Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
3rd RFD: Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
73 views
Skip to first unread message
sun flower
Sep 22, 2012, 3:09:26 AM9/22/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
3RD 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:
Change paragraph 3c to add the case where the poster is
already banned.
Change paragraph 3g to add that poster is informed as long
as a valid email address is provided.
Remove the requirement to publicly post details of the banning.
Change the wording of paragraph 3h such that the emphasis is
on 'processed in' rather than on 'treated in'.
*** 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)
Replace the sentence: '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)
Replace the sentence: '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.'
with the following sentence:
'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'.
3)
Add the following text to the charter, in a new section entitled
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)
All posters are treated equally and fairly.
b)
No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
c)
Posts will not be rejected on the identity of the poster (unless
the poster is banned); but purely on the content of the post.
d)
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).
e)
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.
f)
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'
g)
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.
h)
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 PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE
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 3rd) 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
iQCVAwUBUF1kZGOfGXkh8vHZAQFkXAQAkdJ7uPq5kEXCA8LNvFzUi2dti59UQVtR
35zi+C/m7Eg7v2zGsrSTrUDeXkKXIpMpH550AQidFpRzCePUILfwklEf1Y5ul2yL
JbLhW3pWX1KNXTUbx51mQvK6V/XVnHcfoXoqGr7V88yFfxxXq+ng3flMNdfllVn4
jOj0ulRB2Dg=
=Wtks
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3RD 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:
Change paragraph 3c to add the case where the poster is
already banned.
Change paragraph 3g to add that poster is informed as long
as a valid email address is provided.
Remove the requirement to publicly post details of the banning.
Change the wording of paragraph 3h such that the emphasis is
on 'processed in' rather than on 'treated in'.
*** 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)
Replace the sentence: '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)
Replace the sentence: '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.'
with the following sentence:
'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'.
3)
Add the following text to the charter, in a new section entitled
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)
All posters are treated equally and fairly.
b)
No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
c)
Posts will not be rejected on the identity of the poster (unless
the poster is banned); but purely on the content of the post.
d)
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).
e)
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.
f)
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'
g)
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.
h)
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 PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE
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 3rd) 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
iQCVAwUBUF1kZGOfGXkh8vHZAQFkXAQAkdJ7uPq5kEXCA8LNvFzUi2dti59UQVtR
35zi+C/m7Eg7v2zGsrSTrUDeXkKXIpMpH550AQidFpRzCePUILfwklEf1Y5ul2yL
JbLhW3pWX1KNXTUbx51mQvK6V/XVnHcfoXoqGr7V88yFfxxXq+ng3flMNdfllVn4
jOj0ulRB2Dg=
=Wtks
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tim Jackson
Sep 22, 2012, 5:32:44 AM9/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:09:26 +0100, sun flower wrote...
moderators deliberately hold up posts with the specific intention to
cause delay. So they can comply with b) just by carrying on as they
are.
However, delay might well happen as an unintentional side effect if they
pass the post around the moderation team and have a long debate about
how to treat it. They may feel obliged to do that in order to be sure
that they treat the poster equally and fairly under paragraph a).
The only way in which you will prevent that sort of delay is if you say
that they shouldn't spend a long time deliberating what to do with a
post. But the inevitable corollary is that moderation will be rough and
ready, and there will be inconsistencies.
In other words, there is a trade-off between a) and b) and you can't get
away from that. I suspect the reason you are seeing delays is because
the moderators are reacting to complaints from you and others about
inconsistencies. Which is the greater problem, delay or inconsistency?
You have to make up your mind which of these competing issues is more
important, and how you want the balance between them to be struck. Then
I suppose you could RFD for that balance and see if others agree with
you. If they do, you'll have to stop complaining about any
inconsistencies or delays which will inevitable result from the
balancing act which you are requiring the moderators to perform.
But why does any of that need an RFD? Surely all it needs is for the
users of the group to feed back their opinions as to which of these
issues is more important, and how the balance should be struck. And
when necessary for the moderators to say "Sorry, there was a delay in
this decision because we wanted to be sure we were treating the post
fairly". Or "Sorry, there was an inconsistency because we didn't want
to delay the post while we gave it a more detailed consideration."
The problem arises when you want both speed and consistency together.
Of course that would be desirable, but you have to accept that it's not
always going to be possible.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> 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)
> All posters are treated equally and fairly.
>
> b)
> No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
In practice b) will not achieve the change you hope for. I doubt if the
> and decisions are carried out fairly and in a timely manner. In
> particular, the following principles will be adhered to:
>
>
> a)
> All posters are treated equally and fairly.
>
> b)
> No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
moderators deliberately hold up posts with the specific intention to
cause delay. So they can comply with b) just by carrying on as they
are.
However, delay might well happen as an unintentional side effect if they
pass the post around the moderation team and have a long debate about
how to treat it. They may feel obliged to do that in order to be sure
that they treat the poster equally and fairly under paragraph a).
The only way in which you will prevent that sort of delay is if you say
that they shouldn't spend a long time deliberating what to do with a
post. But the inevitable corollary is that moderation will be rough and
ready, and there will be inconsistencies.
In other words, there is a trade-off between a) and b) and you can't get
away from that. I suspect the reason you are seeing delays is because
the moderators are reacting to complaints from you and others about
inconsistencies. Which is the greater problem, delay or inconsistency?
You have to make up your mind which of these competing issues is more
important, and how you want the balance between them to be struck. Then
I suppose you could RFD for that balance and see if others agree with
you. If they do, you'll have to stop complaining about any
inconsistencies or delays which will inevitable result from the
balancing act which you are requiring the moderators to perform.
But why does any of that need an RFD? Surely all it needs is for the
users of the group to feed back their opinions as to which of these
issues is more important, and how the balance should be struck. And
when necessary for the moderators to say "Sorry, there was a delay in
this decision because we wanted to be sure we were treating the post
fairly". Or "Sorry, there was an inconsistency because we didn't want
to delay the post while we gave it a more detailed consideration."
The problem arises when you want both speed and consistency together.
Of course that would be desirable, but you have to accept that it's not
always going to be possible.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
John Benn
Sep 22, 2012, 8:11:30 AM9/22/12
to
"Tim Jackson" wrote in message
news:MPG.2ac7960e5...@text.usenet.plus.net...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:09:26 +0100, sun flower wrote...
> 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)
> All posters are treated equally and fairly.
>
> b)
> No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
In practice b) will not achieve the change you hope for. I doubt if the
moderators deliberately hold up posts with the specific intention to
cause delay.
=================================
They do. I have witnessed it first hand.
news:MPG.2ac7960e5...@text.usenet.plus.net...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:09:26 +0100, sun flower wrote...
> 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)
> All posters are treated equally and fairly.
>
> b)
> No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
In practice b) will not achieve the change you hope for. I doubt if the
moderators deliberately hold up posts with the specific intention to
cause delay.
They do. I have witnessed it first hand.
John Benn
Sep 22, 2012, 8:13:00 AM9/22/12
to
"Tim Jackson" wrote in message
news:MPG.2ac7960e5...@text.usenet.plus.net...
news:MPG.2ac7960e5...@text.usenet.plus.net...
That's happened many times and the suggestions get ignored or dismissed.
Tim Jackson
Sep 22, 2012, 8:29:24 AM9/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:11:30 +0100, John Benn wrote...
that it was delayed for some reason beyond merely passing it around the
moderation team in order to reach a consistent decision?)
>
> "Tim Jackson" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2ac7960e5...@text.usenet.plus.net...
>
> "Tim Jackson" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2ac7960e5...@text.usenet.plus.net...
>
> In practice b) will not achieve the change you hope for. I doubt if the
> moderators deliberately hold up posts with the specific intention to
> cause delay.
> =================================
>
> They do. I have witnessed it first hand.
OK, but I think you need to give some details? (Including a showing
> moderators deliberately hold up posts with the specific intention to
> cause delay.
> =================================
>
> They do. I have witnessed it first hand.
that it was delayed for some reason beyond merely passing it around the
moderation team in order to reach a consistent decision?)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
John Benn
Sep 22, 2012, 1:14:17 PM9/22/12
to
"Tim Jackson" wrote in message
news:MPG.2ac7bf412...@text.usenet.plus.net...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:11:30 +0100, John Benn wrote...
>
> "Tim Jackson" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2ac7960e5...@text.usenet.plus.net...
>
> In practice b) will not achieve the change you hope for. I doubt if the
> moderators deliberately hold up posts with the specific intention to
> cause delay.
> =================================
>
> They do. I have witnessed it first hand.
OK, but I think you need to give some details? (Including a showing
that it was delayed for some reason beyond merely passing it around the
moderation team in order to reach a consistent decision?)
I cannot prove beyond all doubt that my posts were being deliberately
delayed but at one point, all of my posts were taking as much as 24 hours to
get approved while messages from other people were "sailing though" in a
couple of hours. This happened consistently. It has since improved
considerably now the problem has been highlighted. Perhaps the moderators
are at last taking notice now that this malpractice has been brought to
wider attention.
Percy Picacity
Sep 22, 2012, 1:22:51 PM9/22/12
to
out that it is consistency between posters that is needed rather than
high degree of consistency between posts. But the moment you accept a
certain inconsistency in the approach to a given post, then it gets
immensely difficult to prove (read leads to a lot of long-winded
arguments about) consistency between posters. Indeed, since it is a
human being doing the moderation, the quicker and more lightly the
decisions are made the more likely is unconscious discrimination
against an individual poster to creep in. Only on a statistical basis
could bias against a given poster be proven or disproven because of the
high variability of standards set for everyone. I should like it
recorded in the discussion, or even in the CFV, that a quick, pragmatic
and responsive moderation policy will lead to a large variability in
decisions, such that a given poster can really only claim unfair
treatment on the basis of a series of decisions and even then there is
going to be a large element of subjectivity.
Of course, ideally this problem is solved by accepting nearly all
posts, but this depends on the posters playing nicely too!
--
Percy Picacity
Molly Mockford
Sep 22, 2012, 1:31:25 PM9/22/12
to
At 18:14:17 on Sat, 22 Sep 2012, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com>
wrote in <k3krl9$s9f$1...@dont-email.me>:
>I cannot prove beyond all doubt that my posts were being deliberately
>delayed but at one point, all of my posts were taking as much as 24
>hours to get approved while messages from other people were "sailing
>though" in a couple of hours. This happened consistently. It has
>since improved considerably now the problem has been highlighted.
>Perhaps the moderators are at last taking notice now that this
>malpractice has been brought to wider attention.
It is a possibility worth considering that the lack of standard accepted
formatting of your posts might, at first, lead the moderators (as it
does any other readers) to think that they are re-posts of somebody
else's posts, until one scrolls all the way down and finds a row of
equals signs which you apparently use as a personalised delimiter.
In the old days the recommended add-on for M$ software which failed
totally to quote news posts correctly was Quotefix; whether it works
for your Microsoft Windows Live Mail I don't know. But you would get
better results, and make life easier for everybody who has to read your
posts, by using a real news client - or even, as a last resort,
GoogleGroups.
--
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.
wrote in <k3krl9$s9f$1...@dont-email.me>:
>I cannot prove beyond all doubt that my posts were being deliberately
>delayed but at one point, all of my posts were taking as much as 24
>hours to get approved while messages from other people were "sailing
>though" in a couple of hours. This happened consistently. It has
>since improved considerably now the problem has been highlighted.
>Perhaps the moderators are at last taking notice now that this
>malpractice has been brought to wider attention.
formatting of your posts might, at first, lead the moderators (as it
does any other readers) to think that they are re-posts of somebody
else's posts, until one scrolls all the way down and finds a row of
equals signs which you apparently use as a personalised delimiter.
In the old days the recommended add-on for M$ software which failed
totally to quote news posts correctly was Quotefix; whether it works
for your Microsoft Windows Live Mail I don't know. But you would get
better results, and make life easier for everybody who has to read your
posts, by using a real news client - or even, as a last resort,
GoogleGroups.
--
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.
Bertie Wooster
Sep 22, 2012, 1:50:52 PM9/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:12:59 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> considered Sat, 22 Sep 2012
>Clearly an outright lie.
>
>How did you divine their intentions?
>Are you psychic, or just prone to making posts which are contentious
>and therefore require discussion between the moderation team?
M'laud, on the balance of probabilities, I would say it is more likely
than not that one or more urcm moderators have deliberately put off
approving one or more posts.
I'd go further, and if I could trust the moderators to be truthful,
I'd lay odds of 10:1.
I'd like to hear your learned opinion.
wrote:
>"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> considered Sat, 22 Sep 2012
>
>How did you divine their intentions?
>Are you psychic, or just prone to making posts which are contentious
>and therefore require discussion between the moderation team?
M'laud, on the balance of probabilities, I would say it is more likely
than not that one or more urcm moderators have deliberately put off
approving one or more posts.
I'd go further, and if I could trust the moderators to be truthful,
I'd lay odds of 10:1.
I'd like to hear your learned opinion.
Tim Jackson
Sep 22, 2012, 2:35:57 PM9/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:14:17 +0100, John Benn wrote...
Namely, that the mods may have been taking a long time in order to
ensure they treated you equally and fairly, but that in response to
feedback they have since adjusted the balance between speed and
consistency.
> I cannot prove beyond all doubt that my posts were being deliberately
> delayed but at one point, all of my posts were taking as much as 24 hours to
> get approved while messages from other people were "sailing though" in a
> couple of hours. This happened consistently. It has since improved
> considerably now the problem has been highlighted. Perhaps the moderators
> are at last taking notice now that this malpractice has been brought to
> wider attention.
Fair enough, but that could still be in line with what I was suggesting.
> delayed but at one point, all of my posts were taking as much as 24 hours to
> get approved while messages from other people were "sailing though" in a
> couple of hours. This happened consistently. It has since improved
> considerably now the problem has been highlighted. Perhaps the moderators
> are at last taking notice now that this malpractice has been brought to
> wider attention.
