Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
4th RFD: Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
137 views
Skip to first unread message
sun flower
Oct 7, 2012, 6:32:24 PM10/7/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
4TH REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Changes from previous RFD:
The previous RFD (3rd RFD) contained an administrative error in that a
change was proposed which was not actually part of the existing
charter; but which was part of the existing moderation policy. As such
the proposed change to the charter should not have included it in the
precise way that it did. The text of the proposed Charter Change
Proposal has been changed to correct that error and make the proposed
changes to the Charter's structure clearer. These cosmetic changes are
the only changes made in this RFD from the previous RFD.
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Over the period since uk.rec.cycling.moderated (URCM) was formed in 2009
there have been a number of occasions where people have expressed disquiet
over the way the moderation process has been carried out.
It is appreciated that not all of the people can be pleased all of the
time; however, it is the proposer's view that whilst comments and
suggestions have already been made to the moderators over their processes,
there has been a reluctance to take on board that which has been
suggested - even when there has been a consensus in discussion that change
was required. This RFD contains a proposal to a change of the charter of
URCM so that specific reservations may be addressed by incorporating clear
requirements of what is expected of the moderators. In reality, it is not
expected that the proposed changes in the moderation policies will lead to
any significant extra work for the moderation panel; it is however expected
that the proposed changes will remove the grounds for repeated complaints,
once and for all. Moderators will still have the freedom to use whatever
tools and processes they wish to apply to the moderation process; but there
will be some specific requirements which are paramount. The areas of
concern which have been raised previously which are to be addressed by this
RFD are as follows:
1)
Individual posters have been singled out for 'special attention'.
2)
Individual posters have been allocated to a single moderator for
processing of their posts, with a subsequent time delay ensuing in the
processing of their posts.
3)
A number of posters have been banned from the group with no clear
explanation of the procedure that has been followed in the banning
decision.
4)
A number of posters have been banned from the group indefinitely.
5)
Posts appear to have been rejected either based on the style of the
poster or on an apparent assumption of the poster's identity rather than on
the content of the post.
6)
Specific requests for information and clarification of rejected posts
have been made by email to the moderators: these requests have been totally
ignored.
7)
Subsequent to (6) above, specific requests have been made in
uk.net.news.moderation for information and clarification of their actions
from the moderators; these requests have been totally ignored.
8)
The moderation software for URCM does not deal with emails sent to or
from the moderators in a consistent fashion which is independent of the
domain of the poster's email address (which is usually the norm with email
systems). This means that some posters are not informed that their post
has been received, accepted or rejected. Similarly some emails to the
official moderators' email address have not been accepted by the moderation
system.
PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE:
uk.rec.cycling.moderated
It is proposed that the Charter of the group uk.rec.cycling.moderated
is changed in the following fashion: 1) Change one paragraph in the
current charter; and 2) Add a totally new section of the charter:
1) Replace the sentence in the current charter: 'The moderators may
use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel appropriate to
ensure the smooth running of the group.'
With the following sentence:
'The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively
feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group; as long as
the other specific requirements of this charter are treated as
paramount.'
2) Add the following text to the charter, in a totally new section
entitled MODERATION POLICY which is to be inserted at the end of the
current charter.
MODERATION POLICY
The moderators have a responsibility to ensure that all moderation
actions and decisions are carried out fairly and in a timely manner.
In particular, the following principles will be adhered to:
a) Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a
posting, or to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the
whole moderation panel, or by a posting in the appropriate newsgroup.
In this case any ensuing discussion will take place in public in the
appropriate newsgroup.
b) All posters are treated equally and fairly.
c) No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
d) Posts will not be rejected on the identity of the poster
(unless the poster is banned); but purely on the content of the post.
e) The moderators will define a newsgroup in which all issues
regarding moderation may be discussed. (This newsgroup is referred to
as <the appropriate newsgroup> throughout this charter).
f) In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may
raise a query in the appropriate newsgroup, where a member of the
moderation team will respond to the query in a reasonable time.
g) Queries regarding moderation policy may be raised in the
appropriate newsgroup. A member of the moderation team will respond to
'valid' queries on behalf of the moderators in a reasonable time.
'Valid' queries will be those determined to be so by the moderators;
the moderators will explain why, if they deem a query to not be 'valid'
h) An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the
group's charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using
the group. These are the only circumstances under which an individual
may be banned from posting to the group. In such a case, the
moderator must immediately inform the offender by email (if a valid
email address is provided) outlining the reason for this action and its
duration.
i) All emails to and from the moderators will be processed in a
manner whose effects are independent of the email domain which is used
by the poster.
END CHARTER
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until October 18th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Proponent:
sun flower <bright...@outlook.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.10
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBUHIDzWOfGXkh8vHZAQF9JAP/aBzWnSN2M318cVfM3T2yOUpo7SAvSKp5
xyoubn0+vZUS2nPCCPmyv6Psvs1X4cTaXRIolBHk0NWY1V6pBSfvSAMCinNbVuYX
EPCkuN2iNinbs1IwWVa77fej9gtz6TuCOZOcm+o/+EAKlrGVQw7EBI+JCQHJS1hl
Re+PSeX7AZI=
=QHPo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
4TH REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Changes from previous RFD:
The previous RFD (3rd RFD) contained an administrative error in that a
change was proposed which was not actually part of the existing
charter; but which was part of the existing moderation policy. As such
the proposed change to the charter should not have included it in the
precise way that it did. The text of the proposed Charter Change
Proposal has been changed to correct that error and make the proposed
changes to the Charter's structure clearer. These cosmetic changes are
the only changes made in this RFD from the previous RFD.
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Over the period since uk.rec.cycling.moderated (URCM) was formed in 2009
there have been a number of occasions where people have expressed disquiet
over the way the moderation process has been carried out.
It is appreciated that not all of the people can be pleased all of the
time; however, it is the proposer's view that whilst comments and
suggestions have already been made to the moderators over their processes,
there has been a reluctance to take on board that which has been
suggested - even when there has been a consensus in discussion that change
was required. This RFD contains a proposal to a change of the charter of
URCM so that specific reservations may be addressed by incorporating clear
requirements of what is expected of the moderators. In reality, it is not
expected that the proposed changes in the moderation policies will lead to
any significant extra work for the moderation panel; it is however expected
that the proposed changes will remove the grounds for repeated complaints,
once and for all. Moderators will still have the freedom to use whatever
tools and processes they wish to apply to the moderation process; but there
will be some specific requirements which are paramount. The areas of
concern which have been raised previously which are to be addressed by this
RFD are as follows:
1)
Individual posters have been singled out for 'special attention'.
2)
Individual posters have been allocated to a single moderator for
processing of their posts, with a subsequent time delay ensuing in the
processing of their posts.
3)
A number of posters have been banned from the group with no clear
explanation of the procedure that has been followed in the banning
decision.
4)
A number of posters have been banned from the group indefinitely.
5)
Posts appear to have been rejected either based on the style of the
poster or on an apparent assumption of the poster's identity rather than on
the content of the post.
6)
Specific requests for information and clarification of rejected posts
have been made by email to the moderators: these requests have been totally
ignored.
7)
Subsequent to (6) above, specific requests have been made in
uk.net.news.moderation for information and clarification of their actions
from the moderators; these requests have been totally ignored.
8)
The moderation software for URCM does not deal with emails sent to or
from the moderators in a consistent fashion which is independent of the
domain of the poster's email address (which is usually the norm with email
systems). This means that some posters are not informed that their post
has been received, accepted or rejected. Similarly some emails to the
official moderators' email address have not been accepted by the moderation
system.
PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE:
uk.rec.cycling.moderated
It is proposed that the Charter of the group uk.rec.cycling.moderated
is changed in the following fashion: 1) Change one paragraph in the
current charter; and 2) Add a totally new section of the charter:
1) Replace the sentence in the current charter: 'The moderators may
use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel appropriate to
ensure the smooth running of the group.'
With the following sentence:
'The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively
feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group; as long as
the other specific requirements of this charter are treated as
paramount.'
2) Add the following text to the charter, in a totally new section
entitled MODERATION POLICY which is to be inserted at the end of the
current charter.
MODERATION POLICY
The moderators have a responsibility to ensure that all moderation
actions and decisions are carried out fairly and in a timely manner.
In particular, the following principles will be adhered to:
a) Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a
posting, or to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the
whole moderation panel, or by a posting in the appropriate newsgroup.
In this case any ensuing discussion will take place in public in the
appropriate newsgroup.
b) All posters are treated equally and fairly.
c) No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
d) Posts will not be rejected on the identity of the poster
(unless the poster is banned); but purely on the content of the post.
e) The moderators will define a newsgroup in which all issues
regarding moderation may be discussed. (This newsgroup is referred to
as <the appropriate newsgroup> throughout this charter).
f) In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may
raise a query in the appropriate newsgroup, where a member of the
moderation team will respond to the query in a reasonable time.
g) Queries regarding moderation policy may be raised in the
appropriate newsgroup. A member of the moderation team will respond to
'valid' queries on behalf of the moderators in a reasonable time.
'Valid' queries will be those determined to be so by the moderators;
the moderators will explain why, if they deem a query to not be 'valid'
h) An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the
group's charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using
the group. These are the only circumstances under which an individual
may be banned from posting to the group. In such a case, the
moderator must immediately inform the offender by email (if a valid
email address is provided) outlining the reason for this action and its
duration.
i) All emails to and from the moderators will be processed in a
manner whose effects are independent of the email domain which is used
by the poster.
END CHARTER
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until October 18th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Proponent:
sun flower <bright...@outlook.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.10
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBUHIDzWOfGXkh8vHZAQF9JAP/aBzWnSN2M318cVfM3T2yOUpo7SAvSKp5
xyoubn0+vZUS2nPCCPmyv6Psvs1X4cTaXRIolBHk0NWY1V6pBSfvSAMCinNbVuYX
EPCkuN2iNinbs1IwWVa77fej9gtz6TuCOZOcm+o/+EAKlrGVQw7EBI+JCQHJS1hl
Re+PSeX7AZI=
=QHPo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nomen Nescio
Oct 8, 2012, 7:25:16 AM10/8/12
to
In article <rfd4-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20121007223224$2a...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
is now looking like something that could be voted on
i have a residual concern about this being a _death by a thousand
tiny cuts_ proposal, by which i mean the mods will be so busy
fielding complaints that they won't have time for anything else
all it would require is for one person with malicious intent (and
we know they exist) to set up a cron job that sends a message to
the submission address that they know will be rejected and then
follow that up with a posting complaining about the rejection. my
reading of your proposal is that the mods would have to reply, if
your intention is to punish the mods as fellow humans then this
would seem like a good way of doing it.
in case you think i am being difficult or seeing problems that
don't exist yet i agree with most of your rationale with the
exception that _all_ the blame is placed on the mods and none is
placed on nasty people trying to disrupt a group. but a rationale
is not what gets voted for or against
> PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE:
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> It is proposed that the Charter of the group uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> is changed in the following fashion: 1) Change one paragraph in the
> current charter; and 2) Add a totally new section of the charter:
>
> 1) Replace the sentence in the current charter: 'The moderators may
> use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel appropriate to
> ensure the smooth running of the group.'
>
> With the following sentence:
>
> 'The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively
> feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group; as long as
> the other specific requirements of this charter are treated as
> paramount.'
^^^^^^^^^
_more important than anything else; supreme_ (ODO)
you will have to find another word for me to vote for this
> f) In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may
> raise a query in the appropriate newsgroup, where a member of the
> moderation team will respond to the query in a reasonable time.
what sanction do you propose if they don't? i don't see the point
of unenforceable things in a charter
> g) Queries regarding moderation policy may be raised in the
> appropriate newsgroup. A member of the moderation team will respond to
> 'valid' queries on behalf of the moderators in a reasonable time.
> 'Valid' queries will be those determined to be so by the moderators;
> the moderators will explain why, if they deem a query to not be 'valid'
what if they think the query is so 'invalid' that it isn't worth
replying to? that situation covers quite a lot of the queries we
do get to see, after all
> h) An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the
> group's charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using
> the group. These are the only circumstances under which an individual
> may be banned from posting to the group. In such a case, the
> moderator must immediately inform the offender by email (if a valid
> email address is provided) outlining the reason for this action and its
> duration.
i have an unlimited number of valid e-mail addresses, i start up my
cron job that runs a script that generates a new e-mail address and
makes a submission, computers are good at that sort of thing, you
are suggesting a human has to deal with it, i can't vote for that
i hope this doesn't come across as too anti your proposal, i think
everyone will agree with _treating people fairly_ and similar
sentiments, i think it is neglecting the fact that mods are people
too
JM17
sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 4TH REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> Changes from previous RFD:
>
> The previous RFD (3rd RFD) contained an administrative error in that a
> change was proposed which was not actually part of the existing
> charter; but which was part of the existing moderation policy. As such
> the proposed change to the charter should not have included it in the
> precise way that it did. The text of the proposed Charter Change
> Proposal has been changed to correct that error and make the proposed
> changes to the Charter's structure clearer. These cosmetic changes are
> the only changes made in this RFD from the previous RFD.
thanks for paying attention to people's comments, sun flower, this
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 4TH REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> Changes from previous RFD:
>
> The previous RFD (3rd RFD) contained an administrative error in that a
> change was proposed which was not actually part of the existing
> charter; but which was part of the existing moderation policy. As such
> the proposed change to the charter should not have included it in the
> precise way that it did. The text of the proposed Charter Change
> Proposal has been changed to correct that error and make the proposed
> changes to the Charter's structure clearer. These cosmetic changes are
> the only changes made in this RFD from the previous RFD.
is now looking like something that could be voted on
i have a residual concern about this being a _death by a thousand
tiny cuts_ proposal, by which i mean the mods will be so busy
fielding complaints that they won't have time for anything else
all it would require is for one person with malicious intent (and
we know they exist) to set up a cron job that sends a message to
the submission address that they know will be rejected and then
follow that up with a posting complaining about the rejection. my
reading of your proposal is that the mods would have to reply, if
your intention is to punish the mods as fellow humans then this
would seem like a good way of doing it.
in case you think i am being difficult or seeing problems that
don't exist yet i agree with most of your rationale with the
exception that _all_ the blame is placed on the mods and none is
placed on nasty people trying to disrupt a group. but a rationale
is not what gets voted for or against
> PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE:
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> It is proposed that the Charter of the group uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> is changed in the following fashion: 1) Change one paragraph in the
> current charter; and 2) Add a totally new section of the charter:
>
> 1) Replace the sentence in the current charter: 'The moderators may
> use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel appropriate to
> ensure the smooth running of the group.'
>
> With the following sentence:
>
> 'The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively
> feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group; as long as
> the other specific requirements of this charter are treated as
> paramount.'
_more important than anything else; supreme_ (ODO)
you will have to find another word for me to vote for this
> f) In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may
> raise a query in the appropriate newsgroup, where a member of the
> moderation team will respond to the query in a reasonable time.
of unenforceable things in a charter
> g) Queries regarding moderation policy may be raised in the
> appropriate newsgroup. A member of the moderation team will respond to
> 'valid' queries on behalf of the moderators in a reasonable time.
