On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:39:55 +0100, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On 2012-10-19, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> I'm bored with uk.net.news.* being dominated with arguments about urcm. If
>> the urcm moderators won't voluntarily clean up their act and stop dumping
>> their shit on the rest of us, then I'm likely to support moves to force
>> them to do so.
>It's not just the moderators who need to clean up their act, but also
>various kinds of trouble-makers. If the URC charter said posts must
>be "pleasant, civil, and of interest to Christians", then UNNM would
>get a lot of similar splatter from people (such as the trolls you
>mention above) complaining about rejections.
The ukrc doesn't use those same words, but it does express pretty much the
same sentiments. It bans both personal abuse and flames, and does stipulate
that anything posted must be relevant to Christianity in the UK.
The big problem with the way that the urcm moderators interpret their
charter is, it seems to me, that they follow this sequence of logic:
1. The charter says that posts must be of interest to cyclists.
2. We are cyclists.
3. Therefore, posts must be of interest to us.
Spotting the flaw in that logic is left as an exercise for the reader.
>In message <MPG.2aec869e931665ed989...@text.usenet.plus.net>, at >11:01:06 on Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Tim Jackson <n...@timjackson.invalid> >sniffed the air and proclaimed
>>On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:49:44 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote...
>>> I think that a troll is abusive and hostile. The charter says such
>>> articles should be rejected. In essence you are asking me (and the
>>> other mods) to break the charter (in my opinion of couse).
>>You said "in my opinion". And that's what it often is - a matter of
>>opinion.
>>Why else do you need to hold an internal discussion for 24, 48 or more
>>hours to decide whether a post should be allowed or rejected? You are
>>deciding your collective opinion on whether the underlying motive behind
>>the post is trolling, and therefore (in your opinion) fails the CPI
>>test.
>I can't really see that all the posts that sit in the queue for lengthy >periods of time are subject to internal discussion.
>I would wonder if the other possibility is not happening in that Mod A >looks at a post and decides to leave it for the next Mod and then Mod B >leaves it for the next mod and then Mod C also leaves it for the next >one so there's actually no discussion for some of the posts and it just >waits for a mod who decides to accept or reject.
>If this other possibility is happening (and only the mods will know if >this is happening to some posts), I wonder if the mods would consider >something on the lines of 'if a post has been waiting for attention for >x hours and it is not already subject to internal discussion then it >should be dealt with or referred for internal discussion. Obviously that >'x hours' would have to be something fairly sensible (maybe 10-12 hours >or something in that sort of ballpark?) to cover when mods are not >logging in to action posts as most of us do recognise that have to eat >and sleep as well as having other commitments and don't expect them to >be sat beady eyed 24/7 waiting for a post to be moderated.
Jesus Christ - why cannot they just make a decision: it's not that fucking
hard.
There is just no excuse for posts languishing for anything up to 91 hours - do
you really think it is just chance that the following posters, over the last
few days, took the following times (hours):
In uk.net.news.config, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:
>The big problem with the way that the urcm moderators interpret their
>charter is, it seems to me, that they follow this sequence of logic:
>1. The charter says that posts must be of interest to cyclists.
>2. We are cyclists.
>3. Therefore, posts must be of interest to us.
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, and suggest this is what
happens,
1. The charter says that posts must be of interest to cyclists.
2. Do we feel this post is *interesting* to the cyclists who post in URCM.
Too much scope for interpretation in #2. Same end result as yours (and I
think less stuff is rejected than the impression here gives) but still too
much work.
-- 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 ]
> On Oct 20, 12:53 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>> trolls
> Hi Phil. Who are these 'trolls' of which you speak? Are there any
> posters you can name who (say) think that helmets are a good thing,
> but aren't trolls in your view? If not, what do you think that says
> about you and the moderators who you so enthusiastically, abrasively
> and dishonestly defend at all times?
Without necessarily disagreeing with the generality of your point about the moderation, it is unlikely that cyclists who support widespread helmet use but are not trolls would want to keep discussing their helmet preferences all the time. Especially if they had read the group archives and realised that most of the points that exist on each side of the debate had been aired fairly recently. And given that helmets are widely approved of by society in general such non-trolling cyclists would not be particularly interested in discussing the matter with a group of cyclists with strong reservations about helmets. Probably.
