Re: Nominations invited for new moderators
Just zis Guy, you know?
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated invite nominations
>(including self-nominations) of volunteers to join the moderation
>panel. The duties of a moderator are
>
>(1) to engage in discussion with other moderators to seek to achieve a
> consistent and reasonable moderation policy;
>
>(2) to apply that policy in moderating posts made to the group.
>
>Nominations should be made to urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>or to urcmmod...@googlemail.com
>
>Any discussion should take place in uk.net.news.moderation
>
>Simon Brooke, for and on behalf of uk.rec.cycling.moderated moderators.
Shouldn't those aims be the other way round, more like:
(1) to apply moderation policy in a consistent, fair and reasonable
manner;
(2) to engage in discussion with other moderators and interested
parties to achieve and maintain a fair, consistent and reasonable
moderation policy;
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<guy.c...@spamcop.net>
>On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 00:54:25 +0100, Simon Brooke
><stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated invite nominations
>>(including self-nominations) of volunteers to join the moderation
>>panel. The duties of a moderator are
>>
>>(1) to engage in discussion with other moderators to seek to achieve a
>> consistent and reasonable moderation policy;
>>
>>(2) to apply that policy in moderating posts made to the group.
>>
>>Nominations should be made to urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>or to urcmmod...@googlemail.com
>>
>>Any discussion should take place in uk.net.news.moderation
>>
>>Simon Brooke, for and on behalf of uk.rec.cycling.moderated moderators.
>
>Shouldn't those aims be the other way round, more like:
>
>(1) to apply moderation policy in a consistent, fair and reasonable
> manner;
>(2) to engage in discussion with other moderators and interested
> parties to achieve and maintain a fair, consistent and reasonable
> moderation policy;
It does seem a bit arse before face. Perhaps they have eventually
worked out that the extant mod policy isn't doing the group any favours.
My suggestions are TomC, one of the Merriman's (if they are prepared to
try again) or TlT without his (or her) cloak. Absorb your critic?
I'd object to JMS but think about MattB.
Or, we could borrow a known good mod from ulm or another respected uk.*
group and see what they think from the inside. The advantage of that
would be that we'd get a comparative report back on whether things are
as they should be within a mod'd group.
Comment?
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Tosspot
What is actually involved in moderating? How much workload? Only I
might be interested meself as it were...
Wm...
<0vidnZTTppPf4hHR...@giganews.com> uk.net.news.moderation
Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
>What is actually involved in moderating? How much workload? Only I
>might be interested meself as it were...
For some people it is about control, eg "I won't allow this thought to
be expressed".
For others it may be as simple as keeping the very bad people out and
letting conversations develop and flow.
I'm in favour of the latter.
If you can say that you take one side or another I'll speak accordingly.
Nuxx Bar
stilly...@googlemail.com says...
>
> The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated invite nominations
> (including self-nominations) of volunteers to join the moderation
> panel.
I nominate:
- JMS
- Matt B
- JNugent
- Derek C
- Ian Smith
- Tom Crispin
- Simon Mason
- Mark Goodge
- Nobby Anderson
- Trevor A Panther
Tosspot
I was more interested in the actual mechanics of it. I mean are we
talking an hour a day, or an hour a week. Can I do it from anywhere.
How much inter-mod discussion is there to keep track of etc.
However, for me it's simply about the ideas rather than the person, in
fact I'd probably let a bit more through than the current mod team
because the odd bit of dissent isn't a bad thing, but otoh, I have no
problem in barring persistent offenders because they are simply trying
to gum up the moderation process and that affects everyone.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>In article <8f2hl4...@mid.individual.net>,
>stilly...@googlemail.com says...
>>
>> The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated invite nominations
>> (including self-nominations) of volunteers to join the moderation
>> panel.
>
>I nominate:
>
>- JMS
Can't be identified
>- Matt B
Maybe
>- JNugent
Can't be identified
>- Derek C
Wrong side?
>- Ian Smith
Wrong side?
>- Tom Crispin
Yup
>- Simon Mason
Why not.
>- Mark Goodge
Yes
>- Nobby Anderson
Why not.
>- Trevor A Panther
No thanks, alcohol and bicycles shouldn't be mixed too often. If Trevor
posts what he does when sober it is even worse.
Wm...
<KLadnbqJDe_1IBHR...@giganews.com> uk.net.news.moderation
Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
>On 12/09/10 09:10, Wm... wrote:
>> Sun, 12 Sep 2010 08:20:34
>> <0vidnZTTppPf4hHR...@giganews.com> uk.net.news.moderation
>> Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> What is actually involved in moderating? How much workload? Only I
>>> might be interested meself as it were...
>>
>> For some people it is about control, eg "I won't allow this thought to
>> be expressed".
>>
>> For others it may be as simple as keeping the very bad people out and
>> letting conversations develop and flow.
>>
>> I'm in favour of the latter.
>>
>> If you can say that you take one side or another I'll speak accordingly.
>
>I was more interested in the actual mechanics of it. I mean are we
>talking an hour a day, or an hour a week.
If you micro manage it I'm guessing at least an hour a day.
> Can I do it from anywhere.
Yup.
>How much inter-mod discussion is there to keep track of etc.
Don't know. It appears some mods like to talk about modding more than
others.
>However, for me it's simply about the ideas rather than the person, in
>fact I'd probably let a bit more through than the current mod team
>because the odd bit of dissent isn't a bad thing, but otoh, I have no
>problem in barring persistent offenders because they are simply trying
>to gum up the moderation process and that affects everyone.
You get my vote.
Simon Brooke
> On 12/09/10 09:10, Wm... wrote:
>> Sun, 12 Sep 2010 08:20:34
>> <0vidnZTTppPf4hHR...@giganews.com> uk.net.news.moderation
>> Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> What is actually involved in moderating? How much workload? Only I
>>> might be interested meself as it were...
>>
>> For some people it is about control, eg "I won't allow this thought to
>> be expressed".
>>
>> For others it may be as simple as keeping the very bad people out and
>> letting conversations develop and flow.
>>
>> I'm in favour of the latter.
>>
>> If you can say that you take one side or another I'll speak
>> accordingly.
>
> I was more interested in the actual mechanics of it. I mean are we
> talking an hour a day, or an hour a week. Can I do it from anywhere.
> How much inter-mod discussion is there to keep track of etc.
Actually moderating takes me between ten and twenty minutes per day. The
amount of discussion between moderators is very variable - essentially,
when nothing controversial is happening there's no discussion, when there
is disagreement about a decision there may be thirty or forty emails per
day. There's also the matter of how much to monitor this group. It
normally doesn't take much time, unless we get drawn into flame wars,
which of course we should not, but sometimes do. At least some of us do
need to monitor it, however, because it is a legitimate feedback channel.