> 'Valid' queries will be those determined to be so by the moderators;
> the moderators will explain why, if they deem a query to not be 'valid'
replying to? that situation covers quite a lot of the queries we
do get to see, after all
> h) An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the
> group's charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using
> the group. These are the only circumstances under which an individual
> may be banned from posting to the group. In such a case, the
> moderator must immediately inform the offender by email (if a valid
> email address is provided) outlining the reason for this action and its
> duration.
cron job that runs a script that generates a new e-mail address and
makes a submission, computers are good at that sort of thing, you
are suggesting a human has to deal with it, i can't vote for that
i hope this doesn't come across as too anti your proposal, i think
everyone will agree with _treating people fairly_ and similar
sentiments, i think it is neglecting the fact that mods are people
too
JM17
Tim+
Oct 8, 2012, 11:10:43 AM10/8/12
to
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> i hope this doesn't come across as too anti your proposal, i think
> everyone will agree with _treating people fairly_ and similar
> sentiments, i think it is neglecting the fact that mods are people
> too
Exactly. Lets face it, who would want their job? It's a thankless task 99%
> i hope this doesn't come across as too anti your proposal, i think
> everyone will agree with _treating people fairly_ and similar
> sentiments, i think it is neglecting the fact that mods are people
> too
of the time and the pay is lousy. I personally feel that if a group of
people are prepared to put in the time and effort to run a moderated group,
they can run it any way they darned well like. We should be thankful that
we have a useable uk cycling group again.
People who don't like it can always use uk.rec.cycling or start their own
moderated group.
Tim
Nomen Nescio
Oct 8, 2012, 11:47:51 AM10/8/12
to
In article <k4uqek$f5i$2...@dont-email.me>
thanks for the support, Tim. i still want you to make things up
with 36. i know he is mad but he isn't bad, what you said to him
was bad, be a big boy and patch it up, please
JM17
with 36. i know he is mad but he isn't bad, what you said to him
was bad, be a big boy and patch it up, please
JM17
Bertie Wooster
Oct 8, 2012, 1:25:55 PM10/8/12
to
less and want to change it to the group they thought they were
getting.
Bertie Wooster
Oct 8, 2012, 1:27:00 PM10/8/12
to
Tim+
Oct 8, 2012, 1:38:56 PM10/8/12
to
the moderating?
A moderated group will never and *can* never satisfy everyone. It is now a
"working" newsgroup and I'm thankful for that. Maybe one day the trolls
will move on from UK.rec.cycling and pigs might fly. Until then, I don't
think it's worth alienating the existing moderators in pursuit of "fairer"
moderation. It's a lovely ideal but as I've said, they're doing the donkey
work and you can never please everyone.
Tim
Andy Walker
Oct 8, 2012, 2:58:02 PM10/8/12
to
On 08/10/12 18:38, Tim+ wrote:
> A moderated group will never and *can* never satisfy everyone.
This depends on who counts as "everyone". It is certainly
> A moderated group will never and *can* never satisfy everyone.
possible for a moderated group to satisfy everyone who contributes.
I have been reading "comp.risks" and "comp.compilers" since the
1980s, and I don't recall ever seeing a word of complaint about
the moderation. The trick is to have a trusted moderator who will
allow all legitimate contributions, but will disallow any and all
abuse, will keep the discussion reasonably on-topic [though with a
light touch], and will bring discussion to a close if it goes
round in cycles, In both cases, the moderators quite frequently
add comments of their own, esp if this helps to concentrate minds
or helps to answer a query. No doubt there are other successful
moderated groups.
If the only dissatisfied people are the trolls [an unknown
species for the first, much more civilised, decade or so of news
groups], then that's near enough "everyone" for practical purposes,
If trollery is simply dropped into the bit bucket, then the trolls
go away.
If this group was moderated, then the regular floods of
articles about "uk.r.c.m" would simply stop, which would be to
the benefit of all serious contributors. If there was a genuine
complaint it would be allowed, followed by a civilised debate,
which would be brought to a halt as soon as it became repetitive.
If people are going to change their minds about "uk.r.c.m", it
will come about from one or two brief but well-argued articles,
not from a couple of hundred abusive tit-for-tats which only the
proponents are interested in reading.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Adam Funk
Oct 8, 2012, 3:57:42 PM10/8/12
to
trying to undermine it since then, so you're hardly unbiased.
Rob Morley
Oct 9, 2012, 2:42:48 AM10/9/12
to
Sara
Oct 9, 2012, 3:06:56 AM10/9/12
to
In article <433678d9kj9lb8gs9...@4ax.com>,
Not quite, I still prefer URCM to URC. Otherwise that's pretty much
right.
--
Armageddon can be louder than expected for such a small cat.
right.
--
Armageddon can be louder than expected for such a small cat.
Tony
Oct 9, 2012, 3:09:27 AM10/9/12
to
In uk.net.news.config, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Not quite, I still prefer URCM to URC. Otherwise that's pretty much
>right.
Do you feel the RFD content as it stands will improve things Sara?
>Not quite, I still prefer URCM to URC. Otherwise that's pretty much
>right.
--
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 ]
Sara
Oct 9, 2012, 3:48:01 AM10/9/12
to
In article <k50ih7$s2n$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
another stick to try to beat the mods with. Heaven knows I think they
get it wrong, but I don't see this fixing it.
Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
> In uk.net.news.config, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Not quite, I still prefer URCM to URC. Otherwise that's pretty much
> >right.
>
> Do you feel the RFD content as it stands will improve things Sara?
No, I think it will give those who really are out to cause trouble
> In uk.net.news.config, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Not quite, I still prefer URCM to URC. Otherwise that's pretty much
> >right.
>
> Do you feel the RFD content as it stands will improve things Sara?
another stick to try to beat the mods with. Heaven knows I think they
get it wrong, but I don't see this fixing it.
Tony
Oct 9, 2012, 4:04:40 AM10/9/12
to
On 2012-10-09, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <k50ih7$s2n$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
> Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In uk.net.news.config, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Not quite, I still prefer URCM to URC. Otherwise that's pretty much
>> >right.
>>
>> Do you feel the RFD content as it stands will improve things Sara?
>
> No, I think it will give those who really are out to cause trouble
> another stick to try to beat the mods with. Heaven knows I think they
> get it wrong, but I don't see this fixing it.
Thank you.
> In article <k50ih7$s2n$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
> Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In uk.net.news.config, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Not quite, I still prefer URCM to URC. Otherwise that's pretty much
>> >right.
>>
>> Do you feel the RFD content as it stands will improve things Sara?
>
> No, I think it will give those who really are out to cause trouble
> another stick to try to beat the mods with. Heaven knows I think they
> get it wrong, but I don't see this fixing it.
toomt...@gmail.com
Oct 9, 2012, 4:34:24 AM10/9/12
to
fault of some of the moderators. No constitutional amendments will fix the
problems which they themselves perpetuate.
It is unlikely that the moderators who cause the problems feel it is a burden.
It is obviously what they want to spend their time on, and at least one of them
obviously relishes micromanaging moderation in order to restrict and stifle
free discussion.
All that is required is that contributors should by default be trusted and
pass-listed to enable free and immediate interaction on the topics. Where some
can do this, and many others have their stuff delayed for hours for forensic
examination, then fair and logical sequences of discussion are thwarted.
All that is necessary is for off-topic or abusive posters to be warned and
removed from the pass-list as appropriate to keep things reasonably on track.
If you want to know how to replace a bent kick-plate on a 6-speed Schering hub
gear then URCM is the place. If you want to discuss wider issues of road use,
safety, etc. then this needs free interaction interaction and tolerance of
differing and robust views. When you have moderators who constantly censor this
by very selective choices of what does not contribute new material, or is
repetition, then their subjective bias ensures there will not be free and
informed discussion.
It is not for moderators to speculate and censor on their personal assessments
of who the contributor is, or what their motives are, or whether the topic they
raise (rather than the way they express it) is likely offend others (whether
a reader is offended or not is largely the choice of the reader.) What is needed
is for free and robust discussion to be allowed on contentious issues on
the basis that, if people are interacting in a civilised manner, then the
topic is of interest to them and they should be allowed to continue discussion.
It should be the responsibility of the reader to ignore issues they find disturbing or of no interest; it is not for moderators to curtail or end
discussion except in extreme cases.
As a long-term contributor to several moderated groups, who only contributes
politely and genuinely on topics where I have a knowledge or interest, I can
freely contribute to every other group. URCM is an exception, both for me, and, as is obvious, for others who have been polite and informed contributors to
URC and URCM.
I believe there may be fair and reasonable moderators of URCM, but in my view
it should simply be left as a monastery for a minority who don't want reason,
logic, science and empiricism to intrude upon their fundamentalist certainties.
Toom
Alex Potter
Oct 9, 2012, 5:30:55 AM10/9/12
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 08:48:01 +0100, Sara wrote:
>> Do you feel the RFD content as it stands will improve things Sara?
>
> No, I think it will give those who really are out to cause trouble
> another stick to try to beat the mods with. Heaven knows I think they
> get it wrong, but I don't see this fixing it.
+1. If it ever gets to a vote, I'll be voting agin it.
>> Do you feel the RFD content as it stands will improve things Sara?
>
> No, I think it will give those who really are out to cause trouble
> another stick to try to beat the mods with. Heaven knows I think they
> get it wrong, but I don't see this fixing it.
--
Alex
John Benn
Oct 9, 2012, 6:01:23 AM10/9/12
to
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:c1b832a763392fbf...@dizum.com...
Thirty-six is a bit mad but his heart is always in the right place.
news:c1b832a763392fbf...@dizum.com...
John Benn
Oct 9, 2012, 6:02:18 AM10/9/12
to
"Rob Morley" <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:20121009074248.7e45b2d4@hyperion...
Tony
Oct 9, 2012, 6:12:48 AM10/9/12
to
merit of the RFD or it's actual content, and a lot of heat and noise
about the perceived issues around the RFD.
From a pure hierarchy management point of view, I would like to see more
actual discussion of the RFD content, even if that is 'yes, I think this
will help' or 'I think this won't help'.
There is a tiny amount of content and a massive volume of smoke in this
debate so far, in my view.
RFD's are a chance to discuss a proposal, not to fight amongst each
other about perceived intent. Does the *proposal* as written improve
the hierarchy, and group in question, or not.
Owen Dunn
Oct 9, 2012, 6:15:20 AM10/9/12
to
"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Anti-psychotics are given to people typically suffering from
> schizophrenia.
Or loss of balance and other movement disorders. The name of this
> Anti-psychotics are given to people typically suffering from
> schizophrenia.
class of drugs and its association with serious mental illness is very
unfortunate.
(S)
Alex Potter
Oct 9, 2012, 6:36:23 AM10/9/12
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:12:48 +0000, Tony wrote:
> My view is that there has been, all along, very little discussion on the
> merit of the RFD or it's actual content, and a lot of heat and noise
> about the perceived issues around the RFD.
Indeed.
> My view is that there has been, all along, very little discussion on the
> merit of the RFD or it's actual content, and a lot of heat and noise
> about the perceived issues around the RFD.
Yes, the moderation of the group has often left something to be desired,
inasmuch as it often appeared to be based on posters' (assumed)
identities, rather than on the posts' content, but this RFD doesn't
address that. Its asole purpose seems to be to fabricate a big stick with
which to beat the moderators, and generate lots of "heat and noise" in
the process.
However, from where I sit, this RFD looks like a rather successful troll.
--
Alex
Adam Funk
Oct 9, 2012, 7:46:18 AM10/9/12
to
as well as insensitive to people with psychiatric disorders.
Sara
Oct 9, 2012, 8:48:14 AM10/9/12
to
In article <k50un7$7ne$4...@dont-email.me>,
I agree, which is why I've tried to stay away from discussing it in
detail. I think it was raised to cause trouble, nothing else.
detail. I think it was raised to cause trouble, nothing else.
Tony
Oct 9, 2012, 8:48:41 AM10/9/12
to
On 2012-10-09, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
users of the group in question to at least state in the RFD thread how
they feel, both for and against, because it may help those people who
don't use the group, but feel inclined to vote, form an opinion.
Judith
Oct 9, 2012, 12:01:51 PM10/9/12
to
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 01:34:24 -0700 (PDT), toomt...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
>Toom
What a very sensible post.
<snip>
>Toom
What a very sensible post.
toomt...@gmail.com
Oct 9, 2012, 12:34:57 PM10/9/12
to Tony
irrelevant.
Toom
toomt...@gmail.com
Oct 9, 2012, 1:03:45 PM10/9/12
to
I said. I doubt if it will be addressed by those amongst them who, faced
with my knowledge and professional expertise on road safety issues, resorted to
stalking, insults and denigration on urc, but found me unfailingly polite and
persistent in my views. Why they felt threatened by my wish that people simply
consider the merits of my views and opinion reveals more about them than me. Having retreated under there little stones in URCM they still seem fearful
of permitting others to consider my views.
Toom
Percy Picacity
Oct 9, 2012, 1:42:45 PM10/9/12
to
content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one. The moderators do not
seem at all convinced by the appropriateness of this policy: perhaps
if it were voted in by a majority of the uk.* constituency they might
feel forced to at least try out following the policy. They might be
pleasantly surprised by how much it defused criticism, or at least
criticism with any disinterested support. Some clear appeal process
and time limit for bans is also probably to both sides' advantage.
I agree with some others that the rest of the RFD is just a charter for
harassing the moderators with stupid complaints. The trouble is that
the RFD is unlikely to be passed as a whole in view of the latter
content. I would certainly support the first two points, and might
vote for them despite the other stuff, which really has no concret
effect except as a peg to hang vexatious complaints on.
--
Percy Picacity
Alan Braggins
Oct 9, 2012, 4:23:38 PM10/9/12
to
In article <3f365cd0-c973-4f00...@googlegroups.com>, toomt...@gmail.com wrote:
>Thanks. What would be useful would be if moderators of URCM would address what
>I said.
What do you mean by "address"? You're telling us to do things we already do,
>Thanks. What would be useful would be if moderators of URCM would address what
>I said.
and telling us we shouldn't do things we already don't, making pronouncements
from a position of ignorance. Is pointing that out useful? You've never
shown any sign of listening before.
> I doubt if it will be addressed by those amongst them who, faced
>with my knowledge and professional expertise on road safety issues
or not?
Message has been deleted
Tony
Oct 9, 2012, 5:01:36 PM10/9/12
to
In uk.net.news.config, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>So you reckon that as many people as possible should reply to trolls?
>I think the absence of comment by most actual users of urcm is
>indicative of the seriousness with which they regard it.
>Anyone can go and look at the group, to see it working, if they are in
>any doubt that it is.
Normally I don't respond to you, because I consider you worse than many of
the people you believe to be trolls. However, in this instance I believe
your view to be so stupid that I am compelled to respond.