> In uk.net.news.config, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >The big problem with the way that the urcm moderators interpret their
> >charter is, it seems to me, that they follow this sequence of logic:
> >1. The charter says that posts must be of interest to cyclists.
> >2. We are cyclists.
> >3. Therefore, posts must be of interest to us.
> I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, and suggest this is what
> happens,
> 1. The charter says that posts must be of interest to cyclists.
> 2. Do we feel this post is *interesting* to the cyclists who post in URCM.
> Too much scope for interpretation in #2. Same end result as yours (and I
> think less stuff is rejected than the impression here gives) but still too
> much work.
isn't this an angels going round in circles on the head of a pin through a camel's eye argument?
Mark has described well how URC deals with things and made the point that dealing with the locals is sometimes more of a problem than dealing with the visitors. URCM has very few locals these days, presumably because they have been dealt with.
Following Mark and Tony i suggest this
1. URCM started and had locals
2. the mods upset the locals so the locals went away (compare this to other moderated groups where the locals feel at home)
3. because there are no locals to do the footwork of dealing with trolls the mods have to do it (i think Mark said he didn't have to do much because the locals were there)
4. because the locals r not doing it all the blame for anti-troll behaviour goes on the mods and gets sent back to the management groups because it is a mod that did something not a local saying don't piss in my back yard or similar
5. were does the blame fall?
6. the mods drove the locals away
Jeremy Clarkson: some may say the group should never have started
: some may say the mods should not have upset the locals
: some may say it is just now an exchange mechanism for trolls and a small group of people called mods
: it seems to me no-one is Stig-ing anything to any-one and this is all just sad
For URCM mods:
1. others have said how many writers you have in your group
1a. are they rite that there are so few?
1b. compare that to other uk.* mod groups, is this more or less?
1c. do not tell us about your readers, just the writers
2. do u have more or less writers than when you started?
2a. have many new riters joned in and stayed?
2b. have many new riters titten once and then left?
2c. how much do u think the mods have 2 do with this decline?
3. people are making RFDs about your group, more RFDs than have ever been made about one group before, maybe
3a. some of the RFDs come from inside, some from outside, they all say one thing in effect, "listen to us, please"
3b. listen is not something u do well, is it?
3c. this is uk.* not a club!
> In message <MPG.2aec869e931665ed989...@text.usenet.plus.net>, at > 11:01:06 on Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Tim Jackson <n...@timjackson.invalid> > sniffed the air and proclaimed
> >Why else do you need to hold an internal discussion for 24, 48 or more
> >hours to decide whether a post should be allowed or rejected? You are
> >deciding your collective opinion on whether the underlying motive behind
> >the post is trolling, and therefore (in your opinion) fails the CPI
> >test.
> I can't really see that all the posts that sit in the queue for lengthy > periods of time are subject to internal discussion.
> I would wonder if the other possibility is not happening in that Mod A > looks at a post and decides to leave it for the next Mod and then Mod B > leaves it for the next mod and then Mod C also leaves it for the next > one so there's actually no discussion for some of the posts and it just > waits for a mod who decides to accept or reject.
Hot potatoes that no-one wants to pick up?
Perhaps each of Mods A, B and C realises that the post will be controversial within the moderation team. That some mods would say "It's a troll, dump it", while others would say "Not sure, give it the benefit of the doubt."
So perhaps none of them wants to incur the wrath of their fellow moderators, which would happen whichever way they decide. If they think the post is controversial (for some internal moderation team value of "controversial"), they leave it to someone else.
If so, this still stems from the same basic problem. A policy which tries to decide the underlying motive behind the post is not a sensible way to go about moderation.
If the policy were just to look at what the post says on its face, it would usually be fairly obvious what the decision should be. There would be far less scope for different opinions amongst the moderation team, and no need for Mod A to leave it to someone else.
