URCM Moderation Change

[URCM Moderators]

We have decided that Moderation has not been working properly and we are going
to modify our moderation techniques. A very small number of people have had to
wait for inordinate delays in moderation whilst we get round to hand moderating
their posts.

From now on, all posters (except banned posters) will potentially be on the
white-list so that there is no delay at all for them.

People will be added to the white-list in the following circumstances:

1) People who have been posting for over 6 months and have never had a post
rejected and have made a minimum of 3 posts a week, every week, for the six
month period.
2) People who have been posting to the group since its foundation, who used to
post to URC. The number of their rejections is immaterial.
3) New comers to the group who are personally vouched for by one of the
existing moderators.

Delays for up to 36 hours, for hand-moderating non-white listed posters are
declared by the moderation team to be acceptable.
All banned people will never be allowed to post to URCM again; this will
include posts from the persona used at the time of the ban - and anyone we deem
to be one of those people using a different persona.

We will not need to change the charter - as we believe we have the authority
to do this within the current charter.

We have been running a trial based on this method of working for some time, and
it seems to work quite well.


--
URCM Moderators : email: <ur...@chiark.greenendnospam.org.uk>
These opinions are our own.
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5dddb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD0DACA3 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Judith]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:29:46 +0000, URCM Moderators
<ur...@chiark.greenendnospam.org.uk> wrote:

<snip>


Why have you not put the bit about probation in the guidelines as you seem to
be doing that now:

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.


Not fit for purpose.

[M Wicks]

On Feb 27, 8:01 pm, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:29:46 +0000, URCM Moderators
>

> <u...@chiark.greenendnospam.org.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Why have you not put the bit about probation in the guidelines as you seem to
> be doing that now:

Obviously the left psycholist isn't talking to the right psycholist
(as if psycholists are ever right!) In any case it's clear that not
everyone is running everything by the non-leader as not required.

I think it's time for Control to forcibly take the reins. He can do
that apparently, though he doesn't want us to know that. The results
would be hilarious, let's face it.

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <6epsi8lgsbacdhekl...@4ax.com>

You forgot what you told what of your minions to post?

World domination is over there -->

[Anonymous]

In article <p0ksi8514qh5b4m6b...@4ax.com>

URCM Moderators <ur...@chiark.greenendnospam.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> We have decided that Moderation has not been working properly and we are going
> to modify our moderation techniques. A very small number of people have had to
> wait for inordinate delays in moderation whilst we get round to hand moderating
> their posts.
>
> From now on, all posters (except banned posters) will potentially be on the
> white-list so that there is no delay at all for them.
>
> People will be added to the white-list in the following circumstances:
>
> 1) People who have been posting for over 6 months and have never had a post
> rejected and have made a minimum of 3 posts a week, every week, for the six
> month period.
> 2) People who have been posting to the group since its foundation, who used to
> post to URC. The number of their rejections is immaterial.
> 3) New comers to the group who are personally vouched for by one of the
> existing moderators.
>
> Delays for up to 36 hours, for hand-moderating non-white listed posters are
> declared by the moderation team to be acceptable.
> All banned people will never be allowed to post to URCM again; this will
> include posts from the persona used at the time of the ban - and anyone we deem
> to be one of those people using a different persona.
>
> We will not need to change the charter - as we believe we have the authority
> to do this within the current charter.
>
> We have been running a trial based on this method of working for some time, and
> it seems to work quite well.

you sound like a fat person huffing up a hill even typing that

[Anonymous]

In article <p0ksi8514qh5b4m6b...@4ax.com>
URCM Moderators <ur...@chiark.greenendnospam.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>

> We have decided that Moderation has not been working properly and we are going
> to modify our moderation techniques. A very small number of people have had to
> wait for inordinate delays in moderation whilst we get round to hand moderating
> their posts.
>
> From now on, all posters (except banned posters) will potentially be on the
> white-list so that there is no delay at all for them.
>
> People will be added to the white-list in the following circumstances:
>
> 1) People who have been posting for over 6 months and have never had a post
> rejected and have made a minimum of 3 posts a week, every week, for the six
> month period.
> 2) People who have been posting to the group since its foundation, who used to
> post to URC. The number of their rejections is immaterial.
> 3) New comers to the group who are personally vouched for by one of the
> existing moderators.
>
> Delays for up to 36 hours, for hand-moderating non-white listed posters are
> declared by the moderation team to be acceptable.
> All banned people will never be allowed to post to URCM again; this will
> include posts from the persona used at the time of the ban - and anyone we deem
> to be one of those people using a different persona.
>
> We will not need to change the charter - as we believe we have the authority
> to do this within the current charter.
>
> We have been running a trial based on this method of working for some time, and
> it seems to work quite well.

[M Wicks]

On Feb 27, 8:40 pm, "Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
<mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
> In article <6epsi8lgsbacdhekl66k4apiqh3kh6n...@4ax.com>

Better to have minions than to pretend that other posters support you
when they don't by posting as THREE different "anonymous" posters over
11 minutes in this 6-post thread, Wm. Congratulations, you've found a
way of making yourself (much) more annoying. And as usual with you,
what you're doing and saying makes no sense.

You can pretend to be someone else all you want, but as of this
thread, you've persuaded me to skip over all future posts from anyone
calling themselves "Anonymous", and I'm sure many others are also now
doing that, thanks solely to your constant and bloody rude infestation
of most recent UNN* threads with "Anonymous", "Anonymous", "Anonymous"
all the way down the list of posts, with not ONE worth reading in the
slightest. It's just a shame for anyone who finds themselves with a
legitimate need to post as "Anonymous", that's all. No-one's going to
listen to them and even those who do are going to think they're Wm.
Hardly bodes well for being taken seriously.

Idiot. How bloody inconsiderate must you be in real life?

[Anonymous]

In article <055af43a-66e2-48a0...@c10g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 27, 8:01=A0pm, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:29:46 +0000, URCM Moderators
> >
> > <u...@chiark.greenendnospam.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >

> > Why have you not put the bit about probation in the guidelines as you see=

> m to
> > be doing that now:
>
> Obviously the left psycholist isn't talking to the right psycholist
> (as if psycholists are ever right!) In any case it's clear that not
> everyone is running everything by the non-leader as not required.
>
> I think it's time for Control to forcibly take the reins. He can do
> that apparently, though he doesn't want us to know that. The results
> would be hilarious, let's face it.

Is that M Wicks as a madame? I think so.

[Squashme]

On Feb 27, 10:40 pm, Anonymous <nore...@breaka.net> wrote:
> In article <055af43a-66e2-48a0-bce9-df823bb56...@c10g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>

I believe that Madame Wicks used to perform completement nu in the Bar
XX. When young, of course.

[Sara]

In article <p0ksi8514qh5b4m6b...@4ax.com>,

You have got to be fucking joking.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[The Todal]

It's Gourmet Night, and this is Lord Melbury's table. All the other
guests can fuck off. Especially if they are wearing cycle helmets.
There's a dress code, you know.

[Iain]

URCM Moderators wrote:
> We have decided that Moderation has not been working properly and we
> are going to modify our moderation techniques. A very small number
> of people have had to wait for inordinate delays in moderation whilst
> we get round to hand moderating their posts.
>
> From now on, all posters (except banned posters) will potentially be
> on the white-list so that there is no delay at all for them.
>
> People will be added to the white-list in the following circumstances:
>
> 1) People who have been posting for over 6 months and have never had
> a post rejected and have made a minimum of 3 posts a week, every
> week, for the six month period.
> 2) People who have been posting to the group since its foundation,
> who used to post to URC. The number of their rejections is
> immaterial. 3) New comers to the group who are personally vouched for
> by one of the existing moderators.
>
> Delays for up to 36 hours, for hand-moderating non-white listed
> posters are declared by the moderation team to be acceptable.
> All banned people will never be allowed to post to URCM again; this
> will include posts from the persona used at the time of the ban - and
> anyone we deem to be one of those people using a different persona.
>
> We will not need to change the charter - as we believe we have the
> authority to do this within the current charter.

It would be useful to know what your objectives are in making these
decisions, and also how they are being prioritised. (Even if trying to
reduce the flack from Judith is one of them!)

For instance, if trying to remain welcoming to new posters was one of them,
the 'up to 36 hours' for a manual moderation should have been an aim for 'up
to x hours' (eg 6 hours), with a realistic acceptability margin.

To issue edicts and declarations without the reasoning behind them is not a
good way to gain favour.

> We have been running a trial based on this method of working for some
> time, and it seems to work quite well.

A statement like this should not have been included, and reduces
credibility.

--
Iain

[Molly Mockford]

At 09:13:31 on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote in
<saramerriman-0E59...@news.eternal-september.org>:

She is. This was not a posting from the URCM moderators.

Although I grant you it's becoming very hard to tell the difference.
--
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.

