Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A URCM Query
66 views
Skip to first unread message
nomen-...@outlook.com
Oct 27, 2012, 4:39:40 PM10/27/12
to
Over the last month I made a note and count of rejections. I believe that: Tim
Downie made 38 posts during that month, and of those, 3 posts were rejected.
In the same period, thirty-six made many more posts at 58, and he had fewer
posts, only 2, rejected. Tim Downie has been placed on the white-list - but
thirty-six hasn't. This appears to be some sort of anomaly: perhaps just an
oversight by the moderation team. I wonder, could perhaps the moderators
explain how they decide when to put people on the white-list; and once they're
on, when would they take someone off?
(I hope my figures are accurate; but Ian Jackson probably keeps proper logs and
will be able to tell us if I have made an error.)
Bertie Wooster
Oct 27, 2012, 8:45:06 PM10/27/12
to
I will try to extrapolate the pass-list de-facto policy from the
information you have provided and work this into the urcm faq.
I think that asking one of the moderation team to be honest about the
policy is a step too far, however, I would be delighted to be proved
wrong.
John Benn
Oct 28, 2012, 5:10:55 AM10/28/12
to
wrote in message news:7cgo889bo375hrpfs...@4ax.com...
===========================================
Alternatively, Ian Jackson will do what he normally does.
Alternatively, Ian Jackson will do what he normally does.
Percy Picacity
Oct 28, 2012, 5:29:20 AM10/28/12
to
white-listing policy as it applies to individuals. It clearly involves
subjective judgements of the likelihood of particular behaviours and
would be invidious to spell out. We can reasonably urge them to be as
liberal as possible, but I would not expect any answers from them to
the OP.
--
Percy Picacity
Pedt
Oct 28, 2012, 6:15:35 AM10/28/12
to
In message <62fjei....@news.alt.net>, at 09:29:20 on Sun, 28 Oct
2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wibbled
Well, they could just say "No, we won't explain" :)
I agree and would also point out to the OP that counting mere numbers of
posts and whether or not they have been rejected is not a particularly
useful method, especially with a small snapshot in time. It doesn't also
take account of the rejection reason - e.g. one poster with 3 rejected
in the last 10 for repetition and another with only 1 rejected in the
last 10 for a grossly offensive post would look a better bet for being
whitelisted if only the ratio of acceptance / rejection was counted.
--
Pedt
2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wibbled
I agree and would also point out to the OP that counting mere numbers of
posts and whether or not they have been rejected is not a particularly
useful method, especially with a small snapshot in time. It doesn't also
take account of the rejection reason - e.g. one poster with 3 rejected
in the last 10 for repetition and another with only 1 rejected in the
last 10 for a grossly offensive post would look a better bet for being
whitelisted if only the ratio of acceptance / rejection was counted.
--
Pedt
Bertie Wooster
Oct 28, 2012, 7:33:46 AM10/28/12
to
on individuals without their explicit or implied consent would be
wrong.
As promised, here's a first draft for the first major change in the
urcm faq:
=====Draft urcm faq Version 2.0=====
Q What is urcm?
A urcm stands for uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
Q But what is the group for?
A The group is for the discussion of cycling issues in the UK
Q My post to urcm got rejected, why?
A The 'duty moderator' felt that it was not of interest to cyclists.
Q But I think that my post is of interest, why did the moderator not
allow it?
A We can't answer that, you could try emailing the moderators.
Q I have tried emailing the moderators, but they did not respond. What
can I do?
A Their email system is broken, so it might be that the moderators
have not received your email. You could try posting your complaint to
uk.net.news.moderation.
Q But I have seen posts in urcm that are rude, abrasive and impolite,
why have they not been blocked?
A It may be that the rude and abrasive posts you saw came from someone
on the pass-list and their post was not seen by a moderator.
Q Pass-list! That sounds like a great idea. How do I get onto the
pass-list?
A First of all you need to hold similar opinions to the moderators,
you must not sound at all argumentative towards the moderators'
opinions, and it helps if you post a few derogatory comments about
posters disliked by the moderators.