--
;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat
Ian Smith
> Sun, 12 Sep <MPG.26f6bfd6c...@news.zen.co.uk>
> uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>
> >I nominate:
> >
> >- Ian Smith
>
> Wrong side?
Wrong side of what? What side? I don't understand this comment.
I won't moderate the group anyway.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com>
>At least some of us do
>need to monitor it, however, because it is a legitimate feedback channel.
You did point responses to a thread in urcm to this place, dear. It is
hardly surprising that the discussion takes place here.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
>On Sun, 12 Sep, Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>> Sun, 12 Sep <MPG.26f6bfd6c...@news.zen.co.uk>
>> uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>>
>> >I nominate:
>> >
>> >- Ian Smith
>>
>> Wrong side?
>
>Wrong side of what? What side? I don't understand this comment.
Nuxx nominated you, talk to him.
>I won't moderate the group anyway.
We agree on that so there is no longer a problem.
Ian Smith
> Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:29:28 <slrni8pht...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>
> uk.net.news.moderation Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
>
> >On Sun, 12 Sep, Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> >> Sun, 12 Sep <MPG.26f6bfd6c...@news.zen.co.uk>
> >> uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
> >>
> >> >I nominate:
> >> >
> >> >- Ian Smith
> >>
> >> Wrong side?
> >
> >Wrong side of what? What side? I don't understand this comment.
>
> Nuxx nominated you, talk to him.
Nuxx nominated me, you say I may be the wrong side, so I need to talk
to nuxx to find out what your comment means?
Does that make sense to you?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:29:28 <slrni8pht...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>
>uk.net.news.moderation Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
>
>>On Sun, 12 Sep, Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>> Sun, 12 Sep <MPG.26f6bfd6c...@news.zen.co.uk>
>>> uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>>>
>>> >I nominate:
>>> >
>>> >- Ian Smith
>>>
>>> Wrong side?
>>
>>Wrong side of what? What side? I don't understand this comment.
>
>Nuxx nominated you, talk to him.
And you took that even remotely seriously? Odd.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
Wm:
>> Nuxx nominated you, talk to him.
>
>Nuxx nominated me, you say I may be the wrong side, so I need to talk
>to nuxx to find out what your comment means?
>
>Does that make sense to you?
'fraid so. Is a nomination from Nuxx, in your opinion, good or bad?
Wm...
<guy.c...@spamcop.net>
>On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 13:53:12 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:29:28 <slrni8pht...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>
>>uk.net.news.moderation Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Sep, Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> Sun, 12 Sep <MPG.26f6bfd6c...@news.zen.co.uk>
>>>> uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>>>>
>>>> >I nominate:
>>>> >
>>>> >- Ian Smith
>>>>
>>>> Wrong side?
>>>
>>>Wrong side of what? What side? I don't understand this comment.
>>
>>Nuxx nominated you, talk to him.
>
>And you took that even remotely seriously? Odd.
It amused me. Are we not allowed a giggle on a Sunday afternoon?
Andy Leighton
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:45:44 +0100, Tosspot wrote:
>
>> On 12/09/10 09:10, Wm... wrote:
>>> Sun, 12 Sep 2010 08:20:34
>>> <0vidnZTTppPf4hHR...@giganews.com> uk.net.news.moderation
>>> Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> What is actually involved in moderating? How much workload? Only I
>>>> might be interested meself as it were...
>>>
>>> For some people it is about control, eg "I won't allow this thought to
>>> be expressed".
>>>
>>> For others it may be as simple as keeping the very bad people out and
>>> letting conversations develop and flow.
>>>
>>> I'm in favour of the latter.
>>>
>>> If you can say that you take one side or another I'll speak
>>> accordingly.
>>
>> I was more interested in the actual mechanics of it. I mean are we
>> talking an hour a day, or an hour a week. Can I do it from anywhere.
>> How much inter-mod discussion is there to keep track of etc.
>
> Actually moderating takes me between ten and twenty minutes per day.
Yep about that. I tend to check the queue about 5 or 6 times a day.
The total time probably matches Simon's estimate.
Because we have a reasonable number of moderators the total amount of
time spent never becomes too overbearing even when people are away on
their holidays.
Moderation is via a web page. It doesn't use fancy CSS or javascript
so it should be possible to moderate on fairly basic clients.
Simon has answered the inter-mod discussion pont.
--
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_
Jim A
> The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated invite nominations
> (including self-nominations) of volunteers to join the moderation
>
> (1) to engage in discussion with other moderators to seek to achieve a
> consistent and reasonable moderation policy;
>
> (2) to apply that policy in moderating posts made to the group.
I would offer, but not on those terms. IMO a moderator simply accepts
or rejects posts according to the charter. Everything else is just
pointless fluff.
Nuxx Bar
guy.c...@spamcop.net says...
>
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 13:53:12 +0100, "Wm..."
> <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >Nuxx nominated you, talk to him.
>
> And you took that even remotely seriously? Odd.
Look Ian, he's rolling in shit *again*. I guess this'll make you even
more skeptical the next time he claims he's not going to do it anymore.
Question to everyone: If you were genuinely concerned that someone was
stalking you, would you make completely unprovoked jibes about them time
after time after time?
Nuxx Bar
i...@astounding.org.uk says...
>
> I won't moderate the group anyway.
Can I ask why? Is it because you don't approve of the current
moderation methods, or are you just not interested full stop? If the
former, wouldn't joining the panel be one way to improve matters? I
feel confident that if you came across one of Chapman's shit-rolling
jibes as a URCM moderator, you would rightly reject it, rather than
waving it through because Chapman's a "club member" (as has happened
multiple times already).
The people I suggested have a wide range of opinions, and some of them I
usually disagree with, but they have all shown themselves to be
relatively reasonable and tolerant towards those who have different
opinions (except Trevor A Panther, who admittedly I was joking about,
although it would be amusing to see him trying to moderate).
I think the current problems on URCM are mostly caused by the fact that
the current moderators have more-or-less the same opinions on the "hot"
issues, and many of them are hostile towards those who disagree. I
genuinely think that replacing them with the people I've suggested would
improve things for everyone except the worst of the car-hating nutters
(the ones who support the "private club" aspect and the exclusion of
contrasting opinions on the pretext that such opinions are "libertarian
pro-motorist crap" and other hysterical, inaccurate terms).
Tom Crispin
I accept the nomination, and will gladly accept the post if:
- I am elected by a free and fair election system that values the
votes of all;
- the term for which I am elected does not exceed three years;
- there is a process whereby current moderators have to be elected
within 12 months.
Sara Merriman
Tom Crispin <tom.n...@britsc.com.nospam> wrote:
I doubt that's going to happen.