[Steve Firth]

The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
[snip]

> It's Gourmet Night, and this is Lord Melbury's table. All the other
> guests can fuck off. Especially if they are wearing cycle helmets.
> There's a dress code, you know.

I note that Shoosmiths LLP, a legal practice, has comprehensive and rather
sensible advice about cycle helmet wearing on its website.

Short summary - wearing a helmet does not reduce the number of cyclists on
the road, it provides useful protection against head injury, use of helmets
has been proven to save lives, there's no evidence that helmets increase
injuries or accident rates.

What the don't mention is that the "organisation" cited frequently by the
urcm crew consists of a Ltd company that is non-trading whose members and
board are drawn from urcm regulars who tend to cite their own claims on the
cycle helmets.org website in the third person. The appear to do this to
imply that the "research" on that site which runs contrary to that of the
TRRL has validity that it does not.

Finally as Shoosmiths state, the fact that helmets are effective does not
and should not mean that a driver in collision with a cyclist should be
able to claim contributory negligence if the cyclist was without helmet.

http://www.access-legal.co.uk/legal-news/cycle-helmets-the-debate-continues-lu-2596.htm

I presume this post, despite it's objectivity, would be blocked from urcm.
Can't have people telling the truth there - the world would end.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[The Todal]

It would help if the URCM moderators would speedily disown forged posts
to this group and confirm they are making a complaint to the forger's ISP.

[kat]

Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 09:13:31 on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>

.
>>
>> You have got to be fucking joking.
>
> She is. This was not a posting from the URCM moderators.
>
> Although I grant you it's becoming very hard to tell the difference.

I have been wondering if this was in response to the latest real cock up,
given the times of the posts, or a sheer coincidence!


--
kat
>^..^<

[Squashme]

On Feb 28, 10:32 am, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> On 28/2/13 10:21, Molly Mockford wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > At 09:13:31 on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Sara <saramerri...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote in <saramerriman-0E599A.09133128022...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
> >> In article <p0ksi8514qh5b4m6bc6pp8je9lasndm...@4ax.com>,

Perhaps they don't monitor this group. It's not their group.

Caveat emptor.

[Dave U. Random]

In article <ap8qhb...@mid.individual.net>

We hope you decide on the rights and wrongs before the next
election.

How dumb can a woman pretend to be, kat?

Molly knows what is happening and you play innocent, FFS!

Grow up! If you think Judith is a good person just say so.

[Squashme]

On Feb 28, 11:48 am, Dave U. Random <anonym...@anonymitaet-im-
inter.net> wrote:
> In article <ap8qhbFn1n...@mid.individual.net>

>
> "kat" <littlelio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Molly Mockford wrote:

> > > At 09:13:31 on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Sara <saramerri...@blueyonder.co.uk>

>
> > .
>
> > >> You have got to be fucking joking.
>
> > > She is.  This was not a posting from the URCM moderators.
>
> > > Although I grant you it's becoming very hard to tell the difference.
>
> > I have been wondering if this was in response to the latest real cock up,
> > given the times of the posts,  or a sheer coincidence!
>
> We hope you decide on the rights and wrongs before the next
> election.
>
> How dumb can a woman pretend to be, kat?
>
> Molly knows what is happening and you play innocent, FFS!
>
> Grow up!  If you think Judith is a good person just say so.

Emcee (appearing with a Gorilla)

I know what you're thinking:
You wondered why I chose her
Out of all the ladies in the world.
That's just a first impression,
What good's a first impression?
If you knew her like I do
It would change your point of view.

If you could see her through my eyes
You wouldn't wonder at all.
If you could see her through my eyes
I guarantee you would fall (like I did).
When we're in public togtheer
I hear society moan.
But if they could see her through my eyes
Maybe they'd leave us alone.

Spoken: (There you are my liebling. Your favourite!)

How can I speak of her virtues,
I don't know where to begin?
She's clever, she's smart, she reads musics
She doesn't smoke or drink gin (like I do).
Yet when we're walking together
They sneer if I'm holding her hand.
But if they could see her through my eyes
Maybe they'd all understand.

(Emcee and Gorilla dance)
Why can't they leave us alone.

Spoken: Meine Damen und Herren, Mesdames and Messieurs
Ladies and Gentleman
Is it a crime to fall in love?
Can we ever tell where the heart truly leads us?
All we are asking is eine bisschen Verstandnis
Why can't the world leben und leben lassen?
'Live and let live....'

I understand your objection
I grant you the problem's not small
But if you could see her through my eyes
She wouldn't look Judith at all.

[The Todal]

I think you're a bad person, Wm.

[Andy Leighton]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:32:28 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> On 28/2/13 10:21, Molly Mockford wrote:
>> At 09:13:31 on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote in <saramerriman-0E59...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>>> In article <p0ksi8514qh5b4m6b...@4ax.com>,
>>> URCM Moderators <ur...@chiark.greenendnospam.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have decided that Moderation has not been working properly and we are
>>>> going

[snip]

>>> You have got to be fucking joking.
>>
>> She is. This was not a posting from the URCM moderators.
>>
>> Although I grant you it's becoming very hard to tell the difference.
>
> It would help if the URCM moderators would speedily disown forged posts
> to this group and confirm they are making a complaint to the forger's ISP.

Sorry. I will now make it abundantly clear that the first post was a
forged post.

We can complain to the news-provider that the forger used, and we have
done so.

--
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_

[Sara]

In article <6x1ymkKO...@molly.mockford>,

My comment was aimed at the posting that *was* by the mods, sorry for
not making that clear. I blame the red mist that was before my eyes at
the time.

[The Todal]

On 28/2/13 12:31, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:32:28 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> On 28/2/13 10:21, Molly Mockford wrote:
>>> At 09:13:31 on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>>> wrote in <saramerriman-0E59...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>>
>>>> In article <p0ksi8514qh5b4m6b...@4ax.com>,
>>>> URCM Moderators <ur...@chiark.greenendnospam.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have decided that Moderation has not been working properly and we are
>>>>> going
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> You have got to be fucking joking.
>>>
>>> She is. This was not a posting from the URCM moderators.
>>>
>>> Although I grant you it's becoming very hard to tell the difference.
>>
>> It would help if the URCM moderators would speedily disown forged posts
>> to this group and confirm they are making a complaint to the forger's ISP.
>
> Sorry. I will now make it abundantly clear that the first post was a
> forged post.
>
> We can complain to the news-provider that the forger used, and we have
> done so.
>

Thanks. Perhaps you could discuss with the others and confirm that any
input from the moderators on your team will always be posted by them as
individuals and not with the posting-name of "URCM Moderators", "URCM
Moderation Team" or any variant thereof.

[Anonymous]

In article <0cb85326-0fc8-4a60...@o5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
Squashme <squa...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 28, 10:32=A0am, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> > On 28/2/13 10:21, Molly Mockford wrote:

> > > At 09:13:31 on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Sara <saramerri...@blueyonder.co.uk>

> > > wrote in <saramerriman-0E599A.09133128022...@news.eternal-september.org=

> >:
> >
> > >> In article <p0ksi8514qh5b4m6bc6pp8je9lasndm...@4ax.com>,
> > >> URCM Moderators <u...@chiark.greenendnospam.org.uk> wrote:
> >

> > >>> We have decided that Moderation has not been working properly and we =
> are
> > >>> going
> > >>> to modify our moderation techniques. =A0A very small number of people

> > >>> have had
> > >>> to
> > >>> wait for inordinate delays in moderation whilst we get round to hand
> > >>> moderating
> > >>> their posts.
> >
> > >>> From now on, all posters (except banned posters) will potentially be
> > >>> on the
> > >>> white-list so that there is no delay at all for them.
> >

> > >>> People will be added to the white-list in the following circumstances=

> :
> >
> > >>> 1) People who have been posting for over 6 months and have never had
> > >>> a post
> > >>> rejected and have made a minimum of 3 posts a week, every week, for
> > >>> the six
> > >>> month period.
> > >>> 2) People who have been posting to the group since its foundation,
> > >>> who used
> > >>> to

> > >>> post to URC. =A0The number of their rejections is immaterial.
> > >>> 3) New comers to the group who are personally vouched for by one of t=

> he
> > >>> existing moderators.
> >
> > >>> Delays for up to 36 hours, for hand-moderating non-white listed
> > >>> posters are
> > >>> declared by the moderation team to be acceptable.

> > >>> All banned people will never be allowed to post to URCM again; this w=

> ill
> > >>> include posts from the persona used at the time of the ban - and
> > >>> anyone we
> > >>> deem
> > >>> to be one of those people using a different persona.
> >

> > >>> We will =A0not need to change the charter - as we believe we have the

> > >>> authority
> > >>> to do this within the current charter.
> >
> > >>> We have been running a trial based on this method of working for some
> > >>> time,
> > >>> and
> > >>> it seems to work quite well.
> >
> > >> You have got to be fucking joking.
> >

> > > She is. =A0This was not a posting from the URCM moderators.