Q How does posting derogatory comments about other people help?
A So long at the posters you comment on are not on the pass-list,
posting derogatory comments about them will endear you to the
moderators and make it appear more likely to the moderators that you
will support them. They will trust you to be on the pass-list.
Q When I looked at the urcm logs it appeared that the rude posts were
authorised manually. How could they be allowed if the poster was not
on the pass-list?
A It may have been permitted by a moderator as moderation is by
personality as well as by content.
Q Moderation by personality *and* content. What does that mean?
A In deciding whether to allow or block a post moderators consider the
posting history of the poster from other groups.
Q Really, how does that work?
A No one really knows, but it seems that the moderators use their gut
feeling on a poster as well as the content of the post.
Q So what is more important in getting a post approved, personality or
content?
A Personality.
Q I have had a lot of replies to my queries to moderators from people
who reply as if they are moderators but I do not see them on the list
of moderators on the website. Who are these people?
A Some call them 'moderator apologists' and others call them
'moderator wanabees'. They are best ignored.
Q Who is in charge of urcm?
A No one.
Q What, no one is in charge or urcm?
A Yes, that's right.
Q But how was urcm formed?
A A person called Ian Jackson posted two requests for discussion for
the creation of the group and hand-picked a number of moderators. When
the creation of the group was voted upon there was overwhelming
support for its creation.
Q But surely Ian Jackson is in charge of the group?
A No.
Q But why?
A Because he says he isn't in charge.
Q Overwhelming support for the groups creation. Did people really vote
for moderation by personality to be more important for moderation by
content?
A No.
Q Eh!?
A The group that was discussed during the RFD bears little resemblance
to the group that has been created.
Q How is that so?
A In the charter there is a clause that says, "The moderators may use
whatever tools and processes they collectively feel appropriate to
ensure the smooth running of the group." This clause is used to allow
the moderators to moderate posts based on personality as well as
content.
Q But I cannot believe this.
A That is not a question.
Q Oh, OK - but back to my original question, what is urcm?
A urcm is a group for the discussion of anything that the moderators
allow to be discussed.
=====/Draft urcm faq=====
I feel that the wording for the new bit about the pass-list policy is
a little clumsy. Any suggestions? I endeavour to be as inclusive as
possible, comments from any current or past urcm moderators would be
particularly welcome.
Percy Picacity
Oct 28, 2012, 8:42:46 AM10/28/12
to
On 2012-10-28 11:33:46 +0000, Bertie Wooster said:
>
>
> I feel that the wording for the new bit about the pass-list policy is
> a little clumsy. Any suggestions? I endeavour to be as inclusive as
> possible, comments from any current or past urcm moderators would be
> particularly welcome.
Although constructiveness by some may be a tactical pose, you do now
>
>
> I feel that the wording for the new bit about the pass-list policy is
> a little clumsy. Any suggestions? I endeavour to be as inclusive as
> possible, comments from any current or past urcm moderators would be
> particularly welcome.
stand out as the least constructive of the urcm moderators' detractors.
You post nothing but mockery and insult toward them. Have you thought
of either a) forgetting about urcm, or b) being a bit constructive and
separating your dislike of the individuals concerned from your attitude
to the group: which after all belongs to neither you nor the
moderators but is in a sense public property?
--
Percy Picacity
Bertie Wooster
Oct 28, 2012, 9:01:07 AM10/28/12
to
would like more than to see a happy and inclusive uk.* cycling group.
urcm, under good management, has the potential to be both.
If I appear to be mocking, it is only because the urcm moderation
de-facto policies are so ridiculous, and thus open to ridicule.
My dislike of urcm is directed to the policies, and not individuals,
although that dislike has probably also extended to the urcm leader.
nomen-...@outlook.com
Oct 28, 2012, 9:05:00 AM10/28/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 09:29:20 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:
Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as it
applies to the general posting public.
