sudfficiently to satisfy Judith she'd (my guess) have a go at one
of the religious groups next.

[The Todal]

Judith's posts to uk.legal.moderated have been sensible, often valuable,
and always (as far as I remember) compliant with our charter. When we
whitelisted her for a while she (like Periander) requested that she come
off the whitelist in case she inadvertently were to stray over the line.
Sometimes people do so when they forget that they are posting to the
moderated rather than unmoderated version of a group.

So my belief is that if URCM's charter (specifically, the guidance about
what criteria are used to reject a post) was improved, most of the
acrimonious posts from her and from others would cease.

But I don't think the current CFV would fix anything.

[Dave U. Random]

In article <amptn9...@mid.individual.net>
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

[heart warming stuff]

If you are going to play Clark Kent I think you should also say who
the villian is.

[Matthew Vernon]

Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> writes:

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:38:27 +0000, Nick wrote...
>
>> Mark's CFV is to all intents and purposes a trivial change however it
>> can act as a proxy to indicate posters' unhappiness with the more
>> general behaviour of the moderator team. If passed it will not require a
>> change of moderation team but it will send a clear message to the
>> moderation team that posters want to be involved and want more
>> transparent (and presumably more justifiable) moderation.
>
> I definitely see the CFV as a proxy to tell the mods that change is
> needed.
>
>> If not passed
>> it will give the moderators more authority to continue as they are.
>
> No doubt they will take it that way, but they would be wrong to do so.

This seems an odd pair of opinions. Either this CFV is a proxy
confidence-vote in the mods' behaviour (in which case your first line
makes sense, but the latter doesn't) or it's a vote on the proposed
charter change and nothing else (in which case your second line makes
sense, but the first doesn't).

Personally, I think this CFV should be voted on based on the merits of
the charter change, not on any desire to support / denigrate the mod
team.

As a side note, the aspect of urcm moderation that seems to need work
IMAO is the length of time some posts are taking to be decided
upon. This CFV will do nothing to address that.

Matthew

--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life

[Matthew Vernon]

Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> writes:

> You have broken the link that allowed us to vote for you, kat.
>
> I think resignation is your only option now.
>
> I liked you.
>
> Speak to other people on the comittee and see just how wrong you
> are, they are good people even if you have become dishonest.

While I don't always agree with kat regarding urcm moderation, I feel I
should reply to this nonsense to say that they're a fine committee
member.

[kat]

Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> writes:
>
>> You have broken the link that allowed us to vote for you, kat.
>>
>> I think resignation is your only option now.
>>
>> I liked you.
>>
>> Speak to other people on the comittee and see just how wrong you
>> are, they are good people even if you have become dishonest.
>
> While I don't always agree with kat regarding urcm moderation, I feel
> I should reply to this nonsense to say that they're a fine committee
> member.
>

Thankyou.:-) And I reciprocate.

I think we agree over one aspect at least - that certain posts languish in
the queue for far too long, though we might not agree on the cure.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Anonymous]

In article <bf5gg8hg03m09o0ic...@news.markshouse.net>
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:29:41 +0000, The Todal put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
> >
> >The key innovation in the CFV is this:
> >
> >If an individual is responsible for a significant number of posts which
> >are in breach of the charter, irrespective of whether they were rejected
> >due to their content or were approved, then that person may be banned
> >from posting to the group for either a fixed or indeterminate length of
> >time.
> >
> >[comment: what's a significant number? What's "in breach of the charter"
> >- how about posting a witty but off topic post which does no harm? Why
> >not a requirement to give warnings before banning? Why not a requirement
> >that all the moderators should give their agreement before there is a ban?]
>
> I deliberately left it vague because the current charter is about as vague
> as it gets (deliberately so, I suspect) and my intention is to make an
> incremental rather than radical change.

Lord preserve us from this man and his intentions however good they
may have been to begin with.