> >
> > > Although I grant you it's becoming very hard to tell the difference.
> >
> > It would help if the URCM moderators would speedily disown forged posts

> > to this group and confirm they are making a complaint to the forger's ISP=

> .
>
> Perhaps they don't monitor this group. It's not their group.
>
> Caveat emptor.

Now that JonG, Molly and Squash are taking an interest one wonders
what could go wrong.

Hint: not much gets past Molly and JonG isn't who he says he is.

[The Todal]

Who does he say he is?

[Fritz Wuehler]

In article <ap8q1s...@mid.individual.net>

Why should they do that, Jon?

uk.legal and uk.rec.cycling are amongst others the unmoderated
groups.

Anyone can say anything in those groups.

What I don't get is why you aren't slamming the bad people.

I thought you were a leader rather than a loser.

The problem is that *you* aren't saying who the bad people are.

Got it yet?

[Dave U. Random]

In article <ap8vl8...@mid.individual.net>

Are you Jon Gru?

I'm not convinced about the mutual outing unless it is done
together.

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <ap95tu...@mid.individual.net>

The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

> > Now that JonG, Molly and Squash are taking an interest one wonders
> > what could go wrong.
> >
> > Hint: not much gets past Molly and JonG isn't who he says he is.
> >
>
> Who does he say he is?

You

[The Todal]

The cheeky sod. I hope he knows he isn't me.

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <ap8vl8...@mid.individual.net>
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>

I think JonG may be the wrong persona to choose if you are going to
try to out someone.

[The Todal]

How dumb can a man pretend to be, Wm?

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

In article <ap99ie...@mid.individual.net>

You'll have to persuade UKV next time

[M Wicks]

On Feb 28, 10:26 am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > It's Gourmet Night, and this is Lord Melbury's table. All the other
> > guests can fuck off. Especially if they are wearing cycle helmets.
> > There's a dress code, you know.

Don't mention the war on the motorist. I mentioned it once but didn't
get away with it and instead immediately went on Wacko's "shitlist for
life", which is apparently so long that even the mighty chiark doesn't
have enough disk space to store it. Probably.

Jackson's arrogant and condescending attitude to URCM "customers" does
very much mirror the Fawlty Towers "welcome". People are patronising
the establishment, and without them the establishment could not exist,
yet the proprietor still ungratefully treats them like dogshit on a
shoe, unless they happen to be a member of a small minority who the
proprietor deems worthy (because they are upper class enough, or have
the correct opinions).

But of course Melbury wasn't who he seemed (and nor was I). At least
Fawlty didn't react to this by expecting all new hotel guests to spend
a "probationary" few nights in the lobby before being allowed a room.

But Fawlty's snobbishness regarding people's "class", and the fact
that he is ridiculed for this because it doesn't *matter* what class
of people are staying, exactly matches Jackson's snobbishness: unless
you are in that "class" of cyclist who hates drivers and agrees with
Jackson on everything, you're not allowed to post to URCM, however
much people ridicule Jackson and point out that it doesn't matter
who's posting as long as they're not "trashing the room" (breaking the
rules). He doesn't want "that lot" in "his" establishment. Ironic
since he considers himself an enlightened liberal. He is in fact
probably the most intolerant person who posts here.

> What the don't mention is that the "organisation" cited frequently by the
> urcm crew consists of a Ltd company that is non-trading

I'm dying to know more! As I was the other week when you made
reference to the CTC's lobbying activities and how much worse they are
than they used to be (I assumed you meant that they have become anti-
motorist rather than pro-cycling in nature, since sadly there is a
trend for genuine, peaceful cycling advocacy to be muscled out by
extremely toxic and dishonest anti-car and motorist-fleecing
interests, not that I need to tell you that I'd think).

Do you have the name of the limited company please? I'd like to check
it out on Companies House. I'm happy to pay a modest amount if
necessay, then post director info etc to this thread. Thanks.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 03:43:48 -0800 (PST), Squashme put finger to keyboard
and typed:

A moderator of any uk.* group who does not read uk.net.news.moderation is
not doing their job. It may not be essential for every member of a
moderation team to read it regularly, but at least one member of the team
should do so.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Squashme]

On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 03:43:48 -0800 (PST), Squashme put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >On Feb 28, 10:32 am, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> >> It would help if the URCM moderators would speedily disown forged posts
> >> to this group and confirm they are making a complaint to the forger's ISP.
>
> >Perhaps they don't monitor this group. It's not their group.
>
> A moderator of any uk.* group who does not read uk.net.news.moderation is
> not doing their job. It may not be essential for every member of a
> moderation team to read it regularly, but at least one member of the team
> should do so.
>

It looks like someone did eventually. Probably punishment duty.

[kat]

I think you are deficient in understanding.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Judith]

If you look at the rejections - the first spoof (sorry: forgery) post was
actually made 3 hours *before* URCM's announcement; the person who wrote it was
silly enough to cross-post it to URCM so it was rejected.

It looks like someone had been party to the email exchange between the
moderators and jumped in quickly before they did - or was perhaps nosing about
on chiark :-)

From the URCM log:

The spoof : URCM Moderation Change posted at 12:20 (rejected as cross-posted)

Damerell's: Moderation policy change - probationary periods for new posters
15:10

[M Wicks]

On Feb 28, 4:00 pm, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> On 28/2/13 15:21, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <ap8vl8Fo5k...@mid.individual.net>

> > The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 28/2/13 11:48, Dave U. Random wrote:

> >>> In article <ap8qhbFn1n...@mid.individual.net>

> >>> "kat" <littlelio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Molly Mockford wrote:

> >>>>> At 09:13:31 on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Sara <saramerri...@blueyonder.co.uk>

>
> >>>> .
>
> >>>>>> You have got to be fucking joking.
>
> >>>>> She is.  This was not a posting from the URCM moderators.
>
> >>>>> Although I grant you it's becoming very hard to tell the difference.
>
> >>>> I have been wondering if this was in response to the latest real cock up,
> >>>> given the times of the posts,  or a sheer coincidence!
>
> >>> We hope you decide on the rights and wrongs before the next
> >>> election.
>
> >>> How dumb can a woman pretend to be, kat?
>
> >>> Molly knows what is happening and you play innocent, FFS!
>
> >>> Grow up!  If you think Judith is a good person just say so.
>
> >> I think you're a bad person, Wm.
>
> > I think JonG may be the wrong persona to choose if you are going to
> > try to out someone.
>
> How dumb can a man pretend to be, Wm?

I thought when he posted as "Wm" again then this was over. But now, we
now have "Wm", two or three different "Anonymous"s, "Anonymous
Remailer (austria)", "Dave U. Random", "Fritz Wuehler", "Nomen
Nescio", and maybe even others. Nigh-on TEN of them. And the prick has
made around a third of the posts to this thread using those nyms. He
claimed that it was all about "protecting his family", but we all know
who he is and he's still doing it, so that was clearly a lie. He now
won't say why he's doing it, so I can only assume that he's attention-
seeking, trying to make it look like he's got more support than he
has, and/or trying to con people into reading his utter drivel when
they don't want to.

It's indescribably annoying, even by his usual standards, and I don't
understand why others aren't giving him a much harder time for it. He
could at least offer some kind of explanation for subjecting us to
this in every single thread. It's no exaggeration to say that he is
currently singlehandedly ruining every thread in these groups. What
have we done to him to deserve this?

Interesting about the JonG business though. We've had one of his mates
from "The Shed" posting here "incognito" (he thought). So I don't know
whether the accusation that you are JonG is just pure made up Wm shite
(80% likely), or whether there's at least some reason why he said it
(even though you clearly aren't JonG). It's perfectly possible that
JonG has posted here under some alias as well.

[M Wicks]

Yes, those damn trolls trying to attack URCM. How you despise them for
attacking cyclists, being a cyclist yourself.

[Partac]

"Squashme" wrote in message
news:7d237678-c5fc-47d5...@fn10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 27, 10:40 pm, Anonymous <nore...@breaka.net> wrote:
> In article
> <055af43a-66e2-48a0-bce9-df823bb56...@c10g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 8:01=A0pm, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:29:46 +0000, URCM Moderators
>
> > > <u...@chiark.greenendnospam.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > Why have you not put the bit about probation in the guidelines as you
> > > see=
> > m to
> > > be doing that now:
>
> > Obviously the left psycholist isn't talking to the right psycholist
> > (as if psycholists are ever right!) In any case it's clear that not
> > everyone is running everything by the non-leader as not required.
>
> > I think it's time for Control to forcibly take the reins. He can do
> > that apparently, though he doesn't want us to know that. The results
> > would be hilarious, let's face it.
>
> Is that M Wicks as a madame? I think so.

I believe that Madame Wicks used to perform completement nu in the Bar
XX. When young, of course.