Namely, that the mods may have been taking a long time in order to
ensure they treated you equally and fairly, but that in response to
feedback they have since adjusted the balance between speed and
consistency.
Tim Jackson
Sep 22, 2012, 2:35:58 PM9/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:13:00 +0100, John Benn wrote...
or dismissed.
What I don't know is whether the current RFDs were part of the reason
for the change in moderation practice. An RFD is a very blunt
instrument for providing feedback and one hopes it wasn't necessary.
(For example, one hopes that the mods didn't miss any feedback in unn*
because they had people in their killfiles.)
>
> "Tim Jackson" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2ac7960e5...@text.usenet.plus.net...
>
> "Tim Jackson" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2ac7960e5...@text.usenet.plus.net...
>
> But why does any of that need an RFD? Surely all it needs is for the
> users of the group to feed back their opinions as to which of these
> issues is more important, and how the balance should be struck.
> =============================================
>
> That's happened many times and the suggestions get ignored or dismissed.
In a subsequent post you say that the problem of delays "has since
> users of the group to feed back their opinions as to which of these
> issues is more important, and how the balance should be struck.
> =============================================
>
> That's happened many times and the suggestions get ignored or dismissed.
improved considerably now the problem has been highlighted. Perhaps the
moderators are at last taking notice now that this malpractice has been
brought to wider attention."
So it sounds like the feedback and suggestions have *not* been ignored
moderators are at last taking notice now that this malpractice has been
brought to wider attention."
or dismissed.
What I don't know is whether the current RFDs were part of the reason
for the change in moderation practice. An RFD is a very blunt
instrument for providing feedback and one hopes it wasn't necessary.
(For example, one hopes that the mods didn't miss any feedback in unn*
because they had people in their killfiles.)
Tim Jackson
Sep 22, 2012, 2:35:59 PM9/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:12:59 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote...
would require discussion between the moderation team, no matter how
contentious. The moderator who picked up the post would just make a
decision, for better or worse. This would reduce delays but would also
lead to inconsistency -- some posts might be rejected and some accepted
which on reflection should perhaps have gone the other way.
The merit in that approach would be that discussions wouldn't be unduly
held up. But users would have to learn to live with decisions that they
might not agree with, and not carp about them all the time. (That
includes users who might think a post shouldn't have been accepted, as
well as users whose posts are rejected.)
> Are you psychic, or just prone to making posts which are contentious
> and therefore require discussion between the moderation team?
It would of course be possible to take an approach in which no post
> and therefore require discussion between the moderation team?
would require discussion between the moderation team, no matter how
contentious. The moderator who picked up the post would just make a
decision, for better or worse. This would reduce delays but would also
lead to inconsistency -- some posts might be rejected and some accepted
which on reflection should perhaps have gone the other way.
The merit in that approach would be that discussions wouldn't be unduly
held up. But users would have to learn to live with decisions that they
might not agree with, and not carp about them all the time. (That
includes users who might think a post shouldn't have been accepted, as
well as users whose posts are rejected.)
Mike Causer
Sep 22, 2012, 3:16:25 PM9/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:50:52 +0100
Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> M'laud, on the balance of probabilities, I would say it is more likely
> than not that one or more urcm moderators have deliberately put off
> approving one or more posts.
I've admitted so in unnm. Here's what I posted in
Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> M'laud, on the balance of probabilities, I would say it is more likely
> than not that one or more urcm moderators have deliberately put off
> approving one or more posts.
response to Mr. Benn's complaint about delays:
On Mon, 28 May 2012 21:25:40 +0100
"Mr. Benn" <%@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> My posts have not been appearing for several days. Is there any
> reason for this other than a "technical glitch"?
>
> Please can one of the moderators answer this. Thanks.
All I can see in the queue is a single sentence in response to a
long-running argument. There are over 200 new posts to look at to
get the context, and it's approaching 11pm.
This is the point at which I say "fsck it".
Other mods' mileages will vary. You may find one in a better mood
than me, you may not. Good luck and thanks for bidding.
Note that there was just one post from Mr. Benn in the queue at the time
he (?) made this enquiry, and it was in a controversial thread. If a
quick response is required after a CFV, then in the case of one line
attempts to be clever I, for one, will be taking the view "If in doubt
throw it out." In this case I cannot find any single line post by Mr.
Benn that was passed in the following day or so, so I assume someone
else rejected it.
Mike
Andy Leighton
Sep 22, 2012, 3:41:52 PM9/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 19:35:58 +0100, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:13:00 +0100, John Benn wrote...
>>
>> "Tim Jackson" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2ac7960e5...@text.usenet.plus.net...
>>
>> But why does any of that need an RFD? Surely all it needs is for the
>> users of the group to feed back their opinions as to which of these
>> issues is more important, and how the balance should be struck.
>> =============================================
>>
>> That's happened many times and the suggestions get ignored or dismissed.
>
> In a subsequent post you say that the problem of delays "has since
> improved considerably now the problem has been highlighted. Perhaps the
> moderators are at last taking notice now that this malpractice has been
> brought to wider attention."
>
> So it sounds like the feedback and suggestions have *not* been ignored
> or dismissed.
>
> What I don't know is whether the current RFDs were part of the reason
> for the change in moderation practice.
To be honest the way I moderate hasn't changed one iota.
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:13:00 +0100, John Benn wrote...
>>
>> "Tim Jackson" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2ac7960e5...@text.usenet.plus.net...
>>
>> But why does any of that need an RFD? Surely all it needs is for the
>> users of the group to feed back their opinions as to which of these
>> issues is more important, and how the balance should be struck.
>> =============================================
>>
>> That's happened many times and the suggestions get ignored or dismissed.
>
> In a subsequent post you say that the problem of delays "has since
> improved considerably now the problem has been highlighted. Perhaps the
> moderators are at last taking notice now that this malpractice has been
> brought to wider attention."
>
> So it sounds like the feedback and suggestions have *not* been ignored
> or dismissed.
>
> What I don't know is whether the current RFDs were part of the reason
> for the change in moderation practice.
Some I do mark and discuss, some I leave for others, some I approve
straightaway. At no point do I do any of these to intentionally delay
or punish a poster. It may be that some posters are more affected
by this than others, or at least initially (depending on just what
type of thread they start responding to).
We have however documented and published the process for banning
thanks to responses to the RFD.
--
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_
Judith
Sep 22, 2012, 3:47:25 PM9/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 19:35:59 +0100, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:12:59 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote...
>> Are you psychic, or just prone to making posts which are contentious
>> and therefore require discussion between the moderation team?
>
>It would of course be possible to take an approach in which no post
>would require discussion between the moderation team, no matter how
>contentious. The moderator who picked up the post would just make a
>decision, for better or worse.
It has been said before : they need to ask ULM how to moderate. In general it
works very, very well. If I get a post rejected (as, for some reasons I seem
to do :-) I usually ask in unnm and then there is usually a civil response.
Other people rather than the mods may say that a particular sentence was a bit
strong and they would have rejected it: others may say that they thought it
OK. Sometimes the chief moderator will comment and may say - I would not have
rejected it - or "I would also have rejected it because of x,y,z"
The moderators do not seem to begrudge those sort of questions (I think !!) and
there is always an explanation - even if I do not agree always with it.
That, in my opinion, is exactly how moderation should work.
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:12:59 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote...
>> Are you psychic, or just prone to making posts which are contentious
>> and therefore require discussion between the moderation team?
>
>It would of course be possible to take an approach in which no post
>would require discussion between the moderation team, no matter how
>contentious. The moderator who picked up the post would just make a
>decision, for better or worse.
works very, very well. If I get a post rejected (as, for some reasons I seem
to do :-) I usually ask in unnm and then there is usually a civil response.
Other people rather than the mods may say that a particular sentence was a bit
strong and they would have rejected it: others may say that they thought it
OK. Sometimes the chief moderator will comment and may say - I would not have
rejected it - or "I would also have rejected it because of x,y,z"
The moderators do not seem to begrudge those sort of questions (I think !!) and
there is always an explanation - even if I do not agree always with it.
That, in my opinion, is exactly how moderation should work.
Judith
Sep 22, 2012, 3:49:45 PM9/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:16:41 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>If you want speed, you should always argue against the "consistency at
>any cost" complaints, on the perfectly justifiable basis that this
>would slow down moderation.
As an aside : why is it that the urcm moderators dare not white list *you*?
I wonder, is it because of things like:
--
X-no-archive : No
If the bastards won't do anything about the taxi driver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. He'll never drive a taxi
again.
Message-ID: <2s2mk6treuao9eofe...@4ax.com>
Phil W Lee 3 February 2011
<snip>
>If you want speed, you should always argue against the "consistency at
>any cost" complaints, on the perfectly justifiable basis that this
>would slow down moderation.
As an aside : why is it that the urcm moderators dare not white list *you*?
I wonder, is it because of things like:
--
X-no-archive : No
If the bastards won't do anything about the taxi driver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. He'll never drive a taxi
again.
Message-ID: <2s2mk6treuao9eofe...@4ax.com>
Phil W Lee 3 February 2011
John Benn
Sep 22, 2012, 4:46:59 PM9/22/12
to
"Mike Causer" wrote in message news:k3l2qd$9eo$1...@dont-email.me...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:50:52 +0100
Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> M'laud, on the balance of probabilities, I would say it is more likely
> than not that one or more urcm moderators have deliberately put off
> approving one or more posts.
I've admitted so in unnm. Here's what I posted in
response to Mr. Benn's complaint about delays:
On Mon, 28 May 2012 21:25:40 +0100
"Mr. Benn" <%@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> My posts have not been appearing for several days. Is there any
> reason for this other than a "technical glitch"?
>
> Please can one of the moderators answer this. Thanks.
All I can see in the queue is a single sentence in response to a
long-running argument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hadn't realised that single sentence responses are not allowed.
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:50:52 +0100
Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> M'laud, on the balance of probabilities, I would say it is more likely
> than not that one or more urcm moderators have deliberately put off
> approving one or more posts.
I've admitted so in unnm. Here's what I posted in
response to Mr. Benn's complaint about delays:
On Mon, 28 May 2012 21:25:40 +0100
"Mr. Benn" <%@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> My posts have not been appearing for several days. Is there any
> reason for this other than a "technical glitch"?
>
> Please can one of the moderators answer this. Thanks.
All I can see in the queue is a single sentence in response to a
long-running argument.
I hadn't realised that single sentence responses are not allowed.
John Benn
Sep 22, 2012, 4:54:37 PM9/22/12
to
"Molly Mockford" wrote in message news:GHqthBDt...@molly.mockford...
At 18:14:17 on Sat, 22 Sep 2012, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com>
wrote in <k3krl9$s9f$1...@dont-email.me>:
>I cannot prove beyond all doubt that my posts were being deliberately
>delayed but at one point, all of my posts were taking as much as 24
>hours to get approved while messages from other people were "sailing
>though" in a couple of hours. This happened consistently. It has
>since improved considerably now the problem has been highlighted.
>Perhaps the moderators are at last taking notice now that this
>malpractice has been brought to wider attention.
It is a possibility worth considering that the lack of standard accepted
formatting of your posts might, at first, lead the moderators (as it
does any other readers) to think that they are re-posts of somebody
else's posts, until one scrolls all the way down and finds a row of
equals signs which you apparently use as a personalised delimiter.
===========================================
That is a fair point. I need to use a different news client.
At 18:14:17 on Sat, 22 Sep 2012, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com>
wrote in <k3krl9$s9f$1...@dont-email.me>:
>I cannot prove beyond all doubt that my posts were being deliberately
>delayed but at one point, all of my posts were taking as much as 24
>hours to get approved while messages from other people were "sailing
>though" in a couple of hours. This happened consistently. It has
>since improved considerably now the problem has been highlighted.
>Perhaps the moderators are at last taking notice now that this
>malpractice has been brought to wider attention.
It is a possibility worth considering that the lack of standard accepted
formatting of your posts might, at first, lead the moderators (as it
does any other readers) to think that they are re-posts of somebody
else's posts, until one scrolls all the way down and finds a row of
equals signs which you apparently use as a personalised delimiter.
That is a fair point. I need to use a different news client.
Judith
Sep 22, 2012, 5:38:56 PM9/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 19:35:58 +0100, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
wrote:
>What I don't know is whether the current RFDs were part of the reason
>for the change in moderation practice.
An interesting comment:
A speed up in approvals for non-whitelisted posters.
A brand new publicised policy on banning people.
Jackson engaging in dialogues in unnm?
I wonder why?
Mr Jackson was renowned for not answering queries or getting involved in
discussions in uk.net.news.moderation.
You only have to look at his posting history in it, say for this year alone:
jan 3
feb 1
mar 9
apr 9
May 2
June 3
July 0
So a total of 27 posts in the first 6 months
And then what happened in August : the first RFD was posted.
Whooooooosh ------------------>
Aug 28 (What was it in the first 7 months? - 27?)
Sep 10
Note - these are posts in unnm - not in unnc where the discussion of the RFD
was to taking place.
Good to see he started getting involved and answering questions - just a
coincidence of course.
wrote:
>What I don't know is whether the current RFDs were part of the reason
>for the change in moderation practice.
A speed up in approvals for non-whitelisted posters.
A brand new publicised policy on banning people.
Jackson engaging in dialogues in unnm?
I wonder why?
Mr Jackson was renowned for not answering queries or getting involved in
discussions in uk.net.news.moderation.
You only have to look at his posting history in it, say for this year alone:
jan 3
feb 1
mar 9
apr 9
May 2
June 3
July 0
So a total of 27 posts in the first 6 months
And then what happened in August : the first RFD was posted.
Whooooooosh ------------------>
Aug 28 (What was it in the first 7 months? - 27?)
Sep 10
Note - these are posts in unnm - not in unnc where the discussion of the RFD
was to taking place.
Good to see he started getting involved and answering questions - just a
coincidence of course.
Tony
Sep 22, 2012, 5:54:29 PM9/22/12
to
In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>A brand new publicised policy on banning people.
>I wonder why?
>A brand new publicised policy on banning people.