- Not everyone wants to vote or cares who moderates
- A moderator can resign any time they like
- See reply to point one
No one wants to be bogged down in constant bureaucracy.
--
Sara
Cuddler of rats, cats and husband
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 00:54:25 +0100, Simon Brooke
><stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated invite nominations
>>(including self-nominations) of volunteers to join the moderation
>>panel. The duties of a moderator are
>>
>>(1) to engage in discussion with other moderators to seek to achieve a
>> consistent and reasonable moderation policy;
>>
>>(2) to apply that policy in moderating posts made to the group.
>>
>>Nominations should be made to urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>or to urcmmod...@googlemail.com
Why are two addresses needed?
JMS
What do you mean *you* would object to JMS?
Do you think there is going to be a vote?
You will not have a chance to object - the new moderators will be
hand-picked by Wacko and his deputy Brooke.
I suggest Simon Mason; however he appears to quite sensible which may
not be one of the traits being sought.
JMS
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:45:44
><KLadnbqJDe_1IBHR...@giganews.com> uk.net.news.moderation
>Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
>
>>On 12/09/10 09:10, Wm... wrote:
>>> Sun, 12 Sep 2010 08:20:34
>>> <0vidnZTTppPf4hHR...@giganews.com> uk.net.news.moderation
>>> Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> What is actually involved in moderating? How much workload? Only I
>>>> might be interested meself as it were...
>>>
>>> For some people it is about control, eg "I won't allow this thought to
>>> be expressed".
>>>
>>> For others it may be as simple as keeping the very bad people out and
>>> letting conversations develop and flow.
>>>
>>> I'm in favour of the latter.
>>>
>>> If you can say that you take one side or another I'll speak accordingly.
>>
>>I was more interested in the actual mechanics of it. I mean are we
>>talking an hour a day, or an hour a week.
>
>If you micro manage it I'm guessing at least an hour a day.
Sorry to be blunt sunshine - but how the fuck do *you* know?
Why not let someone who actually does it to give a correct and
considered answer.
JMS
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:46:22 <MPG.26f6bfd6c...@news.zen.co.uk>
>uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>
>>In article <8f2hl4...@mid.individual.net>,
>>stilly...@googlemail.com says...
>>>
>>> The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated invite nominations
>>> (including self-nominations) of volunteers to join the moderation
>>> panel.
>>
>>I nominate:
>>
>>- JMS
>
>Can't be identified
>>- JNugent
>
>Can't be identified
ffs - people should not have to give their home address or personal
details in order to be a moderator - least of all to *you*.
Why on earth do you have this very, very unhealthy obsession with
knowing such things - are you some sort of pervert perhaps?
JMS
I guess that you do tend to think for yourself - that attribute is un
required as the comment shows.
JMS
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sun, 12 Sep 2010 14:08:03 <slrni8pnm...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>
>uk.net.news.moderation Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
>
>Wm:
>>> Nuxx nominated you, talk to him.
>>
>>Nuxx nominated me, you say I may be the wrong side, so I need to talk
>>to nuxx to find out what your comment means?
>>
>>Does that make sense to you?
>
>'fraid so. Is a nomination from Nuxx, in your opinion, good or bad?
It is of course nothing to so with who suggested Smith - it is your
own silly comment on the suitability of him.
It is *you* who has said he is on the wrong side; why not explain what
*you* mean?
Mr. Benn
news:9rrr86l2mo3e5bn4b...@4ax.com...
> I suggest Simon Mason; however he appears to quite sensible which may
> not be one of the traits being sought.
I second Simon Mason - he seems to be one of the more reasonable cyclists.
Trollsworth LeTrole
wrote:
> Sun, 12 Sep 2010 01:25:33 <j97o86dqq4f3su5eqi2811t3o60uv8j...@4ax.com>
> uk.net.news.moderation "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 00:54:25 +0100, Simon Brooke
>
> >>The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated invite nominations
> >>(including self-nominations) of volunteers to join the moderation
>
> >>(1) to engage in discussion with other moderators to seek to achieve a
> >> consistent and reasonable moderation policy;
>
> >>(2) to apply that policy in moderating posts made to the group.
>
> >>or to urcmmoderat...@googlemail.com
>
> >>Any discussion should take place in uk.net.news.moderation
>
> >>Simon Brooke, for and on behalf of uk.rec.cycling.moderated moderators.
>
> >Shouldn't those aims be the other way round, more like:
>
> >(1) to apply moderation policy in a consistent, fair and reasonable
> > manner;
> >(2) to engage in discussion with other moderators and interested
> > parties to achieve and maintain a fair, consistent and reasonable
> > moderation policy;
>
> It does seem a bit arse before face. Perhaps they have eventually
> worked out that the extant mod policy isn't doing the group any favours.
>
> My suggestions are TomC, one of the Merriman's (if they are prepared to
> try again) or TlT without his (or her) cloak. Absorb your critic?
myself forward. I doubt it'll be a barrel of fun and laughs, but I've
done enough criticism that I feel honour-bound ("put up or shut up").
T.
JMS
<tom.n...@britsc.com.nospam> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:46:22 +0100, Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <8f2hl4...@mid.individual.net>,
>>stilly...@googlemail.com says...
>>>
>>> The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated invite nominations
>>> (including self-nominations) of volunteers to join the moderation
>>> panel.
>>
>>I nominate:
>>
>>- JMS
>>- Matt B
>>- JNugent
>>- Derek C
>>- Ian Smith
>>- Tom Crispin
>>- Simon Mason
>>- Mark Goodge
>>- Nobby Anderson
>>- Trevor A Panther
>
>I accept the nomination, and will gladly accept the post if:
>
>- I am elected by a free and fair election system that values the
>votes of all;
What on earth makes you think that there is some sort of election
going to happen?
It would be sensible for Brooke to actually answer that question - and
perhaps even describe the process.
Or will people be "hand-picked" again?
Ian Smith
> In article <slrni8pht...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>,
> i...@astounding.org.uk says...
> >
> > I won't moderate the group anyway.
>
> Can I ask why? Is it because you don't approve of the current
> moderation methods, or are you just not interested full stop? If
> the former, wouldn't joining the panel be one way to improve
> matters?
I disagree with the current methods, and don't believe that my
involvement would improve matters enough to be worth the effort.
The moderators have shown themselves immune to reason. If they were
reasonable people, then the views of users of the group and interested
members of the UK usenet community would have previously received
serious consideration, and we wouldn't have got to here.
I've concluded I want nothing to do with them. It would be a bit
peculiar if I concluded I wanted nothing to do with an organisation,
club or society and then joined the managing committee, don't you
think?
Trevor A Panther
news:fchr86lgrt5ojbmch...@4ax.com...