Are you honestly saying you'd do this again and again until it
fitted in with Judith or whoever complained last?

Do you not perceive that you are now a function of Judith or
whoever made the most noise last time around?

If a lot of noise is made about a religious group are you going to
attempt a cock up CFV for that too?

You now meet my definition of weak. I used to like you if not your
deity.

> >In all cases when a person is banned, an announcement of that fact,
> >including the reasons for the ban and the length of the ban, shall be
> >posted to the group by the moderators. The ban may not take effect until
> >after this notice has been posted.
> >
> >[Comment: I agree with the moderators that this could be seen as
> >violating the privacy of the banned poster, and also humiliating them in
> >public. The only reason to post an announcement, surely, would be if the
> >poster doesn't give a working email address]
> >
> >Where a ban is of indeterminate length, a notice shall also be posted to
> >the group should the moderators choose to rescind it. No notice is
> >necessary when a fixed-length ban expires.
> >
> >[Comment: this is also a distasteful way of doing things, humiliating a
> >poster for no very good reason]
>
> If someone is sufficiently disruptive to justify a ban, I really don't
> think that hurting their feelings is anything which the moderators need to
> bother themselves with.

That isn't the point The Todal was making. I expect you know that
and just had a wriggle.

> >Any posts rejected as being by a banned poster must show the ban as the
> >reason for the rejection, both in the public moderation logs and any
> >rejection email sent to the poster.
> >
> >[Comment: I suppose inevitably this will show whether someone who posts
> >under a different name has been identified as a banned poster. They may
> >then complain that they were wrongly identified. As there is no
> >procedure for appealing a ban, or appealing the fact that one has been
> >wrongly identified as a banned poster, I don't think this accomplishes
> >anything useful]
>
> Again, I didn't add any kind of formal appeal system to the proposal

> because I didn't want to overburden the charter with verbiage. I would hope

> that any appeals could be heard in unn.moderation and dealt with flexibly,
> with the moderators being prepared to accept reasonable evidence that they
> were mistaken. If, in practice, this proves not to be the case, then it may
> indeed be necessary to formalise the appeals process. But we can cross that
> bridge if and when we come to it.

This is getting on for surreal. Not only are you the author of a
bad proposal for a group that you don't have any real interest in
but you're considering further proposals.

Did god give you carte blanche to fuck about with other people when
you were born or did you get the idea later?

Fucking hell.

[Dave U. Random]

In article <amsdgv...@mid.individual.net>

I agree in general with my anonymous friend.

[Mike Bristow]

In article <87ip6ex...@macbeth.sac.ac.uk>,

Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
> Personally, I think this CFV should be voted on based on the merits of
> the charter change, not on any desire to support / denigrate the mod
> team.

I agree.

> As a side note, the aspect of urcm moderation that seems to need work
> IMAO is the length of time some posts are taking to be decided
> upon. This CFV will do nothing to address that.

I agree again.




--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Alan Braggins]

In article <ke9f4p$fcv$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, Tony wrote:
>
>In my view, the rebuttal was driven by personal motives within the
>moderation team developed over several years.

I'd agree with almost every word of that. A no-prize for anyone who
can guess the other word :-)

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:22:19 +0000
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Do not ever associate me with you, please. It makes feel like I need
> to take a shower.
>

Eeww, the slime, wipe it off quick.

[Tim Jackson]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:39:06 +0000, Matthew Vernon wrote...

>
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:38:27 +0000, Nick wrote...
> >
> >> Mark's CFV is to all intents and purposes a trivial change however it
> >> can act as a proxy to indicate posters' unhappiness with the more
> >> general behaviour of the moderator team. If passed it will not require a
> >> change of moderation team but it will send a clear message to the
> >> moderation team that posters want to be involved and want more
> >> transparent (and presumably more justifiable) moderation.
> >
> > I definitely see the CFV as a proxy to tell the mods that change is
> > needed.
> >
> >> If not passed
> >> it will give the moderators more authority to continue as they are.
> >
> > No doubt they will take it that way, but they would be wrong to do so.
>
> This seems an odd pair of opinions. Either this CFV is a proxy
> confidence-vote in the mods' behaviour (in which case your first line
> makes sense, but the latter doesn't) or it's a vote on the proposed
> charter change and nothing else (in which case your second line makes
> sense, but the first doesn't).