I like to think because I engaged in a constructive conversation with some
other people who were prepared to be constructive. But of course, we'll
never really know why.
>Good to see he started getting involved and answering questions - just a
>coincidence of course.
confused about why his post rate has gone up in the management groups?
Despite the conversation being supposed to take place in unnc, it's
inevitable that additional conversation arises elsewhere.
When you were repeatedly advised to create an RFD to start a constructive
conversation, that was the reason. Sadly, you were too lazy and someone
else beat you to it - hopefully the RFD will have in it stuff you like as
well.
--
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 ]
Bertie Wooster
Sep 22, 2012, 6:38:46 PM9/22/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:16:25 +0100, Mike Causer
<m.r.c...@goglemail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:50:52 +0100
>Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> M'laud, on the balance of probabilities, I would say it is more likely
>> than not that one or more urcm moderators have deliberately put off
>> approving one or more posts.
>
>I've admitted so in unnm. Here's what I posted in
>response to Mr. Benn's complaint about delays:
Many thanks for your candour.
<m.r.c...@goglemail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:50:52 +0100
>Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> M'laud, on the balance of probabilities, I would say it is more likely
>> than not that one or more urcm moderators have deliberately put off
>> approving one or more posts.
>
>I've admitted so in unnm. Here's what I posted in
>response to Mr. Benn's complaint about delays:
Was the poster's ID part of the reason for the delay?
Judith
Sep 23, 2012, 8:23:32 AM9/23/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 22:54:29 +0100, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>A brand new publicised policy on banning people.
>>I wonder why?
>
>I like to think because I engaged in a constructive conversation with some
>other people who were prepared to be constructive. But of course, we'll
>never really know why.
>
>>Good to see he started getting involved and answering questions - just a
>>coincidence of course.
>
>I'm confused. There's a formal RFD about a group Ian reads, and you're
>confused about why his post rate has gone up in the management groups?
>Despite the conversation being supposed to take place in unnc, it's
>inevitable that additional conversation arises elsewhere.
His conversations in UNNM are not discussing the proposal at all (well two
>In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>A brand new publicised policy on banning people.
>>I wonder why?
>
>I like to think because I engaged in a constructive conversation with some
>other people who were prepared to be constructive. But of course, we'll
>never really know why.
>
>>Good to see he started getting involved and answering questions - just a
>>coincidence of course.
>
>I'm confused. There's a formal RFD about a group Ian reads, and you're
>confused about why his post rate has gone up in the management groups?
>Despite the conversation being supposed to take place in unnc, it's
>inevitable that additional conversation arises elsewhere.
posts do) - they are general responses and comment to show that he is a
listening sort of chap and an all round good egg.
Amazing coincidence.
Judith
Sep 23, 2012, 8:26:45 AM9/23/12
to
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:22:51 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:
<snip>
>Of course, ideally this problem is solved by accepting nearly all
>posts, but this depends on the posters playing nicely too!
Some examples to back up Mr Benn's point:
On 26th August, 11 posts were made which had an average moderation time of 1
hour and ten minutes. There were two other posts by "suspect" individuals who
had done something really nasty previously like mention cycle helmets or
similar: Mr Benn and James Cord.
Mr Benn posted on that day and it took 12.5 hours to moderate his post
What did he have to say:
"Soak in Milton sterilising solution for 24 hours if you're paranoid.
Alternatively, use a warm solution of washing up detergent and a bottle
brush."
Yep - that was really contentious.
James Cord also posted on 26th August and his took only 11.8 hours to moderate
-obviously not as contentious as the Milton.
What did James have to say (regarding Lance Armstrong)
"I really thought that he would have wanted to clear his name. As it is, he
has just left such a big question mark over his behaviour, with the clear
implication that there were things he did not want to come out. USADA and the
World Anti-Doping Agency say Armstrong's withdrawal is a clear sign of guilt."
=======================================================================
And then on the following day: 14 posts with an average moderation time of 50
minutes
And then there was Mr Benn - his moderation time : 10 hours and 20 minutes. Why
was that I hear you say: well, naughty Mr Benn was asking about cycle helmets
yet again. What was this awkward post which needed 10 hours of attention:
"Thanks Peter - yes I have now bought a helmet and it's very comfortable. It
didn't cost much either. But I am concerned because people on here have
been telling me that cycle helmets don't reduce the incidence of head
injuries so I really don't know what to think now. Do you think that your
son will take more risks when wearing a helmet? Apparently risk
compensation is a significant issue and causes cyclists to take stupid risks
that they would never have done if not wearing a helmet. Or that the
helmets can cause head rotational injuries? This is what the totally
impartial and independent Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation claims."
========================================================================
Are you really sure that certain people are not given special attention and
treatment?
(With thanks to my good friend Statto for the figures - I trust by cannot
guarantee that they are correct)
wrote:
<snip>
>Of course, ideally this problem is solved by accepting nearly all
>posts, but this depends on the posters playing nicely too!
On 26th August, 11 posts were made which had an average moderation time of 1
hour and ten minutes. There were two other posts by "suspect" individuals who
had done something really nasty previously like mention cycle helmets or
similar: Mr Benn and James Cord.
Mr Benn posted on that day and it took 12.5 hours to moderate his post
What did he have to say:
"Soak in Milton sterilising solution for 24 hours if you're paranoid.
Alternatively, use a warm solution of washing up detergent and a bottle
brush."
Yep - that was really contentious.
James Cord also posted on 26th August and his took only 11.8 hours to moderate
-obviously not as contentious as the Milton.
What did James have to say (regarding Lance Armstrong)
"I really thought that he would have wanted to clear his name. As it is, he
has just left such a big question mark over his behaviour, with the clear
implication that there were things he did not want to come out. USADA and the
World Anti-Doping Agency say Armstrong's withdrawal is a clear sign of guilt."
=======================================================================
And then on the following day: 14 posts with an average moderation time of 50
minutes
And then there was Mr Benn - his moderation time : 10 hours and 20 minutes. Why
was that I hear you say: well, naughty Mr Benn was asking about cycle helmets
yet again. What was this awkward post which needed 10 hours of attention:
"Thanks Peter - yes I have now bought a helmet and it's very comfortable. It
didn't cost much either. But I am concerned because people on here have
been telling me that cycle helmets don't reduce the incidence of head
injuries so I really don't know what to think now. Do you think that your
son will take more risks when wearing a helmet? Apparently risk
compensation is a significant issue and causes cyclists to take stupid risks
that they would never have done if not wearing a helmet. Or that the
helmets can cause head rotational injuries? This is what the totally
impartial and independent Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation claims."
========================================================================
Are you really sure that certain people are not given special attention and
treatment?
(With thanks to my good friend Statto for the figures - I trust by cannot
guarantee that they are correct)
JNugent
Sep 23, 2012, 8:41:31 AM9/23/12
to
urcm is a moderated group. End of story.
Its moderators are entitled - save and except for any general usenet rules on
the issue - to moderate as they see fit. They don't have to strive to please
third parties (including me).
Best just to accept it.
Tony
Sep 23, 2012, 8:41:43 AM9/23/12
to
>Amazing coincidence.
I do not think that word means what you think that word means.
I do not think that word means what you think that word means.
Judith
Sep 23, 2012, 9:05:38 AM9/23/12
to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 13:41:43 +0100, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Amazing coincidence.
>
>I do not think that word means what you think that word means.
And you would know what I think that word means precisely how?
>In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Amazing coincidence.
>
>I do not think that word means what you think that word means.
Or did you just miss the full stop between the first "think" and "that"?
Squashme
Sep 23, 2012, 5:37:37 PM9/23/12
to
JNugent
Sep 24, 2012, 6:36:16 AM9/24/12
to
>> Waste of time and effort.
>> urcm is a moderated group. End of story.
>> Its moderators are entitled - save and except for any general usenet rules on
>> the issue - to moderate as they see fit. They don't have to strive to please
>> third parties (including me).
>> Best just to accept it.
>
> You're new here, aren't you?
:-)
>> urcm is a moderated group. End of story.
>> Its moderators are entitled - save and except for any general usenet rules on
>> the issue - to moderate as they see fit. They don't have to strive to please
>> third parties (including me).
>> Best just to accept it.
>
> You're new here, aren't you?
I know a lost cause when I see one.
Ian Jackson
Sep 24, 2012, 9:06:29 AM9/24/12
to
In article <MPG.2ac813cc...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
ago, but since we haven't made any deliberate change to our policy and
practice (at least, on the question of the tradeoff between
consistency and delay) it's hard to say.
The recent changes to the mod policy were not a result of this RFD;
they were the result of constructive criticism from IIRC Tony and
others.
It would be easier to make progress on other improvements (for
example, a better workaround for the hotmail problem) if we weren't
having to deal with a hostile RFD as well.
I should say again that we have not ever deliberately delayed a
posting. We have, as you suggest, held a posting while we discuss
whether to approve or reject it.
>(For example, one hopes that the mods didn't miss any feedback in unn*
>because they had people in their killfiles.)
I'm not aware of any changes to moderation policy or practice which
were first suggested by people in my killfile. But then I killfile
people only when I think they're not at all likely to say anything
useful. I don't know which posters are in other moderators'
killfiles.
--
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
Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>What I don't know is whether the current RFDs were part of the reason
>for the change in moderation practice. An RFD is a very blunt
>instrument for providing feedback and one hopes it wasn't necessary.
If I understand the complainant these changes occurred a little while
>What I don't know is whether the current RFDs were part of the reason
>for the change in moderation practice. An RFD is a very blunt
>instrument for providing feedback and one hopes it wasn't necessary.
ago, but since we haven't made any deliberate change to our policy and
practice (at least, on the question of the tradeoff between
consistency and delay) it's hard to say.
The recent changes to the mod policy were not a result of this RFD;
they were the result of constructive criticism from IIRC Tony and
others.
It would be easier to make progress on other improvements (for
example, a better workaround for the hotmail problem) if we weren't
having to deal with a hostile RFD as well.
I should say again that we have not ever deliberately delayed a
posting. We have, as you suggest, held a posting while we discuss
whether to approve or reject it.
>(For example, one hopes that the mods didn't miss any feedback in unn*
>because they had people in their killfiles.)
were first suggested by people in my killfile. But then I killfile
people only when I think they're not at all likely to say anything
useful. I don't know which posters are in other moderators'
killfiles.
--
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
Ian Jackson
Sep 24, 2012, 9:29:19 AM9/24/12
to
In article <rfd3-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20120922070926$1a...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
...
>'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'.
I fundamentally disagree with this. I do not accept that we should
have any formal requirement to respond to questions in unn.moderation.
No-one should be required to read this cesspit.
And the alleged problem is nonexistent. Most reasonable complaints
which have been posted here have been answered. Any which have been
overlooked are due to mistake, not malice. Writing a policy is not
going to fix mistakes.
>a)
>All posters are treated equally and fairly.
>b)
>No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
I agree entirely with what Tim Jackson has said about the tradeoff
between speed and consistency. This appears to be trying to ask for
both.
However, as I have said, these instructions are sufficiently vague
that they do not represent any real change. They will just generate
more arguments.
>c)
>Posts will not be rejected on the identity of the poster (unless
>the poster is banned); but purely on the content of the post.
I think that it should be entirely open to the moderators to institute
a "delay list" (as Tom asserts there is, but currently there isn't),
or limit posters to a certain number of posts per day, or whatever.
Also, you are just setting up an incentive for secret policies. This
is bad politics. If you really think the moderators are dishonest you
shouldn't be requiring them to do things which you can't detect.
The rest of this is trying to fix non-problems.
sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
...
>'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'.
I fundamentally disagree with this. I do not accept that we should
have any formal requirement to respond to questions in unn.moderation.
No-one should be required to read this cesspit.
And the alleged problem is nonexistent. Most reasonable complaints
which have been posted here have been answered. Any which have been
overlooked are due to mistake, not malice. Writing a policy is not
going to fix mistakes.
>a)
>All posters are treated equally and fairly.
>b)
>No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
between speed and consistency. This appears to be trying to ask for
both.
However, as I have said, these instructions are sufficiently vague
that they do not represent any real change. They will just generate
more arguments.
>c)
>Posts will not be rejected on the identity of the poster (unless
>the poster is banned); but purely on the content of the post.
I think that it should be entirely open to the moderators to institute
a "delay list" (as Tom asserts there is, but currently there isn't),
or limit posters to a certain number of posts per day, or whatever.
Also, you are just setting up an incentive for secret policies. This
is bad politics. If you really think the moderators are dishonest you
shouldn't be requiring them to do things which you can't detect.
The rest of this is trying to fix non-problems.
Judith
Sep 24, 2012, 11:08:37 AM9/24/12
to
On 24 Sep 2012 14:06:29 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>I should say again that we have not ever deliberately delayed a
>posting. We have, as you suggest, held a posting while we discuss
>whether to approve or reject it.
Perhaps you could then explain why it took 12.5 hours to moderate Mr Benn's
post when all other posts at that time were moderated in about 1 hour (on
average).
Mr Benn said:
"Soak in Milton sterilising solution for 24 hours if you're paranoid.
Alternatively, use a warm solution of washing up detergent and a bottle
brush."
I mean - it really was controversial and needed the full discussion of all
moderators didn't it?
> But then I killfile
>people only when I think they're not at all likely to say anything
>useful.
How magnanimous.
(urc added)
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>I should say again that we have not ever deliberately delayed a
>posting. We have, as you suggest, held a posting while we discuss
>whether to approve or reject it.
post when all other posts at that time were moderated in about 1 hour (on
average).
Mr Benn said:
"Soak in Milton sterilising solution for 24 hours if you're paranoid.
Alternatively, use a warm solution of washing up detergent and a bottle
brush."
moderators didn't it?
> But then I killfile
>people only when I think they're not at all likely to say anything
>useful.
(urc added)
Tony
Sep 24, 2012, 11:13:21 AM9/24/12
to
On 2012-09-24, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> (urc added)
Can you please stop that unless you also set follow-ups to urc. There's
no valid reason to cross-post between uk.net.news.config and other
newsgroups unless there's a specific RFD involved.