I would not accept a nomination made by "Nuxx Barr"
I would not consider accepting any nomination at all unloess the
selection/election process was quite clearly specified and had more
semblence of a democratic system.
What I actually see ( unwritten -- but see "the Charter" ) is just a couple
of new moderartors being picked by the existing moderation team. ( or more
likely by the same person who picked the original moderators)
One might just begin to read that perhaps a reassessment is in process -- I
doubt it very much.
But nowhere has that been stated ..
Just "Nominations are requested."
No compulsory %age stand down at periods
0r
No maximum period of tenure of office ( eg 2 years)
or
No bar from readmittence for X years
There is just no point it it at all!
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Tom Crispin
I don't see that it makes one iota of difference who makes the
nomination.
>I would not consider accepting any nomination at all unloess the
>selection/election process was quite clearly specified and had more
>semblence of a democratic system.
Ahhh... I don't hve any problem accepting a nomination, and then
providing a condition on accepting the post if selected. It is a point
for negotiation
Look at the way the Liberal Democrats agreed to work with the Tories,
and then got them to drop some of their more odious policies (such as
reducing to nil death duty for those who have between £325,000 and
£1,000,000 in assets.)
It is much easier to change a bad system from within than from the
outside.
>What I actually see ( unwritten -- but see "the Charter" ) is just a couple
>of new moderartors being picked by the existing moderation team. ( or more
>likely by the same person who picked the original moderators)
Indeed.
>One might just begin to read that perhaps a reassessment is in process -- I
>doubt it very much.
We can hope.
>But nowhere has that been stated ..
>
>Just "Nominations are requested."
>
>No compulsory %age stand down at periods
>0r
>No maximum period of tenure of office ( eg 2 years)
>or
>No bar from readmittence for X years
>
>
>There is just no point it it at all!
Don't give up hope, Trevor. In principal I was always in favour of a
moderated group. The way the moderation panel was selected raised
alarm bells in my head, and I was always fearful that the creation of
the new group in the form it was created would lead to the destruction
of both. I have not given up hope.
Nuxx Bar
says...
>
> I would not accept a nomination made by "Nuxx Barr"
Well if it's any consolation, I put you in as a joke. (I was even
thinking of putting Chapman in, but that would be going a bit far, and I
would never have forgiven myself if that nomination had resulted in him
actually becoming a moderator.) That's not to say that I wouldn't find
it very amusing to see you attempting to moderate URCM...I can just
imagine the many drunken, incomprehensible, pompous rejection messages
that would result. I'd be PMSL...the only downside would be that you
wouldn't last very long. It would be quite hard to be *so* much worse
than the current lot that you'd be ejected, but I'm sure you could
manage it.
Ah well, you won't accept my nomination, so if you want to moderate URCM
then you'd just better hope that someone else comes along and nominates
you seriously. What do you think the chances are?
I'll give you one thing though, you're right about Chapman. As you say,
he hasn't changed his spots...in this thread alone he has made a
completely unprovoked attack on one of his usual victims.
Bye Trevva! Hey, maybe one of these days you'll really stay away rather
than just saying you're going to.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Tom Crispin <tom.n...@britsc.com.nospam>
>I accept the nomination, and will gladly accept the post if:
>
>- I am elected by a free and fair election system that values the
>votes of all;
I think the current mods want to choose rather than have a vote. uk.*
does include a well respected voting organisation and I expect they
(urcm mods) know that.
>- the term for which I am elected does not exceed three years;
I'd have gone for 3 or 6 months, you may want to leave before then.
>- there is a process whereby current moderators have to be elected
>within 12 months.
I think you may be putting unnecessary barriers in your own way, Tom.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>Question to everyone: If you were genuinely concerned that someone was
>stalking you, would you make completely unprovoked jibes about them time
>after time after time?
I think it depends on your confidence, technical ability and so on.
Maybe some people need the help of a friend to identify their stalker?
Maybe some people are sufficiently confident that they don't need help
and see the stalker as the weak person particularly when they try to
remain unidentifiable?
I don't think there are necessarily right and wrong answers about this;
usenet is to some extent a playground; for some it is a place where they
eviscerate, for others it is a place where discussion occurs.
Going back to what you have said above, Nuxx, I may be in the process of
having a minor rethink about your persona. You suggested some good
people for urcm and have withdrawn the obvious bad one.
The thing that puzzles me is that if you care sufficiently about the
group to suggest good people for it, why are you still having a go at
individuals who you may have fallen out with years ago?
I am not claiming perfection here, I have an intense dislike for JMS.
I'm wondering if we should talk about this.
Tosspot
<applause> This man stands out from the crowd.
Wm...
<xt6dnaP7mO0M4BPR...@giganews.com> uk.net.news.moderation
Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
><applause> This man stands out from the crowd.
Yup, I'd like an identifier for him (I think it is a man); TlT I am
good at keeping confidence. I will not say in public if you tell me who
you are.
I would, however, like you to mark yourself as different to JMS
The limits I place should be clear: I will not say to anyone else what
you tell me; I just need enough to know that I can trust you and that if
the worst comes to the worst (a "shouldn't happen" thing) I know where
to tell the police to go. I think the chances of me calling the police
wrt you are remote. I don't think you are in the weird category of JMS.
If you would prefer to lodge details with someone else then that'll be
fine with me. Do you understand my concern, TlT?
Tony
wrote:
>Do you understand my concern, TlT?
Seriously, take a break.
--
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 ]
Trollsworth LeTrole
wrote:
> Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:37:53
> Tosspot <Frank.Le...@gmail.com>
>
> ><applause> This man stands out from the crowd.
>
> Yup, I'd like an identifier for him (I think it is a man); TlT I am
> good at keeping confidence. I will not say in public if you tell me who
> you are.
ideas about the legitimacy and desirability of online pseudonyms and
are unlikely to come to an accord. My identifier is what it says in
the From: field.
> I would, however, like you to mark yourself as different to JMS
I'd like to imagine I've done that via the contents of my postings ;-
p.
T.
JMS
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>I am not claiming perfection here, I have an intense dislike for JMS.
>I'm wondering if we should talk about this.
Excellent stuff Maggot. - up to your usual low standard.
So the thread is nothing at all about me - but you cannot help
yourself (And I doubt if anyone else can either) - you have to
introduce me in to the conversation
Why not throw some shit up and see who it lands on? Oh - bugger - it
has landed on the Maggot.
PS - What sort of personal information are you seeking on JNugent -
before you will remove your objection that he "Can't be identified".
Can we see a little wriggle from the maggot on this one please?
Just zis Guy, you know?
Why would it matter? The TlT persona is utterly different, in an
entirely good way.
The chances of this being the same person as the troll-bitch from hell
are remote indeed, but even if it were the same person, a reversion to
type would result in instant bannination.