Open your eyes. Consider for just one brief moment that it is not just the
users of the group who will be voting if this goes to a CFV but the users
of the whole hierarchy. This debate, under a formal RFD which you somehow
believe to be a troll, is the only chance the users of the group will have
to persuade people that the RFD is good, bad or something in between. If
you do not take part in the debate, then you may find your apparent apathy
bits you on the arse.
>So you reckon that as many people as possible should reply to trolls?
>I think the absence of comment by most actual users of urcm is
>indicative of the seriousness with which they regard it.
>Anyone can go and look at the group, to see it working, if they are in
>any doubt that it is.
Normally I don't respond to you, because I consider you worse than many of
the people you believe to be trolls. However, in this instance I believe
your view to be so stupid that I am compelled to respond.
Open your eyes. Consider for just one brief moment that it is not just the
users of the group who will be voting if this goes to a CFV but the users
of the whole hierarchy. This debate, under a formal RFD which you somehow
believe to be a troll, is the only chance the users of the group will have
to persuade people that the RFD is good, bad or something in between. If
you do not take part in the debate, then you may find your apparent apathy
bits you on the arse.
toomtab...@gmail.com
Oct 10, 2012, 3:49:00 AM10/10/12
to
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:23:38 PM UTC+1, Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <3f365cd0-c973-4f00...@googlegroups.com>, toomt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Thanks. What would be useful would be if moderators of URCM would address what
>
> >I said.
>
>
>
> What do you mean by "address"? You're telling us to do things we already do,
>
> and telling us we shouldn't do things we already don't, making pronouncements
>
> from a position of ignorance. Is pointing that out useful? You've never
>
> shown any sign of listening before.
>
>
I've both carefully looked and listened, which is why I gave a statement of the
> In article <3f365cd0-c973-4f00...@googlegroups.com>, toomt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Thanks. What would be useful would be if moderators of URCM would address what
>
> >I said.
>
>
>
> What do you mean by "address"? You're telling us to do things we already do,
>
> and telling us we shouldn't do things we already don't, making pronouncements
>
> from a position of ignorance. Is pointing that out useful? You've never
>
> shown any sign of listening before.
>
>
problems and the simple steps by which they could be fixed.
What seems to be the case is that you are not listening,
which simply confirms my view that there is no point in expecting anything
to change.
>
> > I doubt if it will be addressed by those amongst them who, faced
>
> >with my knowledge and professional expertise on road safety issues
>
>
>
> How do you tell whether an empty set of people have addressed something
>
> or not?
towards the problems and their personal hostility towards individual
contributors.
Thank you for responding, though it is not clear why you did so, since it adds
nothing constructive.
My response is measured, reasonable, apposite and polite. It will be published here almost immediately, which is how newsgroups, moderated or otherwise, should
process such messages.
Toom
kat
Oct 10, 2012, 4:06:14 AM10/10/12
to
Percy Picacity wrote:
> I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
> content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
> presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one. The moderators do not
> seem at all convinced by the appropriateness of this policy: perhaps
> if it were voted in by a majority of the uk.* constituency they might
> feel forced to at least try out following the policy. They might be
> pleasantly surprised by how much it defused criticism, or at least
> criticism with any disinterested support. Some clear appeal process
> and time limit for bans is also probably to both sides' advantage.
> I agree with some others that the rest of the RFD is just a charter
> for harassing the moderators with stupid complaints. The trouble is
> that the RFD is unlikely to be passed as a whole in view of the latter
> content. I would certainly support the first two points, and might
> vote for them despite the other stuff, which really has no concret
> effect except as a peg to hang vexatious complaints on.
I would agree with this. Perhaps sunflower might like to consider
> I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
> content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
> presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one. The moderators do not
> seem at all convinced by the appropriateness of this policy: perhaps
> if it were voted in by a majority of the uk.* constituency they might
> feel forced to at least try out following the policy. They might be
> pleasantly surprised by how much it defused criticism, or at least
> criticism with any disinterested support. Some clear appeal process
> and time limit for bans is also probably to both sides' advantage.
> I agree with some others that the rest of the RFD is just a charter
> for harassing the moderators with stupid complaints. The trouble is
> that the RFD is unlikely to be passed as a whole in view of the latter
> content. I would certainly support the first two points, and might
> vote for them despite the other stuff, which really has no concret
> effect except as a peg to hang vexatious complaints on.
simplfying the whole thing to address these two points.
The moderators are getting complaints now and will continue to do so
regardless. In some ways I think the failure of this RFD risks making
matters worse as they could choose to believe a vote against a complicated
change is a vote for their current methods. The success of it as it
stands could well make it worse too.
But with or without a vote, if the moderators addressed those two points,
complaints would need to be genuine to get support, and if the moderators
respond in a straightforward manner, trolls would get bored and the rest of
us would be satisfied.
--
kat
>^..^<
g...@chapmancentral.co.uk
Oct 10, 2012, 5:20:11 AM10/10/12
to
<snip contents of rfd for brevity>
To me this still reads as:
1. Some people want to troll the cycling community.
2. The cyclists don't want to play.
3. The people who want to troll therefore insist that members of the cycling community are forced to play.
The changes proposed amount to an attempt to legislate Clue, and are therefore (a) doomed and (b) ultimately futile.
Guy
To me this still reads as:
1. Some people want to troll the cycling community.
2. The cyclists don't want to play.
3. The people who want to troll therefore insist that members of the cycling community are forced to play.
The changes proposed amount to an attempt to legislate Clue, and are therefore (a) doomed and (b) ultimately futile.
Guy
Richard Kettlewell
Oct 10, 2012, 5:22:43 AM10/10/12
to
"kat" <little...@hotmail.com> writes:
> trolls would get bored
That seems a little unlikely (in any context, not just the one you were
talking about).
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
> trolls would get bored
That seems a little unlikely (in any context, not just the one you were
talking about).
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Tim Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 5:25:27 AM10/10/12
to
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 18:42:45 +0100, Percy Picacity wrote...
I'm sure everyone would agree that delay is in principle undesirable.
But I don't believe the present wording of the RFD will not solve
anything.
The proponent presumably feels that some posters' posts are delayed so
that they can be passed round all the moderators. To her/him, that is
"intentional delay".
But to the moderators, delay as such is not the intention. They may
feel obliged to pass the post around in order to be sure they treat the
poster fairly. Perhaps they feel forced into a corner by the incessant
complaints they receive.
If I'm right, there is disagreement about whether any delays are in fact
"intentional". That means that merely saying "no intentional delays" in
the charter will not solve anything.
The wording needs changing, e.g. to say that posts will not be delayed
to obtain the opinions of other moderators. But there then needs to be
an acceptance that some decisions will be rough and ready, and not
everyone will agree with them. And that is of course something that
some people will not accept.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> The trouble is that
> the RFD is unlikely to be passed as a whole in view of the latter
> content. I would certainly support the first two points, and might
> vote for them despite the other stuff, which really has no concret
> effect except as a peg to hang vexatious complaints on.
There is also the issue about allegedly "intentional" delay.
> the RFD is unlikely to be passed as a whole in view of the latter
> content. I would certainly support the first two points, and might
> vote for them despite the other stuff, which really has no concret
> effect except as a peg to hang vexatious complaints on.
I'm sure everyone would agree that delay is in principle undesirable.
But I don't believe the present wording of the RFD will not solve
anything.
The proponent presumably feels that some posters' posts are delayed so
that they can be passed round all the moderators. To her/him, that is
"intentional delay".
But to the moderators, delay as such is not the intention. They may
feel obliged to pass the post around in order to be sure they treat the
poster fairly. Perhaps they feel forced into a corner by the incessant
complaints they receive.
If I'm right, there is disagreement about whether any delays are in fact
"intentional". That means that merely saying "no intentional delays" in
the charter will not solve anything.
The wording needs changing, e.g. to say that posts will not be delayed
to obtain the opinions of other moderators. But there then needs to be
an acceptance that some decisions will be rough and ready, and not
everyone will agree with them. And that is of course something that
some people will not accept.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Tim Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 5:25:17 AM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:06:14 +0100, kat wrote...
I too agree that as currently written the RFD does not deserve much
support, for the reasons you state. But there are issues within it
where change would benefit all concerned.
Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
a message to both sides.
The merit from the point of view of the proponent is that there is a
greater chance of getting support for at least some form of change.
Whereas if the vote is all-or-nothing, the likelihood is that (s)he will
get nothing. And as you say, that the moderators will (wrongly) take
that as a vote in favour of their current methods.
support, for the reasons you state. But there are issues within it
where change would benefit all concerned.
Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
a message to both sides.
The merit from the point of view of the proponent is that there is a
greater chance of getting support for at least some form of change.
Whereas if the vote is all-or-nothing, the likelihood is that (s)he will
get nothing. And as you say, that the moderators will (wrongly) take
that as a vote in favour of their current methods.
Tim Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 5:35:13 AM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:25:27 +0100, Tim Jackson wrote...
> But I don't believe the present wording of the RFD will not solve
> anything.
Rats. Delete "not". I don't believe the present wording of the RFD
will solve anything.
> But I don't believe the present wording of the RFD will not solve
> anything.
will solve anything.
Ian Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 6:50:20 AM10/10/12
to
In article <60ud7n....@news.alt.net>,
abeyance because we don't currently have any mission posters. I don't
think there have in fact been any recent rejections (in the last 6
months, say) which were the result of poster-specific policy other
than bans.
So even this clause won't help.
No doubt, though, it will provide more grist for people to complain.
They will claim that their articles are rejected because of who they
are rather than what's in the message, even when the contrary is true.
The RFD doesn't say anything about "presumed malign intentions" as you
put it. I think it is entirely proper to infer a poster's intentions
from the post, and to reject a post (no matter from whom) which
appears to be the result of malign intentions.
> Some clear appeal process
>and time limit for bans is also probably to both sides' advantage.
We already have a clear appeal process. As the moderation policy says:
Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting,
or to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole
moderation panel.
No-one is saying that we aren't following this process or that
responses to their appeals have been unreasonably delayed.
And as for rejection complaints in unnm, as Tony's research shows,
there have been very few such complaints which didn't receive a
response from the moderators. Those which didn't were mostly ones
which in the terms of the RFD the moderators would probably argue were
"invalid". So the RFD doesn't help for that either.
I think a time limit for bans is counterproductive. I see absolutely
no problem with indefinite bans for people who are definitely
malicious.
--
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
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
>content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
>presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one.
This clause is aimed at the mission posting policy, which is in
>I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
>content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
>presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one.
abeyance because we don't currently have any mission posters. I don't
think there have in fact been any recent rejections (in the last 6
months, say) which were the result of poster-specific policy other
than bans.
So even this clause won't help.
No doubt, though, it will provide more grist for people to complain.
They will claim that their articles are rejected because of who they
are rather than what's in the message, even when the contrary is true.
The RFD doesn't say anything about "presumed malign intentions" as you
put it. I think it is entirely proper to infer a poster's intentions
from the post, and to reject a post (no matter from whom) which
appears to be the result of malign intentions.
> Some clear appeal process
>and time limit for bans is also probably to both sides' advantage.
Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting,
or to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole
moderation panel.
No-one is saying that we aren't following this process or that
responses to their appeals have been unreasonably delayed.
And as for rejection complaints in unnm, as Tony's research shows,
there have been very few such complaints which didn't receive a
response from the moderators. Those which didn't were mostly ones
which in the terms of the RFD the moderators would probably argue were
"invalid". So the RFD doesn't help for that either.
I think a time limit for bans is counterproductive. I see absolutely
no problem with indefinite bans for people who are definitely
malicious.
--
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
Alan Braggins
Oct 10, 2012, 7:06:17 AM10/10/12
to
In article <1f49175a-2819-4f12...@googlegroups.com>, toomtab...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:23:38 PM UTC+1, Alan Braggins wrote:
>> In article <3f365cd0-c973-4f00...@googlegroups.com>, toomt...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks. What would be useful would be if moderators of URCM would address what
>>
>> >I said.
>On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:23:38 PM UTC+1, Alan Braggins wrote:
>> In article <3f365cd0-c973-4f00...@googlegroups.com>, toomt...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks. What would be useful would be if moderators of URCM would address what
>>
>> >I said.
>Thank you for responding, though it is not clear why you did so, since it adds
>nothing constructive.
Because I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt when you said it
>nothing constructive.
would be useful, in spite of my obvious doubts.
Incidentally, you might want to check what "apposite" actually means.
Molly Mockford
Oct 10, 2012, 7:01:22 AM10/10/12
to
At 09:06:14 on Wed, 10 Oct 2012, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<adkojr...@mid.individual.net>:
I agree too - I think that reducing the RFD to these points would enable
a much clearer approach to the subject, enabling people to decide
whether they are for or against two straightforward suggestions, rather
than "Do I agree with all of this? If not I must disagree" or "I agree
strongly with this part, so I suppose I have no option but to support
the rest with which I actually disagree".
It would probably also help to have a sentence encouraging the
moderators to apply a reasonable balance between speed and consistency.
--
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.
<adkojr...@mid.individual.net>:
a much clearer approach to the subject, enabling people to decide
whether they are for or against two straightforward suggestions, rather
than "Do I agree with all of this? If not I must disagree" or "I agree
strongly with this part, so I suppose I have no option but to support
the rest with which I actually disagree".
It would probably also help to have a sentence encouraging the
moderators to apply a reasonable balance between speed and consistency.
--
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.
Molly Mockford
Oct 10, 2012, 7:04:55 AM10/10/12
to
At 11:50:20 on Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<yrp*7s...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>In article <60ud7n....@news.alt.net>,
>Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> Some clear appeal process
>>and time limit for bans is also probably to both sides' advantage.
>
>We already have a clear appeal process. As the moderation policy says:
>
> Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting,
> or to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole
> moderation panel.
That specifically refers only to decisions to approve or reject a
posting or to close a thread. It certainly does not refer to an appeal
process for bans, which is what PP is talking about.
>I think a time limit for bans is counterproductive. I see absolutely
>no problem with indefinite bans for people who are definitely
>malicious.
So do you see "indefinite" as equivalent to "permanent"? If not, you
really do need to have a policy on *how* an indefinite ban can be
appealed, reconsidered and either terminated or made permanent.
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<yrp*7s...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>In article <60ud7n....@news.alt.net>,
>Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> Some clear appeal process
>>and time limit for bans is also probably to both sides' advantage.
>
>We already have a clear appeal process. As the moderation policy says:
>
> Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting,
> or to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole
> moderation panel.
posting or to close a thread. It certainly does not refer to an appeal
process for bans, which is what PP is talking about.
>I think a time limit for bans is counterproductive. I see absolutely
>no problem with indefinite bans for people who are definitely
>malicious.
really do need to have a policy on *how* an indefinite ban can be
appealed, reconsidered and either terminated or made permanent.
Ian Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 7:14:54 AM10/10/12
to
In article <dkebpUmX...@molly.mockford>,
the ban, people would criticise us for inconsistency.