Many people who have the welfare of uk.* at heart are telling the
moderators that they need to change. This CFV is clearly an example of
that. Perhaps proxy is the wrong word (it came from the PP). But a yes
vote ought to send a message to the moderators that there is a more
general feeling that change is needed, not just these specific changes.

And the mods should still take note of the need to change, even if the
CFV fails.

But I fear they will take it the opposite way. If the CFV fails, they
will see it as authority to continue as they are. That the electorate
has voted against change.

That would not be a correct conclusion. If the CFV fails, it will
merely be because the electorate is saying that this particualar change
is not the change that is required.

[Tim Jackson]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:47:13 -0500 (EST), Anonymous wrote...

> Do you think Mark's CFV will fix things or not?

No. I believe Mark has deliberately adopted a minimalist approach which
limits its effect, because he doesn't wish to use brute force and thinks
that the moderators should retain discretion. Sadly that means that
even if the CFV passes, the moderators will not make any substantial
changes which would help to fix things.

I also believe that Mark wishes to help the moderators solve their
problems. As do I and many others here. But they refuse to be helped,
and view any such attempt as hostile.

Finally, despite all our common general desire to help fix things, there
is disagreement about whether some of Mark's specific proposals are
appropriate.

> The chances are
> that like many people you only know about URCM as a problem group
> becuase of Judith.

Judith is certainly vocal, but she is not the only person complaining.

> I suggest we fix the actual problem.

I think that Judith and the moderators are both part of the problem.

Do you belive that the moderators' approach to fixing what they see as
the "Judith problem" has been successful? No, neither do I. They need
to change tack.

[Nick]

On 30/01/2013 12:39, Matthew Vernon wrote:

> Personally, I think this CFV should be voted on based on the merits of
> the charter change, not on any desire to support / denigrate the mod
> team.
>

lol. support/ *denigrate*! Do chiark provide a dictionary of offensive
and pejorative slurs to be used to describe anyone base enough to
question their authority.

[Nick]

On 30/01/2013 19:54, Tim Jackson wrote:

> Many people who have the welfare of uk.* at heart are telling the
> moderators that they need to change. This CFV is clearly an example of
> that. Perhaps proxy is the wrong word (it came from the PP). But a yes
> vote ought to send a message to the moderators that there is a more
> general feeling that change is needed, not just these specific changes.
>
> And the mods should still take note of the need to change, even if the
> CFV fails.
>
> But I fear they will take it the opposite way. If the CFV fails, they
> will see it as authority to continue as they are. That the electorate
> has voted against change.
>
> That would not be a correct conclusion. If the CFV fails, it will
> merely be because the electorate is saying that this particualar change
> is not the change that is required.
>

You do seem to want your cake and to eat it too. I suspect that despite
what some posters say the vote will be partitioned into those who are
reasonably content with the moderation team and those who aren't. I
would be astonished if this CFV fails and another subsequent CFV
succeeds against the wishes of the moderation team.

So I think we should accept no change if this CFV is rejected.

Perhaps if you (and other uk posters) still felt the unreformed group
was an uncomfortable fit in the uk hierarchy a move to an alternative
hierarchy could be negotiated with the moderation team who appear to
also feel this way.

[Nick]

On 29/01/2013 18:53, Fritz Wuehler wrote:

> you aren't Nick and you won't be voting so why trouble by posting?
>

I know I shouldn't ask but how did you come to this conclusion?

[Tim Jackson]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 01:17:02 +0000, Nick wrote...