I agree that reasons regarding individuals should not be published; but I would
hope that someone who had not a strong history of rejections should be able to
ask why they are not on the white list - and it should be explained.
Also, if someone on the white-list does make unacceptable posts, then I would
expect them to be removed from the white list for a set period or a set number
of their posts. I see no reason at all why that policy should not be
published. As it is, it appears that some people are not on the white-list
because they have views which the moderators disagree with - you only have to
look at the (unacceptable) comments moderators have made in response to them.
Also some people on the white list make unacceptable posts with no come back
whatsoever.
wrote:
applies to the general posting public.
I agree that reasons regarding individuals should not be published; but I would
hope that someone who had not a strong history of rejections should be able to
ask why they are not on the white list - and it should be explained.
Also, if someone on the white-list does make unacceptable posts, then I would
expect them to be removed from the white list for a set period or a set number
of their posts. I see no reason at all why that policy should not be
published. As it is, it appears that some people are not on the white-list
because they have views which the moderators disagree with - you only have to
look at the (unacceptable) comments moderators have made in response to them.
Also some people on the white list make unacceptable posts with no come back
whatsoever.
Matthew Vernon
Oct 28, 2012, 11:49:32 AM10/28/12
to
nomen-...@outlook.com writes:
> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as it
> applies to the general posting public.
I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as it
> applies to the general posting public.
Matthew
--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life
John Benn
Oct 28, 2012, 12:11:56 PM10/28/12
to
"Matthew Vernon" wrote in message news:87vcdu7...@macbeth.sac.ac.uk...
nomen-...@outlook.com writes:
> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as
> it
> applies to the general posting public.
I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
========================================
I also note that there are very few problems with the running ULM.
nomen-...@outlook.com writes:
> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as
> it
> applies to the general posting public.
I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
I also note that there are very few problems with the running ULM.
Clive George
Oct 28, 2012, 12:13:18 PM10/28/12
to
sensible thing.
Message has been deleted
Bertie Wooster
Oct 28, 2012, 1:17:20 PM10/28/12
to
the policy perfectly adequately.
nomen-...@outlook.com
Oct 28, 2012, 1:26:25 PM10/28/12
to
legal, and christian if they will do so. I cannot see any reason at all for
not doing so, why do you think it is sensible not to publish?
I doubt if two out of three of the moderated groups will have anything to hide.
Pedt
Oct 28, 2012, 1:55:08 PM10/28/12
to
In message <3hqq88l97ds3bs0al...@4ax.com>, at 17:26:25 on
Sun, 28 Oct 2012, nomen-...@outlook.com wibbled
Poster who would dearly like to disrupt group x follows all the bits
listed on how to get whitelisted and ticks all the boxes so has to be
whitelisted according to the policy then promptly sends, in one go, a
whole spate of posts, carefully written to avoid 'trigger words', that
are solely designed to disrupt group x.
--
Pedt
Sun, 28 Oct 2012, nomen-...@outlook.com wibbled
>>Which implies that not publishing the white-listing policy is probably a
>>sensible thing.
>
>
>I have made a separate post asking the moderators of the three groups cycling,
>legal, and christian if they will do so. I cannot see any reason at all for
>not doing so, why do you think it is sensible not to publish?
How about:
>>sensible thing.
>
>
>I have made a separate post asking the moderators of the three groups cycling,
>legal, and christian if they will do so. I cannot see any reason at all for
>not doing so, why do you think it is sensible not to publish?
Poster who would dearly like to disrupt group x follows all the bits
listed on how to get whitelisted and ticks all the boxes so has to be
whitelisted according to the policy then promptly sends, in one go, a
whole spate of posts, carefully written to avoid 'trigger words', that
are solely designed to disrupt group x.
--
Pedt
Steve Walker
Oct 28, 2012, 2:21:42 PM10/28/12
to
"Matthew Vernon" <mat...@debian.org> wrote in message
news:87vcdu7...@macbeth.sac.ac.uk...
> nomen-...@outlook.com writes:
>
>> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as
>> it
>> applies to the general posting public.