Assume good faith.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:03:16 <MPG.26f76c923...@news.zen.co.uk>
>uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>
>>Question to everyone: If you were genuinely concerned that someone was
>>stalking you, would you make completely unprovoked jibes about them time
>>after time after time?
>
>I think it depends on your confidence, technical ability and so on.
>Maybe some people need the help of a friend to identify their stalker?
>Maybe some people are sufficiently confident that they don't need help
>and see the stalker as the weak person particularly when they try to
>remain unidentifiable?
Also, I have no need to prove to anyone that crank calls were made,
the times and dates are recorded and the source (a phone box in
Binfield Heath, for example) is also on record. People can believe
that or not. My identity is not a secret, neither Nuxx nor JMS will
own up to who they are. I think that is an important distinction.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<tom.n...@britsc.com.nospam> wrote:
My view on this begins with "F" and ends with "uck process". Either
it's a cluocracy, in which case you get in on merit, or it's not.
Democracy is every bit as capable of returning crass idiots as any
other system.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk>
>Can we see a little wriggle from the maggot on this one please?
I dance better than most men, you'll never find out if I am fibbing if
you hide all the time. Some good dates at the RFH before the end of the
month ... chicken.
JMS will, as usual run off scared. I am a good dancer, I am able to
dance with a man or a woman, special needs can be accommodated too.
Don't be afraid, JMS, just come and dance if you dare.
JMS
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:37:53
><xt6dnaP7mO0M4BPR...@giganews.com> uk.net.news.moderation
>Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
>
>><applause> This man stands out from the crowd.
>
>Yup, I'd like an identifier for him (I think it is a man); TlT I am
>good at keeping confidence. I will not say in public if you tell me who
>you are.
Do not believe him - he lies over such matters.
He made such a promise to me - and then immediately welshed on it.
He is dishonest - and not to be trusted in such matters.
>I would, however, like you to mark yourself as different to JMS
>
>The limits I place should be clear: I will not say to anyone else what
>you tell me; I just need enough to know that I can trust you and that if
>the worst comes to the worst (a "shouldn't happen" thing) I know where
>to tell the police to go. I think the chances of me calling the police
>wrt you are remote. I don't think you are in the weird category of JMS.
>If you would prefer to lodge details with someone else then that'll be
>fine with me. Do you understand my concern, TlT?
ffs - will you please stop trying to find out personal information
about the people who post here.
You have a very, very unhealthy interest in this sort of matter as has
been shown in the past.
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Why would it matter? The TlT persona is utterly different, in an
>entirely good way.
>
>The chances of this being the same person as the troll-bitch from hell
>are remote indeed, but even if it were the same person, a reversion to
>type would result in instant bannination.
Oh dear, oh dear - Porky Chapman at his best.
Up goes the shit - down it comes on Porky's head.
What's this about you not having the guts to ride your new bike?
I think you are putting it off because you don't want to wear a helmet
do you?
Who is it that has insisted that you wear the helmet?
--
"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:48:34 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:03:16 <MPG.26f76c923...@news.zen.co.uk>
>>uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>>
>>>Question to everyone: If you were genuinely concerned that someone was
>>>stalking you, would you make completely unprovoked jibes about them time
>>>after time after time?
>>
>>I think it depends on your confidence, technical ability and so on.
>>Maybe some people need the help of a friend to identify their stalker?
>>Maybe some people are sufficiently confident that they don't need help
>>and see the stalker as the weak person particularly when they try to
>>remain unidentifiable?
>
>Also, I have no need to prove to anyone that crank calls were made,
>the times and dates are recorded and the source (a phone box in
>Binfield Heath, for example) is also on record. People can believe
>that or not. My identity is not a secret, neither Nuxx nor JMS will
>own up to who they are. I think that is an important distinction.
>
>Guy
"I think that is an important distinction" - indeed it is - we two are
just not as stupid as you.
Tom Crispin
Indeed, but at least in a democracy there is an opportunity to expell
the crass idiot.
Alan Braggins
>On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 00:54:25 +0100, Simon Brooke
>
>>The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated invite nominations
>>(including self-nominations) of volunteers to join the moderation
>>
>>(1) to engage in discussion with other moderators to seek to achieve a
>> consistent and reasonable moderation policy;
>>
>>(2) to apply that policy in moderating posts made to the group.
>Shouldn't those aims be the other way round, more like:
>
>(1) to apply moderation policy in a consistent, fair and reasonable
> manner;
>(2) to engage in discussion with other moderators and interested
> parties to achieve and maintain a fair, consistent and reasonable
> moderation policy;
I suspect you are reading too much into the ordering. However,
engaging in the discussion without taking part in moderation can be
constructive - there are (a few) people doing it here. Moderating
without any attention to the consensus is likely to be less so.
So while the actual application of policy is the point of being a
moderator and the discussion is only a means to that end, the
discussion might have to happen first.
Alan Braggins
>Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
>>
>>I was more interested in the actual mechanics of it. I mean are we
>>talking an hour a day, or an hour a week.
>
>If you micro manage it I'm guessing at least an hour a day.
But in reality it's an hour a week, so long as you can refrain from unnm
flame wars with the sort of fool who thinks it's done by micro-managing
control freaks :-)
Pedt
2010, Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wibbled
> I just need enough to know that I can trust you and that if the worst
>comes to the worst (a "shouldn't happen" thing) I know where to tell
>the police to go.
WTF?
I'd suggest a longish break from Usenet.
--
Pedt
Roger Merriman
sounds cynical but I'd agree, one would just be out voted and end up
rubber stamping stuff.
I really can't see any good reason to join, they want a boys club, while
it does anoye that they have used a public service to do so, Such is
life, there are people wrong on the internet. we move on.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Percy Picacity
news:cU3IFON$0ojMFwRB@[127.0.0.1]:
The only identifier you need for a moderator is a way of contacting
them, for which the moderation email address seems adequate. The
moderators may require their colleagues to each have a functioning
individual email address - that is up to them. You have no obvious
need for, or reason to have, any further identification other than
the screen name they choose to use.
--
Percy Picacity
JMS
wrote:
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> Also, I have no need to prove to anyone that crank calls were made,
>> the times and dates are recorded and the source (a phone box in
>> Binfield Heath, for example) is also on record. People can believe
>> that or not. My identity is not a secret, neither Nuxx nor JMS will
>> own up to who they are. I think that is an important distinction.
>
>You mean Guy Cuthbertson isn't Nuxx's real name?!
Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address
above.
It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer
software.
Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
remailer administrator at <ab...@frell.theremailer.net>.
Identifying the real sender is technically impossible.
Good one Porky.
Just zis Guy, you know?