> You do seem to want your cake and to eat it too. I suspect that despite
> what some posters say the vote will be partitioned into those who are
> reasonably content with the moderation team and those who aren't. I
> would be astonished if this CFV fails and another subsequent CFV
> succeeds against the wishes of the moderation team.
>
> So I think we should accept no change if this CFV is rejected.

You've already highlighted the flaw in this argument. Your conclusion
is "despite what some posters say".

If we do take account of what some posters say, then it's pretty clear
that a substantial number of people think there should be change, but
will not vote for this particular change. So I think the CFV will fail
because these people will vote against, and their votes will be combined
with those of some people who are reasonably content.

I've no idea what any subsequent CFV might propose, but there might be
difficulty finding a formula that unites the opinions of all those who
favour different forms of change. Nevertheless, that does not imply
that no change is required.

>
> Perhaps if you (and other uk posters) still felt the unreformed group
> was an uncomfortable fit in the uk hierarchy a move to an alternative
> hierarchy could be negotiated with the moderation team who appear to
> also feel this way.

A number of people have said that the current moderation style is more
suited to a web forum, but I see no appetite from the moderators for
such a move.

[Clive George]

On 31/01/2013 02:10, Tim Jackson wrote:

> A number of people have said that the current moderation style is more
> suited to a web forum, but I see no appetite from the moderators for
> such a move.

Not the mods, nor most of its users. There's already plenty of web
forums for cyclists, and there's no point to URCM outside usenet - it's
only there because there are people who can't be arsed with crappy web
forum interfaces.

[Clive George]

On 31/01/2013 01:17, Nick wrote:

> So I think we should accept no change if this CFV is rejected.

You don't have to, and you seem fairly keen that something happens. If
you want something to happen, be prepared to do it yourself. Of course
it does mean putting in some work, but even Judith managed that for a
while.

[Anonymous]

In article <ams353...@mid.individual.net>

ask Molly if she thinks you are making sense.

[Fritz Wuehler]

In article <slrnkgh1ol.s...@snowy.squish.net>
Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

>
> On 2013-01-30, Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> wrote:
> > Speak to other people on the comittee and see just how wrong you
> > are, they are good people even if you have become dishonest.
>

> Will you stop fucking nym-shifting so I can killfile you once and for
> all please.

I don't nym-shift so you are talking to the wrong person.

If you want to know more about anonymity ask Judith.

She is the bad person. I am just not letting her know because I
don't want other family members attacked again.

Let me know when you personally have UDP'd Judith, I'll be myself
then.

[Anonymous]

In article <bbkhg853m6odq96rm...@news.markshouse.net>

I want this not to have been your idea. I'm offerring you an exit
route.

Say it was someone else's idea and you were the functionary.

>
> >> >In all cases when a person is banned, an announcement of that fact,
> >> >including the reasons for the ban and the length of the ban, shall be
> >> >posted to the group by the moderators. The ban may not take effect until
> >> >after this notice has been posted.
> >> >
> >> >[Comment: I agree with the moderators that this could be seen as
> >> >violating the privacy of the banned poster, and also humiliating them in
> >> >public. The only reason to post an announcement, surely, would be if the
> >> >poster doesn't give a working email address]
> >> >
> >> >Where a ban is of indeterminate length, a notice shall also be posted to
> >> >the group should the moderators choose to rescind it. No notice is
> >> >necessary when a fixed-length ban expires.
> >> >
> >> >[Comment: this is also a distasteful way of doing things, humiliating a
> >> >poster for no very good reason]
> >>
> >> If someone is sufficiently disruptive to justify a ban, I really don't
> >> think that hurting their feelings is anything which the moderators need to
> >> bother themselves with.
> >
> >So why don't you agree that Judith and people like her should be
> >UDP'd?
>
> If someone is seriously disruptive to a group then they may justifiably be
> banned from it. That doesn't mean they should be banned from every group.
> There may, indeed, even be some in which they are welcome.