-- Tim Jackson
n...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> > In message <MPG.2aec869e931665ed989...@text.usenet.plus.net>, at
> > 11:01:06 on Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Tim Jackson <n...@timjackson.invalid>
> > sniffed the air and proclaimed
> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:49:44 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote...
> >>> I think that a troll is abusive and hostile. The charter says such
> >>> articles should be rejected. In essence you are asking me (and the
> >>> other mods) to break the charter (in my opinion of couse).
> >> You said "in my opinion". And that's what it often is - a matter of
> >> opinion.
> >> Why else do you need to hold an internal discussion for 24, 48 or more
> >> hours to decide whether a post should be allowed or rejected? You are
> >> deciding your collective opinion on whether the underlying motive behind
> >> the post is trolling, and therefore (in your opinion) fails the CPI
> >> test.
> > I can't really see that all the posts that sit in the queue for lengthy
> > periods of time are subject to internal discussion.
> > I would wonder if the other possibility is not happening in that Mod A
> > looks at a post and decides to leave it for the next Mod and then Mod B
> > leaves it for the next mod and then Mod C also leaves it for the next
> > one so there's actually no discussion for some of the posts and it just
> > waits for a mod who decides to accept or reject.
> > If this other possibility is happening (and only the mods will know if
> > this is happening to some posts), I wonder if the mods would consider
> > something on the lines of 'if a post has been waiting for attention for
> > x hours and it is not already subject to internal discussion then it
> > should be dealt with or referred for internal discussion. Obviously that
> > 'x hours' would have to be something fairly sensible (maybe 10-12 hours
> > or something in that sort of ballpark?) to cover when mods are not
> > logging in to action posts as most of us do recognise that have to eat
> > and sleep as well as having other commitments and don't expect them to
> > be sat beady eyed 24/7 waiting for a post to be moderated.
> I've been wondering similar thoughts. Right now posting delays is the
> biggest problem the mods have IMO.
See Ian? When even Clive George says it... Whether the delays are
deliberate, or they really are a result of long discussions, they're
doing you no favours, and you need to reduce them substantially.
If you are indeed spending long hours discussing posts by people you
think are 'trolls', then surely the 'troll' is winning by making you
waste so much time?
And if the delays are a deliberate troll-discouraging tactic then they
haven't worked, have they? The 'trolls' are still posting to URCM, and
you're getting even more grief on UNNM/UNNC into the bargain. Are you
hoping that since the delays worked eventually in bullying MattB off
the group, they'll also make other people who disagree with you leave?
I don't think that'll happen. You've complained many times about how
persistent the URC/URCM 'trolls' are, remember? Many have been around
for a very long time. Do you really think that this tactic of yours
will work in shooing them away when every other tactic has failed?
Whatever the reason for the delays, Ian, you and your team need to put
a stop to them, for your own sake. The URCM moderators are the only
ones who are suffering as a result of them. Any post which would
require more than a few emails' worth of discussion is by definition
enough of a borderline case that you should just let it through and
let the readers see it and judge for themselves.
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:54:48 +0100, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@operations.force9.net>
> wrote:
> >In message <MPG.2aec869e931665ed989...@text.usenet.plus.net>, at
> >11:01:06 on Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Tim Jackson <n...@timjackson.invalid>
> >sniffed the air and proclaimed
> >>On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:49:44 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote...
> >>> I think that a troll is abusive and hostile. The charter says such
> >>> articles should be rejected. In essence you are asking me (and the
> >>> other mods) to break the charter (in my opinion of couse).
> >>You said "in my opinion". And that's what it often is - a matter of
> >>opinion.
> >>Why else do you need to hold an internal discussion for 24, 48 or more
> >>hours to decide whether a post should be allowed or rejected? You are
> >>deciding your collective opinion on whether the underlying motive behind
> >>the post is trolling, and therefore (in your opinion) fails the CPI
> >>test.
> >I can't really see that all the posts that sit in the queue for lengthy
> >periods of time are subject to internal discussion.