Psycholists SOP. When losing an argument, always revert to insults.

[Molly Mockford]

At 15:22:10 on Thu, 28 Feb 2013, M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in
<43e4810a-462c-4a43...@he10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:

>It's indescribably annoying, even by his usual standards, and I don't
>understand why others aren't giving him a much harder time for it.

Probably because many of us don't see anything he posts here (i.e. in
unnm), under any of his identities, unless somebody else quotes it. It's
quite simple, and if the urc regulars had done it in the first place
there would have been no need for them to set up urcm to shelter in.
--
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.

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:57:22 +0000
Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:

> Probably because many of us don't see anything he posts here (i.e. in
> unnm), under any of his identities, unless somebody else quotes it.
> It's quite simple, and if the urc regulars had done it in the first
> place there would have been no need for them to set up urcm to
> shelter in.

But if you don't read every message in the group how do you know that a
bad person isn't saying wrong things that are going unchallenged?

[Molly Mockford]

At 10:42:49 on Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote
in <20130301104249.737a52b3@hyperion>:

I know full well that a bad person is saying wrong things - that's
precisely why I don't read him.

(Yes, I recognise the subtle sarcasm in your post!)

[The Todal]

On 28/2/13 23:22, M Wicks wrote:

>
> Interesting about the JonG business though. We've had one of his mates
> from "The Shed" posting here "incognito" (he thought). So I don't know
> whether the accusation that you are JonG is just pure made up Wm shite
> (80% likely), or whether there's at least some reason why he said it
> (even though you clearly aren't JonG). It's perfectly possible that
> JonG has posted here under some alias as well.
>

He has checked who voted for and against the proposed charter amendment
and has seen the email address from which I cast my vote. It is not an
email address from which I have posted any usenet contributions.

[Iain]

I was very surprised to see personal email addresses included in the list.
Something I did not want. I would not have voted if I would have known that
my email address would have been exposed like that, or I might at least have
used a different email address. It should not be allowed - apart from it
also being a breach of the DPA.

--
Iain

[Tony]

From the CFV,

"The names, addresses and vote preferences of all valid and invalid
votes will be published in the results, which are posted to
uk.net.news.announce."
--
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 ]

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
> I was very surprised to see personal email addresses included in the list.
> Something I did not want. I would not have voted if I would have known that
> my email address would have been exposed like that, or I might at least have
> used a different email address. It should not be allowed - apart from it
> also being a breach of the DPA.

Publishing the voters' email addresses is required by the Guidelines
and it is made quite clear in the CFV and the ballot paper that it
will happen. I don't see how you could claim it is a breach of the DPA
either.

[Iain]

Then what was the purpose of ....
"2) Enter the email address which you normally use to post to
Usenet, including the spamblock if applicable. ......" ?

Further down it talks about the votetaker being able to verify my identity
with the possibility of needing to contact me, with the possibility of the
vote not being counted if I do not comply.

It says further down ....
"RESULTS

The names, addresses and vote preferences of all valid and invalid votes
will be published in the results, which are posted to uk.net.news.announce.

All published email addresses will be scrambled to prevent them being
harvested by spammers."

I would have been happy for the email address that I normally post under to
have been published, as I was expecting. Not for my personal email address.
My posting address would have made me identifiable - my personal email
address does not.

And I do not call what was produced as being scrambled. It is a very simple
routine to put most, if not all, of those email addresses back together.

--
Iain

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>>> I was very surprised to see personal email addresses included in the
>>> list. Something I did not want. I would not have voted if I would
>>> have known that my email address would have been exposed like that,
>>> or I might at least have used a different email address. It should
>>> not be allowed - apart from it also being a breach of the DPA.
>>
>> Publishing the voters' email addresses is required by the Guidelines
>> and it is made quite clear in the CFV and the ballot paper that it
>> will happen. I don't see how you could claim it is a breach of the DPA
>> either.
>
> Then what was the purpose of ....
> "2) Enter the email address which you normally use to post to
> Usenet, including the spamblock if applicable. ......" ?
>
> Further down it talks about the votetaker being able to verify my identity

That's the purpose.

> I would have been happy for the email address that I normally post under to
> have been published, as I was expecting. Not for my personal email address.

I'm sorry, but that's how it works.

> My posting address would have made me identifiable - my personal email
> address does not.

The personal email address is the only 100% verifiable piece of
information we have about each voter.

> And I do not call what was produced as being scrambled. It is a very simple
> routine to put most, if not all, of those email addresses back together.

Yes, but the purpose is not to be un-reversible - quite the opposite.
It's to make it so generic address-harvesting software will not be
likely to extract the addresses.

[Iain]

Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>>>> I was very surprised to see personal email addresses included in
>>>> the list. Something I did not want. I would not have voted if I
>>>> would have known that my email address would have been exposed
>>>> like that, or I might at least have used a different email
>>>> address. It should not be allowed - apart from it also being a
>>>> breach of the DPA.
>>>
>>> Publishing the voters' email addresses is required by the Guidelines
>>> and it is made quite clear in the CFV and the ballot paper that it
>>> will happen. I don't see how you could claim it is a breach of the
>>> DPA either.
>>
>> Then what was the purpose of ....
>> "2) Enter the email address which you normally use to post to
>> Usenet, including the spamblock if applicable. ......" ?
>>
>> Further down it talks about the votetaker being able to verify my
>> identity
>
> That's the purpose.

I'm happy with that. That's the votetaker that needs to verify, not the
internet as a whole.

>> I would have been happy for the email address that I normally post
>> under to have been published, as I was expecting. Not for my
>> personal email address.
>
> I'm sorry, but that's how it works.

Well, maybe it should be made absolutely clear that it is your personal
email address that will be displayed, not your usenet one. But I think that
you still need to justify the purpose for publishing it.

>> My posting address would have made me identifiable - my personal
>> email address does not.
>
> The personal email address is the only 100% verifiable piece of
> information we have about each voter.

That is absolutely fine with me, and I would expect that. But why does it
need to be published. You are the ones that need to verify, not the
internet as a whole. The published email address does not serve any purpose
except to provide personally identifiable information about the individual,
whereas the usenet email address does serve a purpose.

>> And I do not call what was produced as being scrambled. It is a
>> very simple routine to put most, if not all, of those email
>> addresses back together.
>
> Yes, but the purpose is not to be un-reversible - quite the opposite.
> It's to make it so generic address-harvesting software will not be
> likely to extract the addresses.

But why is there the need to publish it? I think that you need to explain
that.

--
Iain

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> The personal email address is the only 100% verifiable piece of
>> information we have about each voter.
>
> That is absolutely fine with me, and I would expect that. But why does it
> need to be published. You are the ones that need to verify, not the
> internet as a whole. The published email address does not serve any purpose
> except to provide personally identifiable information about the individual,
> whereas the usenet email address does serve a purpose.

The UK Usenet Voting Procedures say that we must publish the email
address. To change this, someone would have to write an RFD to be
discussed and voted upon.

>>> And I do not call what was produced as being scrambled. It is a
>>> very simple routine to put most, if not all, of those email
>>> addresses back together.
>>
>> Yes, but the purpose is not to be un-reversible - quite the opposite.
>> It's to make it so generic address-harvesting software will not be
>> likely to extract the addresses.
>
> But why is there the need to publish it? I think that you need to explain
> that.

To ensure transparency and openness in the voting system.

[The Todal]

Seems reasonable to me, but I suppose that in theory anyone could create
a throwaway email address and claim to be you, or me, when voting. I
don't suppose the returning officer really has any way of verifying
someone's identity, but if I were to notice that someone had
impersonated me when voting I could of course bring this to the
attention of the votetaker.

[nigel...@outlook.com]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:46:41 -0000, "Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>
> But why is there the need to publish it? I think that you need to
explain
> that.

Indeed - I know of at least one voter who did not vote during the
ucrm creation CFV specifically because they understood that their
email would be published, and as the actions of those agitating in
urc were not only defamatory but damaging and potentially criminal
(telephone harrassment, contacting employers to complain, newsgroup
stalking, and so on and so forth) I can not fault them. Fortunately
the vote to create the group passed by a *huge* margin - something
like a hundred voters would have to have voted the other way for the
result to be different - and their missing vote was not crucial.

I do think the trolls (these particular ones) are relative newbies,
but they have recently shown quite a facility with anonymising
servers and that, coupled with Barry's note about the difficulty of
determining the true authorship of vote requests in those cases and
the some suspicious nyms in the NO list makes me think that Iain has
a point that is real trouble to deal with. On the one hand you have
the actions of whackos outside of usenet, and on the other you have
the actkons of the same whackos within usenet. On the whole (and
remember this is from a personal perspective) I think the former is
the greater danger - within usenet no ones dies, whereas outside
actions have real consequences.