OK, does that mean both Judith and I are welcome in your group?

> Readers with sufficiently long memories may well remember Charles Hankel
> and TLCA.

Ugh!

> They were deliberately, and seriously, maliicious in their
> approach to the management groups as a result of a perceived slight against
> their pet interests. But yet, in the groups which discussed things they
> were genuinely interested in, they provided a positive input and were
> generally welcomed by their fellow contributors. For all I know, you and
> Judith may have groups like that yourselves.

If Judith has a group she feels at home in and that welcomes her I
don't know what it is.

Open question time: is Judith nice in any group?

> >> >Any posts rejected as being by a banned poster must show the ban as the
> >> >reason for the rejection, both in the public moderation logs and any
> >> >rejection email sent to the poster.
> >> >
> >> >[Comment: I suppose inevitably this will show whether someone who posts
> >> >under a different name has been identified as a banned poster. They may
> >> >then complain that they were wrongly identified. As there is no
> >> >procedure for appealing a ban, or appealing the fact that one has been
> >> >wrongly identified as a banned poster, I don't think this accomplishes
> >> >anything useful]
> >>
> >> Again, I didn't add any kind of formal appeal system to the proposal
> >> because I didn't want to overburden the charter with verbiage.
> >

> >You weren't wanted and now you're being told to fuck off.u in your grou

> >
> >Got it yet?
>
> I've got that the moderators of urcm are convinced that this CFV is
> "hostile", yes. Again, that is their problem, not mine.

I'm avoiding approaching you in your group. That would be bad
manners, just as your CFV about a group you have no interest in is
bad manners.

You don't want me in your group. I don't want you in mine.

Withdraw the CFV, please.

> >Your belief in god does not give you a righty to play god in other
> >people's affairs.
> >
> >I am telling you to fuck off as you are not a cyclist.
>
> You can tell me all you want. It won't make any difference.
>
> >Please withdraw your CFV to save all of us embarresment.
> >
> >>I would hope
> >> that any appeals could be heard in unn.moderation and dealt with flexibly,
> >> with the moderators being prepared to accept reasonable evidence that they
> >> were mistaken. If, in practice, this proves not to be the case, then it may
> >> indeed be necessary to formalise the appeals process. But we can cross that
> >> bridge if and when we come to it.
> >
> >You are more stupid than I thought. OK, that isn't fair, I know
> >you are a nic person.
>
> Are you suggesting that the moderators of urcm are not capable of acting
> reasonably in this respect?
>
> >I think you may really not be able to see what you have done wrong
> >in spite of other people pointing it out to you.
>
> You seem to be under the impression that I give the tiniest smidgeon of a
> toss about the opinions of an anonymous liar. What you think is completely
> irrelevent to this discussion.

Except that I get to vote and Judith doesn't

> >Is that fair, Mark?
>
> Not to you, no. But then, I have no problems at all being unfair to a man
> who labels all his posts with a metaphorical "Be unfair to me" sign.

I must look out in case someone does that.

[Anonymous]

In article <amsk7p...@mid.individual.net>

knowing what you do is Mark's CFV a good idea or not?

considering other people's comments are you going to be voting for
or against it?

do you understand why significant people are against the CFV in
principle?

[Dave U. Random]

In article <87ehh2x...@macbeth.sac.ac.uk>

Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> writes:
>
> > You have broken the link that allowed us to vote for you, kat.
> >
> > I think resignation is your only option now.
> >
> > I liked you.
> >
> > Speak to other people on the comittee and see just how wrong you
> > are, they are good people even if you have become dishonest.
>
> While I don't always agree with kat regarding urcm moderation, I feel I
> should reply to this nonsense to say that they're a fine committee
> member.

I wanted someone closer to her to correct me. Thank you.

If she knows Judith is the nut why is she saying what she does?