> >I would wonder if the other possibility is not happening in that Mod A
> >looks at a post and decides to leave it for the next Mod and then Mod B
> >leaves it for the next mod and then Mod C also leaves it for the next
> >one so there's actually no discussion for some of the posts and it just
> >waits for a mod who decides to accept or reject.
> >If this other possibility is happening (and only the mods will know if
> >this is happening to some posts), I wonder if the mods would consider
> >something on the lines of 'if a post has been waiting for attention for
> >x hours and it is not already subject to internal discussion then it
> >should be dealt with or referred for internal discussion. Obviously that
> >'x hours' would have to be something fairly sensible (maybe 10-12 hours
> >or something in that sort of ballpark?) to cover when mods are not
> >logging in to action posts as most of us do recognise that have to eat
> >and sleep as well as having other commitments and don't expect them to
> >be sat beady eyed 24/7 waiting for a post to be moderated.
> Jesus Christ - why cannot they just make a decision: it's not that fucking
> hard.
> There is just no excuse for posts languishing for anything up to 91 hours - do
> you really think it is just chance that the following posters, over the last
> few days, took the following times (hours):
> > On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:54:48 +0100, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@operations.force9.net>
> > wrote:
> > >In message <MPG.2aec869e931665ed989...@text.usenet.plus.net>, at
> > >11:01:06 on Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Tim Jackson <n...@timjackson.invalid>
> > >sniffed the air and proclaimed
> > >>On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:49:44 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote...
> > >>> I think that a troll is abusive and hostile. The charter says such
> > >>> articles should be rejected. In essence you are asking me (and the
> > >>> other mods) to break the charter (in my opinion of couse).
> > >>You said "in my opinion". And that's what it often is - a matter of
> > >>opinion.
> > >>Why else do you need to hold an internal discussion for 24, 48 or more
> > >>hours to decide whether a post should be allowed or rejected? You are
> > >>deciding your collective opinion on whether the underlying motive behind
> > >>the post is trolling, and therefore (in your opinion) fails the CPI
> > >>test.
> > >I can't really see that all the posts that sit in the queue for lengthy
> > >periods of time are subject to internal discussion.
> > >I would wonder if the other possibility is not happening in that Mod A
> > >looks at a post and decides to leave it for the next Mod and then Mod B
> > >leaves it for the next mod and then Mod C also leaves it for the next
> > >one so there's actually no discussion for some of the posts and it just
> > >waits for a mod who decides to accept or reject.
> > >If this other possibility is happening (and only the mods will know if
> > >this is happening to some posts), I wonder if the mods would consider
> > >something on the lines of 'if a post has been waiting for attention for
> > >x hours and it is not already subject to internal discussion then it
> > >should be dealt with or referred for internal discussion. Obviously that
> > >'x hours' would have to be something fairly sensible (maybe 10-12 hours
> > >or something in that sort of ballpark?) to cover when mods are not
> > >logging in to action posts as most of us do recognise that have to eat
> > >and sleep as well as having other commitments and don't expect them to
> > >be sat beady eyed 24/7 waiting for a post to be moderated.
> > Jesus Christ - why cannot they just make a decision: it's not that fucking
> > hard.
> > There is just no excuse for posts languishing for anything up to 91 hours - do
> > you really think it is just chance that the following posters, over the last
> > few days, took the following times (hours):
> > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:54:48 +0100, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@operations.force9.n=
> et>
> > > wrote:
> > > >In message <MPG.2aec869e931665ed989...@text.usenet.plus.net>, at
> > > >11:01:06 on Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Tim Jackson <n...@timjackson.invalid>
> > > >sniffed the air and proclaimed
> > > >>On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:49:44 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote...
> > > >>> I think that a troll is abusive and hostile. =A0The charter says su=
> ch
> > > >>> articles should be rejected. =A0In essence you are asking me (and t=
> he
> > > >>> other mods) to break the charter (in my opinion of couse).
> > > >>You said "in my opinion". =A0And that's what it often is - a matter o=
> f
> > > >>opinion.
> > > >>Why else do you need to hold an internal discussion for 24, 48 or mor=
> e
> > > >>hours to decide whether a post should be allowed or rejected? =A0You =
> are
> > > >>deciding your collective opinion on whether the underlying motive beh=
> ind
> > > >>the post is trolling, and therefore (in your opinion) fails the CPI
> > > >>test.