> (urc added)
Can you please stop that unless you also set follow-ups to urc. There's
no valid reason to cross-post between uk.net.news.config and other
newsgroups unless there's a specific RFD involved.
John Benn
Sep 24, 2012, 11:33:24 AM9/24/12
to
"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1Mk*1A...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> I should say again that we have not ever deliberately delayed a
> posting. We have, as you suggest, held a posting while we discuss
> whether to approve or reject it.
For more than 24 hours!? Surely between the 8 or 10 of you, it's possible
to decide faster than that. What do you do, hold a full committee meeting?
news:1Mk*1A...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> I should say again that we have not ever deliberately delayed a
> posting. We have, as you suggest, held a posting while we discuss
> whether to approve or reject it.
to decide faster than that. What do you do, hold a full committee meeting?
John Benn
Sep 24, 2012, 11:35:09 AM9/24/12
to
"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ot06852vos7datci...@4ax.com...
things.
news:3ot06852vos7datci...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Sep 2012 14:06:29 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
> <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>I should say again that we have not ever deliberately delayed a
>>posting. We have, as you suggest, held a posting while we discuss
>>whether to approve or reject it.
>
> Perhaps you could then explain why it took 12.5 hours to moderate Mr
> Benn's
> post when all other posts at that time were moderated in about 1 hour (on
> average).
>
> Mr Benn said:
>
> "Soak in Milton sterilising solution for 24 hours if you're paranoid.
> Alternatively, use a warm solution of washing up detergent and a bottle
> brush."
>
> I mean - it really was controversial and needed the full discussion of
> all
> moderators didn't it?
It was deliberately delayed as punishment for me having said "naughty"
> <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>I should say again that we have not ever deliberately delayed a
>>posting. We have, as you suggest, held a posting while we discuss
>>whether to approve or reject it.
>
> Perhaps you could then explain why it took 12.5 hours to moderate Mr
> Benn's
> post when all other posts at that time were moderated in about 1 hour (on
> average).
>
> Mr Benn said:
>
> "Soak in Milton sterilising solution for 24 hours if you're paranoid.
> Alternatively, use a warm solution of washing up detergent and a bottle
> brush."
>
> I mean - it really was controversial and needed the full discussion of
> all
> moderators didn't it?
things.
John Benn
Sep 24, 2012, 11:36:21 AM9/24/12
to
"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:x-r*lG...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> The rest of this is trying to fix non-problems.
Judith
Sep 24, 2012, 11:41:27 AM9/24/12
to
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:13:21 +0000 (UTC), Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>On 2012-09-24, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> (urc added)
>
>Can you please stop that unless you also set follow-ups to urc. There's
>no valid reason to cross-post between uk.net.news.config and other
>newsgroups unless there's a specific RFD involved.
Fuck off.
>On 2012-09-24, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> (urc added)
>
>Can you please stop that unless you also set follow-ups to urc. There's
>no valid reason to cross-post between uk.net.news.config and other
>newsgroups unless there's a specific RFD involved.
Please explain what harm does it actually do?
It makes posters in urc aware of the discussion here - so they may chose to
join it if they wish.
How long does your period of moderation of this group last?
Rob Morley
Sep 24, 2012, 2:08:00 PM9/24/12
to
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:13:21 +0000 (UTC)
Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2012-09-24, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > (urc added)
>
> Can you please stop that unless you also set follow-ups to urc.
> There's no valid reason to cross-post
Unless you're an inveterate troll ...
> On 2012-09-24, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > (urc added)
>
> Can you please stop that unless you also set follow-ups to urc.
> There's no valid reason to cross-post
Tony
Sep 24, 2012, 2:11:41 PM9/24/12
to
>How long does your period of moderation of this group last?
It's indefinite.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
John Benn
Sep 24, 2012, 5:16:30 PM9/24/12
to
"Tony" wrote in message news:slrnk60u4...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...
On 2012-09-24, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> (urc added)
Can you please stop that unless you also set follow-ups to urc. There's
no valid reason to cross-post between uk.net.news.config and other
newsgroups unless there's a specific RFD involved.
====================================
What?
On 2012-09-24, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> (urc added)
Can you please stop that unless you also set follow-ups to urc. There's
no valid reason to cross-post between uk.net.news.config and other
newsgroups unless there's a specific RFD involved.
What?
John Benn
Sep 24, 2012, 5:17:08 PM9/24/12
to
"Tony" wrote in message news:k3q7n1$5hv$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...
In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>How long does your period of moderation of this group last?
It's indefinite.
===========================
Err, what?
In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>How long does your period of moderation of this group last?
It's indefinite.
Err, what?
Judith
Sep 24, 2012, 6:06:06 PM9/24/12
to
Please can you explain how posting that message to URC was anything to do with
"trolling" however you want to define that - and what harm the post can have
done?
Judith
Sep 24, 2012, 6:06:37 PM9/24/12
to
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:11:41 +0100, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>How long does your period of moderation of this group last?
>
>It's indefinite.
I am sorry - you seem not to have spotted my other question - in the interests
>In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>How long does your period of moderation of this group last?
>
>It's indefinite.
of the smooth running of unnc - please could you explain what harm crossposting
to urc actually did on this occasion? I am sure that you have a sound reason.
==============================================================
Please explain what harm does it actually do?
It makes posters in urc aware of the discussion here - so they may chose to
join it if they wish.
==============================================================
It makes posters in urc aware of the discussion here - so they may chose to
join it if they wish.
Judith
Sep 24, 2012, 6:32:45 PM9/24/12
to
>I should say again that we have not ever deliberately delayed a
>posting. We have, as you suggest, held a posting while we discuss
>whether to approve or reject it.
Oh dear.
>posting. We have, as you suggest, held a posting while we discuss
>whether to approve or reject it.
77 posts made over the 21st and 22nd - a good turn around only taking 40
minutes to approve on average for 76 of them
But what about the 77th I hear you say?
Well - that was from Mr Benn and mentioned the word "helmet" - and it wasn't
"deliberately" delayed : it just took 14 and a half hours to be approved.
And they cannot see what is wrong with the group.
(urc added)
Tim Jackson
Sep 24, 2012, 7:29:57 PM9/24/12
to
On 24 Sep 2012 14:06:29 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...
> I'm not aware of any changes to moderation policy or practice which
> were first suggested by people in my killfile. But then I killfile
> people only when I think they're not at all likely to say anything
> useful.
There does appear to be something inherently unsatisfactory and circular
about that.
It starts from the initial assumption that someone will never say
anything useful, so you killfile them. As a result you don't get to
hear what they've said. If they did propose something useful you
wouldn't be aware of it. You then wouldn't be in a position to decide
whether or not it should be implemented. You wouldn't even hear about
it unless someone else also happened to repeat the same suggestion.
It's then highly probable that if the person you've killfiled was the
first to make a suggestion, you wouldn't be aware of that fact. And it
seems you believe this justifies your inital assumption that they will
never say anything useful. So you keep them in your killfile, and the
circle goes round again.
> I don't know which posters are in other moderators' killfiles.
So if someone you've killfiled did suggest something useful, you can't
rely on your fellow moderators to pick it up and tell you about it?
Killfiles are a useful tool on Usenet, and I have an extensive one
myself. Since I only read articles for my own benefit, that's perfectly
legitimate. I can read or ignore whatever I like.
But if I took on a responsible position such as moderating a group, and
wanted to do it conscientiously, I would no longer be reading things
purely for my own benefit. I think that would also give me a
responsibility to read stuff I otherwise might not want to read.
I am of course free to decide whether or not I want to take on the
responsibility, but then I don't think it would be right to pick and
choose and just accept the bits of it that I liked.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> I'm not aware of any changes to moderation policy or practice which
> were first suggested by people in my killfile. But then I killfile
> people only when I think they're not at all likely to say anything
> useful.
about that.
It starts from the initial assumption that someone will never say
anything useful, so you killfile them. As a result you don't get to
hear what they've said. If they did propose something useful you
wouldn't be aware of it. You then wouldn't be in a position to decide
whether or not it should be implemented. You wouldn't even hear about
it unless someone else also happened to repeat the same suggestion.
It's then highly probable that if the person you've killfiled was the
first to make a suggestion, you wouldn't be aware of that fact. And it
seems you believe this justifies your inital assumption that they will
never say anything useful. So you keep them in your killfile, and the
circle goes round again.
> I don't know which posters are in other moderators' killfiles.
rely on your fellow moderators to pick it up and tell you about it?
Killfiles are a useful tool on Usenet, and I have an extensive one
myself. Since I only read articles for my own benefit, that's perfectly
legitimate. I can read or ignore whatever I like.
But if I took on a responsible position such as moderating a group, and
wanted to do it conscientiously, I would no longer be reading things
purely for my own benefit. I think that would also give me a
responsibility to read stuff I otherwise might not want to read.
I am of course free to decide whether or not I want to take on the
responsibility, but then I don't think it would be right to pick and
choose and just accept the bits of it that I liked.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Molly Mockford
Sep 25, 2012, 2:42:53 AM9/25/12
to
At 00:29:57 on Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
wrote in <MPG.2acafc2fa...@text.usenet.plus.net>:
>Killfiles are a useful tool on Usenet, and I have an extensive one
>myself. Since I only read articles for my own benefit, that's perfectly
>legitimate. I can read or ignore whatever I like.
>
>But if I took on a responsible position such as moderating a group, and
>wanted to do it conscientiously, I would no longer be reading things
>purely for my own benefit. I think that would also give me a
>responsibility to read stuff I otherwise might not want to read.
>
>I am of course free to decide whether or not I want to take on the
>responsibility, but then I don't think it would be right to pick and
>choose and just accept the bits of it that I liked.
Well said.
I use a killfile in certain groups, for one person in particular. But I
never use it on uk.net.news.config or uk.net.news.management, tiresome
though it may be to waste time reading material from people who I am
convinced from experience will never have anything either useful or
pleasant to say. I consider it part of my job as a committee member to
read every post in these groups, including theirs, *because I might be
wrong* and they might just come up with something I needed to know. If
I were a moderator, I would of course apply the same method to
uk.net.news.moderation.
--
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.
wrote in <MPG.2acafc2fa...@text.usenet.plus.net>:
>Killfiles are a useful tool on Usenet, and I have an extensive one
>myself. Since I only read articles for my own benefit, that's perfectly
>legitimate. I can read or ignore whatever I like.
>
>But if I took on a responsible position such as moderating a group, and
>wanted to do it conscientiously, I would no longer be reading things
>purely for my own benefit. I think that would also give me a
>responsibility to read stuff I otherwise might not want to read.
>
>I am of course free to decide whether or not I want to take on the
>responsibility, but then I don't think it would be right to pick and
>choose and just accept the bits of it that I liked.
I use a killfile in certain groups, for one person in particular. But I
never use it on uk.net.news.config or uk.net.news.management, tiresome
though it may be to waste time reading material from people who I am
convinced from experience will never have anything either useful or
pleasant to say. I consider it part of my job as a committee member to
read every post in these groups, including theirs, *because I might be
wrong* and they might just come up with something I needed to know. If
I were a moderator, I would of course apply the same method to
uk.net.news.moderation.
--
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.
kat
Sep 25, 2012, 3:12:09 AM9/25/12
to
Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 00:29:57 on Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
> wrote in <MPG.2acafc2fa...@text.usenet.plus.net>:
>
>> Killfiles are a useful tool on Usenet, and I have an extensive one
>> myself. Since I only read articles for my own benefit, that's
>> perfectly legitimate. I can read or ignore whatever I like.
>>
>> But if I took on a responsible position such as moderating a group,
>> and wanted to do it conscientiously, I would no longer be reading
>> things purely for my own benefit. I think that would also give me a
>> responsibility to read stuff I otherwise might not want to read.
>>
>> I am of course free to decide whether or not I want to take on the
>> responsibility, but then I don't think it would be right to pick and
>> choose and just accept the bits of it that I liked.
>
> Well said.
>
> I use a killfile in certain groups, for one person in particular. But I
> never use it on uk.net.news.config or uk.net.news.management,
> tiresome though it may be to waste time reading material from people
> who I am convinced from experience will never have anything either
> useful or pleasant to say. I consider it part of my job as a
> committee member to read every post in these groups, including
> theirs, *because I might be wrong* and they might just come up with
> something I needed to know. If I were a moderator, I would of course
> apply the same method to uk.net.news.moderation.
Well said both of you.
> At 00:29:57 on Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
> wrote in <MPG.2acafc2fa...@text.usenet.plus.net>:
>
>> Killfiles are a useful tool on Usenet, and I have an extensive one
>> myself. Since I only read articles for my own benefit, that's
>> perfectly legitimate. I can read or ignore whatever I like.
>>
>> But if I took on a responsible position such as moderating a group,
>> and wanted to do it conscientiously, I would no longer be reading
>> things purely for my own benefit. I think that would also give me a
>> responsibility to read stuff I otherwise might not want to read.
>>
>> I am of course free to decide whether or not I want to take on the
>> responsibility, but then I don't think it would be right to pick and
>> choose and just accept the bits of it that I liked.
>
> Well said.
>
> I use a killfile in certain groups, for one person in particular. But I
> never use it on uk.net.news.config or uk.net.news.management,
> tiresome though it may be to waste time reading material from people
> who I am convinced from experience will never have anything either
> useful or pleasant to say. I consider it part of my job as a
> committee member to read every post in these groups, including
> theirs, *because I might be wrong* and they might just come up with
> something I needed to know. If I were a moderator, I would of course
> apply the same method to uk.net.news.moderation.
I said something before, about thinking as a committee member I should read
the management groups and all posts in them, and tend to include the
moderation group in that, at least until the thread runs off course. You
both put it so much better than I ever could.
--
kat
>^..^<
John Benn
Sep 25, 2012, 4:33:34 AM9/25/12
to
"kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:acd3r0...@mid.individual.net...
Right that's it. I'm kill-filing both of you! :-)
<slam>
news:acd3r0...@mid.individual.net...