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:07:46 GMT, Anonymous put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In article <bbkhg853m6odq96rm...@news.markshouse.net>
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> If someone is seriously disruptive to a group then they may justifiably be
>> banned from it. That doesn't mean they should be banned from every group.
>> There may, indeed, even be some in which they are welcome.
>
>OK, does that mean both Judith and I are welcome in your group?

There is no group which can meaningfully be described as "my" group. There
is a group that I currently moderate. You, and anyone else who may be
interested in its topic, are entirely welcome there provided you abide by
the charter and posting guidelines.

>> Readers with sufficiently long memories may well remember Charles Hankel
>> and TLCA.
>
>Ugh!
>
>> They were deliberately, and seriously, maliicious in their
>> approach to the management groups as a result of a perceived slight against
>> their pet interests. But yet, in the groups which discussed things they
>> were genuinely interested in, they provided a positive input and were
>> generally welcomed by their fellow contributors. For all I know, you and
>> Judith may have groups like that yourselves.
>
>If Judith has a group she feels at home in and that welcomes her I
>don't know what it is.
>
>Open question time: is Judith nice in any group?

I don't know about "nice", as such, but her contributions to ulm are almost
entirely non-objectionable.

>> You seem to be under the impression that I give the tiniest smidgeon of a
>> toss about the opinions of an anonymous liar. What you think is completely
>> irrelevent to this discussion.
>
>Except that I get to vote and Judith doesn't

Judith gets to vote too. Neither of you will be able to vote via an
anonymous remailer, or vote multiple times, but both of you have one vote
under your normal posting identity.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[kat]

Anonymous wrote:
> In article <amsk7p...@mid.individual.net>
> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Matthew Vernon wrote:
>>> Anonymous <nor...@breaka.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> You have broken the link that allowed us to vote for you, kat.
>>>>
>>>> I think resignation is your only option now.
>>>>
>>>> I liked you.
>>>>
>>>> Speak to other people on the comittee and see just how wrong you
>>>> are, they are good people even if you have become dishonest.
>>>
>>> While I don't always agree with kat regarding urcm moderation, I
>>> feel I should reply to this nonsense to say that they're a fine
>>> committee member.
>>>
>>
>> Thankyou.:-) And I reciprocate.
>>
>> I think we agree over one aspect at least - that certain posts
>> languish in the queue for far too long, though we might not agree on
>> the cure.
>
> knowing what you do is Mark's CFV a good idea or not?

I don't feel that it covers all that it could.

>
> considering other people's comments are you going to be voting for
> or against it?
>

You are doing a very good job of persuading me to vote yes.

> do you understand why significant people are against the CFV in
> principle?

You bet I do. Another reason to vote yes. But I try to be fair so as yet
I haven't voted, trying to clear my head.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Anonymous]

In article <20130130181444.48642ee2@hyperion>

I have to share an address with him! How do you think I feel?

[Anonymous]

In article <slrnkginc...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

I'm going to suggest poo or another rude word

[Matthew Vernon]

Dave U. Random <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> writes:

> In article <87ehh2x...@macbeth.sac.ac.uk>
> Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>> While I don't always agree with kat regarding urcm moderation, I feel I
>> should reply to this nonsense to say that they're a fine committee
>> member.
>

> If she knows Judith is the nut why is she saying what she does?

You appear to be under the misapprehension that people must think
either:
"Judith is an arse, and urcm is perfectly moderated"
or
"Judith is a lovely person, and the urcm mods are evil"

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-01-31, Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
> Dave U. Random <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> writes:
>> In article <87ehh2x...@macbeth.sac.ac.uk>
>> Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>>> While I don't always agree with kat regarding urcm moderation, I feel I
>>> should reply to this nonsense to say that they're a fine committee
>>> member.
>>
>> If she knows Judith is the nut why is she saying what she does?
>
> You appear to be under the misapprehension that people must think
> either:
> "Judith is an arse, and urcm is perfectly moderated"
> or
> "Judith is a lovely person, and the urcm mods are evil"

Wm has never been able to comprehend that just because you don't
entirely agree with someone, that doesn't mean you entirely disagree
with them.