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:41:34 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
>
>
> <guy.chap...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:36:36 +0100, Tom Crispin
>
> >>On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:46:22 +0100, Nuxx Bar <n...@bar.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>In article <8f2hl4Ft9...@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>stillyet+n...@googlemail.com says...
Usually you just get to choose another idiot instead. Democracy is not
necessary here and can lead to the "tyranny of the majority"; I
thought that was pretty much what you were aiming to avoid.
--
Guy
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Have a grin in return. Most stuff should just pass. It is the odd and
occasional internals we sometimes wonder about.
Wm...
<Z$EDIRy9b...@fishcake.eternal-september.org> uk.net.news.moderation
Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk>
For whom? If you mean me then I'm afraid I am going to see this
through, no break for me immediately.
I also think you may have missed the point, Pedt. Bit unusual for you.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
>The only identifier you need for a moderator is a way of contacting
>them, for which the moderation email address seems adequate.
Ideally, yes.
> The
>moderators may require their colleagues to each have a functioning
>individual email address - that is up to them.
It would seem sensible, particularly if the mods are going to say that
mod decisions are a function of the group rather than apportioning them
individually and unaccountably.
> You have no obvious
>need for, or reason to have, any further identification other than
>the screen name they choose to use.
Screen name is a bit web orientated for me. If someone behaves well I
find myself uninterested in who they are. I read their opinions, I
reply and so on.
Do you, PP, really not see that some people are odd about bicycles?
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>I suspect you are reading too much into the ordering. However,
>engaging in the discussion without taking part in moderation can be
>constructive - there are (a few) people doing it here.
I understand up to here, I think.
> Moderating
>without any attention to the consensus is likely to be less so.
I don't know what that means but can guess.
>So while the actual application of policy is the point of being a
>moderator and the discussion is only a means to that end, the
>discussion might have to happen first.
Now I am lost.
Nuxx Bar
guy.c...@spamcop.net says...
>
> Also, I have no need to prove to anyone that crank calls were made,
> the times and dates are recorded and the source (a phone box in
> Binfield Heath, for example) is also on record.
I honestly and truly don't believe that I've ever even been to Binfield
Heath, let alone made any "crank calls" from there. I note that
according to Streetmap, there isn't even a phone box there. But if you
really did get such a call then it was someone else. With the number of
people that you've pissed off on the Internet over the years, and whole
forum threads (that I haven't participated in) discussing your personal
details and how best to "use" them, why oh why are you so keen to
discount the possibility that someone else could be making the calls?
I don't give a stuff about you of course, but for the sake of your wife
and kids, you should take steps to nail this actual real-life stalker,
and the first step is to accept that it's not me. In actual fact I
think you know that (hence your continued unprovoked rolling-in-shit
remarks about me), it just suits you to play the victim when trying to
get sympathy.
> People can believe
> that or not. My identity is not a secret, neither Nuxx nor JMS will
> own up to who they are. I think that is an important distinction.
Same old. There are posters on all "sides" who don't reveal their
identities. I've explained why I don't: because people like Spindrift
(remember him?) have a track record of harassing anti-camera posters
offline. If someone is such a crazed car-hater that they support
cameras in the knowledge that they kill people, I don't want them
knowing who I am. If you won't accept that then so be it, but it seems
perfectly rational to me.
Nuxx Bar
@live.co.uk says...
>
> "I think that is an important distinction" - indeed it is - we two are
> just not as stupid as you.
You mustn't make hurtful remarks about Guy. He's very sensitive.
Nuxx Bar
says...
Sigh. Much as I think that the only way forward is to replace the worst
of the current "moderators" (at least Jackson, Clinch and Braggins, and
possibly Brooke) with more reasonable types who aren't determined to run
URCM as a private club, I can't really argue with either of you.
As stated, it's the (ab)use of a uk.* newsgroup which is really
objectionable...if it was their own forum or private news server then
those saying "People are using the group so why not just leave them to
it?" would actually have a point. From the very start there has been a
cynical and arrogant determination to circumvent the "rules" stating
that uk.* newsgroup moderators must treat everyone fairly and without
bias according to opinion, personality clashes etc. At best, we have
only had lip service paid to those requirements, and even that is thin
on the ground.
Nuxx Bar
b1f095...@h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
trollswor...@googlemail.com says...
>
> I had a bit of a think yesterday and this morning, and decided to put
> myself forward.
The only problem I can see with that is that, err, you wouldn't be very
good at it. I guess you'd still be better than Jackson etc though.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
I find your comment less than useful. If you are going to be on JMS's
side just say so and be done with it.
You did present a list, Nuxx, that was worth reading; do you really want
JMS as support?
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>Sigh. Much as I think that the only way forward is to replace the worst
>of the current "moderators" (at least Jackson, Clinch and Braggins, and
>possibly Brooke) with more reasonable types who aren't determined to run
>URCM as a private club, I can't really argue with either of you.
>
>As stated, it's the (ab)use of a uk.* newsgroup which is really
>objectionable...if it was their own forum or private news server then
>those saying "People are using the group so why not just leave them to
>it?" would actually have a point. From the very start there has been a
>cynical and arrogant determination to circumvent the "rules" stating
>that uk.* newsgroup moderators must treat everyone fairly and without
>bias according to opinion, personality clashes etc. At best, we have
>only had lip service paid to those requirements, and even that is thin
>on the ground.
I can almost go for that.
I have a minor problem with the "me, me, me" bit
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
[major snip]
Guy, if it hasn't been Nuxx you should stop.
NuxxB, do you know who has been doing this?
>> People can believe
>> that or not. My identity is not a secret, neither Nuxx nor JMS will
>> own up to who they are. I think that is an important distinction.
>Same old. There are posters on all "sides" who don't reveal their
>identities.
People with white hats tend to be more obvious and honest.
> I've explained why I don't: because people like Spindrift
>(remember him?) have a track record of harassing anti-camera posters
>offline.
How long do you think someone like that would last if I became
interested in them?
Just for the record: wasn't Spindrift last seen years ago? NuxxB, if I
am right, why are you going on about a persona that hasn't been seen for
a while? Doesn't that make you the obsessive person?
> If someone is such a crazed car-hater that they support
>cameras in the knowledge that they kill people,
This is clearly broken. Try again. Cyclists don't mind cameras, or at
least I don't because they catch other people, not me.
The idea that a camera could actually kill a person is actually just
plain strange.
Surely you'd need to take a traffic camera from it's mounting and
actually hit some one with it for your odd conclusion to occur?
If I was driving I wouldn't stop. I would call the police to tell them
that a very strange man was standing in the road with a big box in his
hands threatening all.
> I don't want them
>knowing who I am. If you won't accept that then so be it, but it seems
>perfectly rational to me.