An indefinite ban might be lifted by the moderators when we feel it
has served its purpose. Frankly in the current climate that seems
unlikely to ever happen.
Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>So do you see "indefinite" as equivalent to "permanent"? If not, you
>really do need to have a policy on *how* an indefinite ban can be
>appealed, reconsidered and either terminated or made permanent.
If we called it "permanent" and later reconsidered and decided to lift
>So do you see "indefinite" as equivalent to "permanent"? If not, you
>really do need to have a policy on *how* an indefinite ban can be
>appealed, reconsidered and either terminated or made permanent.
the ban, people would criticise us for inconsistency.
An indefinite ban might be lifted by the moderators when we feel it
has served its purpose. Frankly in the current climate that seems
unlikely to ever happen.
Alan Braggins
Oct 10, 2012, 7:17:20 AM10/10/12
to
In article <MPG.2adf4ae27...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
>Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
>separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
>If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
>a message to both sides.
http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html allows for Concordet voting on mutually
>Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
>separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
>If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
>a message to both sides.
exclusive options, but says "a vote should be run only for a single group
proposal". (Multiple independent votes for related groups are allowed.)
You could present independent options, then have exclusive options consisting
of the combinations of those options the voter would prefer to see passed.
Apart from being a pointless over-complicated waste of time, I can't see
any reason you shouldn't do that.
Ian Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 7:23:51 AM10/10/12
to
>That specifically refers only to decisions to approve or reject a
>posting or to close a thread. It certainly does not refer to an appeal
>process for bans, which is what PP is talking about.
Bans are only instituted by agreement of the whole moderation panel.
>posting or to close a thread. It certainly does not refer to an appeal
>process for bans, which is what PP is talking about.
(This is now made clear in the moderation policy, but it has always
been the case.) So there is no other body to whom an appeal can be
made.
I suppose it might be possible to allow a banned user to initiate some
kind of formal reconsideration, but I don't really see the point.
Given that we only ban people when we're collectively sure they're
malicious, such a reconsideration would be an empty exercise.
If it would placate the peanut gallery I think it would be plausible
to have an annual review of all existing bans. I personally don't see
the need but I can see why others might think otherwise.
But even then I don't think it would be a good idea to send banned
trolls a periodic poke (whether in public or by private email) telling
them they're still banned, just to revive their interest. And bans
are not publicised by the panel. So this whole process might not be
very visible outside the moderation panel.
Molly Mockford
Oct 10, 2012, 7:26:35 AM10/10/12
to
At 12:14:54 on Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Ian Jackson
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<w1B*Ry...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>In article <dkebpUmX...@molly.mockford>,
>Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>So do you see "indefinite" as equivalent to "permanent"? If not, you
>>really do need to have a policy on *how* an indefinite ban can be
>>appealed, reconsidered and either terminated or made permanent.
>
>If we called it "permanent" and later reconsidered and decided to lift
>the ban, people would criticise us for inconsistency.
Nonsense.
>An indefinite ban might be lifted by the moderators when we feel it
>has served its purpose. Frankly in the current climate that seems
>unlikely to ever happen.
So have the honesty to say "permanent" when you mean "permanent".
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
<w1B*Ry...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>In article <dkebpUmX...@molly.mockford>,
>Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>So do you see "indefinite" as equivalent to "permanent"? If not, you
>>really do need to have a policy on *how* an indefinite ban can be
>>appealed, reconsidered and either terminated or made permanent.
>
>If we called it "permanent" and later reconsidered and decided to lift
>the ban, people would criticise us for inconsistency.
>An indefinite ban might be lifted by the moderators when we feel it
>has served its purpose. Frankly in the current climate that seems
>unlikely to ever happen.
Percy Picacity
Oct 10, 2012, 8:35:04 AM10/10/12
to
On 2012-10-10 10:50:20 +0000, Ian Jackson said:
> In article <60ud7n....@news.alt.net>,
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
>> content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
>> presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one.
>
> This clause is aimed at the mission posting policy, which is in
> abeyance because we don't currently have any mission posters. I don't
> think there have in fact been any recent rejections (in the last 6
> months, say) which were the result of poster-specific policy other
> than bans.
I am sure you mean that sincerely. But I cannot think that you would
> In article <60ud7n....@news.alt.net>,
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
>> content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
>> presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one.
>
> This clause is aimed at the mission posting policy, which is in
> abeyance because we don't currently have any mission posters. I don't
> think there have in fact been any recent rejections (in the last 6
> months, say) which were the result of poster-specific policy other
> than bans.
have blocked a post about a fatal cycling accident from one of 'your
side'. See malign intentions below! And also note that clips about
fatal accident are almost certainly on topic, and could only be blocked
legitimately if you got lots of them. And preferably after a warning
that they were getting repetitive.
>
> So even this clause won't help.
>
> No doubt, though, it will provide more grist for people to complain.
> They will claim that their articles are rejected because of who they
> are rather than what's in the message, even when the contrary is true.
>
> The RFD doesn't say anything about "presumed malign intentions" as you
> put it. I think it is entirely proper to infer a poster's intentions
> from the post, and to reject a post (no matter from whom) which
> appears to be the result of malign intentions.
Well firstly I am sure that malign intentions in ostensibly on topic
posts can only be divined with knowledge or suspicion of the poster's
identity, in breach of what you claim to be your policy. Further, this
gets to the root of the disagreement between the moderators and many
others (not just your enemies). Moderating on suspicion of later
developments stultifies and weakens the group. You need new blood,
perhaps even the occasional mischievous post, and to accept the
troublemaking ones is a price you should pay. For the hundredth time,
accept the trolling posts unless against the rules (which forbid, don't
forget, repetition of the *same* troublemaking point too many times),
and reject the troublesome replies! You may even get an interesting
and polite discussion out of it.
Few people except 3 or 4 troublemakers and their socks will support
complaints if you do this. Even if they point out technical
inconsistencies. Many of us are not obsessive about consistency if
fairness prevails.
--
Percy Picacity
Owen Dunn
Oct 10, 2012, 8:38:54 AM10/10/12
to
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> In article <dkebpUmX...@molly.mockford>,
> Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>So do you see "indefinite" as equivalent to "permanent"? If not, you
>>really do need to have a policy on *how* an indefinite ban can be
>>appealed, reconsidered and either terminated or made permanent.
>
> If we called it "permanent" and later reconsidered and decided to lift
> the ban, people would criticise us for inconsistency.
They probably would whatever you called it. I think using the term
> In article <dkebpUmX...@molly.mockford>,
> Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>So do you see "indefinite" as equivalent to "permanent"? If not, you
>>really do need to have a policy on *how* an indefinite ban can be
>>appealed, reconsidered and either terminated or made permanent.
>
> If we called it "permanent" and later reconsidered and decided to lift
> the ban, people would criticise us for inconsistency.
`indefinite' just invites nit picking, and you should call it
`permanent'.
> An indefinite ban might be lifted by the moderators when we feel it
> has served its purpose. Frankly in the current climate that seems
> unlikely to ever happen.
probably not going to get much flak for lifting a `permanent' ban.
(S)
Ian Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 8:46:49 AM10/10/12
to
In article <610fiq....@news.alt.net>,
the article that John Benn did. If they did it should be rejected
too. urcm isn't supposed to be a news service for crashes.
>Well firstly I am sure that malign intentions in ostensibly on topic
>posts can only be divined with knowledge or suspicion of the poster's
>identity,
Nonsense. A posting can be "on topic" but still malign. And
malignance is generally fairly easy to see without reference to the
poster's identity. Unless perhaps by "on topic" you mean "acceptable"
in which case your assertion seems circular.
> For the hundredth time, accept the trolling posts
If you want to write this into an RFD, please go ahead. If you do,
make sure you do it in so many words so people can see what you're
proposing.
"Posts should not be rejected simply because they are trolling or
otherwise malicious" should do it.
Until then we're certainly not going to start accepting trolling
posts. And the current RFD is not going to change that.
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>I am sure you mean that sincerely. But I cannot think that you would
>have blocked a post about a fatal cycling accident from one of 'your
>side'.
I don't think one of what you think of as "our side" would have posted
>I am sure you mean that sincerely. But I cannot think that you would
>have blocked a post about a fatal cycling accident from one of 'your
>side'.
the article that John Benn did. If they did it should be rejected
too. urcm isn't supposed to be a news service for crashes.
>Well firstly I am sure that malign intentions in ostensibly on topic
>posts can only be divined with knowledge or suspicion of the poster's
>identity,
malignance is generally fairly easy to see without reference to the
poster's identity. Unless perhaps by "on topic" you mean "acceptable"
in which case your assertion seems circular.
> For the hundredth time, accept the trolling posts
make sure you do it in so many words so people can see what you're
proposing.
"Posts should not be rejected simply because they are trolling or
otherwise malicious" should do it.
Until then we're certainly not going to start accepting trolling
posts. And the current RFD is not going to change that.
Tim Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 8:50:46 AM10/10/12
to
On 10 Oct 2012 11:50:20 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...
get the impression that when you are examining whether a post is a
flame, the identity (or presumed identity) of the poster does come into
it. (Perhaps instinctively, without you realising?)
E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
the sort.
If it's a Judith sock, you could I suppose reject it as being from a
banned poster instead. The problem comes when you are not sure. And
that is also when you can't be sure that the post is intended to be
inflammatory.
You know the answer. Accept it, but flag the thread for manual
moderation. Allow polite responses but reject any hostile ones. This
keeps the thread civil and pleasant while enabling people to disagree.
And if it was a troll seeking to stir things up, it defeats that too.
> In article <60ud7n....@news.alt.net>,
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> >I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
> >content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
> >presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one.
>
> This clause is aimed at the mission posting policy, which is in
> abeyance because we don't currently have any mission posters. I don't
> think there have in fact been any recent rejections (in the last 6
> months, say) which were the result of poster-specific policy other
> than bans.
>
> So even this clause won't help.
I think it's aimed at more than just the mission posting policy. I do
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> >I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
> >content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
> >presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one.
>
> This clause is aimed at the mission posting policy, which is in
> abeyance because we don't currently have any mission posters. I don't
> think there have in fact been any recent rejections (in the last 6
> months, say) which were the result of poster-specific policy other
> than bans.
>
> So even this clause won't help.
get the impression that when you are examining whether a post is a
flame, the identity (or presumed identity) of the poster does come into
it. (Perhaps instinctively, without you realising?)
E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
the sort.
If it's a Judith sock, you could I suppose reject it as being from a
banned poster instead. The problem comes when you are not sure. And
that is also when you can't be sure that the post is intended to be
inflammatory.
You know the answer. Accept it, but flag the thread for manual
moderation. Allow polite responses but reject any hostile ones. This
keeps the thread civil and pleasant while enabling people to disagree.
And if it was a troll seeking to stir things up, it defeats that too.
Ian Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 9:01:14 AM10/10/12
to
In article <MPG.2adf7ebda...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
say happening instinctively. But in any case since we don't think
that's what we're doing, forbidding it in the RFD is not going to
help.
The only effect of the RFD will be to make give those whose (mostly
trolling) articles are rejected more excuses for argument.
>E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
>perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
>the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
>the sort.
I normally read usenet by looking at the bodies of postings rather
than the poster's identity. Normally I find that trolling messages
are easy to spot from the content.
Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>On 10 Oct 2012 11:50:20 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...
>On 10 Oct 2012 11:50:20 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...
>>So even this clause won't help.
>
>I think it's aimed at more than just the mission posting policy. I do
>get the impression that when you are examining whether a post is a
>flame, the identity (or presumed identity) of the poster does come into
>it. (Perhaps instinctively, without you realising?)
As I say I don't think this is what's going on. Maybe it is as you
>
>I think it's aimed at more than just the mission posting policy. I do
>get the impression that when you are examining whether a post is a
>flame, the identity (or presumed identity) of the poster does come into
>it. (Perhaps instinctively, without you realising?)
say happening instinctively. But in any case since we don't think
that's what we're doing, forbidding it in the RFD is not going to
help.
The only effect of the RFD will be to make give those whose (mostly
trolling) articles are rejected more excuses for argument.
>E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
>perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
>the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
>the sort.
than the poster's identity. Normally I find that trolling messages
are easy to spot from the content.
Fred2
Oct 10, 2012, 9:58:29 AM10/10/12
to
On 10/10/2012 13:46, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <610fiq....@news.alt.net>,
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> I am sure you mean that sincerely. But I cannot think that you would
>> have blocked a post about a fatal cycling accident from one of 'your
>> side'.
>
> I don't think one of what you think of as "our side" would have posted
> the article that John Benn did. If they did it should be rejected
> too. urcm isn't supposed to be a news service for crashes.
>
>> Well firstly I am sure that malign intentions in ostensibly on topic
>> posts can only be divined with knowledge or suspicion of the poster's
>> identity,
>
> Nonsense. A posting can be "on topic" but still malign. And
> malignance is generally fairly easy to see without reference to the
> poster's identity. Unless perhaps by "on topic" you mean "acceptable"
> in which case your assertion seems circular.
>
>> For the hundredth time, accept the trolling posts
>
> If you want to write this into an RFD, please go ahead. If you do,
> make sure you do it in so many words so people can see what you're
> proposing.
>
> "Posts should not be rejected simply because they are trolling or
> otherwise malicious" should do it.
>
> Until then we're certainly not going to start accepting trolling
> posts. And the current RFD is not going to change that.
>
Thank you ! :-)
> In article <610fiq....@news.alt.net>,
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> I am sure you mean that sincerely. But I cannot think that you would
>> have blocked a post about a fatal cycling accident from one of 'your
>> side'.
>
> I don't think one of what you think of as "our side" would have posted
> the article that John Benn did. If they did it should be rejected
> too. urcm isn't supposed to be a news service for crashes.
>
>> Well firstly I am sure that malign intentions in ostensibly on topic
>> posts can only be divined with knowledge or suspicion of the poster's
>> identity,
>
> Nonsense. A posting can be "on topic" but still malign. And
> malignance is generally fairly easy to see without reference to the
> poster's identity. Unless perhaps by "on topic" you mean "acceptable"
> in which case your assertion seems circular.
>
>> For the hundredth time, accept the trolling posts
>
> If you want to write this into an RFD, please go ahead. If you do,
> make sure you do it in so many words so people can see what you're
> proposing.
>
> "Posts should not be rejected simply because they are trolling or
> otherwise malicious" should do it.
>
> Until then we're certainly not going to start accepting trolling
> posts. And the current RFD is not going to change that.
>
Fred
toomtab...@gmail.com
Oct 10, 2012, 10:57:22 AM10/10/12
to
On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 14:01:16 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <MPG.2adf7ebda...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
>
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 10 Oct 2012 11:50:20 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...
>
> >>So even this clause won't help.
>
> >
>
> >I think it's aimed at more than just the mission posting policy. I do
>
> >get the impression that when you are examining whether a post is a
>
> >flame, the identity (or presumed identity) of the poster does come into
>
> >it. (Perhaps instinctively, without you realising?)