[c...@nospam.netunix.com]

In uk.net.news.config Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> You appear to be under the misapprehension that people must think
> either:
> "Judith is an arse, and urcm is perfectly moderated"
> or
> "Judith is a lovely person, and the urcm mods are evil"

The truth is simpler - Judith is a sensitive person who objects to
being baited by a bunch of moderators who insist on moderating on
the basis of personality rather than content.

Moderate the group in accordance with best practice and the problem
will resolve itself. The purpose of moderation is to keep postings
on topic, not to conduct a stupid war against an individual.

[John Benn]

<c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote in message
news:kedp3l$1kp$1...@news.albasani.net...

That is exactly what it is. The way some of the moderation has been carried
out is nothing short of childish.

[Anonymous]

In article <MPG.2b7372c0b...@text.usenet.plus.net>

Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

> Do you belive that the moderators' approach to fixing what they see as
> the "Judith problem" has been successful? No, neither do I. They need
> to change tack.

I agree.

What tack should we try next?

[The Todal]

You're anonymous. Or you're Wm.

In answer to your question, just let the wind escape from your sails and
let someone else steer the boat.

[Adam Funk]

Bingo!

[Fritz Wuehler]

In article <MPG.2b738642f...@text.usenet.plus.net>

If this vote fails as it should it will be because Mark thought he
was better than other people.

Idiot

[M Wicks]

On Jan 30, 2:42 pm, Dave U. Random <anonym...@anonymitaet-im-
inter.net> wrote:
> In article <amsdgvFeuq...@mid.individual.net>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> > On 30/1/13 10:47, Anonymous wrote:
> > > In article <MPG.2b72a125f26e9c7989...@text.usenet.plus.net>
> > > Tim Jackson <n...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:51:54 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous wrote...
>
> > >>> you needed reminding about the fact that Judith was a problem
> > >>> person before the moderated cycling group was created.
>
> > >> I need no reminder.  I regularly criticise Judith.
>
> > >> That doesn't stop me critising the urcm mods as well.  Their crap
> > >> moderation practices may be a reaction to Judith, but they are still
> > >> crap.
>
> > > Do you think Mark's CFV will fix things or not?  The chances are

> > > that like many people you only know about URCM as a problem group
> > > becuase of Judith.
>

> > > I suggest we fix the actual problem.  If URCM's charter was changed
> > > sudfficiently to satisfy Judith she'd (my guess) have a go at one
> > > of the religious groups next.
>
> > Judith's posts to uk.legal.moderated have been sensible, often valuable,
> > and always (as far as I remember) compliant with our charter. When we
> > whitelisted her for a while she (like Periander) requested that she come
> > off the whitelist in case she inadvertently were to stray over the line.
> > Sometimes people do so when they forget that they are posting to the
> > moderated rather than unmoderated version of a group.
>
> > So my belief is that if URCM's charter (specifically, the guidance about
> > what criteria are used to reject a post) was improved, most of the
> > acrimonious posts from her and from others would cease.
>
> > But I don't think the current CFV would fix anything.
>
> I agree in general with my anonymous friend.

You mean with yourself? Wm..., what is it going to take for you to
stop this nonsense? AFAICT you are currently posting as "Anonymous",
"Dave U. Random", "Nomen Nescio", "Fritz Wuehler" and quite possibly
others as well.

Will you please explain:

- why you don't just post as Wm..., since everyone recognises your
unmistakable style;
- why, if you really don't want to post as Wm..., you have to use at
least four different nyms, often within the same thread, sometimes
admitting that they're the same person, and sometimes half-heartedly
pretending to be different (as above)?