> > > >I can't really see that all the posts that sit in the queue for length=
> y
> > > >periods of time are subject to internal discussion.
> > > >I would wonder if the other possibility is not happening in that Mod A
> > > >looks at a post and decides to leave it for the next Mod and then Mod =
> B
> > > >leaves it for the next mod and then Mod C also leaves it for the next
> > > >one so there's actually no discussion for some of the posts and it jus=
> t
> > > >waits for a mod who decides to accept or reject.
> > > >If this other possibility is happening (and only the mods will know if
> > > >this is happening to some posts), I wonder if the mods would consider
> > > >something on the lines of 'if a post has been waiting for attention fo=
> r
> > > >x hours and it is not already subject to internal discussion then it
> > > >should be dealt with or referred for internal discussion. Obviously th=
> at
> > > >'x hours' would have to be something fairly sensible (maybe 10-12 hour=
> s
> > > >or something in that sort of ballpark?) to cover when mods are not
> > > >logging in to action posts as most of us do recognise that have to eat
> > > >and sleep as well as having other commitments and don't expect them to
> > > >be sat beady eyed 24/7 waiting for a post to be moderated.
> > > Jesus Christ - why cannot they just make a decision: it's not that fuck=
> ing
> > > hard.
> > > There is just no excuse for posts languishing for anything up to =A091 =
> hours - do
> > > you really think it is just chance that the following posters, over the=
> last
> > > few days, took the following times (hours):
>> And you are Wm... You are certainly as wrong and weird as him.
>mW icks Wm skci ?
Or "sick Wm", perhaps...
-- Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:50:46 +0100, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Abrasive? Well, maybe, but I'm not one to call a spade a manually
>operated earth inversion implement - I say it as I see it.
You certainly do:
--
X-no-archive : No
If the bastards won't do anything about the taxi driver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. He'll never drive a taxi
again.
Message-ID: <2s2mk6treuao9eofefvar1jki6o3ini4bb@4ax.com>
Phil W Lee 3 February 2011
> That seems reasonable, and if the software would support such a
> scheme, I would even suggest that any post that has been in the queue
> without some action (accept, refuse, or refer for discussion) for more
> than 24 hours, be auto-approved.
real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>> That seems reasonable, and if the software would support such a
>> scheme, I would even suggest that any post that has been in the queue
>> without some action (accept, refuse, or refer for discussion) for more
>> than 24 hours, be auto-approved.
>That doesn't sound like a bad idea.
>Daniele
It is no different than for now : all those delayed are obviously "referred for
discussion" otherwise they would be accepted or rejected. They are all much
too difficult and must get Jackson's personal approval.
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:39:55 +0100, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>>On 2012-10-19, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> I'm bored with uk.net.news.* being dominated with arguments about urcm. If
>>> the urcm moderators won't voluntarily clean up their act and stop dumping
>>> their shit on the rest of us, then I'm likely to support moves to force
>>> them to do so.
>>It's not just the moderators who need to clean up their act, but also
>>various kinds of trouble-makers. If the URC charter said posts must
>>be "pleasant, civil, and of interest to Christians", then UNNM would
>>get a lot of similar splatter from people (such as the trolls you
>>mention above) complaining about rejections.
> The ukrc doesn't use those same words, but it does express pretty much the
> same sentiments. It bans both personal abuse and flames, and does stipulate
> that anything posted must be relevant to Christianity in the UK.
I think "relevant to X" is different from "pleasant and of interest to
X-ists". From the RFD, I understood the charter for URCM to mean that
anti-cycling posts wouldn't be allowed.
> The big problem with the way that the urcm moderators interpret their
> charter is, it seems to me, that they follow this sequence of logic:
> 1. The charter says that posts must be of interest to cyclists.
> 2. We are cyclists.
> 3. Therefore, posts must be of interest to us.
> Spotting the flaw in that logic is left as an exercise for the reader.
You have a point, but that's not the only source of problems.