>
> I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
We don't have a policy. Whitelisting is not a privilege conferred upon
>
>> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as
>> it
>> applies to the general posting public.
>
> I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
favoured posters, it's an administrative automation for our convenience.
Andy Leighton
Oct 28, 2012, 3:35:35 PM10/28/12
to
understood all the various facilities the moderation software gives us.
I am pretty sure that every moderated group shares that philosophy.
White-listing (and other stuff like keyword-watching) are tools to help
the moderators, and that is all they are.
There isn't a hierarchy of group users with the white-listed posters
being at the summit.
--
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_
M Wicks
Oct 28, 2012, 4:30:43 PM10/28/12
to
On Oct 28, 6:02 pm, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <3hqq88l97ds3bs0alepvnt311jp5etn...@4ax.com>, at 17:26:25 on
> Sun, 28 Oct 2012, nomen-nes...@outlook.com wibbled
justification not to put them back on it again.
Can you explain why on Earth someone would go to that much trouble
just to be able to post one "spate of posts", when they could just
forge the identity of someone who's on the whitelist, and into the
bargain not have their "real" identity get into trouble with the
moderators for it (well, unless they are careless, or the moderators
guess it's them, not that moderators should be guessing at that kind
of thing of course)?
If you can't, then it seems that the scenario concerned is so
vanishingly unlikely that it's not a remotely good enough reason for
not publishing whitelisting policies. And that (newsflash) "Sheddi"
are not very logical.
> In message <3hqq88l97ds3bs0alepvnt311jp5etn...@4ax.com>, at 17:26:25 on
> Sun, 28 Oct 2012, nomen-nes...@outlook.com wibbled
>
> >On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:13:18 +0000, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Which implies that not publishing the white-listing policy is probably a
> >>sensible thing.
>
> >I have made a separate post asking the moderators of the three groups cycling,
> >legal, and christian if they will do so. I cannot see any reason at all for
> >not doing so, why do you think it is sensible not to publish?
>
> How about:
>
> Poster who would dearly like to disrupt group x follows all the bits
> listed on how to get whitelisted and ticks all the boxes so has to be
> whitelisted according to the policy then promptly sends, in one go, a
> whole spate of posts, carefully written to avoid 'trigger words', that
> are solely designed to disrupt group x.
And then they get promptly taken off the whitelist and there is now
> >On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:13:18 +0000, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Which implies that not publishing the white-listing policy is probably a
> >>sensible thing.
>
> >I have made a separate post asking the moderators of the three groups cycling,
> >legal, and christian if they will do so. I cannot see any reason at all for
> >not doing so, why do you think it is sensible not to publish?
>
> How about:
>
> Poster who would dearly like to disrupt group x follows all the bits
> listed on how to get whitelisted and ticks all the boxes so has to be
> whitelisted according to the policy then promptly sends, in one go, a
> whole spate of posts, carefully written to avoid 'trigger words', that
> are solely designed to disrupt group x.
justification not to put them back on it again.
Can you explain why on Earth someone would go to that much trouble
just to be able to post one "spate of posts", when they could just
forge the identity of someone who's on the whitelist, and into the
bargain not have their "real" identity get into trouble with the
moderators for it (well, unless they are careless, or the moderators
guess it's them, not that moderators should be guessing at that kind
of thing of course)?
If you can't, then it seems that the scenario concerned is so
vanishingly unlikely that it's not a remotely good enough reason for
not publishing whitelisting policies. And that (newsflash) "Sheddi"
are not very logical.
M Wicks
Oct 28, 2012, 4:38:06 PM10/28/12
to
On Oct 28, 7:35 pm, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:21:42 -0000, Steve Walker <spamt...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Vernon" <matt...@debian.org> wrote in message
> >news:87vcdu7...@macbeth.sac.ac.uk...
helmets are a good idea?