>
>
>
> As I say I don't think this is what's going on. Maybe it is as you
>
> say happening instinctively. But in any case since we don't think
>
> that's what we're doing, forbidding it in the RFD is not going to
>
> help.
>
>
>
> The only effect of the RFD will be to make give those whose (mostly
>
> trolling) articles are rejected more excuses for argument.
>
>
>
> >E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
>
> >perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
>
> >the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
>
> >the sort.
>
>
>
> I normally read usenet by looking at the bodies of postings rather
>
> than the poster's identity. Normally I find that trolling messages
>
> are easy to spot from the content.
>
But your judgement seems subjective, illusory and flawed and you are not
> In article <MPG.2adf7ebda...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
>
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 10 Oct 2012 11:50:20 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...
>
> >>So even this clause won't help.
>
> >
>
> >I think it's aimed at more than just the mission posting policy. I do
>
> >get the impression that when you are examining whether a post is a
>
> >flame, the identity (or presumed identity) of the poster does come into
>
> >it. (Perhaps instinctively, without you realising?)
>
>
>
> As I say I don't think this is what's going on. Maybe it is as you
>
> say happening instinctively. But in any case since we don't think
>
> that's what we're doing, forbidding it in the RFD is not going to
>
> help.
>
>
>
> The only effect of the RFD will be to make give those whose (mostly
>
> trolling) articles are rejected more excuses for argument.
>
>
>
> >E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
>
> >perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
>
> >the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
>
> >the sort.
>
>
>
> I normally read usenet by looking at the bodies of postings rather
>
> than the poster's identity. Normally I find that trolling messages
>
> are easy to spot from the content.
>
prepared to substantiate when asked reasonably to do so:-
Here is an example:-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb 2, 11:41 pm, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> Whereas Toom Tabard, to take one example, has posted and had approved
> in the last month or so several dozen messages "[questioning] the
> value of that evidence" as Steve puts it. _That_ is what we have had
> "over and over and over again".
>
That is a totally unfair and misleading statement. I have recently
contributed to various threads and my every posting has been
reasoned, apposite, varied and appropriate in its context. Any
'repetition' has only been a few instances as reasonably required to
deal with the issues discussed. In that context they are each new
information which add to and are relevant to that particular
discussion.
On helmets, I have very specifically avoided attempts to engage me in
any re-run of the helmet debate.
In a thread on 'cycle training' there were at least two attempts to
introduce and engage me on my views on helmets. I specifically stated
I was refusing to answer and I kept my contributions on topic.
Clinch quoted a whimsical aside made by me about people trying to
introduce helmets so that it looked like flame-bait, and asked why I
was flame-baiting.
my response:-
" Mayhaps, if you'd quoted my whole reasonable and reasoned paragraph,
rather than that purely the whimsical aside at the end, it would have
shown in context that there is nothing in particular for anyone to
snipe at."
was rejected as 'being about moderation decisions' - there was no
indication Clinch was writing as moderator.
In another thread on publications on health and transport I was
arguing that a positive image of cycling be presented, and that the
overwhelming concentration on safety, injury and helmets should, in
that context, be toned down and placed in perspective.
In the present thread under discussion, yes I have contributed a lot -
about 15 messages. Of these:-
3 have been valid and balanced criticism of the video in the original
posting.
2 have been attempts to engage me in the helmet debate, and I've
refused to be diverted.
1 I answered but pointed out it was only because of what was asked,
but was otherwise a re-re-run of the helmet debate.
2 Were answers to points made to me about helmets in collisions.
2 Were concluding remarks in sub-threads where I pointed out the sub-
thread had exhausted the points.
1 was a whimsical aside.
4 were part an interesting discussion on the effect of coleslaw on
expansion of the universe. They drifted off-topic but were certainly
new information
My contributions have, by any objective standard, been reasonable,
varied and apposite. That you and others have a different perspective
indicates issues that are demonstrably your problems not mine.
You are yet again invited to reply direct to me here and justify your
statements which I claim are total misrepresentations.
I appreciate you may be fully occupied in trawling through my messages
to find where I used 'and' three months ago and using it to justify
rejection for repetition.
Otherwise, I would suggest that you are one of the main factors in the
severe problems with moderation which need to be addressed. I'd again
point out that you have volunteered for the subservient position of
moderator, to enable discussion by contributors. You should not be
striving to officiously interfere in that process. Your totally
unbalanced perspective is causing problems which deserve to be looked
at by other moderators. You certainly have no credible position on a
moderation team.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could not provide the data and evidence to substantiate why you rejected a variety of my messages on a variety of topics, where I was writing courteously, appropriately and on topic, but have been able to say about rejection of my posts :-
“Yes. I think it was me but I can't be bothered to look it up. I
certainly rejected a great many articles by Toom.”
Now why, objectively would that be. No connection with my consistently, politely and easily trouncing your own facile contributions? If not, what was the reason?
It may be, since I'm now writing, you as usual, can't answer.
The problem seems to be that, on my views on various topics as on your moderation decisions, I can provide the reasoned substantiation of my
position and you cannot of yours.
Toom
Alex Potter
Oct 10, 2012, 10:59:01 AM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:50:46 +0100, Tim Jackson wrote:
> You know the answer. Accept it, but flag the thread for manual
> moderation. Allow polite responses but reject any hostile ones. This
> keeps the thread civil and pleasant while enabling people to disagree.
> And if it was a troll seeking to stir things up, it defeats that too.
+1
> You know the answer. Accept it, but flag the thread for manual
> moderation. Allow polite responses but reject any hostile ones. This
> keeps the thread civil and pleasant while enabling people to disagree.
> And if it was a troll seeking to stir things up, it defeats that too.
--
Alex
Sara
Oct 10, 2012, 11:26:35 AM10/10/12
to
toomtab...@gmail.com
Oct 10, 2012, 11:44:23 AM10/10/12
to
I'm fully aware of the meaning of apposite. If you are also, then it confirms you have nothing to contribute to the issue but adds information about
the attitude of URCM 'moderators'.
Thank you for your response. However, it remains not constructive.
Toom
Alan Braggins
Oct 10, 2012, 11:49:58 AM10/10/12
to
In article <yrp*7s...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson wrote:
>In article <60ud7n....@news.alt.net>,
>Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
>>content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
>>presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one.
>
>This clause is aimed at the mission posting policy, which is in
>abeyance because we don't currently have any mission posters.
I thought it was aimed at banned posters who nym-shift being banned
>In article <60ud7n....@news.alt.net>,
>Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
>>content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
>>presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one.
>
>This clause is aimed at the mission posting policy, which is in
>abeyance because we don't currently have any mission posters.
again as soon as it's obvious both that they are socks and that they
haven't changed their ways, rather than everyone pretending that
the supposed new poster is starting from scratch?
>I think a time limit for bans is counterproductive. I see absolutely
>no problem with indefinite bans for people who are definitely
>malicious.
between that and permanent[1]. I'd prefer to keep the option to lift a ban
on review, but I don't think losing that option would be a major problem.
It's not as if someone who is nominally banned and posts under a new name
while changing their behaviour is going to be affected much - it just means
they no longer have the option of saying "look it was me, I have changed,
can I use my old name again now?"
(And frankly, if that did hapen, I'm fairly sure we would get away with
lifting a ban before any time limit expired anyway.)
[1] Or effectively permanent, if some fixed limit has to be specified.
200 years was mentioned as a potentially acceptable limit, for example.
D.M. Procida
Oct 10, 2012, 11:57:10 AM10/10/12
to
Daniele
toomtab...@gmail.com
Oct 10, 2012, 12:02:06 PM10/10/12
to
banged up for stealing the Crown Jewels.
Toom
Steve Firth
Oct 10, 2012, 12:20:25 PM10/10/12
to
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Nonsense. A posting can be "on topic" but still malign. And
> malignance is generally fairly easy to see without reference to the
> poster's identity.
The only test for "malignance" that seems to be applied is does it irritate
you, does it refer to a topic which you have decided is already written on
tablets of stone or is the post made by someone you don't like?
> Unless perhaps by "on topic" you mean "acceptable"
> in which case your assertion seems circular.
And your assertions seem to be a constant circular attempt to justify
banning by personality and acceptance by the same criterion. If that is
what you want set up your private club as a web forum.
>> For the hundredth time, accept the trolling posts
Dishonest quoting there Mr Jackson.
Percy's statement was qualified with "unless against the rules (which
replies is something that you constantly try to wriggle away from.
> If you want to write this into an RFD, please go ahead. If you do,
> make sure you do it in so many words so people can see what you're
> proposing.
>
> "Posts should not be rejected simply because they are trolling or
> otherwise malicious" should do it.
>
> Until then we're certainly not going to start accepting trolling
> posts. And the current RFD is not going to change that.
Ah that clear, open and analytical mind that typifies your posts on this
subject.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
[snip]
> Nonsense. A posting can be "on topic" but still malign. And
> malignance is generally fairly easy to see without reference to the
> poster's identity.
you, does it refer to a topic which you have decided is already written on
tablets of stone or is the post made by someone you don't like?
> Unless perhaps by "on topic" you mean "acceptable"
> in which case your assertion seems circular.
banning by personality and acceptance by the same criterion. If that is
what you want set up your private club as a web forum.
>> For the hundredth time, accept the trolling posts
Percy's statement was qualified with "unless against the rules (which
forbid, don't forget, repetition of the *same* troublemaking point too many
times), and reject the troublesome replies!"
This advice, in particular to reject the troublesome, angry, offensive
times), and reject the troublesome replies!"
replies is something that you constantly try to wriggle away from.
> If you want to write this into an RFD, please go ahead. If you do,
> make sure you do it in so many words so people can see what you're
> proposing.
>
> "Posts should not be rejected simply because they are trolling or
> otherwise malicious" should do it.
>
> Until then we're certainly not going to start accepting trolling
> posts. And the current RFD is not going to change that.
subject.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Andy Leighton
Oct 10, 2012, 12:32:26 PM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:20:25 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> For the hundredth time, accept the trolling posts
>
> Dishonest quoting there Mr Jackson.
>
> Percy's statement was qualified with "unless against the rules (which
> forbid, don't forget, repetition of the *same* troublemaking point too many
> times), and reject the troublesome replies!"
All trolling is against the rules IMHO. It just isn't civil.
> Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> For the hundredth time, accept the trolling posts
>
> Dishonest quoting there Mr Jackson.
>
> Percy's statement was qualified with "unless against the rules (which
> forbid, don't forget, repetition of the *same* troublemaking point too many
> times), and reject the troublesome replies!"
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
kat
Oct 10, 2012, 12:55:45 PM10/10/12
to
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> trolls would get bored
>
> That seems a little unlikely (in any context, not just the one you
> were talking about).
I was talking about a specific troll? You clearly know more about my
thought processes than I do.
--
kat
>^..^<
> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> trolls would get bored
>
> That seems a little unlikely (in any context, not just the one you
> were talking about).
I was talking about a specific troll? You clearly know more about my
thought processes than I do.
--
kat
>^..^<
Percy Picacity
Oct 10, 2012, 2:05:10 PM10/10/12
to
On 2012-10-10 12:46:49 +0000, Ian Jackson said:
> In article <610fiq....@news.alt.net>,
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> I am sure you mean that sincerely. But I cannot think that you would
>> have blocked a post about a fatal cycling accident from one of 'your
>> side'.
>
> I don't think one of what you think of as "our side" would have posted
> the article that John Benn did. If they did it should be rejected
> too. urcm isn't supposed to be a news service for crashes.
>
>> Well firstly I am sure that malign intentions in ostensibly on topic
>> posts can only be divined with knowledge or suspicion of the poster's
>> identity,
>
> Nonsense. A posting can be "on topic" but still malign. And
> malignance is generally fairly easy to see without reference to the
> poster's identity. Unless perhaps by "on topic" you mean "acceptable"
> in which case your assertion seems circular.
>
>> For the hundredth time, accept the trolling posts
>
> If you want to write this into an RFD, please go ahead. If you do,
> make sure you do it in so many words so people can see what you're
> proposing.
>
> "Posts should not be rejected simply because they are trolling or
> otherwise malicious" should do it.
>
> Until then we're certainly not going to start accepting trolling
> posts. And the current RFD is not going to change that.
Ah well. Don't forget to booby-trap the laager for when someone
> In article <610fiq....@news.alt.net>,
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> I am sure you mean that sincerely. But I cannot think that you would
>> have blocked a post about a fatal cycling accident from one of 'your
>> side'.
>
> I don't think one of what you think of as "our side" would have posted
> the article that John Benn did. If they did it should be rejected
> too. urcm isn't supposed to be a news service for crashes.
>
>> Well firstly I am sure that malign intentions in ostensibly on topic
>> posts can only be divined with knowledge or suspicion of the poster's
>> identity,
>
> Nonsense. A posting can be "on topic" but still malign. And
> malignance is generally fairly easy to see without reference to the
> poster's identity. Unless perhaps by "on topic" you mean "acceptable"
> in which case your assertion seems circular.
>
>> For the hundredth time, accept the trolling posts
>
> If you want to write this into an RFD, please go ahead. If you do,
> make sure you do it in so many words so people can see what you're
> proposing.
>
> "Posts should not be rejected simply because they are trolling or
> otherwise malicious" should do it.
>
> Until then we're certainly not going to start accepting trolling
> posts. And the current RFD is not going to change that.
ventures in to see if you're all dead.
--
Percy Picacity
Percy Picacity
Oct 10, 2012, 2:09:28 PM10/10/12
to
On 2012-10-10 12:50:46 +0000, Tim Jackson said:
> snip for brevity
not be rejected. It can be defused!
--
Percy Picacity
> snip for brevity
>
> If it's a Judith sock, you could I suppose reject it as being from a
> banned poster instead. The problem comes when you are not sure. And
> that is also when you can't be sure that the post is intended to be
> inflammatory.
>
> You know the answer. Accept it, but flag the thread for manual
> moderation. Allow polite responses but reject any hostile ones. This
> keeps the thread civil and pleasant while enabling people to disagree.
> And if it was a troll seeking to stir things up, it defeats that too.
Absolutely. A good troll is not offensive in itself, therefore should
> If it's a Judith sock, you could I suppose reject it as being from a
> banned poster instead. The problem comes when you are not sure. And
> that is also when you can't be sure that the post is intended to be
> inflammatory.
>
> You know the answer. Accept it, but flag the thread for manual
> moderation. Allow polite responses but reject any hostile ones. This
> keeps the thread civil and pleasant while enabling people to disagree.
> And if it was a troll seeking to stir things up, it defeats that too.
not be rejected. It can be defused!
--
Percy Picacity
Tim Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 2:40:16 PM10/10/12
to
On 10 Oct 2012 14:01:14 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...
name of the poster) which caused you to say "This looks like a Judith
>
> In article <MPG.2adf7ebda...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>
> >E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
> >perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
> >the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
> >the sort.
>
> I normally read usenet by looking at the bodies of postings rather
> than the poster's identity. Normally I find that trolling messages
> are easy to spot from the content.
