An unfair URCM (probation) rejection no 24

[URCM Monitor]

Simon Mason, a regular in URCM, made a post regarding wearing cycle helmets in
Australia - and the fact that Sikhs may be exempt from the compulsion of
wearing them.

Andrew Carter thought that he would join in this interesting debate; obviously
unaware of the fact that new comers in URCM are just not welcome.

He tried to say:
> I think as more and more cyclists are wearing helmets in the UK now, it is a
> matter of time before a compulsion law is introduced here. I assume that Sikhs
> would also be exempt here.


But of course he was not allowed to say that as he is not a regular member of
the club.

[The Todal]

I'm not inclined to fight for the right to make such a banal and
specious point in a moderated newsgroup - though it would have been
allowed in uk.legal.moderated, of course.

I think it is a matter of time before elbow and knee protection are
compulsory. I think it is a matter of time before every bike has to be
registered and display a registration number. I think it is a matter of
time before children stop riding bikes altogether.

A matter of ten years, thirty years, a hundred years. By then, global
warming will have extinguished human life as we know it. I think.

[John Benn]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:as0cvk...@mid.individual.net...

Do you think the rejection was fair and justified?

[The Todal]

The rejection message appears to be this:

"Thank you for your submission to uk.rec.cycling.moderated.

However, we regret it has not been accepted. Unfortunately, we have
found it necessary to operate an informal probationary period for new
posters. We would encourage you to read the group for a while, or
read past articles, before making posts on some contentious topics -
helmets being an obvious example. In many of these cases there are
certain points which have already been made repeatedly and running
over them for yet another time would be of no value."

This is a really idiotic rejection message. So in answer to your
question "do you think the rejection was fair and justified" my answer
is "I cannot consider your question because you are new here. I would
encourage you to read the group for a while before asking any questions".

[Brian Morrison]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:39:36 +0100
The Todal wrote:

> I would
> encourage you to read the group for a while before asking any
> questions

That "while" used to be recommended as 6 months...

--

Brian Morrison

[Paul Cummins]

In article <20130403105...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,

b...@fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) wrote:

> That "while" used to be recommended as 6 months...

How do you prove you have been reading the group for "a while" when there
will be no record of it.

The "probation period" is a "no new posters" rule, simple as.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Jon Ribbens]

And don't forget to set the Distribution: header to save some of the
hundreds or thousands of dollars it will cost to send your message
throughout the entire civilized world...

[Brian Morrison]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:51 +0100 (BST)
Paul Cummins wrote:

> In article <20130403105...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,
> b...@fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) wrote:
>
> > That "while" used to be recommended as 6 months...
>
> How do you prove you have been reading the group for "a while" when
> there will be no record of it.

Indeed. The reason explained for it in the past was to avoid new posters
asking questions which could be answered by either reading the group
archives or by reading posts to the group for some time. It wasn't
intended to prevent new posters, it was intended to prevent clueless
questions from new posters.

>
> The "probation period" is a "no new posters" rule, simple as.
>

It certainly seems to be in u.r.c.m.

--

Brian Morrison

[Brian Morrison]

:)

--

Brian Morrison

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Paul Cummins" <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote in message
news:memo.2013040...@postmaster.cix.co.uk...

> In article <20130403105...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,
> b...@fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) wrote:
>
>> That "while" used to be recommended as 6 months...
>
> How do you prove you have been reading the group for "a while" when there
> will be no record of it.
>
> The "probation period" is a "no new posters" rule, simple as.

Which is why that group is averaging an overwhelming 1 new topic per day. No
wonder they had to "whitelist" certain posters, the workload must be
horrendous.

[Nick]

On 03/04/2013 09:14, John Benn wrote:
>> A matter of ten years, thirty years, a hundred years. By then, global
>> warming will have extinguished human life as we know it. I think.
>>
>
> Do you think the rejection was fair and justified?

I see your effort got through moderation.

