Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config
Subject: Re: uk.rec.cycling.moderated - RFD withdrawn
Date: 27 Mar 2011 17:08:26 GMT
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <8v998aFbnbU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <1jysu6f.1x7buli17tpz8aN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net MbeCn4xCA3/EbLMTaHUH3Q7XAvGlsQIsP6iFm8/3Q5fEJqJSmf
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nVF5pZfOZfSjHoHfMeY8SDq2R8Y=
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?

-- 
Tony