[Iain]

Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> The personal email address is the only 100% verifiable piece of
>>> information we have about each voter.
>>
>> That is absolutely fine with me, and I would expect that. But why
>> does it need to be published. You are the ones that need to verify,
>> not the internet as a whole. The published email address does not
>> serve any purpose except to provide personally identifiable
>> information about the individual, whereas the usenet email address
>> does serve a purpose.
>
> The UK Usenet Voting Procedures say that we must publish the email
> address. To change this, someone would have to write an RFD to be
> discussed and voted upon.

Then there must be some reason to do this. What is it?

>>>> And I do not call what was produced as being scrambled. It is a
>>>> very simple routine to put most, if not all, of those email
>>>> addresses back together.
>>>
>>> Yes, but the purpose is not to be un-reversible - quite the
>>> opposite. It's to make it so generic address-harvesting software
>>> will not be likely to extract the addresses.
>>
>> But why is there the need to publish it? I think that you need to
>> explain that.
>
> To ensure transparency and openness in the voting system.

You have a record of the email addresses - why publish it? If it serves no
purpose, except to expose people's email addresses, then why do it?

By all means, insist on some type of permanent email address (eg. not gmail
or hotmail), do what verification checks you may want on it, but do not
publish it.

I have never, ever had my email address published in any newsgroup in around
the 20 years that I have been posting. When I sent my email vote in, I
reasonably expected confidentiality (for the reason given in my previous
post). I wouldn't have minded having my usenet email address published, as
I doubt others would mind; that may anyway already be in the public domain
and published in newsgroups. You have still to justify it.

Regarding the DPA, look at the thread in uk.legal.moderated:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal.moderated/browse_frm/thread/26cf55a03138ea4d/2ea23d077b11f7ed?tvc=1#2ea23d077b11f7ed
and specifically my post of 10 Jan 2011, 17:31
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal.moderated/tree/browse_frm/thread/26cf55a03138ea4d/2c69c1a6dd03f1a9?rnum=21&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fuk.legal.moderated%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F26cf55a03138ea4d%2F2ea23d077b11f7ed%3Ftvc%3D1%26#doc_c75429353d50b2d6

--
Iain

[Iain]

It has just been explained to me that that is the purpose of the vote-taker.
Then if they have no real way of verifying someone's identity, then what is
the purpose of having it, let alone publishing it.

If you knew that someone had impersonated you, it would not need your (an)
email address to confirm this. You should know that anyway. So is there
really anything gained.

--
Iain

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> The UK Usenet Voting Procedures say that we must publish the email
>> address. To change this, someone would have to write an RFD to be
>> discussed and voted upon.
>
> Then there must be some reason to do this. What is it?

I have already given the reasons.

> By all means, insist on some type of permanent email address (eg. not gmail
> or hotmail), do what verification checks you may want on it, but do not
> publish it.

You will need to raise an RFD then, and persuade a majority of the
voters here that the change is a good idea.

> Regarding the DPA, look at the thread in uk.legal.moderated:
> http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal.moderated/browse_frm/thread/26cf55a03138ea4d/2ea23d077b11f7ed?tvc=1#2ea23d077b11f7ed
> and specifically my post of 10 Jan 2011, 17:31
> http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal.moderated/tree/browse_frm/thread/26cf55a03138ea4d/2c69c1a6dd03f1a9?rnum=21&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fuk.legal.moderated%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F26cf55a03138ea4d%2F2ea23d077b11f7ed%3Ftvc%3D1%26#doc_c75429353d50b2d6

That post is discussing the situation where you do not expect your
email address to be published, which as already explained is not the
situation here.

[Judith]

Some have called him a little shit.
I think that that is much too polite.

[Judith]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:30:50 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

>In uk.net.news.moderation, "Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>
>>The Todal wrote:
>>> On 28/2/13 23:22, M Wicks wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting about the JonG business though. We've had one of his
>>>> mates from "The Shed" posting here "incognito" (he thought). So I
>>>> don't know whether the accusation that you are JonG is just pure
>>>> made up Wm shite (80% likely), or whether there's at least some
>>>> reason why he said it (even though you clearly aren't JonG). It's
>>>> perfectly possible that JonG has posted here under some alias as
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> He has checked who voted for and against the proposed charter
>>> amendment and has seen the email address from which I cast my vote.
>>> It is not an email address from which I have posted any usenet
>>> contributions.
>>
>>I was very surprised to see personal email addresses included in the list.
>>Something I did not want. I would not have voted if I would have known that
>>my email address would have been exposed like that, or I might at least have
>>used a different email address. It should not be allowed - apart from it
>>also being a breach of the DPA.
>
>From the CFV,
>
>"The names, addresses and vote preferences of all valid and invalid
>votes will be published in the results, which are posted to
>uk.net.news.announce."

Yes - another stupid "rule" from 18 years ago.

Instead of suggesting what other people should do, why don't you go through the
charter/guidelines etc and tidy up the silly things like that. After all you
are so interested in doing things "correctly".

[Judith]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:46:41 -0000, "Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:

<snip>

>But why is there the need to publish it? I think that you need to explain
>that.

The answer will be that 18 years ago, most people only had one email address.
Now (I understand :-) it is a ten minute job to register a new email address
just for the purpose of voting.

I fail to see why the committee should not take initiative to bring such
archaic practices in to the 21st century.

Of course the answer is : it's not our job, why don't you (whoever is
commenting) do it, it only takes 5 mins to produce an RFD.

[Judith]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:54:36 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

>On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> The personal email address is the only 100% verifiable piece of
>>> information we have about each voter.
>>
>> That is absolutely fine with me, and I would expect that. But why does it
>> need to be published. You are the ones that need to verify, not the
>> internet as a whole. The published email address does not serve any purpose
>> except to provide personally identifiable information about the individual,
>> whereas the usenet email address does serve a purpose.
>
>The UK Usenet Voting Procedures say that we must publish the email
>address. To change this, someone would have to write an RFD to be
>discussed and voted upon.

I rest my case (exactly what I posted 2 mins ago before I saw this)

[Judith]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:12:11 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

>On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> The UK Usenet Voting Procedures say that we must publish the email
>>> address. To change this, someone would have to write an RFD to be
>>> discussed and voted upon.
>>
>> Then there must be some reason to do this. What is it?
>
>I have already given the reasons.
>
>> By all means, insist on some type of permanent email address (eg. not gmail
>> or hotmail), do what verification checks you may want on it, but do not
>> publish it.
>
>You will need to raise an RFD then, and persuade a majority of the
>voters here that the change is a good idea.

Don't you just love it:


"YOU will need to raise an RFD".

[dicky...@outlock.com]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:12:09 -0400, nigel...@outlook.com
<nigel...@outlook.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:46:41 -0000, "Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>>
>> But why is there the need to publish it? I think that you need to
>explain
>> that.
>
>Indeed - I know of at least one voter who did not vote during the
>ucrm creation CFV specifically because they understood that their
>email would be published, and as the actions of those agitating in
>urc were not only defamatory but damaging and potentially criminal
>(telephone harrassment, contacting employers to complain, newsgroup
>stalking, and so on and so forth) I can not fault them. Fortunately
>the vote to create the group passed by a *huge* margin - something
>like a hundred voters

Spot on : from many "posters" who had never been seen before, and were never to
be seen again.

What name do you usually use?

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:28:02 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:

That's "you" plural, being the people who want to change the rule.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 17:58:27 -0000, Iain put finger to keyboard and typed:

>Jon Ribbens wrote:

>> To ensure transparency and openness in the voting system.
>
>You have a record of the email addresses - why publish it? If it serves no
>purpose, except to expose people's email addresses, then why do it?

Tne original reason for publishing both the names and email addresses of
voters is partly for transparancy - it ensures that the votetakers can't
get away with "losing" valid votes or otherwise misrepresenting them - and
partly because the more people who see the list of voters, the more likely
it is that anything untoward will be spotted. Usenet generally follows the
principle that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", or, in this
context, all fraud is less easily hidden.

It's arguable that, in these days of throwaway identities, such a rule is
no longer ncessery. Or, possibly, there may be a better way of doing it.
But, so far, there has been no significant pressure for change, and nobody
has been sufficiently concerned about it to take any steps to bring about
change. If you do think that the rule needs changing, then by all means
start the process for doing so. You may find that enough other people agree
with you to make the change happen. Or, you may not. But you won't know
unless you try.

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-03-01 20:35:31 +0000, Phil W Lee said:

> "Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> considered Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:02:20 -0000 the
> perfect time to write:

>
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:

>>>> I was very surprised to see personal email addresses included in the
>>>> list. Something I did not want. I would not have voted if I would
>>>> have known that my email address would have been exposed like that,
>>>> or I might at least have used a different email address. It should
>>>> not be allowed - apart from it also being a breach of the DPA.
>>>

>>> Publishing the voters' email addresses is required by the Guidelines
>>> and it is made quite clear in the CFV and the ballot paper that it
>>> will happen. I don't see how you could claim it is a breach of the DPA
>>> either.
>>
>> Then what was the purpose of ....
>> "2) Enter the email address which you normally use to post to
>> Usenet, including the spamblock if applicable. ......" ?
>>
>> Further down it talks about the votetaker being able to verify my identity

>> with the possibility of needing to contact me, with the possibility of the
>> vote not being counted if I do not comply.
>>
>> It says further down ....
>> "RESULTS

>> The names, addresses and vote preferences of all valid and invalid votes
>> will be published in the results, which are posted to uk.net.news.announce.