You were already annoying and weird, but this stupidity makes you much
more so, to me and many others. What the hell is the purpose of it? Do
you really expect to be taken seriously (especially when you were
already struggling to be taken seriously as Wm...)?

Stop it. Please. It's irritating, deceitful, pointless and idiotic. If
you must deny being who you clearly are then please just keep it to
one nym. If you were trying to make it look like others supported your
views then it hasn't worked, has it? No-one is fooled. So please give
up. We all want you to, dear. It's utterly bizarre behaviour, even for
you.

[Nick]

On 31/01/2013 02:10, Tim Jackson wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 01:17:02 +0000, Nick wrote...
>
>> You do seem to want your cake and to eat it too. I suspect that despite
>> what some posters say the vote will be partitioned into those who are
>> reasonably content with the moderation team and those who aren't. I
>> would be astonished if this CFV fails and another subsequent CFV
>> succeeds against the wishes of the moderation team.
>>
>> So I think we should accept no change if this CFV is rejected.
>
> You've already highlighted the flaw in this argument. Your conclusion
> is "despite what some posters say".
>
> If we do take account of what some posters say, then it's pretty clear
> that a substantial number of people think there should be change, but
> will not vote for this particular change. So I think the CFV will fail
> because these people will vote against, and their votes will be combined
> with those of some people who are reasonably content.
>
> I've no idea what any subsequent CFV might propose, but there might be
> difficulty finding a formula that unites the opinions of all those who
> favour different forms of change. Nevertheless, that does not imply
> that no change is required.
>

I do take account of what posters say. However experience leads me to
take some comments with a pinch of salt. Given the mean-spirited way in
which the moderation team and their supporters have dealt with
unfavoured posters I find it hard to believe they find protecting banned
posters from humiliation their overriding motivation in rejecting the
CFV. The cynic in me sees at least two reasons why it may be in their
advantage to misrepresent their motivations.

I would also not read too much into comments of posters who vaguely
express a desire for improvement, users of any service always say they
want improvement, but often aren't willing to accept costs/downsides. If
they aren't willing to take this CFV as an opportunity to make a plea
for changes in moderation style I can't believe their discontent is
deep-seated.

Hence I believe it is a forlorn hope that if this CFV fails another
better CFV will come along and precipitate change.

>>
>> Perhaps if you (and other uk posters) still felt the unreformed group
>> was an uncomfortable fit in the uk hierarchy a move to an alternative
>> hierarchy could be negotiated with the moderation team who appear to
>> also feel this way.
>
> A number of people have said that the current moderation style is more
> suited to a web forum, but I see no appetite from the moderators for
> such a move.
>

My apologies, I assumed that by using the term hierarchy I implied a
move within usenet. The motivation for my comment was the interest of a
number of non-cycling uk.* hierarchy posters in this CFV and also the
quote from David Damerell's post in URCM.

============================================
4. We observe that urcm has already been the subject of three previous
hostile RFDs, one intending to replace the moderators.

In other usenet hierarchies, this level of interference with a
moderation team would not be tolerated. For example in the Big 8
(rec.* etc., the B8MB say):

It is highly unlikely that the board would publish proposals for:
...
- removal of an active moderator or removal of a moderated group
without the consent of the moderator.
===========================================

[Clive George]

On 01/02/2013 00:30, Nick wrote:

> Hence I believe it is a forlorn hope that if this CFV fails another
> better CFV will come along and precipitate change.

There you go again. You're quite at liberty to write a better RFD and
precipitate change, although you will have to wait a bit. Why not do so
once that period has expired?

[Nick]

I think Mark has done a good job writing the RFD and CFV and that they
are entirely fit for the purpose testing poster sentiment.

*If* this CFV fails I don't believe any CFV not supported by the
moderation team would succeed and hence it would be a waste of time.

I've never given any indication I had any desire to write a CFV.

Do you have a point you would like to make?