I was a bit disappointed with "The concession looks like a dangerous
precedent to me.".

Could you not at least have managed some thing more along the lines of:

I am filled with a foreboding and see the bike lanes foaming with much
blood?

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-04-03, Paul Cummins wrote:

> In article <20130403105...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,
> b...@fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) wrote:
>
>> That "while" used to be recommended as 6 months...
>
> How do you prove you have been reading the group for "a while" when there
> will be no record of it.

Well, the inevitable argument in this group provides a terminus ante
quem (i.e., the user must've started reading the group before this
date).

[The Todal]

Like the Roman, I am fitted with a helmet which looks silly....

[Nick]

Very impressive ;o)

[Matthew Vernon]

uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) writes:

> In article <20130403105...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,
> b...@fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) wrote:
>
>> That "while" used to be recommended as 6 months...
>
> How do you prove you have been reading the group for "a while" when there
> will be no record of it.
>
> The "probation period" is a "no new posters" rule, simple as.

I think it's a "no new socks of Judith" rule...

Matthew

--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life

[Tony]

On 2013-04-03, Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
> uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) writes:
>
>> In article <20130403105...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,
>> b...@fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) wrote:
>>
>>> That "while" used to be recommended as 6 months...
>>
>> How do you prove you have been reading the group for "a while" when there
>> will be no record of it.
>>
>> The "probation period" is a "no new posters" rule, simple as.
>
> I think it's a "no new socks of Judith" rule...

While I sort of agree, I think it's actually 'no new perceived socks of
Judith or apparent supporters beating the same drum'.

--
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 ]

[Judith]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:27:10 +0100, Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:

>uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) writes:
>
>> In article <20130403105...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,
>> b...@fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) wrote:
>>
>>> That "while" used to be recommended as 6 months...
>>
>> How do you prove you have been reading the group for "a while" when there
>> will be no record of it.
>>
>> The "probation period" is a "no new posters" rule, simple as.
>
>I think it's a "no new socks of Judith" rule...
>
>Matthew

Are you suggesting that the moderators lied?

[kat]

Matthew Vernon wrote:
> uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) writes:
>
>> In article <20130403105...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,
>> b...@fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) wrote:
>>
>>> That "while" used to be recommended as 6 months...
>>
>> How do you prove you have been reading the group for "a while" when
>> there will be no record of it.
>>
>> The "probation period" is a "no new posters" rule, simple as.
>
> I think it's a "no new socks of Judith" rule...
>

One has to assume that any *genuine* socks of Judith have ben rading the
group for some time, though, and is it not a ridiculous suggestion that
they should be further encouraged?


--
kat
>^..^<

[Tim Jackson]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 20:36:22 +0100, kat wrote...

Even the Judith imposter has been reading the group for some time.

The probation period is simply an attempt to find a justification for
rejecting stuff they believe to be from trolls, without actually saying
"you're a troll" out loud.

Instead they are trying to make it sound like "you may be a genuine
newbie, in which case we're terribly sorry you've got caught up in
this". But they are not saying it in a way which would actually tell a
genuine newbie what the real issue is. And clearly they don't really
believe these posts are from newbies - they believe they are trolls but
aren't prepared to say so.

There's a certain lack of honesty in that.

There are two possible measures which would be better, separately or in
combination.

One would be what everyone has been saying for a long time. Don't try
to determine whether a post is from a troll. Just accept or reject it
on its face value. Even if the poster is a known troll, a post which is
pleasant, on topic and not repetitive does no harm, and is quite likely
to lead to a good discussion. Apart from the moderators themselves, who
cares if the poster is a troll at other times?

The other measure would be Tony's suggestion: a much more specific
moderation policy which actually spells out in detail what's likely to
be rejected and what's likely to be allowed. Then posts can be rejected
for transparent reasons, instead of the vague and insulting "needlessly
inflammatory". (Telling people they are needlessly inflammatory is
itself needlessly inflammatory.)