>> All published email addresses will be scrambled to prevent them being
>> harvested by spammers."
>>

>> I would have been happy for the email address that I normally post under to
>> have been published, as I was expecting. Not for my personal email address.

>> My posting address would have made me identifiable - my personal email
>> address does not.
>>

>> And I do not call what was produced as being scrambled. It is a very simple
>> routine to put most, if not all, of those email addresses back together.
>

> It seems strange to me that your private, verifiable address was
> published, but (for example) Judith got away with only having a
> throwaway outlook address published.
>
> Whatever the rule is, it should at least be applied consistently.

It seems not unexpected that it is the address you give the votetaker
that they publish. It is hard to see why they should publish one you
don't give them. Of course if it is a previously unused 'free' email
address then it may be harder for the votetaker to establish that you
are a real individual, but apparently they are quite good at their job.
The solution therefore is for anyone who does not want his or her
valuable email address to be published to use a different and less
valuable one when emailing the votetaker.

--

Percy Picacity

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:35:31 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote...

> It seems strange to me that your private, verifiable address was
> published, but (for example) Judith got away with only having a
> throwaway outlook address published.
>
> Whatever the rule is, it should at least be applied consistently.

I think it is. As I understand it, you can give any address (including
a throwaway) as long as it works and you can use it to return the ballot
paper. It helps the votetaker to verify you, however, if you also
supply other information such as the address you normally post under
(including any spamblock).

I do sympathise with Iain, however. It took me some time to work out
from the voting instructions that it would probably be the working
address that was published, rather than the spamblocked one, and I still
wasn't completely certain. I'm sure it would be possible to make the
instructions clearer without raising an RFD.

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

[kat]

Of course. "Someone" does have to do it. Just because one person complains
about something ( and I have been around for many votes now ) doesn't mean
others agree. The committee cannot go around changing rules just because
they are 18 years old. Or if it can, it doesn't, it waits for the community
to say it wants it with a valid vote.

Now, the best people to propose a change are those who believe the change to
be a good thing, people who can put the case for the change. The people who
actually care. I personally won't be doing it - I couldn't care less about
the publication of my email address. Try writing a rationale when you don't
give a damn.

Of course, I don't suppose it would pass a vote. The people who don't want
their address published aren't going to vote because their address will be
published... or they could just get themselves another one, something more
anonymous. Which they could do anyway.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Iain]

kat wrote:
> Of course. "Someone" does have to do it. Just because one person
> complains about something ( and I have been around for many votes now
> ) doesn't mean others agree. The committee cannot go around changing
> rules just because they are 18 years old. Or if it can, it doesn't,
> it waits for the community to say it wants it with a valid vote.
>
> Now, the best people to propose a change are those who believe the
> change to be a good thing, people who can put the case for the
> change. The people who actually care. I personally won't be doing
> it - I couldn't care less about the publication of my email address. Try
> writing a rationale when you don't give a damn.
>
> Of course, I don't suppose it would pass a vote. The people who
> don't want their address published aren't going to vote because their
> address will be published... or they could just get themselves
> another one, something more anonymous. Which they could do anyway.

Perhaps a leaf could be taken out of the Human Rights Act and have the
voting by secret ballot - then nothing would be published.

--
Iain

[Iain]

Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> The UK Usenet Voting Procedures say that we must publish the email
>>> address. To change this, someone would have to write an RFD to be
>>> discussed and voted upon.
>>
>> Then there must be some reason to do this. What is it?
>
> I have already given the reasons.

That is 'why'. There must be at least one valid reason.

If the procedures were written in the same ambiguous way that the
instructions were written, then it would be very simple to use the usenet
email address rather than the person's own email address. This would seem
the more logical one to publish, and certainly be more meaningful to those
looking through the list.

Perhaps the procedures were written at a time when the email address on
usenet was typically the same as the poster's.

>> By all means, insist on some type of permanent email address (eg.
>> not gmail or hotmail), do what verification checks you may want on
>> it, but do not publish it.
>
> You will need to raise an RFD then, and persuade a majority of the
> voters here that the change is a good idea.
>
>> Regarding the DPA, look at the thread in uk.legal.moderated:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal.moderated/browse_frm/thread/26cf55a03138ea4d/2ea23d077b11f7ed?tvc=1#2ea23d077b11f7ed
>> and specifically my post of 10 Jan 2011, 17:31
>> http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal.moderated/tree/browse_frm/thread/26cf55a03138ea4d/2c69c1a6dd03f1a9?rnum=21&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fuk.legal.moderated%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F26cf55a03138ea4d%2F2ea23d077b11f7ed%3Ftvc%3D1%26#doc_c75429353d50b2d6
>
> That post is discussing the situation where you do not expect your
> email address to be published, which as already explained is not the
> situation here.

Exactly. I have already stated that I did not expect my personal email
address to be published. Perhaps it was to do with the ambiguously worded
instructions, together with the fact that you also wanted the usenet email
address.

What therefore was the pupose of collecting the email address used on
usenet?

--
Iain

[Molly Mockford]

At 08:54:07 on Sat, 2 Mar 2013, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote in
<apdt1n...@mid.individual.net>:

>Perhaps a leaf could be taken out of the Human Rights Act and have the
>voting by secret ballot - then nothing would be published.

And nobody would ever be able to tell whether the vote had been
correctly conducted. I am certain that would lead to many more people
being upset than the current system.

In these days of freely-available e-mail addresses, I would think it is
extremely rare for anybody to have one address and one address only. I
used a different address (on my same domain) for every vote, and loads
of other purpose-specific addresses for other things such as eBay,
Paypal and Amazon. An infinity of addresses is available to every
person, and it is up to them to decide whether or not to make use of
them.
--
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.

[Matthew Vernon]

"Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> writes:

> Perhaps a leaf could be taken out of the Human Rights Act and have the
> voting by secret ballot - then nothing would be published.

The difficulty is that showing two "identities" are not the same person
is Hard. By publishing the addresses and names of voters, it's meant to
help the community at large spot any multiple-voting that the vote-taker
missed.

Lots of people post using undeliverable addresses, which means that
trying to verify who "owns" such an address is difficult.

Matthew

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

[Iain]

Matthew Vernon wrote:
> "Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> writes:
>
>> Perhaps a leaf could be taken out of the Human Rights Act and have
>> the voting by secret ballot - then nothing would be published.
>
> The difficulty is that showing two "identities" are not the same
> person is Hard. By publishing the addresses and names of voters, it's
> meant to help the community at large spot any multiple-voting that
> the vote-taker missed.
>
> Lots of people post using undeliverable addresses, which means that
> trying to verify who "owns" such an address is difficult.

How can the publication of a name against an email address that people
probably would not know help with any further verification that the
vote-taker has already made? If the 'community at large' were to help in
the verification, surely it would make more sense to publish also their
usenet email address alongside as well?

Whilst the concept of being transparent is all important, the publication of
a personal and, in most cases unknown, email address is meaningless.

--
Iain

[Judith]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:46:56 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

<snip>


>The problem was not the number of trolls, it was the number of nyms
>each troll created, and the frequency with which they did so.


Surely that is happening in URCM as we speak :-)

(May I have some milk on the side please)

[Judith]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:42:49 +0000, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:57:22 +0000
>Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Probably because many of us don't see anything he posts here (i.e. in
>> unnm), under any of his identities, unless somebody else quotes it.
>> It's quite simple, and if the urc regulars had done it in the first
>> place there would have been no need for them to set up urcm to
>> shelter in.
>
>But if you don't read every message in the group how do you know that a
>bad person isn't saying wrong things that are going unchallenged?


I think that you are a bad person Rob.

tm Wm.

[Judith]

In the context given it was a clear response to an individual : Iain.

If Ribbens had meant what you claim, he could have said: "You, or someone else,
will need to raise an RFD....."

He didn't say that.

Every time that people query some aspect of the guidelines or charters it is
nearly always suggested that *you* the person making the suggestion has to do
something.