It would of course be the body of a post (rather then the pseudonymous
> In article <MPG.2adf7ebda...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>
> >E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
> >perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
> >the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
> >the sort.
>
> I normally read usenet by looking at the bodies of postings rather
> than the poster's identity. Normally I find that trolling messages
> are easy to spot from the content.
name of the poster) which caused you to say "This looks like a Judith
sock. Even though it's asking a perfectly reasonable question, it must
be malicious."
But that is still moderating on the presumed identity of the poster.
be malicious."
Richard Kettlewell
Oct 10, 2012, 2:48:26 PM10/10/12
to
quoted remark was made.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Tim Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 2:50:03 PM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:09:28 +0100, Percy Picacity wrote...
Maybe they weren't successful previously because there were hostile
responses from people on the whitelist. That's why the thread needs to
be flagged for manual moderation. (And if people make hostile
responses, they shouldn't be on the whitelist.)
responses from people on the whitelist. That's why the thread needs to
be flagged for manual moderation. (And if people make hostile
responses, they shouldn't be on the whitelist.)
Percy Picacity
Oct 10, 2012, 2:57:07 PM10/10/12
to
On 2012-10-10 13:01:14 +0000, Ian Jackson said:
> In article <MPG.2adf7ebda...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10 Oct 2012 11:50:20 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...
>>> So even this clause won't help.
>>
>> I think it's aimed at more than just the mission posting policy. I do
>> get the impression that when you are examining whether a post is a
>> flame, the identity (or presumed identity) of the poster does come into
>> it. (Perhaps instinctively, without you realising?)
>
> As I say I don't think this is what's going on. Maybe it is as you
> say happening instinctively. But in any case since we don't think
> that's what we're doing, forbidding it in the RFD is not going to
> help.
>
> The only effect of the RFD will be to make give those whose (mostly
> trolling) articles are rejected more excuses for argument.
>
>> E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
>> perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
>> the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
>> the sort.
>
> I normally read usenet by looking at the bodies of postings rather
> than the poster's identity. Normally I find that trolling messages
> are easy to spot from the content.
Style may be a confounding factor.
> In article <MPG.2adf7ebda...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10 Oct 2012 11:50:20 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...
>>> So even this clause won't help.
>>
>> I think it's aimed at more than just the mission posting policy. I do
>> get the impression that when you are examining whether a post is a
>> flame, the identity (or presumed identity) of the poster does come into
>> it. (Perhaps instinctively, without you realising?)
>
> As I say I don't think this is what's going on. Maybe it is as you
> say happening instinctively. But in any case since we don't think
> that's what we're doing, forbidding it in the RFD is not going to
> help.
>
> The only effect of the RFD will be to make give those whose (mostly
> trolling) articles are rejected more excuses for argument.
>
>> E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
>> perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
>> the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
>> the sort.
>
> I normally read usenet by looking at the bodies of postings rather
> than the poster's identity. Normally I find that trolling messages
> are easy to spot from the content.
--
Percy Picacity
kat
Oct 10, 2012, 3:48:58 PM10/10/12
to
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> trolls would get bored
>>>
>>> That seems a little unlikely (in any context, not just the one you
>>> were talking about).
>>
>> I was talking about a specific troll? You clearly know more about my
>> thought processes than I do.
>
> No, I don't mean a specific troll. I mean the context in which the
> quoted remark was made.
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Too much caffeine today.:-)
> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> trolls would get bored
>>>
>>> That seems a little unlikely (in any context, not just the one you
>>> were talking about).
>>
>> I was talking about a specific troll? You clearly know more about my
>> thought processes than I do.
>
> No, I don't mean a specific troll. I mean the context in which the
> quoted remark was made.
--
kat
>^..^<
Nomen Nescio
Oct 10, 2012, 4:35:55 PM10/10/12
to
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 01:34:24 -0700 (PDT), toomt...@gmail.com
wrote:
<snip>
> I believe there may be fair and reasonable moderators of URCM, but in my view
> it should simply be left as a monastery for a minority who don't want reason,
> logic, science and empiricism to intrude upon their fundamentalist certainties.
>Toom
What a very sensible post.
Good to see you're voting against the RFD
JM17
wrote:
<snip>
> I believe there may be fair and reasonable moderators of URCM, but in my view
> it should simply be left as a monastery for a minority who don't want reason,
> logic, science and empiricism to intrude upon their fundamentalist certainties.
>Toom
What a very sensible post.
Good to see you're voting against the RFD
JM17
Nomen Nescio
Oct 10, 2012, 5:13:11 PM10/10/12
to
In article <ZpF*XA...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> If it would placate the peanut gallery I think it would be plausible
> to have an annual review of all existing bans. I personally don't see
> the need but I can see why others might think otherwise.
perennial, annual or permanent
not your RFD is it?
JM17
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> If it would placate the peanut gallery I think it would be plausible
> to have an annual review of all existing bans. I personally don't see
> the need but I can see why others might think otherwise.
perennial, annual or permanent
not your RFD is it?
JM17
Alan Braggins
Oct 10, 2012, 5:28:07 PM10/10/12
to
In article <6833c0ac-aaf1-417b...@googlegroups.com>, toomtab...@gmail.com wrote:
>Jings! Its a wee newsgroup. It's not an issue of parole conditions for folk
>banged up for stealing the Crown Jewels.
Well quite, but some people do make an awful fuss.
>Jings! Its a wee newsgroup. It's not an issue of parole conditions for folk
>banged up for stealing the Crown Jewels.
Is there any chance you could set your newsreader to quote without
double spacing?
Alan Braggins
Oct 10, 2012, 5:36:59 PM10/10/12
to
In article <bc22c10c-2f0d-4013...@googlegroups.com>, toomtab...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Incidentally, you might want to check what "apposite" actually means.
>
>> Incidentally, you might want to check what "apposite" actually means.
>
>I'm fully aware of the meaning of apposite. If you are also, then it confirms you have nothing to contribute to the issue but adds information about
>the attitude of URCM 'moderators'.
I'm not the one misusing it.
>the attitude of URCM 'moderators'.
>Thank you for your response. However, it remains not constructive.
Also, accusing unspecified people of "stalking, insults and denigration"
without backing up your accusations isn't "unfailingly polite".
HTH, HAND.
Nomen Nescio
Oct 10, 2012, 7:16:34 PM10/10/12
to
In article <r07W9xlC...@molly.mockford>
Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>
> At 09:06:14 on Wed, 10 Oct 2012, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> <adkojr...@mid.individual.net>:
> >> seem at all convinced by the appropriateness of this policy: perhaps
> >> if it were voted in by a majority of the uk.* constituency they might
> >> feel forced to at least try out following the policy. They might be
> >> pleasantly surprised by how much it defused criticism, or at least
> >> criticism with any disinterested support. Some clear appeal process
> >> and time limit for bans is also probably to both sides' advantage.
> >> I agree with some others that the rest of the RFD is just a charter
> >> for harassing the moderators with stupid complaints. The trouble is
> >> that the RFD is unlikely to be passed as a whole in view of the latter
> >> content. I would certainly support the first two points, and might
> >> vote for them despite the other stuff, which really has no concret
> >> effect except as a peg to hang vexatious complaints on.
> >
> >I would agree with this. Perhaps sunflower might like to consider
> >simplfying the whole thing to address these two points.
> >
> >The moderators are getting complaints now and will continue to do so
> >regardless. In some ways I think the failure of this RFD risks making
> >matters worse as they could choose to believe a vote against a complicated
> >change is a vote for their current methods. The success of it as it
> >stands could well make it worse too.
> >
> >But with or without a vote, if the moderators addressed those two points,
> >complaints would need to be genuine to get support, and if the moderators
> >respond in a straightforward manner, trolls would get bored and the rest of
> >us would be satisfied.
>
> I agree too - I think that reducing the RFD to these points would enable
> a much clearer approach to the subject, enabling people to decide
> whether they are for or against two straightforward suggestions, rather
> than "Do I agree with all of this? If not I must disagree" or "I agree
> strongly with this part, so I suppose I have no option but to support
> the rest with which I actually disagree".
>
> It would probably also help to have a sentence encouraging the
> moderators to apply a reasonable balance between speed and consistency.
the PP, kat, Molly approach is one I like.
i doubt sunflower will like it
JM17
Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>
> At 09:06:14 on Wed, 10 Oct 2012, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> <adkojr...@mid.individual.net>:
>
> >Percy Picacity wrote:
> >
> >> I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
> >> content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
> >> presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one. The moderators do not
> >Percy Picacity wrote:
> >
> >> I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
> >> content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
> >> seem at all convinced by the appropriateness of this policy: perhaps
> >> if it were voted in by a majority of the uk.* constituency they might
> >> feel forced to at least try out following the policy. They might be
> >> pleasantly surprised by how much it defused criticism, or at least
> >> criticism with any disinterested support. Some clear appeal process
> >> and time limit for bans is also probably to both sides' advantage.
> >> I agree with some others that the rest of the RFD is just a charter
> >> for harassing the moderators with stupid complaints. The trouble is
> >> that the RFD is unlikely to be passed as a whole in view of the latter
> >> content. I would certainly support the first two points, and might
> >> vote for them despite the other stuff, which really has no concret
> >> effect except as a peg to hang vexatious complaints on.
> >
> >I would agree with this. Perhaps sunflower might like to consider
> >simplfying the whole thing to address these two points.
> >
> >The moderators are getting complaints now and will continue to do so
> >regardless. In some ways I think the failure of this RFD risks making
> >matters worse as they could choose to believe a vote against a complicated
> >change is a vote for their current methods. The success of it as it
> >stands could well make it worse too.
> >
> >But with or without a vote, if the moderators addressed those two points,
> >complaints would need to be genuine to get support, and if the moderators
> >respond in a straightforward manner, trolls would get bored and the rest of
> >us would be satisfied.
>
> I agree too - I think that reducing the RFD to these points would enable
> a much clearer approach to the subject, enabling people to decide
> whether they are for or against two straightforward suggestions, rather
> than "Do I agree with all of this? If not I must disagree" or "I agree
> strongly with this part, so I suppose I have no option but to support
> the rest with which I actually disagree".
>
> It would probably also help to have a sentence encouraging the
> moderators to apply a reasonable balance between speed and consistency.
the PP, kat, Molly approach is one I like.
i doubt sunflower will like it
JM17
Nomen Nescio
Oct 10, 2012, 9:17:55 PM10/10/12
to
In article <6115v5....@news.alt.net>
PP this is what sensible people are up against:
The votetaker 'Pedt Scragg' is apparently a friend of Chapman's from
uk.rec.shed. No bias here mate. Why would that be? Chapman is a
despicable
liar.
Two voters have been known to nymshift - Tony 'Nymshifter' Raven
and Guy
Chapman - neither of them have denied it. I hope this will be
considered when
counting votes for ballot stuffing. Watch out for votes from 'Lou
Knee' - I
believe he is a 'friend' of Chapman's.
The proponent of uk.rec.cycling.moderation is Ian Jackson who has
previously
been expelled from UK usenet because of his pathetic and small-
minded
incompetence with email. He is obviously not suitable for managing
a usenet
newsgroup. ffs, you couldn't make it up.
Several people including 'Wm...', 'Charles Lindsey', 'Kat' and
'Molly Mockford'
have conveniently come along to hint that the vote will be invalid
and that
the group will be made anyway - because the group has been
advertised to
non-psycholists who care about censorship and anti-motorist
opinions in other
groups. This 'rule' is essentially made up - no censorship here.
'Wm...' has
been proven to be a fuckwit and a pervert. Can any grown ups here
clarify the
matter?
I understand that several of these so-called UK moderators spend a
lot of the
day posting. Do their employers know do you think?
Perhaps a Cambridge clique? (sorry ...... ? ......)
I urge that the CFV be null and void. I shall certainly be writing
to my ISP
to tell them not to upload the new group.
--
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer
the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe
*anything* he says.
this is one of my favourites, i'm working on it.
everyone is wrong
i like the
Several people including 'Wm...', 'Charles Lindsey', 'Kat' and
'Molly Mockford'
have conveniently come along to hint that the vote will be invalid
and that
the group will be made anyway
as kat and Molly are in fact still trying to work things out
JM17
The votetaker 'Pedt Scragg' is apparently a friend of Chapman's from
uk.rec.shed. No bias here mate. Why would that be? Chapman is a
despicable
liar.
Two voters have been known to nymshift - Tony 'Nymshifter' Raven
and Guy
Chapman - neither of them have denied it. I hope this will be
considered when
counting votes for ballot stuffing. Watch out for votes from 'Lou
Knee' - I
believe he is a 'friend' of Chapman's.
The proponent of uk.rec.cycling.moderation is Ian Jackson who has
previously
been expelled from UK usenet because of his pathetic and small-
minded
incompetence with email. He is obviously not suitable for managing
a usenet
newsgroup. ffs, you couldn't make it up.
Several people including 'Wm...', 'Charles Lindsey', 'Kat' and
'Molly Mockford'
have conveniently come along to hint that the vote will be invalid
and that
the group will be made anyway - because the group has been
advertised to
non-psycholists who care about censorship and anti-motorist
opinions in other
groups. This 'rule' is essentially made up - no censorship here.
'Wm...' has
been proven to be a fuckwit and a pervert. Can any grown ups here
clarify the
matter?
I understand that several of these so-called UK moderators spend a
lot of the
day posting. Do their employers know do you think?
Perhaps a Cambridge clique? (sorry ...... ? ......)
I urge that the CFV be null and void. I shall certainly be writing
to my ISP
to tell them not to upload the new group.
--
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer
the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe
*anything* he says.
this is one of my favourites, i'm working on it.
everyone is wrong
i like the
Several people including 'Wm...', 'Charles Lindsey', 'Kat' and
'Molly Mockford'
have conveniently come along to hint that the vote will be invalid
and that
the group will be made anyway
as kat and Molly are in fact still trying to work things out
JM17
Nomen Nescio
Oct 11, 2012, 12:41:44 AM10/11/12
to
In article <slrnk7ama...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.2adf4ae27...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
> >separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
> >If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
> >a message to both sides.
>
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html allows for Concordet voting on mutually
> exclusive options, but says "a vote should be run only for a single group
> proposal". (Multiple independent votes for related groups are allowed.)
>
> You could present independent options, then have exclusive options consisting
> of the combinations of those options the voter would prefer to see passed.
> Apart from being a pointless over-complicated waste of time, I can't see
> any reason you shouldn't do that.
sunflower needed help to get to a 4th RFD without messing things up
completely
best to not push their abilities too soon, as they may be slower of
mind than some of us, I think a 5th will be necessary
JM17
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.2adf4ae27...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
> >separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
> >If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
> >a message to both sides.
>
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html allows for Concordet voting on mutually
> exclusive options, but says "a vote should be run only for a single group
> proposal". (Multiple independent votes for related groups are allowed.)
>
> You could present independent options, then have exclusive options consisting
> of the combinations of those options the voter would prefer to see passed.