For example, if posts saying helmets are valuable safety equipment are
not welcome because they upset the regulars, then the moderation policy
should just say so and rejections should refer to it. No need to
discriminate against 'probationary' posters, nor even against known
trolls posting under their own names. Just apply the same policy to
everyone.

Of course, saying that would point up a moderation bias, that some views
on helmets are OK while others aren't. So the mods wouldn't say that.
They would have to say *all* posts about helmets are unwelcome - which
is presumably not actually the case. Only if they come from socks of
trolls.

So what could a more detailed policy say instead, while remaining
honest? I'd suggest something like "Certain topics [listed...] have
been covered extensively and are likely to be rejected as repetitious
unless raising a substantial new issue."

Then delete the boilerplate rejection reason "needlessly inflammatory"
from the moderation system, and insert a new one stating "Repetition:
this topic has been covered extensively in the past and your post does
not raise a sufficiently substantial new issue. Please see the
moderation policy, paragraph xxx."

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Tim Jackson]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 20:36:22 +0100, kat wrote...
>

This would of course have to be applied consistently to both sides of
the debate.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

>The other measure would be Tony's suggestion: a much more specific
>moderation policy which actually spells out in detail what's likely to
>be rejected and what's likely to be allowed. Then posts can be rejected
>for transparent reasons, instead of the vague and insulting "needlessly
>inflammatory". (Telling people they are needlessly inflammatory is
>itself needlessly inflammatory.)

>For example, if posts saying helmets are valuable safety equipment are
>not welcome because they upset the regulars, then the moderation policy
>should just say so and rejections should refer to it. No need to
>discriminate against 'probationary' posters, nor even against known
>trolls posting under their own names. Just apply the same policy to
>everyone.
>
>Of course, saying that would point up a moderation bias, that some views
>on helmets are OK while others aren't.

I don't think that's the way it works. If you *start* a conversation about
helmets you are suspect, and likely to be rejected, but once the
conversation is rolling, then most views are allowed. If you try to
mention helmets in a thread which wasn't about them, then you are suspect,
and likely to be rejected. That's my perception. It's equally stupid,
obviously, but I'm not sure it's a true bias in that only some people are
allowed to talk about [insert topic here], it's more that there is a
perception that only certain people want to *start* those conversations.

>So the mods wouldn't say that.
>They would have to say *all* posts about helmets are unwelcome - which
>is presumably not actually the case. Only if they come from socks of
>trolls.

I think the theory is the other way around (which doesn't make it any
better). No legitimate user of uk.rec.cycling.moderated would bother
starting a conversation about helmets since it's been done to death and so
if you do, you must be a sock or a troll. Please note: this is my
interpretation of what the moderators appear to be doing, I don't endorse
this approach. Also note: I believe the moderators are so invested in
their approach, to the same level as a religious zealot, that nothing we
say can change their view.

>So what could a more detailed policy say instead, while remaining
>honest? I'd suggest something like "Certain topics [listed...] have
>been covered extensively and are likely to be rejected as repetitious
>unless raising a substantial new issue."
>
>Then delete the boilerplate rejection reason "needlessly inflammatory"
>from the moderation system, and insert a new one stating "Repetition:
>this topic has been covered extensively in the past and your post does
>not raise a sufficiently substantial new issue. Please see the
>moderation policy, paragraph xxx."
>
>This would of course have to be applied consistently to both sides of
>the debate.

I do, however, think that is the best solution if one is to take the
approach of a charter / moderation policy 'fix'.

I'm not discounting the 'just post if it it's acceptable' solution you
mentioned first, I just don't think the charter or mod policy actually
define acceptable well enough for that to ever succeed.

[Tim Jackson]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 23:11:14 +0100, Tony wrote...

>
> Also note: I believe the moderators are so invested in
> their approach, to the same level as a religious zealot, that nothing we
> say can change their view.