[Judith]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 22:13:16 -0000, "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Judith wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:54:36 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-03-01, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> The personal email address is the only 100% verifiable piece of
>>>>> information we have about each voter.
>>>>
>>>> That is absolutely fine with me, and I would expect that. But why
>>>> does it need to be published. You are the ones that need to
>>>> verify, not the internet as a whole. The published email address
>>>> does not serve any purpose except to provide personally
>>>> identifiable information about the individual, whereas the usenet
>>>> email address does serve a purpose.
>>>
>>> The UK Usenet Voting Procedures say that we must publish the email
>>> address. To change this, someone would have to write an RFD to be
>>> discussed and voted upon.
>>
>>
>> I rest my case (exactly what I posted 2 mins ago before I saw this)
>
>Of course. "Someone" does have to do it. Just because one person complains
>about something ( and I have been around for many votes now ) doesn't mean
>others agree. The committee cannot go around changing rules just because
>they are 18 years old.

I did not suggest that they did: I suggested that they took some initiative.

>Or if it can, it doesn't, it waits for the community
>to say it wants it with a valid vote.

Remind me what do the committee actually do?

If they are people like yourself - who have been around for many votes, and
heard the comments over the years - wouldn't it be nice if they actually used
their initiative. Something like, "We have now been running this system for 18
or more years - things have changed in that time. If people would like to
suggest changes to us, we will put forward a composite discussion document of
those suggestions, and those of our own, and we can see if people think
strongly enough to make some sensible suggestions"

It is called taking the initiative; being proactive; some people would call it
active management.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:05:08 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and

typed:

>On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:07:20 +0000, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:28:02 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>

>>>"YOU will need to raise an RFD".
>>
>>That's "you" plural, being the people who want to change the rule.
>
>
>In the context given it was a clear response to an individual : Iain.
>
>If Ribbens had meant what you claim, he could have said: "You, or someone else,
>will need to raise an RFD....."
>
>He didn't say that.

I'll let Jon speak for himself, but it seems fairly clear to me that the
person being directly addressed was also, in this context, being addressed
as a representative of the class of people who share his opinion.

>Every time that people query some aspect of the guidelines or charters it is
>nearly always suggested that *you* the person making the suggestion has to do
>something.

That's because that's how Usenet works. It really is up to someone who
wants change to take the initiative in bringing change about. But, in a lot
of cases, people don't actually realise that - they don't know that they
have the power to initiate change. So one of the most helpful things anyone
can do is to point that out to them.

"It's really hot in here. I wish it was cooler."

"The dial for the thermostat is over there on the wall. If you want it to
be cooler then just turn it down a notch."

"Yes, but it's really hot in here, isn't anyone going to do something about
it?"

"The dial for the thermostat is over there on the wall!"

"I don't want to be told where the thermostat is, I want it to be cooler!"

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:01:57 -0000, Iain put finger to keyboard and typed:

>Matthew Vernon wrote:
>> "Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> writes:
>>
>>> Perhaps a leaf could be taken out of the Human Rights Act and have
>>> the voting by secret ballot - then nothing would be published.
>>
>> The difficulty is that showing two "identities" are not the same
>> person is Hard. By publishing the addresses and names of voters, it's
>> meant to help the community at large spot any multiple-voting that
>> the vote-taker missed.
>>
>> Lots of people post using undeliverable addresses, which means that
>> trying to verify who "owns" such an address is difficult.
>
>How can the publication of a name against an email address that people
>probably would not know help with any further verification that the
>vote-taker has already made? If the 'community at large' were to help in
>the verification, surely it would make more sense to publish also their
>usenet email address alongside as well?

I actually think we should, and I'd vote in favour of a change to the
guidelines which makes that happen.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:05:08 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>

>Remind me what do the committee actually do?

The committee's role is judicial rather than legislative. That is, the
committee does not, as a body, initiate changes to the guidelines or the
creation/removal of groups. Instead, it acts as an overseer to the process
of creating/removing groups and changing the guidelines, and acts as the
court of appeal should there be any dispute as to the intepretation of the
guidelines or the management of the process.

It is precisely *because* the committee has a judicial function with
respect to uk.* that it does not act as a legislature: if there were to be
a dispute between the committee and other contributors (eg, over the
validity or otherwise of an RFD proposed by the committee or the results of
a CFV called by the committee) then the committee could not also act as a
neutral arbiter in that dispute. And, in any case, the committe does not
need to have a legislative function because uk.* is a direct democracy and
every contributor is a legislator.

[Iain]

That is fair comment. However, I am being told that there is a reason for
the 'temperature to be hot'. I have been told that it is in the guidelines,
but have still to be told why it is in the guidelines. I have been told
that it is to aid transparency, yet there is no convincing argument that
supports its aid to transparency.

It is a very rare concept, on the internet, to print a list of names against
valid email addresses. If it is done, it can sometimes be associated with
means of intimidation.
It is very rare (as highlighted within the Human Rights Act) to actually
publish how people have cast their vote. To someone new to voting, to put
arguably misleading and ambiguous information in the notes to voters is
potentially a breach of the DPA. No-one has said why the usenet email
address is also collected and why that cannot be put against the names
(usenet email addresses are normally in the public domain anyway).

Here I agree with Judith that maybe some proactive action should be looked
at. This is considering the not-so-recent concepts of privacy and the ever
increasing risks of other things such as identity theft. There is no point
in needless exposure of personal details.

--
Iain

[Iain]

Surely you forgot your smiley ;)

--
Iain

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 13:06:04 -0000, Iain put finger to keyboard and typed:

No, actually. I think greater transparancy would be a good thing. I'm not
joking about that.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 13:04:32 -0000, Iain put finger to keyboard and typed:

>
>Here I agree with Judith that maybe some proactive action should be looked
>at. This is considering the not-so-recent concepts of privacy and the ever
>increasing risks of other things such as identity theft. There is no point
>in needless exposure of personal details.

But the key point here is that the "proactive action" needs to be taken by
the people who want the action to be taken. There is a very good reason why
the committee is not empowered to take that action on its own initiative,
as I explained in Message-ID:
<mas3j859slefp7oll...@news.markshouse.net>.

[Judith]

No-one is suggesting that the committee should take some action they are not
allowed to take.

What is being suggested is that they get off their arse and do something like
using their own (long) experience, and asking other people "how can we improve
things".

As I said that is often called being proactive and managing.

(After all Control has told us it only takes 5 minutes to raise an RFD).

Perhaps you can tell me where I can find a summary of what exactly the
committee as a group have done over the last eighteen years.

[Judith]

Perhaps one of the committee will volunteer to produce the appropriate RFD?

Perhaps Control has 5 minutes and could do one - and the overseeing of the RFD
could be done by Deputy-Control?

[Iain]

Why not add the person's full name while you are at it?

I am a keen advocate of transparency and openness and have been for many
years. But to publish this openly and 'forever' on the internet I think is
foolhardy. No-one has yet given good reason why this is done, or what is
achieved by this, except this is how it has been decided it should be done.

Has anyone really analysed what is trying to be achieved, and the best way
to achieve it, together with balancing it with the advantages and
disadvantages?

--
Iain

[kat]

Individually they can, if they want to. You will have read why I won't in
this case.

>> Or if it can, it doesn't, it waits for the community
>> to say it wants it with a valid vote.
>
> Remind me what do the committee actually do?

Oversee . :-)

>
> If they are people like yourself - who have been around for many
> votes, and heard the comments over the years - wouldn't it be nice if
> they actually used their initiative. Something like, "We have now
> been running this system for 18 or more years - things have changed
> in that time. If people would like to suggest changes to us, we will
> put forward a composite discussion document of those suggestions, and
> those of our own, and we can see if people think strongly enough to
> make some sensible suggestions"
>
> It is called taking the initiative; being proactive; some people
> would call it active management.

I have been around for years and personally never before heard anyone
complain about the email thing. And I can assure you I wouldn't bother just
because one person has a bee in their bonnet for no real reason. You know
yourself how easy it is to get another email address.

As to the rest... People tell us they want change by submitting an RFD.
That is so we can all see if other people are in the least interested. But
really, if it ain't broke why fiddle?


--
kat
>^..^<

[Graham Nye]

On 02/03/2013 09:06, Iain wrote:

> Exactly. I have already stated that I did not expect my personal email
> address to be published. Perhaps it was to do with the ambiguously worded
> instructions, together with the fact that you also wanted the usenet email
> address.

In what sense are the instructions ambiguous? The CFV tells you the email
address you vote from will be published, and gives an example:

"Under this new system, the email address that will be published in
the results is the one that the ballot paper was sent to. So for
example if a ballot paper was sent to exampl...@ukvoting.org.uk,
this would be the address shown in the result..."

The CFV gives instructions for using a different address:

"We recognise that sometimes people submit their votes from
different addresses for varying reasons, especially when more than
one email address is available to a voter. If you want the results
to record your vote as coming from a different address to that
from which you post your request, you can do this by putting the
address you want recorded in the Reply-To field in your ballot
request."

The ballot paper tells you what to do if you wish to use a
different address:

"Your unique ballot ID and the voting address you have used are
prefilled.

... If
you want to use a different voting address you must request
another ballot paper for the new address."

(I had a few goes at getting a ballot paper for my usual usenet
posting address. I had to fettle Googlemail before it would
correctly handle my usenet address.)