> Apart from being a pointless over-complicated waste of time, I can't see
> any reason you shouldn't do that.
sunflower needed help to get to a 4th RFD without messing things up
completely
best to not push their abilities too soon, as they may be slower of
mind than some of us, I think a 5th will be necessary
JM17
kat
Oct 11, 2012, 2:42:53 AM10/11/12
to
that this much could win a vote easily and the rest could await another day.
--
kat
>^..^<
Pedt
Oct 11, 2012, 3:19:39 AM10/11/12
to
In message <r07W9xlC...@molly.mockford>, at 12:01:22 on Wed, 10 Oct
2012, Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> sniffed the air
and proclaimed
I too would agree that simplifying the whole RFD down to the two points
would be a good approach for the proponent. I would suspect that it
would garner more support that the remainder which, as PP suggests, is
merely there to give some people a peg for vexatious nitpicking.
--
Pedt
2012, Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> sniffed the air
and proclaimed
would be a good approach for the proponent. I would suspect that it
would garner more support that the remainder which, as PP suggests, is
merely there to give some people a peg for vexatious nitpicking.
--
Pedt
Alan Braggins
Oct 11, 2012, 3:45:35 AM10/11/12
to
In article <2d6fd4b8355dfa9a...@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>In article <slrnk7ama...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>>
>> In article <MPG.2adf4ae27...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
>> >Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
>> >separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
>> >If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
>> >a message to both sides.
>>
>> http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html allows for Concordet voting on mutually
>> exclusive options, but says "a vote should be run only for a single group
>> proposal". (Multiple independent votes for related groups are allowed.)
>>
>> You could present independent options, then have exclusive options consisting
>> of the combinations of those options the voter would prefer to see passed.
>> Apart from being a pointless over-complicated waste of time, I can't see
>> any reason you shouldn't do that.
>
>sunflower needed help to get to a 4th RFD without messing things up
>completely
What would you consider was "messing things up completely"?
>In article <slrnk7ama...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>>
>> In article <MPG.2adf4ae27...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
>> >Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
>> >separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
>> >If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
>> >a message to both sides.
>>
>> http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html allows for Concordet voting on mutually
>> exclusive options, but says "a vote should be run only for a single group
>> proposal". (Multiple independent votes for related groups are allowed.)
>>
>> You could present independent options, then have exclusive options consisting
>> of the combinations of those options the voter would prefer to see passed.
>> Apart from being a pointless over-complicated waste of time, I can't see
>> any reason you shouldn't do that.
>
>sunflower needed help to get to a 4th RFD without messing things up
>completely
But Tim's question was still valid, even if sunflower isn't interested
in fixing flaws in the RFD.
toomtab...@gmail.com
Oct 11, 2012, 4:09:52 AM10/11/12
to
On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 22:36:59 UTC+1, Alan Braggins wrote:
>
> Also, accusing unspecified people of "stalking, insults and denigration"
>
> without backing up your accusations isn't "unfailingly polite".
>
I haven't 'accused' anyone of these things. I have merely objectively stated that they did so, and the evidence is in the group I referred to.
>
> Also, accusing unspecified people of "stalking, insults and denigration"
>
> without backing up your accusations isn't "unfailingly polite".
>
Saying that I am 'accusing' is your own subjective interpretation, and says much
about your 'attitude' - one of the main problems with moderators on URCM - and
says nothing about me.
As usual, I'm unfailingly polite in saying this, and in saying that I've already
fully pointed out the source of the problems with URCM moderation and the simple solutions which would solve most of them. You have sought simply to ignore and deny, and have added nothing constructive, and only raised matters of no consequence to the issue. You could of course pay attention to my recommendations, invoke them, and see what problems, if any, remain. (I'll then
give a simple silution to those.)I assume however that, since that would
allow free, open and fair discussion for all, that it will not happen on URCM.
A pity, since it's all so simple.
Toom
Judith
Oct 11, 2012, 5:40:59 AM10/11/12
to
On 11 Oct 2012 08:45:35 +0100 (BST), ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
which he and most other people hadn't spotted.
If there is a cheap point to score : Braggins will have a go; but as usual, he
fails.
Braggins) wrote:
>In article <2d6fd4b8355dfa9a...@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>In article <slrnk7ama...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <MPG.2adf4ae27...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>> >Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
>>> >separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
>>> >If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
>>> >a message to both sides.
>>>
>>> http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html allows for Concordet voting on mutually
>>> exclusive options, but says "a vote should be run only for a single group
>>> proposal". (Multiple independent votes for related groups are allowed.)
>>>
>>> You could present independent options, then have exclusive options consisting
>>> of the combinations of those options the voter would prefer to see passed.
>>> Apart from being a pointless over-complicated waste of time, I can't see
>>> any reason you shouldn't do that.
>>
>>sunflower needed help to get to a 4th RFD without messing things up
>>completely
>
>What would you consider was "messing things up completely"?
I think that he was saying that there was a structural problem with the RFD
>In article <2d6fd4b8355dfa9a...@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>In article <slrnk7ama...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <MPG.2adf4ae27...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>> >Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
>>> >separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
>>> >If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
>>> >a message to both sides.
>>>
>>> http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html allows for Concordet voting on mutually
>>> exclusive options, but says "a vote should be run only for a single group
>>> proposal". (Multiple independent votes for related groups are allowed.)
>>>
>>> You could present independent options, then have exclusive options consisting
>>> of the combinations of those options the voter would prefer to see passed.
>>> Apart from being a pointless over-complicated waste of time, I can't see
>>> any reason you shouldn't do that.
>>
>>sunflower needed help to get to a 4th RFD without messing things up
>>completely
>
>What would you consider was "messing things up completely"?
which he and most other people hadn't spotted.
If there is a cheap point to score : Braggins will have a go; but as usual, he
fails.
Nomen Nescio
Oct 11, 2012, 6:07:39 AM10/11/12
to
In article <slrnk7cu8...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> But Tim's question was still valid, even if sunflower isn't interested
> in fixing flaws in the RFD.
Really? Sounds like the wording of the charter needs changing to
include such things
then: votes of no confidence, forced resignations , and compulsory
elections.
JM17
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>
> In article <2d6fd4b8355dfa9a...@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >In article <slrnk7ama...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> >ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <MPG.2adf4ae27...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >> >Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
> >> >separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
> >> >If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
> >> >a message to both sides.
> >>
> >> http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html allows for Concordet voting on mutually
> >> exclusive options, but says "a vote should be run only for a single group
> >> proposal". (Multiple independent votes for related groups are allowed.)
> >>
> >> You could present independent options, then have exclusive options consisting
> >> of the combinations of those options the voter would prefer to see passed.
> >> Apart from being a pointless over-complicated waste of time, I can't see
> >> any reason you shouldn't do that.
> >
> >sunflower needed help to get to a 4th RFD without messing things up
> >completely
>
> What would you consider was "messing things up completely"?
a RFD that couldn't become a CFV
>
> In article <2d6fd4b8355dfa9a...@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >In article <slrnk7ama...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> >ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <MPG.2adf4ae27...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >> >Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
> >> >separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
> >> >If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
> >> >a message to both sides.
> >>
> >> http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html allows for Concordet voting on mutually
> >> exclusive options, but says "a vote should be run only for a single group
> >> proposal". (Multiple independent votes for related groups are allowed.)
> >>
> >> You could present independent options, then have exclusive options consisting
> >> of the combinations of those options the voter would prefer to see passed.
> >> Apart from being a pointless over-complicated waste of time, I can't see
> >> any reason you shouldn't do that.
> >
> >sunflower needed help to get to a 4th RFD without messing things up
> >completely
>
> What would you consider was "messing things up completely"?
> But Tim's question was still valid, even if sunflower isn't interested
> in fixing flaws in the RFD.
include such things
then: votes of no confidence, forced resignations , and compulsory
elections.
JM17
Nomen Nescio
Oct 11, 2012, 6:19:17 AM10/11/12
to
> > >E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
> > >perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
> > >the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
> > >the sort.
> >
> > I normally read usenet by looking at the bodies of postings rather
> > than the poster's identity. Normally I find that trolling messages
> > are easy to spot from the content.
>
> It would of course be the body of a post (rather then the pseudonymous
> name of the poster) which caused you to say "This looks like a Judith
> sock. Even though it's asking a perfectly reasonable question, it must
> be malicious."
>
> But that is still moderating on the presumed identity of the poster.
JM17
Nomen Nescio
Oct 11, 2012, 6:34:19 AM10/11/12
to
> >=20
> > Also, accusing unspecified people of "stalking, insults and denigration"
> >=20
> > without backing up your accusations isn't "unfailingly polite".
> >=20
>
> I haven't 'accused' anyone of these things. I have merely objectively state=
> d that they did so, and the evidence is in the group I referred to.
> Saying that I am 'accusing' is your own subjective interpretation, and says=
> much
> about your 'attitude' - one of the main problems with moderators on URCM - =
> and=20
> says nothing about me.
>
> As usual, I'm unfailingly polite in saying this, and in saying that I've al=
> ready
> fully pointed out the source of the problems with URCM moderation and the =
> simple solutions which would solve most of them. You have sought simply to =
> ignore and deny, and have added nothing constructive, and only raised matte=
> rs of no consequence to the issue. You could of course pay attention to my =
> recommendations, invoke them, and see what problems, if any, remain. (I'll =
> then
> give a simple silution to those.)I assume however that, since that would
> allow free, open and fair discussion for all, that it will not happen on UR=
> give a simple silution to those.)I assume however that, since that would
> CM.
> A pity, since it's all so simple.
Tony has asked that we don't do this
> A pity, since it's all so simple.
Nomen Nescio
Oct 11, 2012, 7:18:58 AM10/11/12
to
In article <dsvc78plaildu1sre...@4ax.com>
What an excellent post.
maybe Braggins wanted the structural problem to not be spotted for
as long as possible
JM17
maybe Braggins wanted the structural problem to not be spotted for
as long as possible
JM17
Charles Lindsey
Oct 12, 2012, 11:43:50 AM10/12/12
to
In <slrnk7ama...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) writes:
>In article <MPG.2adf4ae27...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
>>separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
>>If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
>>a message to both sides.
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html allows for Concordet voting on mutually
>exclusive options, but says "a vote should be run only for a single group
>proposal". (Multiple independent votes for related groups are allowed.)
>You could present independent options, then have exclusive options consisting
>of the combinations of those options the voter would prefer to see passed.
>Apart from being a pointless over-complicated waste of time, I can't see
>any reason you shouldn't do that.
That is indeed the case. You could divide the proposals into mutually
>In article <MPG.2adf4ae27...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>Is it possible to have two (or more) separate votes in a CFD, on
>>separate issues? E.g. one for the points you mention, one for the rest?
>>If some points are supported and others aren't, I think this would send
>>a message to both sides.
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html allows for Concordet voting on mutually
>exclusive options, but says "a vote should be run only for a single group
>proposal". (Multiple independent votes for related groups are allowed.)
>You could present independent options, then have exclusive options consisting
>of the combinations of those options the voter would prefer to see passed.
>Apart from being a pointless over-complicated waste of time, I can't see
>any reason you shouldn't do that.
independent groups and have separate votes for each. You can also provide
alternative wordings for some sections, and ask the voters to rank them
in order of preference.
That might improve the chances of getting some of it through. But there is
a downside too: if you make it too complicated, then the voters will
simply be turned off. So be careful.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Brian
Oct 12, 2012, 4:44:03 PM10/12/12
to
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 18:42:45 +0100, Percy Picacity
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
>content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
>presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one. The moderators do not
>seem at all convinced by the appropriateness of this policy: perhaps
>if it were voted in by a majority of the uk.* constituency they might
>feel forced to at least try out following the policy. They might be
>pleasantly surprised by how much it defused criticism, or at least
>criticism with any disinterested support.
<snip>
The thing which troubles me about this is that there is a recent
counter-example: uk.local.yorkshire.moderated.
This group was set up to provide for moderation as a way of trying to
nullify the efforts of an organised, persistent and disruptive group
of trolls. It was a key feature of the charter that moderation was to
be done on the basis of content only. I was not a moderator but I knew
some of the people who were, and I believed them when they said that
the moderation engine they used presented them only with the body text
of the message for moderation. Thus they could only moderate on
content, since this was all they were shown in order to make the
moderation decision.
The group did not work as intended, but merely gave the trolls fresh
material to troll about. At various times it was claimed that a troll
could "prove" to have been subject to non-content based moderation.
There were allegations of favouritism, of an internal clique, the
suppression of "dissenting views" and so on. I wonder whether any of
this sounds at all familiar? Eventually it became so clear that the
group was not fulfilling its chartered purpose that the only decent
thing to do was to put it out of its misery. I was one of the
co-authors of the RFD for the rmgroup.
For absolute clarity, I voted for the creation of uk.l.y.m on the
basis that moderation at source was a more bandwidth-efficient option
than the use of individual killfiles. I no longer hold this view, now
believing that the bandwidth consumed by the propagation of messages
complaining about moderation decisions exceeded, at least in the case
of uk.l.y.m, that saved by not propagating those messages which failed
to pass moderation. Thus, I now tend to the view that the use of
killfiles is a preferable solution to problems caused by the
activities of trolls.
During the period of the RFD for the creation of uk.r.c.m, I did ask
the proponents to explain why that group would work when uk.l.y.m
manifestly had not. I thought this was a reasonable question and was
disappointed not to receive a response.
One example doeth not a rule make, of course, and I would not wish to
argue that content-based moderation is incapable of being made to
work, based only on the single example of its failure in uk.l.y.m.
However, it is for the proponent of the RFD to make the case for the
change(s) that s/he wishes to see introduced, so I do not feel it
unreasonable to ask why content-based moderation is thought to be
capable of achieving the objectives set out in the RFD in uk.r.c.m,
when it failed to achieve very similar objectives in uk.l.y.m.
Brian
Remove 2001. to reply by email.
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>I think the clause in the RFD which says moderation must be done on
>content, not in the identity of the poster or their (often correctly)
>presumed malign intentions, is a valuable one. The moderators do not
>seem at all convinced by the appropriateness of this policy: perhaps
>if it were voted in by a majority of the uk.* constituency they might
>feel forced to at least try out following the policy. They might be
>pleasantly surprised by how much it defused criticism, or at least
>criticism with any disinterested support.
The thing which troubles me about this is that there is a recent
counter-example: uk.local.yorkshire.moderated.
This group was set up to provide for moderation as a way of trying to
nullify the efforts of an organised, persistent and disruptive group
of trolls. It was a key feature of the charter that moderation was to
be done on the basis of content only. I was not a moderator but I knew
some of the people who were, and I believed them when they said that
the moderation engine they used presented them only with the body text
of the message for moderation. Thus they could only moderate on
content, since this was all they were shown in order to make the
moderation decision.
The group did not work as intended, but merely gave the trolls fresh
material to troll about. At various times it was claimed that a troll
could "prove" to have been subject to non-content based moderation.