Just plain odd to me. You have never quite managed to join up the dots
have you, NuxxB?
Tony
wrote:
So I feel obliged to chip in and ask, how can it be possible that Matt B's
contributions take too long to manage if it's only roughly an hour a week
per moderator, unless he consumes 50%+ of that time?
--
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 ]
Tony
wrote:
>I also think you may have missed the point, Pedt. Bit unusual for you.
Your points in recent months have become so obscure as to qualify as UFO's.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>So I feel obliged to chip in and ask, how can it be possible that Matt B's
>contributions take too long to manage if it's only roughly an hour a week
>per moderator, unless he consumes 50%+ of that time?
You weren't meant to think about it, dear.
Nuxx Bar
says...
>
> So I feel obliged to chip in and ask, how can it be possible that Matt B's
> contributions take too long to manage if it's only roughly an hour a week
> per moderator, unless he consumes 50%+ of that time?
Ah, well the explanation for that is that actually Matt B's posts don't
take much time to moderate at all, it's just that "Moderating his posts
takes too much time" sounds somewhat better than the truth, i.e. "We
don't like him, we don't like his opinions, we don't like that he
challenges statements made by 'members' (particularly 'moderators'), and
we HATE it when he states facts which we'd much rather weren't true"
(e.g. "Cars sometimes take up less space than bicycles").
You knew that already of course :-) But I suppose it must sadden you to
see the moderators of a uk.* group being so continually dishonest and
dismissive of any form of criticism: I bet you've never seen anything
like it before. These people's desperation to shield themselves from
inconvenient truths has resulted in some pretty extreme, deplorable
behaviour.
Ian Jackson
Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>So I feel obliged to chip in and ask, how can it be possible that Matt B's
>contributions take too long to manage if it's only roughly an hour a week
>per moderator, unless he consumes 50%+ of that time?
Yes, I would guess that the majority of moderator time over the past
few months has been dealing with matters arising from him and his
postings.
--
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
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>(e.g. "Cars sometimes take up less space than bicycles").
Eh?
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>In article <i6o7pq$72m$4...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
>Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>>So I feel obliged to chip in and ask, how can it be possible that Matt B's
>>contributions take too long to manage if it's only roughly an hour a week
>>per moderator, unless he consumes 50%+ of that time?
>
>Yes, I would guess that the majority of moderator time over the past
>few months has been dealing with matters arising from him and his
>postings.
Oh for crying out loud, Ian.
Make him a mod and be done with it.
Sara Merriman
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <i6o7pq$72m$4...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
> Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
> >So I feel obliged to chip in and ask, how can it be possible that Matt B's
> >contributions take too long to manage if it's only roughly an hour a week
> >per moderator, unless he consumes 50%+ of that time?
>
> Yes, I would guess that the majority of moderator time over the past
> few months has been dealing with matters arising from him and his
> postings.
From the phrasing that sounds like you are including moderator
discussions after people here have pointed out that you're not
moderating fairly. Matt would take no more time that anyone else to
moderate if you treated him the same as everyone else.
--
Sara
Cuddler of rats, cats and husband
Alan Braggins
>
>So I feel obliged to chip in and ask, how can it be possible that Matt B's
>contributions take too long to manage if it's only roughly an hour a week
>per moderator, unless he consumes 50%+ of that time?
I think you've just answered your own question. Look at the proportion of
threads on unnm which involve Matt.
(The hour is an average. Sometimes it's less, sometimes there's something
borderline which gets discussed, generates borderline replies which gets
discussed, and then complaints about rejections which spawn unnm threads.
But not all the moderators get involved in all of them all the time.)
Alan Braggins
> Matt would take no more time that anyone else to
>moderate if you treated him the same as everyone else.
Matt might take no more time than anyone else to moderate if he behaved
like anyone else.
JMS
>In article <cp9t86tcc4751rlba...@4ax.com>,
>guy.c...@spamcop.net says...
>>
>> Also, I have no need to prove to anyone that crank calls were made,
>> the times and dates are recorded and the source (a phone box in
>> Binfield Heath, for example) is also on record.
>
>I honestly and truly don't believe that I've ever even been to Binfield
>Heath, let alone made any "crank calls" from there.
Is it in Reading?
I had a crank phone call from Reading - perhaps it was the same
person.
Tony
wrote:
>In article <i6o7pq$72m$4...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, Tony wrote:
>>
>>So I feel obliged to chip in and ask, how can it be possible that Matt B's
>>contributions take too long to manage if it's only roughly an hour a week
>>per moderator, unless he consumes 50%+ of that time?
>
>I think you've just answered your own question. Look at the proportion of
>threads on unnm which involve Matt.
I do, takes me less than an hour a week to ignore the majority of them, but
then I didn't sign up to be a moderator.
I do feel obliged to point out that I don't think 'reading threads Matts
involved in, in unnm' is moderating him. Moderating him, to me, means
seeing his posts in the mod queue and actioning them.
>(The hour is an average. Sometimes it's less, sometimes there's something
>borderline which gets discussed, generates borderline replies which gets
>discussed, and then complaints about rejections which spawn unnm threads.
>But not all the moderators get involved in all of them all the time.)
I think if you had a better moderation policy and applied it with less
internal conflict (internal within your own self, not internal to the
moderator team) you'd find it easier and it would cause less conflict.
However, I've said that before in various guises and the majority of the
moderator team disagree with me, so I won't push it further.
Alan Braggins
>On Sep 12, 4:54 am, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
>wrote:
>> TlT without his (or her) cloak.
>I had a bit of a think yesterday and this morning, and decided to put
>done enough criticism that I feel honour-bound ("put up or shut up").
Will you be dropping your cloak, or do you feel that the calls for openness
and transparency are overrated? (That's not an exclusive or.)
Sara Merriman
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
As long as he is posting something to do with cycling and he's not being
rude, he should post whatever he likes. Just like everyone else. Do try
to remember that it's a public newsgroup, not a private forum. Neither
Matt (nor anyone else) has to have a point of view popular with either
the regulars or moderators.
Clive George
> In article<slrni8vfj...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>
>> In article<saramerriman-B861...@news.individual.net>, Sara
>> Merriman wrote:
>>> Matt would take no more time that anyone else to
>>> moderate if you treated him the same as everyone else.
>>
>> Matt might take no more time than anyone else to moderate if he behaved
>> like anyone else.
>
> As long as he is posting something to do with cycling and he's not being
> rude, he should post whatever he likes.
If we could agree on what "to do with cycling" is, then we have a chance
here. Matt's definition seems to mostly involve the interaction of motor
vehicles and their environment.
Tom Crispin
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:59:46 <MPG.26f9ba598...@news.zen.co.uk>
>uk.net.news.moderation Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>
>>(e.g. "Cars sometimes take up less space than bicycles").