<slam>
D.M. Procida
Sep 25, 2012, 4:39:41 AM9/25/12
to
Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> >But if I took on a responsible position such as moderating a group, and
> >wanted to do it conscientiously, I would no longer be reading things
> >purely for my own benefit. I think that would also give me a
> >responsibility to read stuff I otherwise might not want to read.
> >
> >I am of course free to decide whether or not I want to take on the
> >responsibility, but then I don't think it would be right to pick and
> >choose and just accept the bits of it that I liked.
>
> Well said.
>
> I use a killfile in certain groups, for one person in particular. But I
> never use it on uk.net.news.config or uk.net.news.management, tiresome
> though it may be to waste time reading material from people who I am
> convinced from experience will never have anything either useful or
> pleasant to say. I consider it part of my job as a committee member to
> read every post in these groups, including theirs, *because I might be
> wrong* and they might just come up with something I needed to know. If
> I were a moderator, I would of course apply the same method to
> uk.net.news.moderation.
As I am sure you know, I think that the URCM moderation has sometimes
> >But if I took on a responsible position such as moderating a group, and
> >wanted to do it conscientiously, I would no longer be reading things
> >purely for my own benefit. I think that would also give me a
> >responsibility to read stuff I otherwise might not want to read.
> >
> >I am of course free to decide whether or not I want to take on the
> >responsibility, but then I don't think it would be right to pick and
> >choose and just accept the bits of it that I liked.
>
> Well said.
>
> I use a killfile in certain groups, for one person in particular. But I
> never use it on uk.net.news.config or uk.net.news.management, tiresome
> though it may be to waste time reading material from people who I am
> convinced from experience will never have anything either useful or
> pleasant to say. I consider it part of my job as a committee member to
> read every post in these groups, including theirs, *because I might be
> wrong* and they might just come up with something I needed to know. If
> I were a moderator, I would of course apply the same method to
> uk.net.news.moderation.
been done very badly, and that there remain some problems that could be
easily solved mainly by being less stubborn.
All the same, I would not expect you to feel obliged to read the output
of someone who isn't just tiresome or unpleasant, but almost remittingly
abusive.
If someone called you Wacko, a Gruppenführer, a fuckwit, untrustworthy
etc every time they referred to you, I wouldn't expect you to have to
read their output.
Daniele
Matthew Vernon
Sep 25, 2012, 4:40:33 AM9/25/12
to
"kat" <little...@hotmail.com> writes:
<much snippage>
> I said something before, about thinking as a committee member I should read
> the management groups and all posts in them, and tend to include the
> moderation group in that, at least until the thread runs off course. You
> both put it so much better than I ever could.
I, too, try and read all of unn* as a committee member. In my view, it
would be good if the moderation panel of each uk.* moderated group could
between them read all of unn.moderation, but I don't think it's
necessary for every moderator to do so.
Matthew
--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life
<much snippage>
> I said something before, about thinking as a committee member I should read
> the management groups and all posts in them, and tend to include the
> moderation group in that, at least until the thread runs off course. You
> both put it so much better than I ever could.
would be good if the moderation panel of each uk.* moderated group could
between them read all of unn.moderation, but I don't think it's
necessary for every moderator to do so.
Matthew
--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life
Tim Jackson
Sep 25, 2012, 5:04:13 AM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:40:33 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote...
> I, too, try and read all of unn* as a committee member. In my view, it
> would be good if the moderation panel of each uk.* moderated group could
> between them read all of unn.moderation, but I don't think it's
> necessary for every moderator to do so.
Fair enough if there's an effective system in place to monitor it,
answer questions and feed back information to the rest of the team. If
urcm has such a system, it didn't appear from Ian's prior post.
> I, too, try and read all of unn* as a committee member. In my view, it
> would be good if the moderation panel of each uk.* moderated group could
> between them read all of unn.moderation, but I don't think it's
> necessary for every moderator to do so.
answer questions and feed back information to the rest of the team. If
urcm has such a system, it didn't appear from Ian's prior post.
Andy Leighton
Sep 25, 2012, 5:20:34 AM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:04:13 +0100, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:40:33 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote...
>
>> I, too, try and read all of unn* as a committee member. In my view, it
>> would be good if the moderation panel of each uk.* moderated group could
>> between them read all of unn.moderation, but I don't think it's
>> necessary for every moderator to do so.
>
> Fair enough if there's an effective system in place to monitor it,
> answer questions and feed back information to the rest of the team. If
> urcm has such a system, it didn't appear from Ian's prior post.
Well Ian is just one man.
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:40:33 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote...
>
>> I, too, try and read all of unn* as a committee member. In my view, it
>> would be good if the moderation panel of each uk.* moderated group could
>> between them read all of unn.moderation, but I don't think it's
>> necessary for every moderator to do so.
>
> Fair enough if there's an effective system in place to monitor it,
> answer questions and feed back information to the rest of the team. If
> urcm has such a system, it didn't appear from Ian's prior post.
There are others on the moderation panel - we do not share a killfile.
I wouldn't say I read /all/ of unnm. Once a thread has deteriorated
I will ignore it. Plus I don't tend to read too closely those threads
about groups I am not invested in.
I don't think any group has an "effective system" it is more it has
moderators who are willing to read unnm and at times reply. System
to me implies something far more formal than individuals deciding
to do something.
--
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_
Owen Dunn
Sep 25, 2012, 5:31:05 AM9/25/12
to
Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> writes:
> I, too, try and read all of unn* as a committee member. In my view,
> it would be good if the moderation panel of each uk.* moderated
> group could between them read all of unn.moderation, but I don't
> think it's necessary for every moderator to do so.
Certainly if a rejection notice refers a complainant to unn.moderation
> I, too, try and read all of unn* as a committee member. In my view,
> it would be good if the moderation panel of each uk.* moderated
> group could between them read all of unn.moderation, but I don't
> think it's necessary for every moderator to do so.
then I think the relevant group's moderators do have a collective duty
to read that post, and if they don't want that duty they should avoid
referring people there.
(S)
Molly Mockford
Sep 25, 2012, 6:12:23 AM9/25/12
to
At 09:39:41 on Tue, 25 Sep 2012, D.M. Procida
<real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
<1kqz14c.1ame9lr1r29gmoN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>:
Ah, but Daniele, I don't get involved in that kind of face-to-face
slanging match. I am sure that you have noticed that it isn't just
Judith being rude to a handful of others; it's also the others being
rude to Judith. And nobody can reasonably cry "But Miss, s/he started
it!" because it is now so ingrained. Nobody involved in it now seems
capable of approaching it in a grown-up manner; each one is determined
to prove that they are superior to their opponent, but by childish
means.
Just for the record, I have never felt any inclination to killfile
Judith. Occasionally she has made posts which I think are of value. The
people I tend to killfile - one currently in the killfile, another
hovering on the verge at the moment - have absolutely nothing going for
them other than innate nastiness and a hugely inflated sense of their
own importance (and I am certainly not going to name them here - I count
that sort of behaviour as an example of "childish means").
<real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
<1kqz14c.1ame9lr1r29gmoN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>:
slanging match. I am sure that you have noticed that it isn't just
Judith being rude to a handful of others; it's also the others being
rude to Judith. And nobody can reasonably cry "But Miss, s/he started
it!" because it is now so ingrained. Nobody involved in it now seems
capable of approaching it in a grown-up manner; each one is determined
to prove that they are superior to their opponent, but by childish
means.
Just for the record, I have never felt any inclination to killfile
Judith. Occasionally she has made posts which I think are of value. The
people I tend to killfile - one currently in the killfile, another
hovering on the verge at the moment - have absolutely nothing going for
them other than innate nastiness and a hugely inflated sense of their
own importance (and I am certainly not going to name them here - I count
that sort of behaviour as an example of "childish means").
Tim Jackson
Sep 25, 2012, 6:25:55 AM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:20:34 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote...
> I don't think any group has an "effective system" it is more it has
> moderators who are willing to read unnm and at times reply. System
> to me implies something far more formal than individuals deciding
> to do something.
It doesn't have to be particularly formal to be effective. But Ian's
position was that he killfiled people and didn't know whether the rest
of the moderators did likewise. That's not exactly reassuring.
> I don't think any group has an "effective system" it is more it has
> moderators who are willing to read unnm and at times reply. System
> to me implies something far more formal than individuals deciding
> to do something.
position was that he killfiled people and didn't know whether the rest
of the moderators did likewise. That's not exactly reassuring.
kat
Sep 25, 2012, 6:45:11 AM9/25/12
to
Matthew Vernon wrote:
> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> <much snippage>
>
>> I said something before, about thinking as a committee member I
>> should read the management groups and all posts in them, and tend to
>> include the moderation group in that, at least until the thread runs
>> off course. You both put it so much better than I ever could.
>
> I, too, try and read all of unn* as a committee member. In my view, it
> would be good if the moderation panel of each uk.* moderated group
> could between them read all of unn.moderation, but I don't think it's
> necessary for every moderator to do so.
>
I would agree with that, as long as the ones reading took the trouble to
> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> <much snippage>
>
>> I said something before, about thinking as a committee member I
>> should read the management groups and all posts in them, and tend to
>> include the moderation group in that, at least until the thread runs
>> off course. You both put it so much better than I ever could.
>
> I, too, try and read all of unn* as a committee member. In my view, it
> would be good if the moderation panel of each uk.* moderated group
> could between them read all of unn.moderation, but I don't think it's
> necessary for every moderator to do so.
>
report back. As long as the main point is taken about any comment or query
in respect of their particular group, and the threads checked for on topic
responses, I am sure we don't need every mod reading and answering. But it
does seem that sometimes things just get ignored, when a few words might not
shut up the complainant but would satisfy the rest of us.
I do hate to harp on about it, but it is something ulm mods seem to do just
fine. Even when the complainant doesn't get what they want they go off
satisfied. Or at least shut up.:-)
--
kat
>^..^<
kat
Sep 25, 2012, 6:51:45 AM9/25/12
to
Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:04:13 +0100, Tim Jackson
> <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:40:33 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote...
>>
>>> I, too, try and read all of unn* as a committee member. In my view,
>>> it would be good if the moderation panel of each uk.* moderated
>>> group could between them read all of unn.moderation, but I don't
>>> think it's necessary for every moderator to do so.
>>
>> Fair enough if there's an effective system in place to monitor it,
>> answer questions and feed back information to the rest of the team.
>> If urcm has such a system, it didn't appear from Ian's prior post.
>
> Well Ian is just one man.
>
> There are others on the moderation panel - we do not share a killfile.
> I wouldn't say I read /all/ of unnm. Once a thread has deteriorated
> I will ignore it. Plus I don't tend to read too closely those threads
> about groups I am not invested in.
>
I think that is fair enough. But even a degenerated thread might throw up a
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:04:13 +0100, Tim Jackson
> <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:40:33 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote...
>>
>>> I, too, try and read all of unn* as a committee member. In my view,
>>> it would be good if the moderation panel of each uk.* moderated
>>> group could between them read all of unn.moderation, but I don't
>>> think it's necessary for every moderator to do so.
>>
>> Fair enough if there's an effective system in place to monitor it,
>> answer questions and feed back information to the rest of the team.
>> If urcm has such a system, it didn't appear from Ian's prior post.
>
> Well Ian is just one man.
>
> There are others on the moderation panel - we do not share a killfile.
> I wouldn't say I read /all/ of unnm. Once a thread has deteriorated
> I will ignore it. Plus I don't tend to read too closely those threads
> about groups I am not invested in.
>
good point a few days later, so it could be worth choosing a post or two
just to scan, maybe from a poster you feel is likely to say something you
would be happy to read. Threads about other groups might give insight, but I
don't see any great reason for you to read all of those.
--
kat
>^..^<
Andy Leighton
Sep 25, 2012, 7:00:15 AM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:25:55 +0100, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:20:34 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote...
>
>> I don't think any group has an "effective system" it is more it has
>> moderators who are willing to read unnm and at times reply. System
>> to me implies something far more formal than individuals deciding
>> to do something.
>
> It doesn't have to be particularly formal to be effective. But Ian's
> position was that he killfiled people and didn't know whether the rest
> of the moderators did likewise. That's not exactly reassuring.
Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:20:34 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote...
>
>> I don't think any group has an "effective system" it is more it has
>> moderators who are willing to read unnm and at times reply. System
>> to me implies something far more formal than individuals deciding
>> to do something.
>
> It doesn't have to be particularly formal to be effective. But Ian's
> position was that he killfiled people and didn't know whether the rest
> of the moderators did likewise. That's not exactly reassuring.
He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
members.
Tim Jackson
Sep 25, 2012, 7:41:05 AM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote...
> Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
> He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
> find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
> members.
Exactly the point. You none of you know whether your monitoring is
effective. You may all have the same people in your killfiles, with the
result that although you periodically browse unnm, you may all miss out
on something significant.
Unfortunately Ian gives the impression (quite possibly an incorrect
impression, but an impression nevertheless) that not only does he not
know, but neither does he care.
> Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
> He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
> find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
> members.
effective. You may all have the same people in your killfiles, with the
result that although you periodically browse unnm, you may all miss out
on something significant.
Unfortunately Ian gives the impression (quite possibly an incorrect
impression, but an impression nevertheless) that not only does he not
know, but neither does he care.
Steve Firth
Sep 25, 2012, 11:45:37 AM9/25/12
to
Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
believing that nothing he does can be questioned and that he has pope-like
infallibility. See his past performance and fall out with UKV for example.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
[snip]
>
> Unfortunately Ian gives the impression (quite possibly an incorrect
> impression, but an impression nevertheless) that not only does he not
> know, but neither does he care.
I don't think that is a false impression. Ian Jackson has a history of
> Unfortunately Ian gives the impression (quite possibly an incorrect
> impression, but an impression nevertheless) that not only does he not
> know, but neither does he care.
believing that nothing he does can be questioned and that he has pope-like
infallibility. See his past performance and fall out with UKV for example.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Paul Cummins
Sep 25, 2012, 12:20:00 PM9/25/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
came up to me and whispered:
>
> I don't think that is a false impression. Ian Jackson has a
> history of believing that nothing he does can be questioned and
> that he has pope-like infallibility. See his past performance and
> fall out with UKV for example.
Or the fact that, two weeks after his SAUCE code has been fixed, he's
still not implemented an RFC 5321 compiant version on Chiark.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
came up to me and whispered:
>
> I don't think that is a false impression. Ian Jackson has a
> history of believing that nothing he does can be questioned and
> that he has pope-like infallibility. See his past performance and
> fall out with UKV for example.
still not implemented an RFC 5321 compiant version on Chiark.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
Message has been deleted
Steve Walker
Sep 25, 2012, 3:39:03 PM9/25/12
to
"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k3l8id$dar$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Molly Mockford" wrote in message news:GHqthBDt...@molly.mockford...
> At 18:14:17 on Sat, 22 Sep 2012, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote
> in <k3krl9$s9f$1...@dont-email.me>:
>
>>I cannot prove beyond all doubt that my posts were being deliberately
>>delayed but at one point, all of my posts were taking as much as 24 hours
>>to get approved while messages from other people were "sailing though" in
>>a couple of hours. This happened consistently. It has since improved
>>considerably now the problem has been highlighted. Perhaps the moderators
>>are at last taking notice now that this malpractice has been brought to
>>wider attention.
>
> It is a possibility worth considering that the lack of standard accepted
> formatting of your posts might, at first, lead the moderators (as it does
> any other readers) to think that they are re-posts of somebody else's
> posts, until one scrolls all the way down and finds a row of equals signs
> which you apparently use as a personalised delimiter.
> ===========================================
>
> That is a fair point. I need to use a different news client.
Due to a tragic oversight by Microsoft, Live Mail v14.0.8117.0416 handles
usenet posting correctly. It can still be found, downloaded and installed,
and if you decline updates during the process you'll be fine.
Tim Jackson
Sep 25, 2012, 4:21:35 PM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:48:34 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote...
> No, it starts from an eventual realisation, after some period of
> attempting to get any sensible discussion, that the poster in question
> is not worth communicating with.
I suppose that must be why you yesterday joined in a discussion in urcm
about the history of cycle tracks. (It followed on from a sub-thread of
the "redux" thread in this group.)
While I've not checked if any posts were rejected, the discussion in
urcm seems to have been entirely sensible, pleasant, civilised and of
interest to cyclists.
Your post was a direct followup to the person who started that
discussion. Unless anyone can correct me, that person is a fairly
obvious sock of the very poster I assume you are now referring to, who
you say is not worth communicating with.
So have you fallen for an outrageous troll? No, I don't think so. I
think that you and a significant number of other urcm users have just
had a perfectly reasonable discussion about cycling.
> No, it starts from an eventual realisation, after some period of
> attempting to get any sensible discussion, that the poster in question
> is not worth communicating with.
I suppose that must be why you yesterday joined in a discussion in urcm
about the history of cycle tracks. (It followed on from a sub-thread of
the "redux" thread in this group.)
While I've not checked if any posts were rejected, the discussion in
urcm seems to have been entirely sensible, pleasant, civilised and of
interest to cyclists.
Your post was a direct followup to the person who started that
discussion. Unless anyone can correct me, that person is a fairly
obvious sock of the very poster I assume you are now referring to, who
you say is not worth communicating with.
So have you fallen for an outrageous troll? No, I don't think so. I
think that you and a significant number of other urcm users have just
had a perfectly reasonable discussion about cycling.
Rob Morley
Sep 25, 2012, 4:27:56 PM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:39:03 +0100
"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
> Due to a tragic oversight by Microsoft, Live Mail v14.0.8117.0416
> handles usenet posting correctly. It can still be found, downloaded
> and installed, and if you decline updates during the process you'll
> be fine.
>
A quick search reveals nothing but spammy websites and outdated links.
"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
> Due to a tragic oversight by Microsoft, Live Mail v14.0.8117.0416
> handles usenet posting correctly. It can still be found, downloaded
> and installed, and if you decline updates during the process you'll
> be fine.
>
Microplanet Gravity is a good free news client, and much easier to find.
Mark Goodge
Sep 25, 2012, 4:47:52 PM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:27:56 +0100, Rob Morley put finger to keyboard and
typed:
Thunderbird is perfectly adequate for news, and is probably easier for a
user of Live Mail to get to grips with than Gravity.
Usenet clients can broadly be divided into three categories: Dedicated
Usenet clients designed specifically for that purpose; Mail clients which
do Usenet as an additional feature but handle it competantly, and Mail
clients which do Usenet as an additional feature but don't handle it
competantly.
Category 1 includes the likes of Microplanet Gravity and Forte Agent (which
is my personal preference), and are the tool of choice for people Usenet
"power users" (or who, like me, first came to Usenet when dedicated clients
were pretty much all that was on offer), but I'd be the first to admit that
they can be a bit intimidating to someone unfamiliar with them. The second
category, of general mail/news clients that do a competant job, is what I'd
expect most people to be using these days. Of these, Thunderbird is
probably the most widely used. The third category contains many (but not
all, as Steve Walker has pointed out) Microsoft packages as well as several
others. I can sort of forgive people for using these, but I would encourage
them to migrate to something better as soon as possible.
There is a fourth category, and that has one sole occupant: The "new"
version of Google Groups. That is so horrendously bad that there is no
justification whatsoever for using it, and I have absolutely no sympathy
with anyone who does.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
typed:
user of Live Mail to get to grips with than Gravity.
Usenet clients can broadly be divided into three categories: Dedicated
Usenet clients designed specifically for that purpose; Mail clients which
do Usenet as an additional feature but handle it competantly, and Mail
clients which do Usenet as an additional feature but don't handle it
competantly.
Category 1 includes the likes of Microplanet Gravity and Forte Agent (which
is my personal preference), and are the tool of choice for people Usenet
"power users" (or who, like me, first came to Usenet when dedicated clients
were pretty much all that was on offer), but I'd be the first to admit that
they can be a bit intimidating to someone unfamiliar with them. The second
category, of general mail/news clients that do a competant job, is what I'd
expect most people to be using these days. Of these, Thunderbird is
probably the most widely used. The third category contains many (but not
all, as Steve Walker has pointed out) Microsoft packages as well as several
others. I can sort of forgive people for using these, but I would encourage
them to migrate to something better as soon as possible.
There is a fourth category, and that has one sole occupant: The "new"
version of Google Groups. That is so horrendously bad that there is no
justification whatsoever for using it, and I have absolutely no sympathy
with anyone who does.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Tony
Sep 25, 2012, 5:52:56 PM9/25/12
to
In uk.net.news.config, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:27:56 +0100, Rob Morley put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:39:03 +0100
>>"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Due to a tragic oversight by Microsoft, Live Mail v14.0.8117.0416
>>> handles usenet posting correctly. It can still be found, downloaded
>>> and installed, and if you decline updates during the process you'll
>>> be fine.
>>>
>>A quick search reveals nothing but spammy websites and outdated links.
>>Microplanet Gravity is a good free news client, and much easier to find.
>
>Thunderbird is perfectly adequate for news, and is probably easier for a
>user of Live Mail to get to grips with than Gravity.
>
>Usenet clients can broadly be divided into three categories: Dedicated
>Usenet clients designed specifically for that purpose; Mail clients which
>do Usenet as an additional feature but handle it competantly, and Mail
>clients which do Usenet as an additional feature but don't handle it
>competantly.
I would break that first category down into two, or two sub-categories.
1. News clients which handle text, and have some hacked on binary file
management in the background.
2. News clients designed primarily to handle massive amounts of binary
content (Newsbin, for example).
--
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 ]
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:27:56 +0100, Rob Morley put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:39:03 +0100
>>"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Due to a tragic oversight by Microsoft, Live Mail v14.0.8117.0416
>>> handles usenet posting correctly. It can still be found, downloaded
>>> and installed, and if you decline updates during the process you'll
>>> be fine.
>>>
>>A quick search reveals nothing but spammy websites and outdated links.
>>Microplanet Gravity is a good free news client, and much easier to find.
>
>Thunderbird is perfectly adequate for news, and is probably easier for a
>user of Live Mail to get to grips with than Gravity.
>
>Usenet clients can broadly be divided into three categories: Dedicated
>Usenet clients designed specifically for that purpose; Mail clients which
>do Usenet as an additional feature but handle it competantly, and Mail
>clients which do Usenet as an additional feature but don't handle it
>competantly.
1. News clients which handle text, and have some hacked on binary file
management in the background.
2. News clients designed primarily to handle massive amounts of binary
content (Newsbin, for example).
--
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 ]
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Tony
Sep 26, 2012, 3:08:34 AM9/26/12
to
In uk.net.news.config, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Tue, 25 Sep
>excessive firewalling or "traffic management" that makes the use of
>anything but port 80 impossible.
You can get to Eternal September on port 80 and port 443. This won't help
for locations which block all external access unless via a proxy, but may
help for locations which block purely by port at a firewall.
http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=techinfo
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Tue, 25 Sep
>2012 21:47:52 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>There is a fourth category, and that has one sole occupant: The "new"
>>version of Google Groups. That is so horrendously bad that there is no
>>justification whatsoever for using it, and I have absolutely no sympathy
>>with anyone who does.
>>
>>Mark
>
>I could have some sympathy with someone having to use it due to
>
>>There is a fourth category, and that has one sole occupant: The "new"
>>version of Google Groups. That is so horrendously bad that there is no
>>justification whatsoever for using it, and I have absolutely no sympathy
>>with anyone who does.
>>
>>Mark
>
>excessive firewalling or "traffic management" that makes the use of
>anything but port 80 impossible.
You can get to Eternal September on port 80 and port 443. This won't help
for locations which block all external access unless via a proxy, but may
help for locations which block purely by port at a firewall.
http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=techinfo
Mark Goodge
Sep 26, 2012, 3:13:02 AM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:07:54 +0100, Phil W Lee put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Tue, 25 Sep
>2012 21:47:52 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
only use Usenet out of work time.
typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Tue, 25 Sep
>2012 21:47:52 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>There is a fourth category, and that has one sole occupant: The "new"
>>version of Google Groups. That is so horrendously bad that there is no
>>justification whatsoever for using it, and I have absolutely no sympathy
>>with anyone who does.
>>
>>Mark
>
>>version of Google Groups. That is so horrendously bad that there is no
>>justification whatsoever for using it, and I have absolutely no sympathy
>>with anyone who does.
>>
>>Mark
>
>I could have some sympathy with someone having to use it due to
>excessive firewalling or "traffic management" that makes the use of
>anything but port 80 impossible.
No; I would just expect them to do what a lot of us already do, that is,
>excessive firewalling or "traffic management" that makes the use of
>anything but port 80 impossible.
only use Usenet out of work time.
kat
Sep 26, 2012, 3:55:46 AM9/26/12
to
Phil W Lee wrote:
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> considered Tue, 25 Sep 2012
>>
>> So have you fallen for an outrageous troll? No, I don't think so. I
>> think that you and a significant number of other urcm users have just
>> had a perfectly reasonable discussion about cycling.
>
> Has the original poster contributed anything more than the first post?
If the mods have now come to the same conclusion as Tim, would they have
been allowed to contribute. :-) I see they did post in another thread about
Shared Paths the day after, but much of their thread seems to have been
after that.
I don't cycle these days so threads about bikes don't interest me. A
majority of the cyclists I see seem to wear helmets, and I can't work myself
up about that. But cycle lanes and shared pavements do affect me as a
pedestrian and driver and I found those threads interesting. Does it matter
who started them, or what their motive might have been, if their post was
polite and on topic, and the responses polite and useful? As a troll it
fails.
--
kat
>^..^<
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> considered Tue, 25 Sep 2012
>>
>> So have you fallen for an outrageous troll? No, I don't think so. I
>> think that you and a significant number of other urcm users have just
>> had a perfectly reasonable discussion about cycling.
>
If the mods have now come to the same conclusion as Tim, would they have
been allowed to contribute. :-) I see they did post in another thread about
Shared Paths the day after, but much of their thread seems to have been
after that.
I don't cycle these days so threads about bikes don't interest me. A
majority of the cyclists I see seem to wear helmets, and I can't work myself
up about that. But cycle lanes and shared pavements do affect me as a
pedestrian and driver and I found those threads interesting. Does it matter
who started them, or what their motive might have been, if their post was
polite and on topic, and the responses polite and useful? As a troll it
fails.
--
kat
>^..^<
Alan Braggins
Sep 26, 2012, 4:10:37 AM9/26/12
to
In article <MPG.2acba8451...@text.usenet.plus.net>, Tim Jackson wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote...
>
>> Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
>> He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
>> find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
>> members.
>
>Exactly the point. You none of you know whether your monitoring is
>effective. You may all have the same people in your killfiles, with the
>result that although you periodically browse unnm, you may all miss out
>on something significant.
Because someone who multiple people have decided is unlikely to say
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500, Andy Leighton wrote...
>
>> Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
>> He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
>> find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
>> members.
>
>Exactly the point. You none of you know whether your monitoring is
>effective. You may all have the same people in your killfiles, with the
>result that although you periodically browse unnm, you may all miss out
>on something significant.
anything worthwhile might say something which is significant, but
provokes no comment from anybody who isn't in killfiles? Hardly a
major risk, especially compared with some of the misrepresentation
and point missing from people who don't mention using killfiles.
Richard Kettlewell
Sep 26, 2012, 5:04:52 AM9/26/12
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
> Thunderbird is perfectly adequate for news, and is probably easier for a
> user of Live Mail to get to grips with than Gravity.
>
> Usenet clients can broadly be divided into three categories: Dedicated
> Usenet clients designed specifically for that purpose; Mail clients which
> do Usenet as an additional feature but handle it competantly, and Mail
> clients which do Usenet as an additional feature but don't handle it
> competantly.