I fear you're right. I also fear that they are so far dug into a hole
that they would have difficulty extricating themselves even if they saw
the need to do so.

[snip]

> In uk.net.news.moderation, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
wrote:
>

> >So what could a more detailed policy say instead, while remaining
> >honest? I'd suggest something like "Certain topics [listed...] have
> >been covered extensively and are likely to be rejected as repetitious
> >unless raising a substantial new issue."
> >
> >Then delete the boilerplate rejection reason "needlessly inflammatory"
> >from the moderation system, and insert a new one stating "Repetition:
> >this topic has been covered extensively in the past and your post does
> >not raise a sufficiently substantial new issue. Please see the
> >moderation policy, paragraph xxx."
> >
> >This would of course have to be applied consistently to both sides of
> >the debate.
>
> I do, however, think that is the best solution if one is to take the
> approach of a charter / moderation policy 'fix'.
>
> I'm not discounting the 'just post if it it's acceptable' solution you
> mentioned first, I just don't think the charter or mod policy actually
> define acceptable well enough for that to ever succeed.

I can see merit in applying both together. The mod policy would define
what forms of repetition etc were unacceptable. Then if the post passed
that on its face it should be allowed.

With a better defined mod policy, they could still reject posts which
they viewed as trolls, but they would be doing so in a way that was more
transparent and which would be more easily supportable. Having said
that, they would probably get much better results in the long run if
they were just a whole lot more relaxed, so that it wasn't worth a
troll's while to test the policy. Don't play the troll's game.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 23:11:14 +0100, Tony wrote...
>>
>> Also note: I believe the moderators are so invested in
>> their approach, to the same level as a religious zealot, that nothing we
>> say can change their view.
>
>I fear you're right. I also fear that they are so far dug into a hole
>that they would have difficulty extricating themselves even if they saw
>the need to do so.

Indeed.

>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
>wrote:
>>
>> >So what could a more detailed policy say instead, while remaining
>> >honest? I'd suggest something like "Certain topics [listed...] have
>> >been covered extensively and are likely to be rejected as repetitious
>> >unless raising a substantial new issue."
>> >
>> >Then delete the boilerplate rejection reason "needlessly inflammatory"
>> >from the moderation system, and insert a new one stating "Repetition:
>> >this topic has been covered extensively in the past and your post does
>> >not raise a sufficiently substantial new issue. Please see the
>> >moderation policy, paragraph xxx."
>> >
>> >This would of course have to be applied consistently to both sides of
>> >the debate.
>>
>> I do, however, think that is the best solution if one is to take the
>> approach of a charter / moderation policy 'fix'.
>>
>> I'm not discounting the 'just post if it it's acceptable' solution you
>> mentioned first, I just don't think the charter or mod policy actually
>> define acceptable well enough for that to ever succeed.
>
>I can see merit in applying both together. The mod policy would define
>what forms of repetition etc were unacceptable. Then if the post passed
>that on its face it should be allowed.

Agreed.

[PeterWalmsley]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:02:01 +0100, Tim Jackson
<ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

> Even the Judith imposter...

A tautology.

[Judith]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 23:11:14 +0100, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

>In uk.net.news.moderation, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

>>Of course, saying that would point up a moderation bias, that some views
>>on helmets are OK while others aren't.
>
>I don't think that's the way it works. If you *start* a conversation about
>helmets you are suspect, and likely to be rejected, but once the
>conversation is rolling, then most views are allowed.

That is clearly not the way it worked in the postings which are the subject of
this thread.

Simon Mason is a regular: he started a thread about cycle helmets. It was
hand-moderated no doubt because it contained that awful word "helmet" which
triggered moderation.

Someone tried to post a reply - which no-one has found fault with, which was
rejected because the poster was deemed to be on probation.



URCM : not fit for purpose and an embarrassment to uk.net.news

[Wm]

uk.net.news.moderation <as631f...@mid.individual.net>

I am struggling now, kat.

Are you suggesting Judith is a good person and all the dross has been
produced by her friends so she is innocent?

You are appearing to be a dumb woman :(

--
Wm

[kat]

<raises eyes to heaven>


--
kat
>^..^<

[Steve Firth]

Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]

> I am struggling now, kat.

You are always struggling, sweet William.

> Are you suggesting Judith is a good person and all the dross has been
> produced by her friends so she is innocent?

Oh FFS. You really are a prize fuckwit.

> You are appearing to be a dumb woman :(

<boggle>

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Wm]

uk.net.news.moderation <asaaki...@mid.individual.net>

Maybe you'll notice that your spelling has gone wonky in recent postings
while you gaze. Or, possibly, someone is pretending to be you. Do tell
what the truth is.

--
Wm

[kat]

I have been sick. Gastric flu I suppose. Would you like all the ghastly
details? Anyway, my head is muzzy. And now one of my ears feels a little
infected. Spelling - who cares?


--
kat
>^..^<

[Ophelia]

"kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:asd93g...@mid.individual.net...

Indeed! Hope you are better very soon!
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Wm]

uk.net.news.moderation <asd93g...@mid.individual.net>

On 07/04/2013 14:02, kat wrote:

> I have been sick. Gastric flu I suppose. Would you like all the ghastly
> details? Anyway, my head is muzzy. And now one of my ears feels a little
> infected. Spelling - who cares?

I hope you are better soon. I prefer an opponent that isn't evacuating
at both ends.

--
Wm

[kat]

Ophelia wrote:
> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>> Maybe you'll notice that your spelling has gone wonky in recent
>>> postings while you gaze. Or, possibly, someone is pretending to be
>>> you. Do tell what the truth is.
>>
>> I have been sick. Gastric flu I suppose. Would you like all the
>> ghastly details? Anyway, my head is muzzy. And now one of my ears
>> feels a little infected. Spelling - who cares?
>
> Indeed! Hope you are better very soon!

Thanks. Getting there.:-)


--
kat
>^..^<

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>opponent

That one word describes the whole issue here.

[Judith]

You should try it - you may then not be so full of shit.

[Wm]

uk.net.news.moderation <kjs9m5$7et$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>

On 07/04/2013 18:18, Tony wrote:
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> opponent
>
> That one word describes the whole issue here.
>

Yup, I agree.

--
Wm

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>uk.net.news.moderation <kjs9m5$7et$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
>On 07/04/2013 18:18, Tony wrote:
>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> opponent
>>
>> That one word describes the whole issue here.

>Yup, I agree.

So why do you *insist* on trying to get people to pick one polar side or
the other, when in reality, most people are somewhere in between?

I don't even know why I'm asking this question.

Lots of people have bandied the phrase troll around in the management
groups for some time, but I'm not sure we have any real trolls, I think
we're stuck with some kooks.

[Wm]

uk.net.news.moderation <kjsdua$e2q$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>

On 07/04/2013 19:31, Tony wrote:
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> uk.net.news.moderation <kjs9m5$7et$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
>> On 07/04/2013 18:18, Tony wrote:
>>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> opponent
>>>
>>> That one word describes the whole issue here.
>
>> Yup, I agree.
>
> So why do you *insist* on trying to get people to pick one polar side or
> the other, when in reality, most people are somewhere in between?

Because there is a very real bad person at work.

> I don't even know why I'm asking this question.

I think I know why you are asking the question.

You want to know why we think some people are turds.

It is simple, Tony, Judith is a very bad person and has been a very bad
person for over a decade.

Why you can't put more than ten years worth of bad behaviour together
makes you the fool not me.

> Lots of people have bandied the phrase troll around in the management
> groups for some time, but I'm not sure we have any real trolls, I think
> we're stuck with some kooks.

If you want to call Judith a kook rather than a troll go for it.

--
Wm