>
>Eh?
Eight solo cyclists ring at 20 kph will need more road space than a
full 8-seat MPV being driven at the same speed.
Recall the 300 or so cyclists I led to Tower Hill on the Skyride I led
last year. They would have filled just four 78 person double decker
busses.
Tom Crispin
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <i6o7pq$72m$4...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
>Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>>So I feel obliged to chip in and ask, how can it be possible that Matt B's
>>contributions take too long to manage if it's only roughly an hour a week
>>per moderator, unless he consumes 50%+ of that time?
>
>Yes, I would guess that the majority of moderator time over the past
>few months has been dealing with matters arising from him and his
>postings.
Do you mean that?
Or do you mean:
=====
Yes, I would guess that the majority of moderator time over the past
few months has been dealing with matters arising *our unjust blocking
of* his postings.
=====
Tom Crispin
Braggins) wrote:
How is he different?
Tony
wrote:
>In article <79b914ea-5045-474a...@h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Trollsworth LeTrole wrote:
Since I was one of those people calling for openness and transparency, let
me make it clear now. I don't give a toss what moderators use as their
posting names. You could all post to usenet as Mr Black (or The Todal, or
mother, or kat) and I couldn't care less. I don't need to know who you
are, consistent use of a name is preferred.
I'd prefer more openness and transparency in the moderation and policy.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Thwack; I have a kill file; let Matt play; there is no need to be scared
of him.
Wm...
<vP-dnTIqVe8DWRLR...@brightview.co.uk>
uk.net.news.moderation Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>If we could agree on what "to do with cycling" is, then we have a
>chance here. Matt's definition seems to mostly involve the interaction
>of motor vehicles and their environment.
If you don't like Matt kill file him, simples.
I doubt Matt will be arguing against me about this.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Tom Crispin <tom.n...@britsc.com.nospam>
I'm guessing at least one of the urcm mods has an interest in Matt.
Sensibly they (as a group of mods) would just have let his meanderings
through and we would have ignored what Matt said and this discussion
would never have occurred.
Percy Picacity
news:gw$HMQccf4jMFw0R@[127.0.0.1]:
>
> Do you, PP, really not see that some people are odd about
> bicycles?
>
'people are odd' would do for me, but I don't let it worry me.
--
Percy Picacity
Percy Picacity
news:Auwv77gh15jMFwh1@[127.0.0.1]:
> Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:30:13
> <MPG.26f9a565d...@news.zen.co.uk> uk.net.news.moderation
> Nuxx Bar <nu...@bar.invalid>
>
> [major snip]
>
> Guy, if it hasn't been Nuxx you should stop.
>
> NuxxB, do you know who has been doing this?
>
>>> People can believe
>>> that or not. My identity is not a secret, neither Nuxx nor JMS
>>> will own up to who they are. I think that is an important
>>> distinction.
>
>>Same old. There are posters on all "sides" who don't reveal their
>>identities.
>
> People with white hats tend to be more obvious and honest.
>
This statement lacks any obvious empirical justification.
--
Percy Picacity
Simon Brooke
> On 14 Sep 2010 18:28:58 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
> <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <i6o7pq$72m$4...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, Tony
>><to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>>>So I feel obliged to chip in and ask, how can it be possible that Matt
>>>B's contributions take too long to manage if it's only roughly an hour
>>>a week per moderator, unless he consumes 50%+ of that time?
>>
>>Yes, I would guess that the majority of moderator time over the past few
>>months has been dealing with matters arising from him and his postings.
>
> Do you mean that?
[sigh] Sadly, yes.
--
;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat
Simon Brooke
> I do feel obliged to point out that I don't think 'reading threads Matts
> involved in, in unnm' is moderating him. Moderating him, to me, means
> seeing his posts in the mod queue and actioning them.
And then debating with other moderators who disagree with the action
you've just taken, and then trying to arrive at consensus, and by the
time you've got there, some other idiot has kicked the hornet's nest
again.
Simon Brooke
> Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:17:22 <slrni8u8c...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> uk.net.news.moderation Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>
>>I suspect you are reading too much into the ordering. However, engaging
>>in the discussion without taking part in moderation can be constructive
>>- there are (a few) people doing it here.
>
> I understand up to here, I think.
>
>> Moderating
>>without any attention to the consensus is likely to be less so.
>
> I don't know what that means but can guess.
It means that if poster A posts post B, and moderators C and D both see
it, they'll both make the same decision. That is what we are trying to
achieve, and that proves to be very difficult. For moderation to be fair,
it needs to be reasonably consistent, irrespective of who the moderator
on duty at the time is.
Tony
wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:34:14 +0100, Tony wrote:
>
>> I do feel obliged to point out that I don't think 'reading threads Matts
>> involved in, in unnm' is moderating him. Moderating him, to me, means
>> seeing his posts in the mod queue and actioning them.
>
>And then debating with other moderators who disagree with the action
>you've just taken, and then trying to arrive at consensus, and by the
>time you've got there, some other idiot has kicked the hornet's nest
>again.
I respectfully suggest that's a consequence of your approach, not Matt's
posts.
However, you disagree, and the other mods seem to disagree. But for
clarity,
I think you make the job too hard, then get upset when it's hard, and then
get pissy when people suggest it should be easier.
JMS
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:06:53 <2uhv869hp6tps1nfu...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.moderation Tom Crispin <tom.n...@britsc.com.nospam>
>
>>On 14 Sep 2010 19:27:03 +0100 (BST), ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
>>Braggins) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <saramerriman-B861...@news.individual.net>,
>>>Sara Merriman wrote:
>>>> Matt would take no more time that anyone else to
>>>>moderate if you treated him the same as everyone else.
>>>
>>>Matt might take no more time than anyone else to moderate if he behaved
>>>like anyone else.
>>
>>How is he different?
>
>I'm guessing at least one of the urcm mods has an interest in Matt.
When you say "interest" - are you suggesting that he has the sort of
"interest" that you have in other posters?
Matt B
> In article<i6o7pq$72m$4...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
> Tony<to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>> So I feel obliged to chip in and ask, how can it be possible that Matt B's
>> contributions take too long to manage if it's only roughly an hour a week
>> per moderator, unless he consumes 50%+ of that time?
>
> Yes, I would guess that the majority of moderator time over the past
> few months has been dealing with matters arising from him and his
> postings.
Arising because of the "special" treatment unnecessarily applied to
those postings, possibly.
The consensus here certainly seems to be that the treatment meted out by
the moderators is inexplicable if it is based solely on the contents of
my posts. The moderators have never explained the reason (historic or
otherwise) for that treatment - perhaps it is now time for them to do that.
--
Matt B