>
> Category 1 includes the likes of Microplanet Gravity and Forte Agent (which
> is my personal preference), and are the tool of choice for people Usenet
> "power users" (or who, like me, first came to Usenet when dedicated clients
> were pretty much all that was on offer), but I'd be the first to admit that
> they can be a bit intimidating to someone unfamiliar with them. The second
> category, of general mail/news clients that do a competant job, is what I'd
> expect most people to be using these days. Of these, Thunderbird is
> probably the most widely used. The third category contains many (but not
> all, as Steve Walker has pointed out) Microsoft packages as well as several
> others. I can sort of forgive people for using these, but I would encourage
> them to migrate to something better as soon as possible.
>
> There is a fourth category, and that has one sole occupant: The "new"
> version of Google Groups. That is so horrendously bad that there is no
> justification whatsoever for using it, and I have absolutely no sympathy
> with anyone who does.
FWIW my feed shows Google Groups as the runaway winner (by number of
> Thunderbird is perfectly adequate for news, and is probably easier for a
> user of Live Mail to get to grips with than Gravity.
>
> Usenet clients can broadly be divided into three categories: Dedicated
> Usenet clients designed specifically for that purpose; Mail clients which
> do Usenet as an additional feature but handle it competantly, and Mail
> clients which do Usenet as an additional feature but don't handle it
> competantly.
>
> Category 1 includes the likes of Microplanet Gravity and Forte Agent (which
> is my personal preference), and are the tool of choice for people Usenet
> "power users" (or who, like me, first came to Usenet when dedicated clients
> were pretty much all that was on offer), but I'd be the first to admit that
> they can be a bit intimidating to someone unfamiliar with them. The second
> category, of general mail/news clients that do a competant job, is what I'd
> expect most people to be using these days. Of these, Thunderbird is
> probably the most widely used. The third category contains many (but not
> all, as Steve Walker has pointed out) Microsoft packages as well as several
> others. I can sort of forgive people for using these, but I would encourage
> them to migrate to something better as soon as possible.
>
> There is a fourth category, and that has one sole occupant: The "new"
> version of Google Groups. That is so horrendously bad that there is no
> justification whatsoever for using it, and I have absolutely no sympathy
> with anyone who does.
posters), though it doesn't distinguish the new and old versions.
Thunderbird is second, Outlook (in all its various forms) third, Forte
Agent fourth and Turnpike fifth.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Andy Leighton
Sep 26, 2012, 5:36:57 AM9/26/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:47:52 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:27:56 +0100, Rob Morley put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:39:03 +0100
>>"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Due to a tragic oversight by Microsoft, Live Mail v14.0.8117.0416
>>> handles usenet posting correctly. It can still be found, downloaded
>>> and installed, and if you decline updates during the process you'll
>>> be fine.
>>>
>>A quick search reveals nothing but spammy websites and outdated links.
>>Microplanet Gravity is a good free news client, and much easier to find.
>
> Thunderbird is perfectly adequate for news, and is probably easier for a
> user of Live Mail to get to grips with than Gravity.
>
> Usenet clients can broadly be divided into three categories: Dedicated
> Usenet clients designed specifically for that purpose; Mail clients which
> do Usenet as an additional feature but handle it competantly, and Mail
> clients which do Usenet as an additional feature but don't handle it
> competantly.
>
> Category 1 includes the likes of Microplanet Gravity and Forte Agent (which
> is my personal preference), and are the tool of choice for people Usenet
> "power users" (or who, like me, first came to Usenet when dedicated clients
> were pretty much all that was on offer),
Are you must be second or third wave then. I started when rn (the original)
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:27:56 +0100, Rob Morley put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:39:03 +0100
>>"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Due to a tragic oversight by Microsoft, Live Mail v14.0.8117.0416
>>> handles usenet posting correctly. It can still be found, downloaded
>>> and installed, and if you decline updates during the process you'll
>>> be fine.
>>>
>>A quick search reveals nothing but spammy websites and outdated links.
>>Microplanet Gravity is a good free news client, and much easier to find.
>
> Thunderbird is perfectly adequate for news, and is probably easier for a
> user of Live Mail to get to grips with than Gravity.
>
> Usenet clients can broadly be divided into three categories: Dedicated
> Usenet clients designed specifically for that purpose; Mail clients which
> do Usenet as an additional feature but handle it competantly, and Mail
> clients which do Usenet as an additional feature but don't handle it
> competantly.
>
> Category 1 includes the likes of Microplanet Gravity and Forte Agent (which
> is my personal preference), and are the tool of choice for people Usenet
> "power users" (or who, like me, first came to Usenet when dedicated clients
> were pretty much all that was on offer),
was all that was available.
But generally I think a text-mode newsreader would be too much of a
culture shock for many these days and generally agree with your
summary and recommendation.
Judith
Sep 26, 2012, 9:47:44 AM9/26/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
>He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
>find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
>members.
I think you are clearly misusing the word "team" there.
So there is a clear danger that you are making promises and suggestions which
are not met - as has previously been pointed out.
In some circumstances people are clearly directed to unnm for clarification by
the moderation team.
Their requests for information are ignored.
It is just another example of how broken is the moderation of URCM.
What I find incredible is that it would be so easy for you - the "team" of
moderators - to ensure that such requests are honoured. But you just seem to
be "not arsed".
Why not say (as I have suggested before) - that all formal requests to URCM
moderators by posting in UNNM should contain in the subject something like
"Attention URCM Moderators". You could collectively then ensure that such
requests were dealt with.
That of course will mean that you will be unable to answer the difficult
questions and continue to pretend that no moderator saw them
I think it is incredible that people have to make these sort of simple
suggestions to you the moderators (and management) of URCM to improve things
and deal with your public in a much better fashion.
Perhaps you just don't want to do things in a much better fashion.
<snip>
>Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
>He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
>find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
>members.
So there is a clear danger that you are making promises and suggestions which
are not met - as has previously been pointed out.
In some circumstances people are clearly directed to unnm for clarification by
the moderation team.
Their requests for information are ignored.
It is just another example of how broken is the moderation of URCM.
What I find incredible is that it would be so easy for you - the "team" of
moderators - to ensure that such requests are honoured. But you just seem to
be "not arsed".
Why not say (as I have suggested before) - that all formal requests to URCM
moderators by posting in UNNM should contain in the subject something like
"Attention URCM Moderators". You could collectively then ensure that such
requests were dealt with.
That of course will mean that you will be unable to answer the difficult
questions and continue to pretend that no moderator saw them
I think it is incredible that people have to make these sort of simple
suggestions to you the moderators (and management) of URCM to improve things
and deal with your public in a much better fashion.
Perhaps you just don't want to do things in a much better fashion.
Tony
Sep 26, 2012, 9:53:24 AM9/26/12
to
On 2012-09-26, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
>>He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
>>find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
>>members.
>
> I think you are clearly misusing the word "team" there.
>
>
> So there is a clear danger that you are making promises and suggestions which
> are not met - as has previously been pointed out.
>
> In some circumstances people are clearly directed to unnm for clarification by
> the moderation team.
>
> Their requests for information are ignored.
Can you list the last 15 request which were ignored, message ID, date,
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
>>He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
>>find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
>>members.
>
> I think you are clearly misusing the word "team" there.
>
>
> So there is a clear danger that you are making promises and suggestions which
> are not met - as has previously been pointed out.
>
> In some circumstances people are clearly directed to unnm for clarification by
> the moderation team.
>
> Their requests for information are ignored.
requester name, and brief summary will do. Thanks.
Judith
Sep 26, 2012, 10:23:32 AM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:26:05 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> considered Tue, 25 Sep 2012
>And what makes you think my answer was for their benefit?
>You assume that they have any interest in the answer to their trolling
>- all I did was correct some of the leading assertions, then got
>carried away on the subject.
URCM with a genuine question. Of course if someone had immediately told them
were to go, how they were badly informed, or to use a motorway instead - who
knows where that would have lead to :-)
There were a couple of subtle clues in the post itself:
"I am wondering when cycle paths really became used in the UK - and when the
idea that they may be more dangerous than using the road at their side became a
view among some people."
"I am more than willing to be corrected. What do others think?"
Of course if the OP had then engaged in the discussion - they could have been
dismissed as an obvious troll and not worth responding to.
>Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> considered Tue, 25 Sep 2012
>21:21:35 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:48:34 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote...
>>
>>> No, it starts from an eventual realisation, after some period of
>>> attempting to get any sensible discussion, that the poster in question
>>> is not worth communicating with.
>>
>>I suppose that must be why you yesterday joined in a discussion in urcm
>>about the history of cycle tracks. (It followed on from a sub-thread of
>>the "redux" thread in this group.)
>>
>>While I've not checked if any posts were rejected, the discussion in
>>urcm seems to have been entirely sensible, pleasant, civilised and of
>>interest to cyclists.
>>
>>Your post was a direct followup to the person who started that
>>discussion. Unless anyone can correct me, that person is a fairly
>>obvious sock of the very poster I assume you are now referring to, who
>>you say is not worth communicating with.
>
>Yes, that is correct - I don't use a killfile for urcm.
>
>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:48:34 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote...
>>
>>> No, it starts from an eventual realisation, after some period of
>>> attempting to get any sensible discussion, that the poster in question
>>> is not worth communicating with.
>>
>>I suppose that must be why you yesterday joined in a discussion in urcm
>>about the history of cycle tracks. (It followed on from a sub-thread of
>>the "redux" thread in this group.)
>>
>>While I've not checked if any posts were rejected, the discussion in
>>urcm seems to have been entirely sensible, pleasant, civilised and of
>>interest to cyclists.
>>
>>Your post was a direct followup to the person who started that
>>discussion. Unless anyone can correct me, that person is a fairly
>>obvious sock of the very poster I assume you are now referring to, who
>>you say is not worth communicating with.
>
>And what makes you think my answer was for their benefit?
>You assume that they have any interest in the answer to their trolling
>- all I did was correct some of the leading assertions, then got
>carried away on the subject.
>>
>>So have you fallen for an outrageous troll? No, I don't think so. I
>>think that you and a significant number of other urcm users have just
>>had a perfectly reasonable discussion about cycling.
>
>>So have you fallen for an outrageous troll? No, I don't think so. I
>>think that you and a significant number of other urcm users have just
>>had a perfectly reasonable discussion about cycling.
>
>Has the original poster contributed anything more than the first post?
Perhaps the original poster was just asking for the views of the regulars of
URCM with a genuine question. Of course if someone had immediately told them
were to go, how they were badly informed, or to use a motorway instead - who
knows where that would have lead to :-)
There were a couple of subtle clues in the post itself:
"I am wondering when cycle paths really became used in the UK - and when the
idea that they may be more dangerous than using the road at their side became a
view among some people."
"I am more than willing to be corrected. What do others think?"
Of course if the OP had then engaged in the discussion - they could have been
dismissed as an obvious troll and not worth responding to.
Mark Goodge
Sep 26, 2012, 1:15:34 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:04:52 +0100, Richard Kettlewell put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> There is a fourth category, and that has one sole occupant: The "new"
>> version of Google Groups. That is so horrendously bad that there is no
>> justification whatsoever for using it, and I have absolutely no sympathy
>> with anyone who does.
>
>FWIW my feed shows Google Groups as the runaway winner (by number of
>posters), though it doesn't distinguish the new and old versions.
>Thunderbird is second, Outlook (in all its various forms) third, Forte
>Agent fourth and Turnpike fifth.
Annoyingly, there is no way to distinguish between different versions of
Google Groups by checking the User-Agent (which is another thing which is
broken, of course). You have to look at other headers to be able to tell
the difference.
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> There is a fourth category, and that has one sole occupant: The "new"
>> version of Google Groups. That is so horrendously bad that there is no
>> justification whatsoever for using it, and I have absolutely no sympathy
>> with anyone who does.
>
>FWIW my feed shows Google Groups as the runaway winner (by number of
>posters), though it doesn't distinguish the new and old versions.
>Thunderbird is second, Outlook (in all its various forms) third, Forte
>Agent fourth and Turnpike fifth.
Google Groups by checking the User-Agent (which is another thing which is
broken, of course). You have to look at other headers to be able to tell
the difference.
Mark Goodge
Sep 26, 2012, 1:17:39 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:36:57 -0500, Andy Leighton put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:47:52 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Category 1 includes the likes of Microplanet Gravity and Forte Agent (which
>> is my personal preference), and are the tool of choice for people Usenet
>> "power users" (or who, like me, first came to Usenet when dedicated clients
>> were pretty much all that was on offer),
>
>Are you must be second or third wave then. I started when rn (the original)
>was all that was available.
1994 was when I started, and I initially used tin, but switched to Free
Agent fairly soon afterwards.
and typed:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:47:52 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Category 1 includes the likes of Microplanet Gravity and Forte Agent (which
>> is my personal preference), and are the tool of choice for people Usenet
>> "power users" (or who, like me, first came to Usenet when dedicated clients
>> were pretty much all that was on offer),
>
>Are you must be second or third wave then. I started when rn (the original)
>was all that was available.
Agent fairly soon afterwards.
M Wicks
Sep 26, 2012, 2:01:30 PM9/26/12
to
On Sep 26, 8:13 am, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:
Nothing wrong with using Usenet in work time, as long as you have the
permission of the boss. If, for example, you are trying to purge a
newsgroup of trolls by interrupting their trolling threads (an
approach which usually pays dividends in discouraging them), it's
necessary to strike while the iron's hot, rather than waiting until
the end of your shift. If the trolls then complain to your company's
site (thus showing that they are rattled), your boss can tell them to
take a running jump. And if the trolls subsequently take their
spurious and malicious complaint to your head office's HR then you can
explain the situation to them too. The trolls are always one step
behind and WILL NEVER WIN.
wrote:
permission of the boss. If, for example, you are trying to purge a
newsgroup of trolls by interrupting their trolling threads (an
approach which usually pays dividends in discouraging them), it's
necessary to strike while the iron's hot, rather than waiting until
the end of your shift. If the trolls then complain to your company's
site (thus showing that they are rattled), your boss can tell them to
take a running jump. And if the trolls subsequently take their
spurious and malicious complaint to your head office's HR then you can
explain the situation to them too. The trolls are always one step
behind and WILL NEVER WIN.
JNugent
Sep 26, 2012, 2:38:44 PM9/26/12
to
On 26/09/2012 19:01, M Wicks wrote:
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> Phil W Lee put finger to keyboard and typed:
>>> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>:
>>>> There is a fourth category, and that has one sole occupant: The "new"
>>>> version of Google Groups. That is so horrendously bad that there is no
>>>> justification whatsoever for using it, and I have absolutely no sympathy
>>>> with anyone who does.
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> Phil W Lee put finger to keyboard and typed:
>>>> There is a fourth category, and that has one sole occupant: The "new"
>>>> version of Google Groups. That is so horrendously bad that there is no
>>>> justification whatsoever for using it, and I have absolutely no sympathy
>>>> with anyone who does.
>>> I could have some sympathy with someone having to use it due to
>>> excessive firewalling or "traffic management" that makes the use of
>>> anything but port 80 impossible.
>> No; I would just expect them to do what a lot of us already do, that is,
>> only use Usenet out of work time.
> Nothing wrong with using Usenet in work time, as long as you have the
> permission of the boss. If, for example, you are trying to purge a
> newsgroup of trolls by interrupting their trolling threads (an
> approach which usually pays dividends in discouraging them), it's
> necessary to strike while the iron's hot, rather than waiting until
> the end of your shift. If the trolls then complain to your company's
> site (thus showing that they are rattled), your boss can tell them to
> take a running jump. And if the trolls subsequently take their
> spurious and malicious complaint to your head office's HR then you can
> explain the situation to them too. The trolls are always one step
> behind and WILL NEVER WIN.
Extraordinary...
>>> excessive firewalling or "traffic management" that makes the use of
>>> anything but port 80 impossible.
>> No; I would just expect them to do what a lot of us already do, that is,
>> only use Usenet out of work time.
> Nothing wrong with using Usenet in work time, as long as you have the
> permission of the boss. If, for example, you are trying to purge a
> newsgroup of trolls by interrupting their trolling threads (an
> approach which usually pays dividends in discouraging them), it's
> necessary to strike while the iron's hot, rather than waiting until
> the end of your shift. If the trolls then complain to your company's
> site (thus showing that they are rattled), your boss can tell them to
> take a running jump. And if the trolls subsequently take their
> spurious and malicious complaint to your head office's HR then you can
> explain the situation to them too. The trolls are always one step
> behind and WILL NEVER WIN.
Andy Leighton
Sep 26, 2012, 2:42:50 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:17:39 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:36:57 -0500, Andy Leighton put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:47:52 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Category 1 includes the likes of Microplanet Gravity and Forte Agent (which
>>> is my personal preference), and are the tool of choice for people Usenet
>>> "power users" (or who, like me, first came to Usenet when dedicated clients
>>> were pretty much all that was on offer),
>>
>>Are you must be second or third wave then. I started when rn (the original)
>>was all that was available.
>
> 1994 was when I started, and I initially used tin, but switched to Free
> Agent fairly soon afterwards.
1984 was my first exposure, but really only started in 1985.
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:36:57 -0500, Andy Leighton put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:47:52 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Category 1 includes the likes of Microplanet Gravity and Forte Agent (which
>>> is my personal preference), and are the tool of choice for people Usenet
>>> "power users" (or who, like me, first came to Usenet when dedicated clients
>>> were pretty much all that was on offer),
>>
>>Are you must be second or third wave then. I started when rn (the original)
>>was all that was available.
>
> 1994 was when I started, and I initially used tin, but switched to Free
> Agent fairly soon afterwards.
Percy Picacity
Sep 26, 2012, 3:40:41 PM9/26/12
to
try to avenge a real or imagined slight on usenet by trying to get
someone into trouble with their employer. Of course it is difficult to
prove if the individual acts anonymously or the employer refuses to
reveal their identity. And they will undoubtedly feel their action is
completely justified by their unfortunate life experience; but then
the egregious murderer of the two police officers recently will no
doubt have his own tale of woe and self-justification.
--
Percy Picacity
Matthew Vernon
Sep 26, 2012, 4:33:15 PM9/26/12
to
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) writes:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> I don't think that is a false impression. Ian Jackson has a
>> history of believing that nothing he does can be questioned and
>> that he has pope-like infallibility. See his past performance and
>> fall out with UKV for example.
>
> Or the fact that, two weeks after his SAUCE code has been fixed, he's
> still not implemented an RFC 5321 compiant version on Chiark.
Did a patch get posted? I must have missed it if so.
> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> I don't think that is a false impression. Ian Jackson has a
>> history of believing that nothing he does can be questioned and
>> that he has pope-like infallibility. See his past performance and
>> fall out with UKV for example.
>
> Or the fact that, two weeks after his SAUCE code has been fixed, he's
> still not implemented an RFC 5321 compiant version on Chiark.
Matthew
--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life
Judith
Sep 26, 2012, 5:29:54 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:42:50 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:17:39 +0100, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:36:57 -0500, Andy Leighton put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:47:52 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Category 1 includes the likes of Microplanet Gravity and Forte Agent (which
>>>> is my personal preference), and are the tool of choice for people Usenet
>>>> "power users" (or who, like me, first came to Usenet when dedicated clients
>>>> were pretty much all that was on offer),
>>>
>>>Are you must be second or third wave then. I started when rn (the original)
>>>was all that was available.
>>
>> 1994 was when I started, and I initially used tin, but switched to Free
>> Agent fairly soon afterwards.
>
>1984 was my first exposure, but really only started in 1985.
Fascinating.
>On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:17:39 +0100, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:36:57 -0500, Andy Leighton put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:47:52 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Category 1 includes the likes of Microplanet Gravity and Forte Agent (which
>>>> is my personal preference), and are the tool of choice for people Usenet
>>>> "power users" (or who, like me, first came to Usenet when dedicated clients
>>>> were pretty much all that was on offer),
>>>
>>>Are you must be second or third wave then. I started when rn (the original)
>>>was all that was available.
>>
>> 1994 was when I started, and I initially used tin, but switched to Free
>> Agent fairly soon afterwards.
>
>1984 was my first exposure, but really only started in 1985.
1983 anyone?
Judith
Sep 26, 2012, 5:39:56 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:53:24 +0000 (UTC), Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>On 2012-09-26, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
>>>He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
>>>find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
>>>members.
>>
>> I think you are clearly misusing the word "team" there.
>>
>>
>> So there is a clear danger that you are making promises and suggestions which
>> are not met - as has previously been pointed out.
>>
>> In some circumstances people are clearly directed to unnm for clarification by
>> the moderation team.
>>
>> Their requests for information are ignored.
>
>Can you list the last 15 request which were ignored, message ID, date,
>requester name, and brief summary will do. Thanks.
Sorry - has someone claimed that it has happened fifteen times? I missed that.
>On 2012-09-26, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
>>>He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
>>>find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
>>>members.
>>
>> I think you are clearly misusing the word "team" there.
>>
>>
>> So there is a clear danger that you are making promises and suggestions which
>> are not met - as has previously been pointed out.
>>
>> In some circumstances people are clearly directed to unnm for clarification by
>> the moderation team.
>>
>> Their requests for information are ignored.
>
>Can you list the last 15 request which were ignored, message ID, date,
>requester name, and brief summary will do. Thanks.
The fact that it happens at all is the point being made - and the fact that it
does is unacceptable. Perhaps that is much too subtle for you.
By the way - are you the moderator of all the unn* groups.
(I have added URC in to this post - I hope this doesn't upset anyone - but
there will probably be people in URC who are interested in the matter)
Tony
Sep 26, 2012, 5:54:33 PM9/26/12
to
In uk.net.news.config, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:53:24 +0000 (UTC), Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-09-26, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
>>>>He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
>>>>find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
>>>>members.
>>>
>>> I think you are clearly misusing the word "team" there.
>>>
>>>
>>> So there is a clear danger that you are making promises and suggestions which
>>> are not met - as has previously been pointed out.
>>>
>>> In some circumstances people are clearly directed to unnm for clarification by
>>> the moderation team.
>>>
>>> Their requests for information are ignored.
>>
>>Can you list the last 15 request which were ignored, message ID, date,
>>requester name, and brief summary will do. Thanks.
>Sorry - has someone claimed that it has happened fifteen times? I missed that.
I felt 15 was a representative number. How about 10? Can you find 10
>On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:53:24 +0000 (UTC), Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-09-26, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
>>>>He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
>>>>find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
>>>>members.
>>>
>>> I think you are clearly misusing the word "team" there.
>>>
>>>
>>> So there is a clear danger that you are making promises and suggestions which
>>> are not met - as has previously been pointed out.
>>>
>>> In some circumstances people are clearly directed to unnm for clarification by
>>> the moderation team.
>>>
>>> Their requests for information are ignored.
>>
>>Can you list the last 15 request which were ignored, message ID, date,
>>requester name, and brief summary will do. Thanks.
>Sorry - has someone claimed that it has happened fifteen times? I missed that.
examples with the data I asked for?
>The fact that it happens at all is the point being made - and the fact that it
>does is unacceptable. Perhaps that is much too subtle for you.
a day we should worry.
>By the way - are you the moderator of all the unn* groups.
Percy Picacity
Sep 26, 2012, 6:01:50 PM9/26/12
to
On 2012-09-26 21:39:56 +0000, Judith said:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:53:24 +0000 (UTC), Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-09-26, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
>>>> He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
>>>> find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
>>>> members.
>>>
>>> I think you are clearly misusing the word "team" there.
>>>
>>>
>>> So there is a clear danger that you are making promises and suggestions which
>>> are not met - as has previously been pointed out.
>>>
>>> In some circumstances people are clearly directed to unnm for clarification by
>>> the moderation team.
>>>
>>> Their requests for information are ignored.
>>
>> Can you list the last 15 request which were ignored, message ID, date,
>> requester name, and brief summary will do. Thanks.
>
>
> Sorry - has someone claimed that it has happened fifteen times? I missed that.
>
> The fact that it happens at all is the point being made - and the fact that it
> does is unacceptable. Perhaps that is much too subtle for you.
This is a subtle but important obfuscation. Few going to find a
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:53:24 +0000 (UTC), Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-09-26, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:15 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why should he know who I have killfiled if I haven't made it public?
>>>> He is only one of the moderation team. I don't make it my business to
>>>> find out who is in the killfiles of all the other moderation team
>>>> members.
>>>
>>> I think you are clearly misusing the word "team" there.
>>>
>>>
>>> So there is a clear danger that you are making promises and suggestions which
>>> are not met - as has previously been pointed out.
>>>
>>> In some circumstances people are clearly directed to unnm for clarification by
>>> the moderation team.
>>>
>>> Their requests for information are ignored.
>>
>> Can you list the last 15 request which were ignored, message ID, date,
>> requester name, and brief summary will do. Thanks.
>
>
> Sorry - has someone claimed that it has happened fifteen times? I missed that.
>
> The fact that it happens at all is the point being made - and the fact that it
> does is unacceptable. Perhaps that is much too subtle for you.
complaint that it "it should never happen" convincing - moderation is a
voluntary service. As long as it only happens every now and again,
and particular posters are not unfairly affected your complaint is
unlikely to gain much sympathy. At least a few instances affecting
particular poster(s) would be valuable.
It does seem that a commoner event is an answer that for some reason
fails to satisfy, and also a failure of the moderators to get involved
in prolonged discussion. But, quite reasonably, the RFD does not
address this problem.
>
> By the way - are you the moderator of all the unn* groups.
>
>
> (I have added URC in to this post - I hope this doesn't upset anyone - but
> there will probably be people in URC who are interested in the matter)
>
>
reason. Must find out about its cross posting behaviour.
--
Percy Picacity
Judith
Sep 26, 2012, 6:30:48 PM9/26/12
to
above reply.
Well done - I suspect most people will have come to the correct conclusion.
Nick Leverton
Sep 26, 2012, 7:11:53 PM9/26/12
to
In article <2ts6681ri049qu5uh...@4ax.com>,
I've been reading it since the beginning ... news://nntp.olduse.net
Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
M Wicks
Sep 27, 2012, 3:02:52 PM9/27/12
to
JNugent
Sep 27, 2012, 4:06:26 PM9/27/12
to
> Why are you crossposting?
Because the thread is crossposted. I have made no choices in the matter,
except to not to change the default, which is to post to the same groups as
your (extraordinary) post went to.
HTH.
>
Steve Walker
Sep 29, 2012, 11:03:39 AM9/29/12
to
"Rob Morley" <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:20120925212756.4a127e24@hyperion...
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:39:03 +0100
> "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>> Due to a tragic oversight by Microsoft, Live Mail v14.0.8117.0416
>> handles usenet posting correctly. It can still be found, downloaded
>> and installed, and if you decline updates during the process you'll
>> be fine.
>>
> A quick search reveals nothing but spammy websites and outdated links.
I have a clean exe install file, if anyone wants it uploading to a dump
> "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>> Due to a tragic oversight by Microsoft, Live Mail v14.0.8117.0416
>> handles usenet posting correctly. It can still be found, downloaded
>> and installed, and if you decline updates during the process you'll
>> be fine.
>>
> A quick search reveals nothing but spammy websites and outdated links.
site.
Charles Lindsey
Oct 12, 2012, 11:38:47 AM10/12/12
to
In <1Mk*1A...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>It would be easier to make progress on other improvements (for
>example, a better workaround for the hotmail problem) if we weren't
>having to deal with a hostile RFD as well.
We don't want a "workaround" for the Hotmail problem. We want the Hotmail
problem not to exist.
--
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
>It would be easier to make progress on other improvements (for
>example, a better workaround for the hotmail problem) if we weren't
>having to deal with a hostile RFD as well.
We don't want a "workaround" for the Hotmail problem. We want the Hotmail
problem not to exist.
--
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
0 new messages