Message from discussion uk.rec.cycling.moderated - RFD withdrawn
From: Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk>
Subject: Re: uk.rec.cycling.moderated - RFD withdrawn
Date: 27 Mar 2011 17:08:26 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Trace: individual.net MbeCn4xCA3/EbLMTaHUH3Q7XAvGlsQIsP6iFm8/3Q5fEJqJSmf
User-Agent: NewsTap/3.2 (iPad)
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
> Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I'm still really struggling to see how you construe something that in
>>> essence says "... and if in the future things develop in way that
>>> bothers us we'll make a proposal to change them, invite discussion and
>>> then put it to a vote" as undemocratic.
>> Because you didn't stop there but added a list of stipulations on how the
>> moderators should act to avoid the threat of an RFD and CFV.
> We should have kept them secret?
Basically yes. Either you let the moderators get on with moderating
according to the Charter i.e. as they see fit or you go for a mandate to do
it differently yourselves. You have no mandate to dictate under threat how
the moderators should moderate. If there is a democratic decision to
change the moderation and/or moderators I will abide by the democratic
decision but who are you as an unelected group to unilaterally impose
moderation conditions for the rest of us?