The ballot paper reminds you that addresses will be published:

"RESULTS

The names, addresses and vote preferences of all valid and invalid
votes will be published in the results, which are posted to
uk.net.news.announce."

The ballot paper reminds you of the address you used:

"Your vote will be recorded in the results as from:
Email: < news[(a)]thenyes.org.uk >
Do not alter this address."

Which parts did you find unclear? Perhaps the wording could be
improved if you found it confusing.




--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

[Percy Picacity]

There are votes that should be secret (eg parliamentary elections) and
votes that should be public (eg how our MPs vote in Parliament). At
the moment I tend to believe (but don't want to justify in this thread)
that uk.* votes should be public. I am prepared to be convinced
otherwise if someone wants to raise an RFD and discuss it.

--

Percy Picacity

[Judith]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 16:15:30 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>

>There are votes that should be secret (eg parliamentary elections) and
>votes that should be public (eg how our MPs vote in Parliament). At
>the moment I tend to believe (but don't want to justify in this thread)
>that uk.* votes should be public. I am prepared to be convinced
>otherwise if someone wants to raise an RFD and discuss it.

Tony Evans (Control) could knock one up in 5 minutes.

[Iain]

Graham Nye wrote:
> On 02/03/2013 09:06, Iain wrote:
>
>> Exactly. I have already stated that I did not expect my personal
>> email address to be published. Perhaps it was to do with the
>> ambiguously worded instructions, together with the fact that you
>> also wanted the usenet email address.
>
> In what sense are the instructions ambiguous? The CFV tells you the
> email address you vote from will be published, and gives an example:

I cannot recall reading all of the 380+ lines in the CFV, but I did read the
bits particularly relevant, eg the proposal, how to get a ballot paper, etc,
and I can remember going through the instructions that I received which
said:

"CASTING YOUR VOTE
...
"1) Enter the name under which you want your vote recorded in the
results. This must be either your real name or the pseudonym
("handle") which you normally use to post to usenet.

"2) Enter the email address which you normally use to post to
Usenet, including the spamblock if applicable. If you use a
number of different email addresses, please give the most
...."

Under 2) above, it could easily be interpreted as following on from 1, and
therefore also implying the inclusion of the phrase 'under which you want
your vote recorded in the results.' However, reference to the results here
could be either published or unpublished.


If you happened to read the following, then, yes, it defines which email
address is to be published (and it seems to be the only place):

> "Under this new system, the email address that will be published in
> the results is the one that the ballot paper was sent to. So for
> example if a ballot paper was sent to exampl...@ukvoting.org.uk,
> this would be the address shown in the result..."

It is not particularly clear in the following. To record and publish are
not the same thing. The records will always hold more than that which is
published.

> "We recognise that sometimes people submit their votes from
> different addresses for varying reasons, especially when more than
> one email address is available to a voter. If you want the results
> to record your vote as coming from a different address to that
> from which you post your request, you can do this by putting the
> address you want recorded in the Reply-To field in your ballot
> request."

This should perhaps be clarified by defining which email is published as
opposed to the one which is also recorded.

> The ballot paper tells you what to do if you wish to use a
> different address:

Yes, the voting address is the address from which you vote, but it still
does not define which address will be published. Your unique ballot ID is
also recorded, but is not published.

> "Your unique ballot ID and the voting address you have used are
> prefilled.
>
> ... If
> you want to use a different voting address you must request
> another ballot paper for the new address."
>
> (I had a few goes at getting a ballot paper for my usual usenet
> posting address. I had to fettle Googlemail before it would
> correctly handle my usenet address.)
>
> The ballot paper reminds you that addresses will be published:

Yes, but which email address. As I quoted above, in 1 it talks about the
name to be published, and goes to 2 in which you give your usenet email
address. That is where the ambiguity and misunderstanding probably starts.

> "RESULTS
>
> The names, addresses and vote preferences of all valid and invalid
> votes will be published in the results, which are posted to
> uk.net.news.announce."
>
> The ballot paper reminds you of the address you used:
>
> "Your vote will be recorded in the results as from:
> Email: < news[(a)]thenyes.org.uk >
> Do not alter this address."
>
> Which parts did you find unclear? Perhaps the wording could be
> improved if you found it confusing.

As I have said above; only if you happened to read that _one_ paragraph does
it clarify exactly which email is to be published. If you do not read that
one paragraph, for the rest of that document, and for the whole of the
ballot paper, the usenet email address can easily be the one interpreted as
the one to be published.

(And it still hasn't been explained to me why the usenet email address
cannot be the one published! :) That is, if you continue to insist on the
publication of how each individual votes.)
Perhaps we can do a Jack Straw here and insist on total transparency and
openness, with publication, until it comes to the awkwardness of our own
votes! :)

As in DPA and electoral role forms, maybe we should be able to tick a box
that will still have all of the information recorded, but stop it being
published.

--
Iain

[Steve Firth]

Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]

> Every time that people query some aspect of the guidelines or charters it is
> nearly always suggested that *you* the person making the suggestion has to do
> something.

Correct. Either you feel strongly enough to actually do something or you
are just a Daily Mail reader, apoplectic with white-knuckled impotent fury,
willing to castigate others while being too fucking idle to lift a finger.

And if that is the case then your opinion is worth slightly less than that
of a copy of the Daily Mail, that is three months old and has spent the
last two days preventing Tibbles' urine from leaking out of the plastic
tray.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Molly Mockford]

At 18:04:14 on Sat, 2 Mar 2013, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote
in
<54076985383922272.579611%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org>
:

>And if that is the case then your opinion is worth slightly less than that
>of a copy of the Daily Mail, that is three months old and has spent the
>last two days preventing Tibbles' urine from leaking out of the plastic
>tray.

While my own cats have always been free-range, my mother swore that the
Telegraph was far and away the best paper for underneath the cat's tray.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 17:35:44 +0000, Judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:

So could you. The fact that you haven't demonstrates exactly how bothered
about it you really are.

[Iain]

... our individual votes. We do not represent anyone else but ourselves.
And there should be no fear of any retribution for any alliance, political
or otherwise, that we may hold.

and
> votes that should be public (eg how our MPs vote in Parliament).

Absolutely fair. MPs are our elected representatives; and should be open
and be seen to be representing the electorate.

At
> the moment I tend to believe (but don't want to justify in this
> thread) that uk.* votes should be public. I am prepared to be
> convinced otherwise if someone wants to raise an RFD and discuss it.

My views are as above, in favour of secrecy:
"... our individual votes. We do not represent anyone else but ourselves.
And there should be no fear of any retribution for any alliance, political
or otherwise, that we may hold." (See also Article 3 of the First Protocol,
HRA). To also include a list of personal email addresses I believe is
completely unacceptable.

--
Iain

[Judith]

Sorry - I only do one RFD at a time.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-02, Iain wrote:

> Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 13:06:04 -0000, Iain put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:01:57 -0000, Iain put finger to keyboard and
>>>> typed:

>>>>> How can the publication of a name against an email address that
>>>>> people probably would not know help with any further verification
>>>>> that the vote-taker has already made? If the 'community at large'
>>>>> were to help in the verification, surely it would make more sense
>>>>> to publish also their usenet email address alongside as well?
>>>>
>>>> I actually think we should, and I'd vote in favour of a change to
>>>> the guidelines which makes that happen.
>>>
>>> Surely you forgot your smiley ;)
>>
>> No, actually. I think greater transparancy would be a good thing. I'm
>> not joking about that.
>
> Why not add the person's full name while you are at it?
>
> I am a keen advocate of transparency and openness and have been for many
> years. But to publish this openly and 'forever' on the internet I think is
> foolhardy. No-one has yet given good reason why this is done, or what is
> achieved by this, except this is how it has been decided it should be done.
>
> Has anyone really analysed what is trying to be achieved, and the best way
> to achieve it, together with balancing it with the advantages and
> disadvantages?

I see no reason why people should have to post with their real names
or unmunged e-mail addresses, or even use the same name & address all
the time. (I think it's reasonable to have different identities in
different kinds of groups, & to post anonymously or pseudonymously
when asking for sensitive advice, for example.) But it seems
reasonable to me to expect people to use a fairly stable identity (at
least, if not a real name) with regard to making changes in the USENET
itself.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-02, Molly Mockford wrote:

> At 18:04:14 on Sat, 2 Mar 2013, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote
> in
><54076985383922272.579611%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org>
>:
>
>>And if that is the case then your opinion is worth slightly less than that
>>of a copy of the Daily Mail, that is three months old and has spent the
>>last two days preventing Tibbles' urine from leaking out of the plastic
>>tray.

Captain Miffles, surely?

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/computers

> While my own cats have always been free-range, my mother swore that the
> Telegraph was far and away the best paper for underneath the cat's tray.

I didn't know some newspapers used more absorbent stock than others.