There were allegations of favouritism, of an internal clique, the
suppression of "dissenting views" and so on. I wonder whether any of
this sounds at all familiar? Eventually it became so clear that the
group was not fulfilling its chartered purpose that the only decent
thing to do was to put it out of its misery. I was one of the
co-authors of the RFD for the rmgroup.
For absolute clarity, I voted for the creation of uk.l.y.m on the
basis that moderation at source was a more bandwidth-efficient option
than the use of individual killfiles. I no longer hold this view, now
believing that the bandwidth consumed by the propagation of messages
complaining about moderation decisions exceeded, at least in the case
of uk.l.y.m, that saved by not propagating those messages which failed
to pass moderation. Thus, I now tend to the view that the use of
killfiles is a preferable solution to problems caused by the
activities of trolls.
During the period of the RFD for the creation of uk.r.c.m, I did ask
the proponents to explain why that group would work when uk.l.y.m
manifestly had not. I thought this was a reasonable question and was
disappointed not to receive a response.
One example doeth not a rule make, of course, and I would not wish to
argue that content-based moderation is incapable of being made to
work, based only on the single example of its failure in uk.l.y.m.
However, it is for the proponent of the RFD to make the case for the
change(s) that s/he wishes to see introduced, so I do not feel it
unreasonable to ask why content-based moderation is thought to be
capable of achieving the objectives set out in the RFD in uk.r.c.m,
when it failed to achieve very similar objectives in uk.l.y.m.
Brian
Remove 2001. to reply by email.
Alan Braggins
Oct 13, 2012, 4:18:02 AM10/13/12
to
In article <MPG.2adf7ebda...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
>E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
>perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
>the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
>the sort.
But that's a largely circular argument. "This looks like a Judith
>E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
>perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
>the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
>the sort.
sock" is a decision that has to be based on the content when the name
is a previously unknown poster. A poster wihout a consistent history
of inflammatory content won't look like a Judith sock.
>If it's a Judith sock, you could I suppose reject it as being from a
>banned poster instead. The problem comes when you are not sure. And
>that is also when you can't be sure that the post is intended to be
>inflammatory.
>You know the answer. Accept it, but flag the thread for manual
>moderation. Allow polite responses but reject any hostile ones. This
>keeps the thread civil and pleasant while enabling people to disagree.
>And if it was a troll seeking to stir things up, it defeats that too.
Are you endorsing us doing that, or proposing a change from that?
>moderation. Allow polite responses but reject any hostile ones. This
>keeps the thread civil and pleasant while enabling people to disagree.
>And if it was a troll seeking to stir things up, it defeats that too.
Rob Morley
Oct 13, 2012, 4:43:22 AM10/13/12
to
On 13 Oct 2012 09:18:02 +0100 (BST)
trying to second-guess reactions to ostensibly innocent posts, and
blocking those posts rather than any abusive response.
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> >You know the answer. Accept it, but flag the thread for manual
> >moderation. Allow polite responses but reject any hostile ones.
> >This keeps the thread civil and pleasant while enabling people to
> >disagree. And if it was a troll seeking to stir things up, it
> >defeats that too.
>
> Are you endorsing us doing that, or proposing a change from that?
Are you claiming you do that? Because it looks a lot more like you're
> >You know the answer. Accept it, but flag the thread for manual
> >moderation. Allow polite responses but reject any hostile ones.
> >This keeps the thread civil and pleasant while enabling people to
> >disagree. And if it was a troll seeking to stir things up, it
> >defeats that too.
>
> Are you endorsing us doing that, or proposing a change from that?
trying to second-guess reactions to ostensibly innocent posts, and
blocking those posts rather than any abusive response.
Tim Jackson
Oct 13, 2012, 7:57:25 AM10/13/12
to
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 09:43:22 +0100, Rob Morley wrote...
My point exactly. I'm proposing they change *to* blocking the abusive
responses rather than the initial post. Note how that collected a
series of '+1's and AOLs, so we're not alone in believing that it's not
what they do at present.
The problem with trying to second-guess whether an ostensibly innocent
post really is innocent, is that the mods are dealing with at least one
troll who is much better at trolling than the mods are at second-
guessing it. They need to change tack if they want to defeat it.
responses rather than the initial post. Note how that collected a
series of '+1's and AOLs, so we're not alone in believing that it's not
what they do at present.
The problem with trying to second-guess whether an ostensibly innocent
post really is innocent, is that the mods are dealing with at least one
troll who is much better at trolling than the mods are at second-
guessing it. They need to change tack if they want to defeat it.
Tim Jackson
Oct 13, 2012, 7:57:26 AM10/13/12
to
On 13 Oct 2012 09:18:02 +0100 (BST), Alan Braggins wrote...
he wasn't basing his decisions on the presumed identity of the poster.
The fact is that you are, but you try to deduce the identity from the
body of the post. The suggestion is that you shouldn't try to do that.
Just take the content of the post at face value.
>
> In article <MPG.2adf7ebda...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
> >perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
> >the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
> >the sort.
>
> But that's a largely circular argument. "This looks like a Judith
> sock" is a decision that has to be based on the content when the name
> is a previously unknown poster. A poster wihout a consistent history
> of inflammatory content won't look like a Judith sock.
That is exactly the point I made upthread to Ian, when he suggested that
> In article <MPG.2adf7ebda...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >E.g. "This looks like a Judith sock. Even though it's asking a
> >perfectly reasonable question, it must be malicious." You then reject
> >the post as "inflammatory", when on its face it appears to be nothing of
> >the sort.
>
> But that's a largely circular argument. "This looks like a Judith
> sock" is a decision that has to be based on the content when the name
> is a previously unknown poster. A poster wihout a consistent history
> of inflammatory content won't look like a Judith sock.
he wasn't basing his decisions on the presumed identity of the poster.
The fact is that you are, but you try to deduce the identity from the
body of the post. The suggestion is that you shouldn't try to do that.
Just take the content of the post at face value.
Rob Morley
Oct 13, 2012, 8:17:11 AM10/13/12
to
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:57:25 +0100
Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> The problem with trying to second-guess whether an ostensibly
> innocent post really is innocent, is that the mods are dealing with
> at least one troll who is much better at trolling than the mods are
> at second- guessing it. They need to change tack if they want to
> defeat it.
>
Indeed - by making a decision to accept posts that might be from socks
Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> The problem with trying to second-guess whether an ostensibly
> innocent post really is innocent, is that the mods are dealing with
> at least one troll who is much better at trolling than the mods are
> at second- guessing it. They need to change tack if they want to
> defeat it.
>
they would effectively be reducing the impact of this trolling
technique - there would no longer be any need to agonise over whether
such posts should be accepted at face value, no more delays while the
moderators have a conference over the likelihood of something being
"like a Judith post".
Alan Braggins
Oct 13, 2012, 5:20:19 PM10/13/12
to
In article <MPG.2ae363b1...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
>The problem with trying to second-guess whether an ostensibly innocent
>post really is innocent, is that the mods are dealing with at least one
>troll who is much better at trolling than the mods are at second-
>guessing it.
That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? You want the mods to pass innocent
>The problem with trying to second-guess whether an ostensibly innocent
>post really is innocent, is that the mods are dealing with at least one
>troll who is much better at trolling than the mods are at second-
>guessing it.
looking posts by trolls, so when they already do so, it must be because
they haven't spotted the troll so that doesn't count?
> They need to change tack if they want to defeat it.
Percy Picacity
Oct 13, 2012, 5:44:51 PM10/13/12
to
no grievances credible to disinterested persons in unnm. Just a short
and largely uninterested, or long, discursive and well mannered,
discussion in urcm.
--
Percy Picacity
Nick Leverton
Oct 13, 2012, 6:19:42 PM10/13/12
to
In article <619ctk....@news.alt.net>,
My turn for a +1.
Nick, otherwise largely dis and un interested
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
Nick, otherwise largely dis and un interested
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
Tim Jackson
Oct 13, 2012, 7:10:26 PM10/13/12
to
On 13 Oct 2012 22:20:19 +0100 (BST), Alan Braggins wrote...
you already deliberately pass posts which you know to be trolls. That
flies in the face of what seems to be actually happening, and in the
face of what your fellow moderators are saying.
> > They need to change tack if they want to defeat it.
>
> I'm curious to know how you define "defeat" here.
The situation you have at the moment is defeat. By blocking innocent
looking posts, you are doing exactly what the troll wants. But you
can't see it.
That's why you are having such huge problems with your current attempts
to spot trolls. You are causing your own problems, and it's not
working. So stop trying to spot trolls. Just look at the content of
the post, and don't worry about whether it's a troll or not.
Just stick to rejecting anything that's rude or insulting *on its face*,
or which is repetitive or whatever, no matter who posted it or what
point of view it expresses. You will then succeed in keeping the group
civil and pleasant. No need to go looking for hidden motives or hidden
identities that might or might not lie behind posts.
And that will be a much better way to defeat the troll. What the troll
wants is for you to react exactly the way you currently are doing. You
fall for it every time. The troll is winning, precisely because you are
trying to second-guess it.
You need to get smarter. Just take a deep breath, and stop falling for
>
> In article <MPG.2ae363b1...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >The problem with trying to second-guess whether an ostensibly innocent
> >post really is innocent, is that the mods are dealing with at least one
> >troll who is much better at trolling than the mods are at second-
> >guessing it.
>
> That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? You want the mods to pass innocent
> looking posts by trolls, so when they already do so, it must be because
> they haven't spotted the troll so that doesn't count?
It's you who is stretching what I said. You seem to be claiming that
> In article <MPG.2ae363b1...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >The problem with trying to second-guess whether an ostensibly innocent
> >post really is innocent, is that the mods are dealing with at least one
> >troll who is much better at trolling than the mods are at second-
> >guessing it.
>
> That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? You want the mods to pass innocent
> looking posts by trolls, so when they already do so, it must be because
> they haven't spotted the troll so that doesn't count?
you already deliberately pass posts which you know to be trolls. That
flies in the face of what seems to be actually happening, and in the
face of what your fellow moderators are saying.
> > They need to change tack if they want to defeat it.
>
> I'm curious to know how you define "defeat" here.
looking posts, you are doing exactly what the troll wants. But you
can't see it.
That's why you are having such huge problems with your current attempts
to spot trolls. You are causing your own problems, and it's not
working. So stop trying to spot trolls. Just look at the content of
the post, and don't worry about whether it's a troll or not.
Just stick to rejecting anything that's rude or insulting *on its face*,
or which is repetitive or whatever, no matter who posted it or what
point of view it expresses. You will then succeed in keeping the group
civil and pleasant. No need to go looking for hidden motives or hidden
identities that might or might not lie behind posts.
And that will be a much better way to defeat the troll. What the troll
wants is for you to react exactly the way you currently are doing. You
fall for it every time. The troll is winning, precisely because you are
trying to second-guess it.
You need to get smarter. Just take a deep breath, and stop falling for
D.M. Procida
Oct 14, 2012, 4:51:22 AM10/14/12
to
Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> > That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? You want the mods to pass innocent
> > looking posts by trolls, so when they already do so, it must be because
> > they haven't spotted the troll so that doesn't count?
>
> It's you who is stretching what I said. You seem to be claiming that
> you already deliberately pass posts which you know to be trolls. That
> flies in the face of what seems to be actually happening, and in the
> face of what your fellow moderators are saying.
No, it's true. There's at least one.
> > That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? You want the mods to pass innocent
> > looking posts by trolls, so when they already do so, it must be because
> > they haven't spotted the troll so that doesn't count?
>
> It's you who is stretching what I said. You seem to be claiming that
> you already deliberately pass posts which you know to be trolls. That
> flies in the face of what seems to be actually happening, and in the
> face of what your fellow moderators are saying.
What's interesting is that the readers of the group seem to recognise it
as a troll, and are able to deal with it with the kind of humour that
completely defuses its disruptive potential.
Daniele
Alan Braggins
Oct 14, 2012, 4:52:06 AM10/14/12
to
In article <MPG.2ae402f45...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
>It's you who is stretching what I said.
Then I'm not sure what you intended to say.
>It's you who is stretching what I said.
You seem to be claiming that
>you already deliberately pass posts which you know to be trolls.
innocent but by suspected or known but non-banned trolls, the situation
you were describing, are passed.
Have you ever actually read the cycling groups?
Sometimes we get it wrong and we get complaints we are passing trolls.
Maybe sometimes we get it wrong and unnm is full of complaints. Sometimes
we get it right and unnm is full of complaints and concern trolls anyway.
(Incidentally, I was interested to discover that "second guess" was originally
a baseball term. I'm happy to agree there should be less of it going on....)
Tim Jackson
Oct 14, 2012, 6:15:50 AM10/14/12
to
On 14 Oct 2012 09:52:06 +0100 (BST), Alan Braggins wrote...
here and in unnm.
> Posts which are (possibly)
> innocent but by suspected or known but non-banned trolls, the situation
> you were describing, are passed.
And note Daniele's comment that the group then deals with the situation
all by itself. It's not a problem.
I apologise that I hadn't appreciated that you sometimes get things
right. Why can't you always do that?
> Have you ever actually read the cycling groups?
I dip into urcm, but I don't post.
> Sometimes we get it wrong and we get complaints we are passing trolls.
> Maybe sometimes we get it wrong and unnm is full of complaints.
I don't see complaints in unnm that you have *allowed* a post by a
troll.
> Sometimes
> we get it right and unnm is full of complaints and concern trolls anyway.
By "get it right", you mean that you rejected something which appeared
to be a troll. Actually that's getting it wrong.
If in fact it wasn't a troll, it's clearly wrong to reject it.
If it was, you are doing exactly what the troll wants. You are falling
into the trap that has been set for you. The troll *wants* to show you
up here and in unnm.
>
> In article <MPG.2ae402f45...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >It's you who is stretching what I said.
>
> Then I'm not sure what you intended to say.
>
> You seem to be claiming that
> >you already deliberately pass posts which you know to be trolls.
>
> No. Posts which are trolling are rejected.
Which is exactly what the troll wants, and why you get such problems
> In article <MPG.2ae402f45...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >It's you who is stretching what I said.
>
> Then I'm not sure what you intended to say.
>
> You seem to be claiming that
> >you already deliberately pass posts which you know to be trolls.
>
> No. Posts which are trolling are rejected.
here and in unnm.
> Posts which are (possibly)
> innocent but by suspected or known but non-banned trolls, the situation
> you were describing, are passed.
all by itself. It's not a problem.
I apologise that I hadn't appreciated that you sometimes get things
right. Why can't you always do that?
> Have you ever actually read the cycling groups?
> Sometimes we get it wrong and we get complaints we are passing trolls.
> Maybe sometimes we get it wrong and unnm is full of complaints.
troll.
> Sometimes
> we get it right and unnm is full of complaints and concern trolls anyway.
to be a troll. Actually that's getting it wrong.
If in fact it wasn't a troll, it's clearly wrong to reject it.
If it was, you are doing exactly what the troll wants. You are falling
into the trap that has been set for you. The troll *wants* to show you
up here and in unnm.
Nomen Nescio
Oct 14, 2012, 7:12:11 AM10/14/12
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages