uk.rec.cycling.moderated - RFD withdrawn
D.M. Procida
alternative moderation host for URCM available to us, removing the last
barrier that prevented us from being able to ask for a formal vote on
the moderation of the group.
Since we posted our RFD ("RFD: Change to the moderation of
uk.rec.cycling.moderated") last year, the moderation of contributions to
the newsgroup has greatly improved.
Discussion on the newsgroup is much more consistent now with what most
people thought they were voting for when the group was created.
The group is being moderated more lightly and less defensively, and
moderator interventions are slower to come and more reasonable when they
do.
On the other hand, moderation has also been characterised by a series of
embarrassments, such as the recent 'straw poll', and demands that
posters provide proof of identity.
We are concerned that despite improvements in moderation, some of the
moderators still appear to be unable to resist using their role to
pursue their own ends and may be liable to deploy some other scheme that
antagonises the Usenet community and runs counter to accepted standards
in moderation.
However, despite some flaws, at the moment, the moderation of
uk.rec.cycling.moderated is working tolerably well.
Our first priority is not to harm the patient. Asking for a vote to
change the current moderation arrangements would be disruptive, and
would probably cause the group to shed yet more readers.
On this basis, we have agreed to withdraw our RFD to replace the
moderation team, and while moderation decisions remain tolerably good,
it will remain on the shelf.
On the other hand, if moderation takes a turn for the worse, since we
now have the technical resources to carry out our plan to change
moderation to its conclusion, we won't hesitate to publish a new RFD and
take it to a vote.
Evidence of a moderation policy targeted at individuals, attempts by
moderators to find justification to exclude individuals or their
opinions, demands for personal information or any other unacceptable new
scheme would all be triggers for a new RFD.
There remain a number of unsatisfactory moderation practices, most
notably:
* the attempts to ban posters have been demonstrated not to work, and
also to be at the root of much moderation-related controversy. We'd like
to see those attempts dropped, and troublesome posters, however
troublesome, kept on the watch-list and their contributions dealt in the
usual way.
* some moderators treat moderation comments as a good place to put
barbed comments. Since it appears to be the hobby of a number of people
to study rejected messages, it would seem wise to refrain from indulging
in this practice.
It would be sensible to address these problems.
If the moderators are able to avoid falling back and undoing the good
work that some members of the team have clearly pushed for, and if they
can avoid inventing any new extravagant and unusual methods for solving
'problems', the proposal to remove them will stay on the shelf.
If they can't manage this, a new RFD will be published and taken to a
vote.
Alex Potter, Daniele Procida, Rob Morley, Sara Merriman, Trollsworth Le
Trole
Geoff Berrow
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>There remain a number of unsatisfactory moderation practices, most
>notably:
>
>* the attempts to ban posters have been demonstrated not to work, and
>also to be at the root of much moderation-related controversy. We'd like
>to see those attempts dropped, and troublesome posters, however
>troublesome, kept on the watch-list and their contributions dealt in the
>usual way.
I think it would be a good idea if you could formulate a new
moderation policy to codify any banning procedure and offer it to the
moderators. What you are suggesting is a tad hand wavy.
>
>* some moderators treat moderation comments as a good place to put
>barbed comments. Since it appears to be the hobby of a number of people
>to study rejected messages, it would seem wise to refrain from indulging
>in this practice.
I think you misspelled 'actively discourage'. There is no reason at
all why people should not study rejected messages if they are
published. However it seems particularly crass to make these biased
comments anonymously.
>
>It would be sensible to address these problems.
>
>If the moderators are able to avoid falling back and undoing the good
>work that some members of the team have clearly pushed for, and if they
>can avoid inventing any new extravagant and unusual methods for solving
>'problems', the proposal to remove them will stay on the shelf.
>
>If they can't manage this, a new RFD will be published and taken to a
>vote.
Of course, anyone can raise an RFD, at any time.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
Trollsworth LeTrole
> Perhaps some timescale should be put on the unbanning and other stipulations.
Hmmm? I do wonder if we didn't make the statement blunt/clear enough,
so I'll summarise less eloquently.
(1) There are some issues that -really piss us off[1]-, like 'mission
poster' and distasteful straw polls. If revisited, those will probably
result in us resubmitting an RFD and rapidly carrying it to a vote.
(2) There are some issues that make us -grumble-, but we merely
express hope for change, without caring as much as we do about the
category above. Remember that 'good is the enemy of perfect'. Those
issues are requoted below:
> There remain a number of unsatisfactory moderation practices, most
> notably:
>
> * the attempts to ban posters have been demonstrated not to work, and
> also to be at the root of much moderation-related controversy. We'd like
> to see those attempts dropped, and troublesome posters, however
> troublesome, kept on the watch-list and their contributions dealt in the
> usual way.
>
> * some moderators treat moderation comments as a good place to put
> barbed comments. Since it appears to be the hobby of a number of people
> to study rejected messages, it would seem wise to refrain from indulging
> in this practice.
So in summary there's no timeline on us doing anything, but there are
likely trigger events. We are moderately content with the status quo.
Hope this clears things up.
T.
[1] - for my part this is maybe an exaggeration. I'm not angry with
anyone per-se, but I have a firm idea of how things ought to be.
Rob Morley
Trollsworth LeTrole <trollswor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:30�pm, Nuxx Bar <nuxx....@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >�Perhaps some timescale should be put on the unbanning and other
> >stipulations.
> Hmmm? I do wonder if we didn't make the statement blunt/clear enough,
> so I'll summarise less eloquently.
>
<snip>
I'd prioritise those points slightly differently - for me banning is a
no-no, snide remarks reflect very poorly on the supposed neutrality of
moderators, while the "straw poll" was just a glaring demonstration of
failure to understand/communicate that will hopefully be lessened by a
more open approach to managing the group. The "mission poster" thing
does appear to be a heinous attempt to formalise discrimination against
certain posters.
Tony Raven
Instead of sitting there blackmailing the current moderators with "Do it
our way or else...." why not just go for a vote and let the punters decide
if they prefer your way or their way.
It seemed to me from the last RFD that there was no clear consensus and
certainly no mandate for you to dictate how the moderators should moderate.
I personally think it's time for you to put up or shut up.
--
Tony
Tom Crispin
I agree.
Trollsworth LeTrole
We're not going to expend anybody's effort or stress levels (on both
'sides') if it's not necessary. We don't care who runs the show, we
just have ideas about how the group ought to be moderated. "their way"
is now close enough to "our way", and hopefully it will stay on that
course indefinitely.
We're not bloody-minded enough to stir shit up over less-important
differences of opinion. A group can never be perfect, but there is
such a thing as 'good enough'. God willing, you're not going to hear
an official peep out of the Gang from now on. Although as individuals
we reserve the right to bitch over the smaller issues.
If you don't believe the above, what is it that you actually thought
we wanted to accomplish?
T.
Geoff Berrow
>On 23/03/2011 14:54, Geoff Berrow wrote:
>>
>> Of course, anyone can raise an RFD, at any time.
>
>And follow it with a humiliating climbdown, at any time.
<shrug> The RFD was always going to be difficult. The proponents
wanted minor changes and the only tool available was full scale
revolution.
In a sense, this is the system working as intended. It is supposed to
be difficult to change things.
Nevertheless change has occurred, so much so that the success of any
RFD (particularly one where there are no clear alternatives on offer)
is questionable. An RFD that failed would remove any pressure from
the moderators. Withdrawing the RFD leaves the pressure in place.
No, it's not as satisfying as a firm conclusion but it's a strategic
move and leaves options open. I'm sure the proponents don't feel
humiliated - from their point of view they've achieved a lot.
Tony Raven
> Sigh. Did we word the post badly or something?
>
What did the following mean then if it was not "Do it our way or else"?
"On this basis, we have agreed to withdraw our RFD to replace the
moderation team, and while moderation decisions remain tolerably good,
it will remain on the shelf.
On the other hand, if moderation takes a turn for the worse, since we
now have the technical resources to carry out our plan to change
moderation to its conclusion, we won't hesitate to publish a new RFD and
take it to a vote.
Evidence of a moderation policy targeted at individuals, attempts by
moderators to find justification to exclude individuals or their
opinions, demands for personal information or any other unacceptable new
scheme would all be triggers for a new RFD."
--
Tony
Mr Benn
message
news:1jyl64f.nubaqy1t08018N%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
> Thanks to a generous offer from Richard Ashton, we now have an
> alternative moderation host for URCM available to us, removing the last
> barrier that prevented us from being able to ask for a formal vote on
> the moderation of the group.
<quite a lot snipped>
I totally agree with that Daniele. A very sensible and well-written
posting.
D.M. Procida
You should praise Sara. She made me take out all the adjectives.
Daniele
Mr Benn
<grin>
Rob Morley
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> Trollsworth LeTrole <trollswor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sigh. Did we word the post badly or something?
> >
>
> What did the following mean then if it was not "Do it our way or
> else"?
>
<snip>
How about "we don't think this is how the group should be run, so
we'll ask the users if they're happy to continue this way or try
something else"? An RFD is not a gun to the head, it's an opportunity
to air views with a view to voting for change. If it's apparent that
people want change then it's their decision, the RFD writer can only
reflect that. The fact that they've found hosting just means that
disruption of the technical administration of the group should not be
seen as a significant disincentive to any changes, that might otherwise
be wanted by the electorate.
Tony Raven
I might have bought that if you hadn't included a list of demands for how
the group should be moderated with a threat to go to RFD if not complied
with.
If it had simply said we are moderately happy with the way things are and
will shelve the proposals as long as that is the case it would have been
fine. But it didn't. It said we now have the means to take over and we
will exercise them unless moderation meets our following conditions.
--
Tony
D.M. Procida
> If it had simply said we are moderately happy with the way things are and
> will shelve the proposals as long as that is the case it would have been
> fine. But it didn't. It said we now have the means to take over and we
> will exercise them unless moderation meets our following conditions.
Good! That's the message we're very glad everyone understands: if the
moderation standards of URCM fall unacceptably, we'll do something about
it.
Hopefully, that won't ever be necessary.
Daniele
--
The Laugharne Weekend
A three-day festival of literature, music and more,
15th-17th April 2011.
<http://thelaugharneweekend.com/>
Rob Morley
SW <s...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> On 24/03/2011 19:31, D.M. Procida wrote:
> > Tony Raven<tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> If it had simply said we are moderately happy with the way things
> >> are and will shelve the proposals as long as that is the case it
> >> would have been fine. But it didn't. It said we now have the
> >> means to take over and we will exercise them unless moderation
> >> meets our following conditions.
> >
> > Good! That's the message we're very glad everyone understands: if
> > the moderation standards of URCM fall unacceptably, we'll do
> > something about it.
> >
>
> Don't worry, your message is crystal clear: we are a bunch of
> pretentious, arrogant individuals who think nothing of making threats
> to get our own way.
>
> Either that or you realise the game is up and are just trying to save
> face.
>
> Which is it ?
Definitely (D) and I'm sitting under my bridge as I type this. Oh no,
that's you isn't it? Did you not get the bit about not wanting to
cause unnecessary disruption?
Trollsworth LeTrole
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:14:05 +0000, SW <s...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >On 23/03/2011 14:54, Geoff Berrow wrote:
>
> >> Of course, anyone can raise an RFD, at any time.
>
> >And follow it with a humiliating climbdown, at any time.
>
> <shrug> The RFD was always going to be difficult. The proponents
> wanted minor changes and the only tool available was full scale
> revolution.
>
> In a sense, this is the system working as intended. It is supposed to
> be difficult to change things.
change the moderation of an existing moderated group in uk.* ? It's
rather unfortunate that all the 'system' allows is a choice between
"do nothing" and "nuclear weapons".
Given the tools available though, I'm at a loss to understand the
unfocussed anger from URCM loyalists about the whole affair. Is it:
(a) The specific criticisms were groundless and unreasonable
or
(b) An RFD is an inappropriate way to force changes to moderation
policy, how very dare you
?
T.
Tony
<trollswor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 24, 9:11 am, Geoff Berrow <blthe...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:14:05 +0000, SW <s...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> >On 23/03/2011 14:54, Geoff Berrow wrote:
>>
>> >> Of course, anyone can raise an RFD, at any time.
>>
>> >And follow it with a humiliating climbdown, at any time.
>>
>> <shrug> The RFD was always going to be difficult. The proponents
>> wanted minor changes and the only tool available was full scale
>> revolution.
>>
>> In a sense, this is the system working as intended. It is supposed to
>> be difficult to change things.
>Out of interest, is there any historical precedent for an attempt to
>change the moderation of an existing moderated group in uk.* ?
I'm not aware of one. But my involvement in uk.* is reasonably short.
>It's
>rather unfortunate that all the 'system' allows is a choice between
>"do nothing" and "nuclear weapons".
I'm not sure it's the system, rather the tools available should something
need to be 'done'. RFD's can be quite subtle, but the issue is how changes
they introduce are enforced.
This specific topic is off-topic for uk.net.news.moderation and
uk.net.news.config so I've cross-posted to and set followups to
uk.net.news.management, where it is gleefully on-topic.
--
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 ]
Owen Dunn
> It's rather unfortunate that all the 'system' allows is a choice
> between "do nothing" and "nuclear weapons".
Well, that's only true if you regard the change process itself
(RFD+CFV) as `nuclear weapons'; an RFD+CFV could make a decidedly
non-nuclear change to the running of a group. (Fixing a spelling
mistake in the charter, perhaps?)
It's inevitable that following a formal procedure to make a change
against the wishes of those that currently moderate a group will
create ill will; that's just human nature. I don't think that should
stop anyone trying.
> Given the tools available though, I'm at a loss to understand the
> unfocussed anger from URCM loyalists about the whole affair. Is it:
> (a) The specific criticisms were groundless and unreasonable
This is about where I am, but I wouldn't say I'm angry. Bemused,
perhaps.
> (b) An RFD is an inappropriate way to force changes to moderation
> policy, how very dare you?
Well, it's the _only_ way to _force_ a change. It would be very
lovely if everyone just worked things out quietly by mutual agreement,
but that's not always possible. If you felt you were getting nowhere
by making suggestions to the URCM moderators or negotiating with them,
and still thought it important enough, an RFD was all you could do.
(S)
Geoff Berrow
<trollswor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> <shrug> �The RFD was always going to be difficult. �The proponents
>> wanted minor changes and the only tool available was full scale
>> revolution.
>>
>> In a sense, this is the system working as intended. �It is supposed to
>> be difficult to change things.
>Out of interest, is there any historical precedent for an attempt to
>change the moderation of an existing moderated group in uk.* ? It's
>rather unfortunate that all the 'system' allows is a choice between
>"do nothing" and "nuclear weapons".
Sadly, that's the case. However an RFD does not necessarily mean
major change. You might RFD a minor change, for instance, changing
the way that moderators are appointed. Your mistake was in not having
definite proposals. It was all very vague.
>
>Given the tools available though, I'm at a loss to understand the
>unfocussed anger from URCM loyalists about the whole affair. Is it:
>(a) The specific criticisms were groundless and unreasonable
>or
>(b) An RFD is an inappropriate way to force changes to moderation
>policy, how very dare you
>?
A little of both, I suspect, with a little bit of 'this is my bat and
ball and you're not playing with it' thrown in.
The final straw for me was Ian's flounce over the hosting. As well as
being pathetic and petty I suspect it did him rather more harm than
good.
D.M. Procida
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Trollsworth LeTrole
> <trollswor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> <shrug> The RFD was always going to be difficult. The proponents
> >> wanted minor changes and the only tool available was full scale
> >> revolution.
> >>
> >> In a sense, this is the system working as intended. It is supposed to
> >> be difficult to change things.
> >Out of interest, is there any historical precedent for an attempt to
> >change the moderation of an existing moderated group in uk.* ? It's
> >rather unfortunate that all the 'system' allows is a choice between
> >"do nothing" and "nuclear weapons".
>
> Sadly, that's the case. However an RFD does not necessarily mean
> major change. You might RFD a minor change, for instance, changing
> the way that moderators are appointed. Your mistake was in not having
> definite proposals.
It's obviously not possible to have definite proposals until you know
what's possible (well, you can, but it's just silly).
An RFD is a request for discussion. It doesn't need, at first, to
represent anything very concrete. You can't ask people to make decisions
about vague proposals, but you can certainly have a useful conversation
about them.
Daniele
Geoff Berrow
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>> Sadly, that's the case. However an RFD does not necessarily mean
>> major change. You might RFD a minor change, for instance, changing
>> the way that moderators are appointed. Your mistake was in not having
>> definite proposals.
>
>It's obviously not possible to have definite proposals until you know
>what's possible (well, you can, but it's just silly).
In which case you shouldn't have gone for an RFD until you did. An
RFD leads to a vote and has to have a proposal.
>An RFD is a request for discussion. It doesn't need, at first, to
>represent anything very concrete.
IMO, you have that wrong. An RFD is not some official form of "let's
have a bit of a talk about this". It is a mechanism that leads to a
vote.
>You can't ask people to make decisions
>about vague proposals, but you can certainly have a useful conversation
>about them.
And you can also do that without issuing an RFD.
Trollsworth LeTrole
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Trollsworth LeTrole
>
> >> <shrug> The RFD was always going to be difficult. The proponents
> >> wanted minor changes and the only tool available was full scale
> >> revolution.
>
> >> In a sense, this is the system working as intended. It is supposed to
> >> be difficult to change things.
> >Out of interest, is there any historical precedent for an attempt to
> >change the moderation of an existing moderated group in uk.* ? It's
> >rather unfortunate that all the 'system' allows is a choice between
> >"do nothing" and "nuclear weapons".
>
> Sadly, that's the case. However an RFD does not necessarily mean
> major change. You might RFD a minor change, for instance, changing
> the way that moderators are appointed. Your mistake was in not having
> definite proposals. It was all very vague.
+ CFV can _enforce_. An RFD could say "You should change your
moderation policy to <something> and then moderate based on the
changed policy" or "You should hold elections to add people to the
moderation team", and if it wins, what happens? If it's not something
a moderation team was already amenable to then it's meaningless, and
they can tell the winner to shut the hell up. If it's something they
could have been talked around to then why bother with an RFD? In this
specific instance, argument to reverse policy decisions had already
been tried without success.
The only real power behind a successful RFD + CFV is to instruct
Control to issue a control message to change the email address that
posts go to.
T.
Geoff Berrow
<trollswor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Sadly, that's the case. �However an RFD does not necessarily mean
>> major change. �You might RFD a minor change, for instance, changing
>> the way that moderators are appointed. �Your mistake was in not having
>> definite proposals. It was all very vague.
>However, the nuclear approach is the only thing that a successful RFD
>+ CFV can _enforce_. An RFD could say "You should change your
>moderation policy to <something> and then moderate based on the
>changed policy" or "You should hold elections to add people to the
>moderation team", and if it wins, what happens? If it's not something
>a moderation team was already amenable to then it's meaningless, and
>they can tell the winner to shut the hell up. If it's something they
>could have been talked around to then why bother with an RFD? In this
>specific instance, argument to reverse policy decisions had already
>been tried without success.
I see your point, but you /could/ have made changes to the way mods
were appointed (by making them accountable, for instance). This may
have indirectly made them more responsive to what was being said,
while at the same time not upsetting the status quo. That's not so
devastating
Alternatively you could have proposed to stand sown the mod panel,
temporarily replace it with <list of names> and then put in a proposal
for the formation of a permanent mod panel. That way the moderate mods
would have had a way back in.
All definite proposals which could have been discussed and modified.
As it was, with your hand wavy proposals no one knew what might happen
and uncertainty probably inflamed the situation.
Please don't take this personally, I know it was a difficult situation
to manage.
D.M. Procida
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:41:45 +0000,
> real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>
> >> Sadly, that's the case. However an RFD does not necessarily mean
> >> major change. You might RFD a minor change, for instance, changing
> >> the way that moderators are appointed. Your mistake was in not having
> >> definite proposals.
> >
> >It's obviously not possible to have definite proposals until you know
> >what's possible (well, you can, but it's just silly).
>
> In which case you shouldn't have gone for an RFD until you did.
Why ever not?
> An RFD leads to a vote and has to have a proposal.
What are you talking about?
There was an initial proposal, that covered several possibilities and of
necessity passed over certain details.
Anyway, as far as I am concerned, it did what was required of it, and if
you don't mind very much I'm quite happy to let it lie now, as I am sure
everyone else is, in the sincere hope that it won't need to be revived
in the future.
Honestly, you and Ian Jackson are made for each other. You seem as
disappointed as he is resentful; you that it didn't all end in his
ignominious 'defeat', and he that he can no longer just do things the
way it pleases him.
I'll leave you both to it. Have fun!
Daniele
Geoff Berrow
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>> In which case you shouldn't have gone for an RFD until you did.
>
>Why ever not?
Because you need a proposal.
>
>> An RFD leads to a vote and has to have a proposal.
>
>What are you talking about?
An RFD needing a proposal.
>
>There was an initial proposal, that covered several possibilities and of
>necessity passed over certain details.
That's not a proposal. That's just a vague hand wavy idea. An RFD
should be, as near as possible, in a form that can go to a vote.
You are mistaken by the name. It doesn't mean "let's have a vague
discussion about x'" An RFD might not generate any discussion at all
and go straight to a fast track. Granted, not in this case but in
principle.
>
>Anyway, as far as I am concerned, it did what was required of it, and if
>you don't mind very much I'm quite happy to let it lie now, as I am sure
>everyone else is, in the sincere hope that it won't need to be revived
>in the future.
I fear, from his recent post, that we haven't heard the last from Ian
Jackson.
>
>Honestly, you and Ian Jackson are made for each other. You seem as
>disappointed as he is resentful; you that it didn't all end in his
>ignominious 'defeat', and he that he can no longer just do things the
>way it pleases him.
So, you didn't have a proposal, and you didn't want to win a vote? And
it is somehow a bad thing that I supported changing a system I felt
was unfair? How does that work?
If you've been paying the slightest attention then you'll have
noticed that in Message-ID:
<8s1mo6hi13qn82o7f...@4ax.com> I was supportive of your
decision.
I wanted change, there was change, I'm not disappointed with that.
Yes, I'm disappointed it didn't go as far as I'd hoped but according
to your withdrawal notice so are you.
Trevor A Panther
Quote
"Honestly, you and Ian Jackson are made for each other. You seem as
> disappointed as he is resentful; you that it didn't all end in his
> ignominious 'defeat', and he that he can no longer just do things the
> way it pleases him."
I think you will find that Mr Jackson has already made it quite clear that
he will contiue in his own sweet way and indeed will do "things just the
way it pleases him."
he has already posted on here
Quote
"Based on the information we have now, particularly from the straw poll
and from what moderates have said here, it seems to me that it's clear
that (a) we're doing what the group's users want (insofar as such a
diverse group could be said to have a common view) (b) if the gang of
four were to force things to a vote they would lose.
So to my mind the bluster in Daniele's message is just a way for the
gang of four to save face."
(just remind me how many peole voted in that straw poll Mr Jackson --
excluding members of the cabal!)
I cannot help but think this whole process has been anything but a huge
waste of time and effort by quite a lot of concerned people. There has
indeed been a lot of wind and bluster right from the start and it became
very clear the no firm proposal was in hand to take any action at all.
The leader of the pack ( Mr Jackson) has just spit in your face! He can and
will do exactly wha the pleases since it will take forever and a day to
overthrow the cabal. Fortunately it will die all of its own accord it is
inhababited by a small clique who do not represent in any real way cycling
opinion. It is a prvate club on the Usenet system where its charter says
quite clearly that the moderators can do anything they like
Quote from the Charter
"The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel
appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group"
it further says
Quote
"This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit."
You will forgive me if I include another quote
"A cabal is a number of people greater than two, together in some close
design, usually to promote their private views and interests in a church,
state, or other community, often by intrigue. Cabals are sometimes secret
societies composed of a few designing persons, and at other times are
manifestations of emergent behavior in society or governance on the part of
a community of persons who have well established public affiliation or
kinship. The term can also be used to refer to the designs of such persons
or to the practical consequences of their emergent behavior, and also holds
a general meaning of intrigue and conspiracy. Its usage carries strong
connotations of shadowy corners, back rooms and insidious influence; a cabal
is more evil and selective than, say, a faction, which is simply selfish;
because of this negative connotation, few organizations use the term to
refer to themselves or their internal subdivisions.
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Molly Mockford
wrote in <vr1po61449734tgdd...@4ax.com>:
>Sadly, that's the case. However an RFD does not necessarily mean
>major change. You might RFD a minor change, for instance, changing
>the way that moderators are appointed. Your mistake was in not having
>definite proposals. It was all very vague.
That can easily be the trouble with this sort of RFD: people take it
literally, as a Request for Discussion. "So, then, what do we all think
about this, what are people's ideas?" When what it needs to be is "This
is what I think about this, and this is what I think we ought to do
about it - so what do people think about that?"
--
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.
Pedt
<1jyovf0.13be9fhre9fjzN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>,
at 14:39:30 on Fri, 25 Mar 2011, D.M. Procida
<real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wibbled
>Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:41:45 +0000,
>> real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>>
>> >> Sadly, that's the case. However an RFD does not necessarily mean
>> >> major change. You might RFD a minor change, for instance, changing
>> >> the way that moderators are appointed. Your mistake was in not having
>> >> definite proposals.
>> >
>> >It's obviously not possible to have definite proposals until you know
>> >what's possible (well, you can, but it's just silly).
>>
>> In which case you shouldn't have gone for an RFD until you did.
>
>Why ever not?
I might disagree with Geoff here as RFD 1 could be vague and woolly and
test out possible proposals but when you get to RFD 2 you are going to
have to set out some actual proposals to be discussed. Even if you're
going for Condercet you do have to provide actual proposals.
We've got up to RFD 5 in the past before the Proponent felt ready to
take it to a vote so the number of RFDs needed is not a barrier but if
you took something to a vote that was vague and woolly, chances are that
it would be voted down.
>
>> An RFD leads to a vote and has to have a proposal.
>
>What are you talking about?
If you want to take an RFD to a vote then there has to be something to
vote upon :)
>
>There was an initial proposal, that covered several possibilities and of
>necessity passed over certain details.
Then you firm up the proposals in RFD 2 based on the discussions about
RFD 1. You might then want RFD 3 or more based on those discussions.
>onestly, you and Ian Jackson are made for each other. You seem as
>disappointed as he is resentful; you that it didn't all end in his
>ignominious 'defeat', and he that he can no longer just do things the
>way it pleases him.
I don't see Geoff as disappointed that you haven't gone for RFD 2. I
don't see Ian as resentful either. Not understanding that others might
disagree with his view of a moderated cycling group I'd accept as I
would that he doesn't often listen - though when he has listened some
good has come of it.
--
Pedt
Helpful words 08: "Nooky" (noun). 17th Century word meaning chipped corners,
usually in wood. Unless your carpenter is a lexicographer, it is probably
unwise to ask for a bit of nooky on the table.
Just zis Guy, you know?
Hash: SHA1
On 25/03/2011 19:30, Sn!pe wrote:
> Nuxx Bar <nuxx...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> even they must now realise that
>> all the talk of an RFD is not simply an empty threat.
>
> Thereby noting that uk.* is an inappropriate place
> in which to attempt to establish a private fiefdom.
I don't think they ever wanted it to be so. They (we) just wanted a
place to talk positively about cycling, there being more than enough
places to submit oneself to endless browbeating on admitting to being a
cyclist. Some of us want to celebrate something that we enjoy.
Apparently this makes us evil.
- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNjSNEAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/RyMH/R5n+0SNjOS6Hvn9YyClPriR
PjW8jr36jS2ybQnXMt8pNZpaF4Z9GO234NbHFggisnKQG4WZYelyfx92+oMRMyMc
H3wP/8KPEutdnrcaCluxDC+yU1Yi9SGTarlJM+Tuc9kue0r7c+YTWMEjN5X9xBo4
M/8rwChF5yAe6sJWgFcWSssP3V6fkolDcPmOYGogHEbEX4WNgbV+ng97sBl9Jvkh
qS4eRELnhggrOojPfjzCiM8PcStA50T77AJDG9avFjp2fDHZzBOyMvwLeBn53xZY
b/kykMs9srpgC5gyQ5T7kmYiqYg0WXBSsFuTIvYitk991sT2duSd52HT/3zbkfs=
=4ZFp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rob Morley
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <g...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't think they ever wanted it to be so. They (we) just wanted a
> place to talk positively about cycling, there being more than enough
> places to submit oneself to endless browbeating on admitting to being
> a cyclist. Some of us want to celebrate something that we enjoy.
> Apparently this makes us evil.
Only if you enclose a public space and then start making up rules about
who's allowed in.
Tony Raven
Seems you think that fine as long as it's your rules not someone else's.
The difference being there has been a democratic vote on the current
arrangements but not on yours.
--
Tony
Rob Morley
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
The vote for group creation didn't say anything about excluding anyone
based on who they were, it simply provided to exclude content that's not
pleasant and interesting to cyclists[1]. The discussion leading to that
vote generally agreed that behaviour outside the group should not be
taken into account when moderating posts to the group. It's the
current moderators who have taken it upon themselves to restrict access
to the group beyond their mandate, attempting to justify this as an
administrative convenience[2]. Our argument is that this is not how the
group was intended to be, as determined by the RFD/CFV that led to its
creation, that it should be run more equitably, and that if the
current administration can't manage then maybe someone else can do it
better, for the good of the group.
I find it odd that you seem to think that others would want to impose
different undemocratic restrictions, rather than simply removing the
ones that you seem to like, although I suppose that if you're of the "if
you're not with us then you're against us" black&white school of
thought then you may see no other way. Do you think that those of us
who have a history of using the group as cycling enthusiasts have
somehow been transformed into anti-cyclists who seek only to undermine
it as a forum for that discussion?
[1] n.b. it doesn't say "of interest to moderators, who may block a
thread if they're bored or uncomfortable with it despite the fact that
regular contributors are still engaged in reasonable and civil
discussion"
[2] and appeals that their volunteer status should exempt them from
requirements for fairness, consistency, transparency or indeed sometimes
communication of any sort at all.
Tony Raven
> On 26 Mar 2011 06:54:20 GMT
> The vote for group creation didn't say anything about excluding anyone
As I said, if you think it's being done wrong go for a vote and get a
mandate to run it your way.
--
Tony
Steve Firth
Chapman's off on his lies, again. He's never had the aim to discuss cycling
positively. Like Whacko he heads straight to attacks on other road users
again and again. What he supported was a forum where he can talk bollocks
and no one can answer back.
And as pointed out by others he delights in getting a rise out of
individuals knowing they can't reply.
Rob Morley
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Chapman's off on his lies, again. He's never had the aim to discuss
> cycling positively. Like Whacko he heads straight to attacks on other
> road users again and again. What he supported was a forum where he
> can talk bollocks and no one can answer back.
>
> And as pointed out by others he delights in getting a rise out of
> individuals knowing they can't reply.
It certainly looks that way, doesn't it?
Rob Morley
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> As I said, if you think it's being done wrong go for a vote and get a
> mandate to run it your way.
>
I heard you the first time. What bit of "However, despite some flaws,
at the moment, the moderation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated is working
tolerably well" did you not understand?
Tony Raven
The demands as to how they should moderate to your stipulations that went
with it?
We've been round this several times now and if you haven't got it yet I
doubt you will.
--
Tony
Rob Morley
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On 26 Mar 2011 15:49:52 GMT
> > Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> As I said, if you think it's being done wrong go for a vote and
> >> get a mandate to run it your way.
> >>
> > I heard you the first time. What bit of "However, despite some
> > flaws, at the moment, the moderation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated is
> > working tolerably well" did you not understand?
>
> The demands as to how they should moderate to your stipulations that
> went with it?
Where do you think this demand was? Concerns were voiced, and possible
action mentioned - there was no "you must do this or we will do that"
that I recall.
>
> We've been round this several times now and if you haven't got it yet
> I doubt you will.
>
Ditto.
D.M. Procida
> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On 26 Mar 2011 15:49:52 GMT
> > Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> As I said, if you think it's being done wrong go for a vote and get a
> >> mandate to run it your way.
> >>
> > I heard you the first time. What bit of "However, despite some flaws,
> > at the moment, the moderation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated is working
> > tolerably well" did you not understand?
>
> The demands as to how they should moderate to your stipulations that went
> with it?
I'm still really struggling to see how you construe something that in
essence says "... and if in the future things develop in way that
bothers us we'll make a proposal to change them, invite discussion and
then put it to a vote" as undemocratic.
Daniele
--
The Laugharne Weekend
A three-day festival of literature, music and more,
15th-17th April 2011.
<http://thelaugharneweekend.com/>
Tony Raven
> Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> On 26 Mar 2011 15:49:52 GMT
>>> Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I said, if you think it's being done wrong go for a vote and get a
>>>> mandate to run it your way.
>>>>
>>> I heard you the first time. What bit of "However, despite some flaws,
>>> at the moment, the moderation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated is working
>>> tolerably well" did you not understand?
>>
>> The demands as to how they should moderate to your stipulations that went
>> with it?
>
> I'm still really struggling to see how you construe something that in
> essence says "... and if in the future things develop in way that
> bothers us we'll make a proposal to change them, invite discussion and
> then put it to a vote" as undemocratic.
>
Because you didn't stop there but added a list of stipulations on how the
moderators should act to avoid the threat of an RFD and CFV. The fact you
can't see that added to the manner of launching your first RFD gives me
great concerns.
--
Tony
D.M. Procida
> > I'm still really struggling to see how you construe something that in
> > essence says "... and if in the future things develop in way that
> > bothers us we'll make a proposal to change them, invite discussion and
> > then put it to a vote" as undemocratic.
> >
>
> Because you didn't stop there but added a list of stipulations on how the
> moderators should act to avoid the threat of an RFD and CFV.
We should have kept them secret?
Tony Raven
> Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I'm still really struggling to see how you construe something that in
>>> essence says "... and if in the future things develop in way that
>>> bothers us we'll make a proposal to change them, invite discussion and
>>> then put it to a vote" as undemocratic.
>>>
>>
>> Because you didn't stop there but added a list of stipulations on how the
>> moderators should act to avoid the threat of an RFD and CFV.
>
> We should have kept them secret?
>
Basically yes. Either you let the moderators get on with moderating
according to the Charter i.e. as they see fit or you go for a mandate to do
it differently yourselves. You have no mandate to dictate under threat how
the moderators should moderate. If there is a democratic decision to
change the moderation and/or moderators I will abide by the democratic
decision but who are you as an unelected group to unilaterally impose
moderation conditions for the rest of us?
--
Tony
Tom Crispin
>Either you let the moderators get on with moderating
>according to the Charter
Have the urcm moderators ever moderated according to the charter?
Rob Morley
You beat me to it.
Rob Morley
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> Basically yes. Either you let the moderators get on with moderating
> according to the Charter i.e. as they see fit
No, the "as they see fit" is how they choose to administer the group,
not whether they feel like sticking to the charter or not.
> or you go for a mandate
> to do it differently yourselves.
Differently as in how the group is supposed to be run, as determined by
the charter?
> You have no mandate to dictate
> under threat how the moderators should moderate.
But every right to point out where current moderation falls short of
meeting the requirements laid out in the charter, which is what
actually happened, and to remind readers of the governance rules of the
uk.* hierarchy.
> If there is a
> democratic decision to change the moderation and/or moderators I will
> abide by the democratic decision but who are you as an unelected
> group to unilaterally impose moderation conditions for the rest of us?
>
See above.
Adam Funk
Aren't the vast majority of posts approved without controversy?
D.M. Procida
I don't think that's really fair, especially after saying that
moderation is tolerably good, and that while the moderators continue to
moderate in a way that sufficiently resembles what we voted for, we're
tolerably happy about it.
I think it's also fair to note that "the moderators" are not one.
Geoff Berrow
>> We should have kept them secret?
>>
>
>Basically yes. Either you let the moderators get on with moderating
>according to the Charter i.e. as they see fit or you go for a mandate to do
>it differently yourselves. You have no mandate to dictate under threat how
>the moderators should moderate. If there is a democratic decision to
>change the moderation and/or moderators I will abide by the democratic
>decision but who are you as an unelected group to unilaterally impose
>moderation conditions for the rest of us?
Well they have as much right as anyone. And while there is no other
mechanism to change moderators and/or moderation policy, what else
/could/ they do?
Tom Crispin
wrote:
Perhaps. But that does not mean that moderation is according to
charter.
Do the moderators look at a post and ask, "Does this post comply with
the charter?" No. It seems that they look at posts and ask if they
like them, and if they don't they think up an excuse to reject them.
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>On 27 Mar 2011 17:08:26 GMT
>Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Basically yes. Either you let the moderators get on with moderating
>> according to the Charter i.e. as they see fit
>
>No, the "as they see fit" is how they choose to administer the group,
>not whether they feel like sticking to the charter or not.
The charter means nothing, they can pretty much do as they like.
While the only tool to change things is RFD they only need do as
little as is required to make the result of a vote doubtful, which is
what they've done.
It's what I would have expected.
D.M. Procida
> On 27/03/2011 16:43, D.M. Procida wrote:
>
> > I'm still really struggling to see how you construe something that in
> > essence says "... and if in the future things develop in way that
> > bothers us we'll make a proposal to change them, invite discussion and
> > then put it to a vote" as undemocratic.
> >
>
> Because what you actually said was "we want you to do things our way,
> preferably without us having to demonstrate any democratic support for
> our position".
That's enough, you people are clearly quite demented.
Tony Raven
> On 27 Mar 2011 17:08:26 GMT, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> We should have kept them secret?
>>>
>>
>> Basically yes. Either you let the moderators get on with moderating
>> according to the Charter i.e. as they see fit or you go for a mandate to do
>> it differently yourselves. You have no mandate to dictate under threat how
>> the moderators should moderate. If there is a democratic decision to
>> change the moderation and/or moderators I will abide by the democratic
>> decision but who are you as an unelected group to unilaterally impose
>> moderation conditions for the rest of us?
>
> Well they have as much right as anyone. And while there is no other
> mechanism to change moderators and/or moderation policy, what else
> /could/ they do?
If they don't agree with the moderation, go for a RFD & CFV which will then
give them a democratic mandate? That"s generally how democracy works, not
by self appointed cliques issuing demands with threats..
--
Tony
Tony Raven
Since the Charter says:
"The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel
appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group."
however the moderators decide to moderate Is by definition within the
Charter.
--
Tony
Tony Raven
> I don't think that's really fair, especially after saying that
> moderation is tolerably good, and that while the moderators continue to
> moderate in a way that sufficiently resembles what we voted for, we're
> tolerably happy about it.
>
"We" meaning the six of you not the electorate in the last CFV or even the
current group membership.
--
Tony
Tom Crispin
I don't see a smoothly running group. Indeed, urcm seems to generate
more traffic in unnm than all other moderated groups combined.
Tom Crispin
Oh! So the United Nations security council has no authority as it
issues demands and threats?
Tony Raven
The group runs fine in general. It's only the same few malcontents that
keep raising it in unnm/c. Daniele started the last big thread here and
started this one too.
Let's face it Tom, you didn't like it when it was proposed and have never
accepted the democratic vote that created it.
--
Tony
Rob Morley
SW <s...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Except that you weren't merely pointing things out. You were
> attempting to coerce others into accepting your undemocratic point of
> view.
How? The only thing we can do is force a vote, and that's as
democratic as it gets.
Rob Morley
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I don't think that's really fair, especially after saying that
> > moderation is tolerably good, and that while the moderators
> > continue to moderate in a way that sufficiently resembles what we
> > voted for, we're tolerably happy about it.
> >
>
> "We" meaning the six of you not the electorate in the last CFV or
Can you prove that this group is less representative than the
moderators?
> even the current group membership.
>
There's no such thing as "membership" of a Usenet group - it's a
collection of text propagated to various servers where various people
may read and/or add to it, nothing more.
Tony Raven
Come off it Tom. What do you think the week before last was all about if
not putting the action in Libya to a vote? A vote with veto rights even.
--
Tony
Rob Morley
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
> I don't think that's really fair, especially after saying that
> moderation is tolerably good, and that while the moderators continue
> to moderate in a way that sufficiently resembles what we voted for,
> we're tolerably happy about it.
I find it a little odd that you use words like "good" and "happy" in
this context. To me something "tolerable" is just not bad enough that I
bother to do anything much about it, rather than good enough to make me
happy.
>
> I think it's also fair to note that "the moderators" are not one.
That's probably a point worth repeating, although it's been said already
from time to time by various participants in these discussions.
Rob Morley
SW <s...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> On 27/03/2011 19:10, Tom Crispin wrote:
> > Have the urcm moderators ever moderated according to the charter?
>
> Depends on your opinion.
Really? Who would have guessed?
Rob Morley
SW <s...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Because what you actually said was "we want you to do things our way,
> preferably without us having to demonstrate any democratic support
> for our position".
No, we said "we don't think you're moderating according to the
democratically enacted charter, and these are the things we think are
wrong".
Tony Raven
> On 27 Mar 2011 22:16:06 GMT
> Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "We" meaning the six of you not the electorate in the last CFV or
>
> Can you prove that this group is less representative than the
> moderators?
>
The fact thevcuurent arrangement was created by a democratic vote. Perhaps
you should go back & read the 2nd CFV that everyone voted on. So far
nobody has been asked to vote on your proposals.
>> even the current group membership.
>>
> There's no such thing as "membership" of a Usenet group - it's a
> collection of text propagated to various servers where various people
> may read and/or add to it, nothing more.
" Some newsgroups allow the posting of messages on a wide variety of
themes, regarding anything a member chooses to discuss as on-topic, while
others keep more strictly to their particular subject, frowning on
off-topic postings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_newsgroup
--
Tony
Rob Morley
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> however the moderators decide to moderate Is by definition within the
> Charter.
>
It is the moderators' job to comply with the charter and make the group
run smoothly. There's nothing that says they can change the basic
tenets of the charter just because it suits them. The lack of
smoothness has been brought about by them blocking some pleasant
on-topic and interesting posts while allowing some unpleasant posts,
and by their making unhelpful or unpleasant remarks in email, rejection
messages and unn* groups.
Tony Raven
> On 27 Mar 2011 22:16:07 GMT
> Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> however the moderators decide to moderate Is by definition within the
>> Charter.
>>
> It is the moderators' job to comply with the charter and make the group
> run smoothly. There's nothing that says they can change the basic
> tenets of the charter just because it suits them.
Have you forgotten what was voted for?
"This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit."
From the 2nd CFV
--
Tony
Rob Morley
SW <s...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> You could have gone for the vote to legitimise your proposals before
> making threats. No reason why you couldn't withdraw at a later date
> if things improved.
The RFD was the first step towards that vote, in fact the first step
to clearly defining what was generally wanted before thinking about
calling a vote. The situation improved, probably partly as a result of
the opinion that was expressed during the ensuing discussion, to the
point that it wasn't considered necessary to go to a vote at that
time. So the proponent of the RFD stated that, and summarised the
situation. How you get from there to undemocratic coercion is really
beyond me - maybe language is subtly different on your planet.
Rob Morley
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On 27 Mar 2011 22:16:06 GMT
> > Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "We" meaning the six of you not the electorate in the last CFV or
> >
> > Can you prove that this group is less representative than the
> > moderators?
> >
>
> The fact thevcuurent arrangement was created by a democratic vote.
The current words on a page were decided by discussion and vote.
> Perhaps you should go back & read the 2nd CFV that everyone voted
> on.
There were two votes? Or do you mean the second RFD?
> So far nobody has been asked to vote on your proposals.
You haven't answered my question at all, have you?
>
> >> even the current group membership.
> >>
> > There's no such thing as "membership" of a Usenet group - it's a
> > collection of text propagated to various servers where various
> > people may read and/or add to it, nothing more.
>
> " Some newsgroups allow the posting of messages on a wide variety of
> themes, regarding anything a member chooses to discuss as on-topic,
> while others keep more strictly to their particular subject, frowning
> on off-topic postings."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_newsgroup
>
Because Wikipedia really is the definitive source of all knowledge,
except maybe for the bits that Chapman has had a hand in. Yeah.
Rob Morley
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On 27 Mar 2011 22:16:07 GMT
> > Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> however the moderators decide to moderate Is by definition within
> >> the Charter.
> >>
> > It is the moderators' job to comply with the charter and make the
> > group run smoothly. There's nothing that says they can change the
> > basic tenets of the charter just because it suits them.
>
> Have you forgotten what was voted for?
>
> "This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit."
>
> From the 2nd CFV
>
Moderation policy is not the same thing as group charter. Policy is a
matter of administrative detail, charter is a defining statement.
Tom Crispin
>Tom Crispin <tom.n...@britsc.com.nospam> wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2011 22:16:07 GMT, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Crispin <tom.n...@britsc.com.nospam> wrote:
>>>> On 27 Mar 2011 17:08:26 GMT, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Either you let the moderators get on with moderating
>>>>> according to the Charter
>>>>
>>>> Have the urcm moderators ever moderated according to the charter?
>>>
>>> Since the Charter says:
>>>
>>> "The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel
>>> appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group."
>>>
>>> however the moderators decide to moderate Is by definition within the
>>> Charter.
>>
>> I don't see a smoothly running group. Indeed, urcm seems to generate
>> more traffic in unnm than all other moderated groups combined.
>
>The group runs fine in general.
Being your opinion doesn't make it fact.
>It's only the same few malcontents that
>keep raising it in unnm/c. Daniele started the last big thread here and
>started this one too.
Oh no, Tony. A huge and wide variety of people have complained about
urcm here and in unnm.
>Let's face it Tom, you didn't like it when it was proposed and have never
>accepted the democratic vote that created it.
That is a bare-faced lie, Tony. I supported the principal of a
moderated newsgroup. At the time of its creation I voted against the
proposal because I did not trust the way that Ian Jackson selected his
team of moderators. I felt that the only way a moderated cycling
newsgroup would work is if it were underpinned by a proper democratic
process for selecting and deselecting moderators.
Tom Crispin
Great one Tony.
The moderators have used that as a basis to change policy, not
announce the policy change, then block (and allow) posts based on the
unannounced policy change.
That is about as unreasonable as some of your arguments against
bicycle helmet use.
Tom Crispin
The permanent members of the UN security council, each with veto
rights, can reasonably be defined as a self-appointed clique.
D.M. Procida
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 22:04:23 +0000
> real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>
> > I don't think that's really fair, especially after saying that
> > moderation is tolerably good, and that while the moderators continue
> > to moderate in a way that sufficiently resembles what we voted for,
> > we're tolerably happy about it.
>
> I find it a little odd that you use words like "good" and "happy" in
> this context. To me something "tolerable" is just not bad enough that I
> bother to do anything much about it, rather than good enough to make me
> happy.
"Happy" being a relative term...
But if it means not having to moderate URCM, I'd upgrade it to
"thrilled".
Geoff Berrow
>The fact thevcuurent arrangement was created by a democratic vote. Perhaps
>you should go back & read the 2nd CFV that everyone voted on. So far
>nobody has been asked to vote on your proposals.
While that's true, it's also true that what was created as a result of
the vote was not in the spirit of what was voted on and with hindsight
quite a few people would have voted differently.
>
>>> even the current group membership.
>>>
>> There's no such thing as "membership" of a Usenet group - it's a
>> collection of text propagated to various servers where various people
>> may read and/or add to it, nothing more.
>
>" Some newsgroups allow the posting of messages on a wide variety of
>themes, regarding anything a member chooses to discuss as on-topic, while
>others keep more strictly to their particular subject, frowning on
>off-topic postings."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_newsgroup
It's membership in the very loosest sense of the word.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
Geoff Berrow
>> Have the urcm moderators ever moderated according to the charter?
>
>Since the Charter says:
>
>"The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel
>appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group."
>
>however the moderators decide to moderate Is by definition within the
>Charter.
If a significant number of people are disgruntled then the group is
clearly not running smoothly.
This clause is not quite the carte blanche you think it is.
Tony Raven
> Great one Tony.
>
> The moderators have used that as a basis to change policy, not
> announce the policy change, then block (and allow) posts based on the
> unannounced policy change.
That's what people voted for. Go read the vote. Your proposals for
moderator elections wasn't.
>
> That is about as unreasonable as some of your arguments against
> bicycle helmet use.
Very reasonable then.
--
Tony
Tony Raven
> On 27 Mar 2011 23:05:40 GMT
> Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> On 27 Mar 2011 22:16:06 GMT
>>> Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>
>> Perhaps you should go back & read the 2nd CFV that everyone voted
>> on.
>
> There were two votes? Or do you mean the second RFD?
http://www.cyclingcrowd.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/uk-bicycle/22679/2nd-CFV-Create-moderated-newsgroup-uk-rec-cycling-moderated
(PGP signed too!)
>
>> So far nobody has been asked to vote on your proposals.
>
> You haven't answered my question at all, have you?
I have unless you can demonstrate you have a democratic mandate which the
current arrangements do have.
>>
>>>> even the current group membership.
>>>>
>>> There's no such thing as "membership" of a Usenet group - it's a
>>> collection of text propagated to various servers where various
>>> people may read and/or add to it, nothing more.
>>
>> " Some newsgroups allow the posting of messages on a wide variety of
>> themes, regarding anything a member chooses to discuss as on-topic,
>> while others keep more strictly to their particular subject, frowning
>> on off-topic postings."
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_newsgroup
>>
> Because Wikipedia really is the definitive source of all knowledge,
> except maybe for the bits that Chapman has had a hand in. Yeah.
Just demonstrates the concept of membership is not unique to me. But yes
I'm sure Guy went in and deliberately edited it for me. How foresightful
of him.
--
Tony
Tony Raven
The 2nd CFV is what people voted for and that gave the moderators the
mandate to moderate how they see fit and change the moderation policy. The
Charter then encapsulated that and again said they could use whatever they
felt necessary for the smooth running of the group.
--
Tony
Tony Raven
> Being your opinion doesn't make it fact.
> Oh no, Tony. A huge and wide variety of people have complained about
> urcm here and in unnm.
Yes, look at them all contributing to this thread
> That is a bare-faced lie, Tony. I supported the principal of a
> moderated newsgroup. At the time of its creation I voted against the
> proposal because I did not trust the way that Ian Jackson selected his
> team of moderators. I felt that the only way a moderated cycling
> newsgroup would work is if it were underpinned by a proper democratic
> process for selecting and deselecting moderators.
And the vote went against you which you have refused to accept ever since.
So much for your democracy.
--
Tony
Geoff Berrow
>> Well they have as much right as anyone. And while there is no other
>> mechanism to change moderators and/or moderation policy, what else
>> /could/ they do?
>
>If they don't agree with the moderation, go for a RFD & CFV which will then
>give them a democratic mandate? That"s generally how democracy works, not
>by self appointed cliques issuing demands with threats..
If someone persists in parking in my drive and I threaten to sue them
if they don't stop, should I still sue them if they stop doing it?
Tony Raven
> If a significant number of people are disgruntled then the group is
> clearly not running smoothly.
>
Are you aware of a significant number of people who are disgruntled?
AFAICS there is a small group comprising those who don't want a moderated
group at all, those who are regularly moderated/banned, some who disagreed
with the vote outcome, three of the Committee and the Gang of Four (now
six) who have now said it's smooth enough. I don't see a lot of
contributors/members/whatever you want to call them in this thread
supporting the view that the group is not running smoothly.
--
Tony
Tony Raven
> On 27 Mar 2011 23:05:40 GMT, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The fact thevcuurent arrangement was created by a democratic vote. Perhaps
>> you should go back & read the 2nd CFV that everyone voted on. So far
>> nobody has been asked to vote on your proposals.
>
> While that's true, it's also true that what was created as a result of
> the vote was not in the spirit of what was voted on and with hindsight
> quite a few people would have voted differently.
>
Perhaps they should have read Pedt's post setting out what they were voting
for.
"INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
<.......>
This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit."
>
> It's membership in the very loosest sense of the word.
Agreed but what word would you use to signify that group of people that
make up the community that use the newsgroup. Membership seems as good as
any to me but I'm open to suggestions.
--
Tony
Tony Raven
> On 27 Mar 2011 22:16:07 GMT, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Well they have as much right as anyone. And while there is no other
>>> mechanism to change moderators and/or moderation policy, what else
>>> /could/ they do?
>>
>> If they don't agree with the moderation, go for a RFD & CFV which will then
>> give them a democratic mandate? That"s generally how democracy works, not
>> by self appointed cliques issuing demands with threats..
>
> If someone persists in parking in my drive and I threaten to sue them
> if they don't stop, should I still sue them if they stop doing it?
Ah, it's your personal newsgroup is it? That's where I've been going wrong
all this time. Of course if it's your newsgroup you have every right to
tell the moderators to cease and desist.
--
Tony
Geoff Berrow
>> While that's true, it's also true that what was created as a result of
>> the vote was not in the spirit of what was voted on and with hindsight
>> quite a few people would have voted differently.
>>
>
>Perhaps they should have read Pedt's post setting out what they were voting
>for.
>
>"INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
><.......>
>This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit."
No, not really. That doesn't give them carte blanche either. They
couldn't, for instance, insist on some kind of eligibility criteria,
like asking for names and addresses. It is assumed that such changes
are in line with ensuring the smooth running of the group which in
turn means keeping the majority of users happy.
>
>>
>> It's membership in the very loosest sense of the word.
>
>Agreed but what word would you use to signify that group of people that
>make up the community that use the newsgroup. Membership seems as good as
>any to me but I'm open to suggestions.
You could use user, poster or subscriber. Members usually tend to
belong to clubs.
Tony Raven
> On 28 Mar 2011 07:47:03 GMT, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> While that's true, it's also true that what was created as a result of
>>> the vote was not in the spirit of what was voted on and with hindsight
>>> quite a few people would have voted differently.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps they should have read Pedt's post setting out what they were voting
>> for.
>>
>> "INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
>> <.......>
>> This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit."
>
> No, not really. That doesn't give them carte blanche either. They
> couldn't, for instance, insist on some kind of eligibility criteria,
> like asking for names and addresses. It is assumed that such changes
> are in line with ensuring the smooth running of the group which in
> turn means keeping the majority of users happy.
>
So we were voting on something different from what was set out in the
voting paper?.
>>>
>>> It's membership in the very loosest sense of the word.
>>
>> Agreed but what word would you use to signify that group of people that
>> make up the community that use the newsgroup. Membership seems as good as
>> any to me but I'm open to suggestions.
>
> You could use user, poster or subscriber. Members usually tend to
> belong to clubs.
Not everyone involved is a user, poster or subscriber. Member seems more
encompassing than any of those words.
--
Tony
Geoff Berrow
>
>Are you aware of a significant number of people who are disgruntled?
>AFAICS there is a small group comprising those who don't want a moderated
>group at all, those who are regularly moderated/banned, some who disagreed
>with the vote outcome, three of the Committee and the Gang of Four (now
>six) who have now said it's smooth enough. I don't see a lot of
>contributors/members/whatever you want to call them in this thread
>supporting the view that the group is not running smoothly.
A significant number of people /were/ disgruntled, which is why I
believe the moderation of the group seemed to change.
I think a significant number of people are still not entirely
satisfied with the situation (the bans issue still needs to be
addressed IMO) but as I pointed out earlier they have probably done
enough to stave off any threat from RFD (though they'd be wise to gag
Ian Jackson whose bias clearly shows).
I can't speak for other committee members but at least 5 have
commented.
Geoff Berrow
>>> If they don't agree with the moderation, go for a RFD & CFV which will then
>>> give them a democratic mandate? That"s generally how democracy works, not
>>> by self appointed cliques issuing demands with threats..
>>
>> If someone persists in parking in my drive and I threaten to sue them
>> if they don't stop, should I still sue them if they stop doing it?
>
>Ah, it's your personal newsgroup is it? That's where I've been going wrong
>all this time. Of course if it's your newsgroup you have every right to
>tell the moderators to cease and desist.
Excuse me? I haven't issued an RFD. I've already stated on many
occasions that I don't have sufficient interest in cycling to do that.
But I do care very much about fairness and will speak out wherever and
whenever I see it.