Can you name a single whitelisted URCM poster who regularly comments
here in a less-than-positive way on URCM's running? Can you explain
why Rob Morley was removed from the whitelist at around the same time
that he started expressing concerns about the current moderation panel
and offering to take over himself (with others)? He certainly seems to
think it's a bit fishy.
As with everything to do with URCM in one way or another, the
whitelist is, in the end, about who Ian Jackson likes (and of course
he dislikes a LOT of people). I can't imagine that many here are
genuinely unaware of that. I guess that the likes of (the whitelisted)
Clive George and Phil Lee applaud it, even if they aren't quite brave
enough to say so in so many words.
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:21:42 -0000, Steve Walker <spamt...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Vernon" <matt...@debian.org> wrote in message
> >news:87vcdu7...@macbeth.sac.ac.uk...
> >> nomen-nes...@outlook.com writes:
>
> >>> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as
> >>> it
> >>> applies to the general posting public.
>
> >> I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
>
> > We don't have a policy. Whitelisting is not a privilege conferred upon
> > favoured posters, it's an administrative automation for our convenience.
>
> Not speaking for the moderators or URCM as a group, but that is how I've
> understood all the various facilities the moderation software gives us.
> I am pretty sure that every moderated group shares that philosophy.
> White-listing (and other stuff like keyword-watching) are tools to help
> the moderators, and that is all they are.
>
> There isn't a hierarchy of group users with the white-listed posters
> being at the summit.
Can you name a single whitelisted URCM poster who thinks that cycle
>
> >>> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as
> >>> it
> >>> applies to the general posting public.
>
> >> I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
>
> > We don't have a policy. Whitelisting is not a privilege conferred upon
> > favoured posters, it's an administrative automation for our convenience.
>
> Not speaking for the moderators or URCM as a group, but that is how I've
> understood all the various facilities the moderation software gives us.
> I am pretty sure that every moderated group shares that philosophy.
> White-listing (and other stuff like keyword-watching) are tools to help
> the moderators, and that is all they are.
>
> There isn't a hierarchy of group users with the white-listed posters
> being at the summit.
helmets are a good idea?
Can you name a single whitelisted URCM poster who regularly comments
here in a less-than-positive way on URCM's running? Can you explain
why Rob Morley was removed from the whitelist at around the same time
that he started expressing concerns about the current moderation panel
and offering to take over himself (with others)? He certainly seems to
think it's a bit fishy.
As with everything to do with URCM in one way or another, the
whitelist is, in the end, about who Ian Jackson likes (and of course
he dislikes a LOT of people). I can't imagine that many here are
genuinely unaware of that. I guess that the likes of (the whitelisted)
Clive George and Phil Lee applaud it, even if they aren't quite brave
enough to say so in so many words.
D.M. Procida
Oct 28, 2012, 4:27:48 PM10/28/12
to
unending campaign against them is to give other people reasons to think,
hmm, maybe the UCRM moderators have a point.
I certainly wouldn't have their ability to respond to you not just
civilly, but in ways that leave you an opening to take part in a
friendly conversation - I don't know how they manage that.
God knows I think they are wrong about all kinds of things, but every
time this happens it makes them look more generous and you look more
spiteful.
Daniele
D.M. Procida
Oct 28, 2012, 4:27:48 PM10/28/12
to
Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
> nomen-...@outlook.com writes:
>
> > Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as it
> > applies to the general posting public.
>
> I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
That's OK, I'm quite happy to publish our policy.
> nomen-...@outlook.com writes:
>
> > Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as it
> > applies to the general posting public.
>
> I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
The policy is: sometimes when one of us notices that a user seems to be
reliable enough that it's less trouble to have their messages approved
automatically than by hand, he might, if he remembers, add the poster to
the whitelist.
The more people on the whitelist, the less work for us, as long as they
don't make more work for us by being on the whitelist. That's the only
criterion: our convenience.
Daniele
Bertie Wooster
Oct 28, 2012, 5:41:25 PM10/28/12
to
But I suppose it would back up the final point in this question in the
draft urcm faq:
=====
Q Pass-list! That sounds like a great idea. How do I get onto the
pass-list?
A First of all you need to hold similar opinions to the moderators,
you must not sound at all argumentative towards the moderators'
opinions, and it helps if you post a few derogatory comments about
posters disliked by the moderators.
=====
pass-list?
A First of all you need to hold similar opinions to the moderators,
you must not sound at all argumentative towards the moderators'
opinions, and it helps if you post a few derogatory comments about
posters disliked by the moderators.
And compare that with how the Christian faq might be worded:
=====
Q Pass-list! That sounds like a great idea. How do I get onto the
pass-list?
A By default you will be placed on the pass-list. There's no need ever
pass-list?
to come off the pass-list unless you breach the charter. If that
happens you will be removed from the pass-list and an email sent to
you explaining why you have been removed and for how long. In serious
cases you may have to be banned from using the group for a period of
time.
Q Wow! is it really that simple and transparent?
A Yes.
=====
Bertie Wooster
Oct 28, 2012, 5:45:55 PM10/28/12
to
several of the urcm moderators.
As a group I think they are doing a terrible job managing urcm, but
there are several I'd be very happy to join on a cycle ride.
Danny Colyer
Oct 28, 2012, 7:26:37 PM10/28/12
to
On 28/10/2012 20:27, D.M. Procida wrote:
> Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>> nomen-...@outlook.com writes:
>>> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as it
>>> applies to the general posting public.
>>
>> I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
>
> That's OK, I'm quite happy to publish our policy.
>
> The policy is: sometimes when one of us notices that a user seems to be
> reliable enough that it's less trouble to have their messages approved
> automatically than by hand, he might, if he remembers, add the poster to
> the whitelist.
That is exactly the way it works in urcm.
> Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>> nomen-...@outlook.com writes:
>>> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy as it
>>> applies to the general posting public.
>>
>> I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
>
> That's OK, I'm quite happy to publish our policy.
>
> The policy is: sometimes when one of us notices that a user seems to be
> reliable enough that it's less trouble to have their messages approved
> automatically than by hand, he might, if he remembers, add the poster to
> the whitelist.
> The more people on the whitelist, the less work for us, as long as they
> don't make more work for us by being on the whitelist. That's the only
> criterion: our convenience.
--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson
M Wicks
Oct 28, 2012, 7:47:11 PM10/28/12
to
On Oct 28, 8:27 pm, real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
I find it odd that you are one of the most vocal critics of URCM's
current moderation on UNNM/C, yet you seem to look down on pretty much
everyone who agrees with you, at least outside committee members, the
"Gang of Four" (BTW where did "Trollsworth LeTrole" go and whose sock
was he?), and just one or two others who are usually "important" in
some way.
The paranoid assumptions that you make about why "the rest" (including
Crispin) are having a go at URCM (as it currently is) mirror the
paranoid assumptions about URCM posters that you are continually
telling the URCM moderators not to make.
Crispin may be very far from perfect but your attack on him was
unwarranted. He is polite and his criticisms of URCM invariably have
merit, even if they are motivated primarily by controlling, petulant
resentment at the vote not going his way. At least he is prepared
(even if for the "wrong" reasons) to stand up for the right of people
he disagrees with to post their opinions on URCM, unlike most other
cyclists round here. He has been useful in the effort to reform URCM,
because he's clearly a "proper cyclist", and so shows that Jackson is
lying when he claims that URCM is "under attack from people who hate
cycling" and all that sort of rubbish.
Your melodrama about how you don't know how the moderators manage to
respond to him civilly is just ridiculous. All he is doing is making
valid and polite complaints about the moderation of URCM; to be
inclined to respond uncivilly, one would have to read far more into
his posts than the words themselves, something which you continually
(and rightly) chide the URCM moderators for doing.
Will you bother responding to my valid points? Probably not: no doubt
I am yet another URCM critic who you've decided is beneath you in some
way. Do you perhaps think that if you paint yourself as a superior
class of URCM critic then the arrogant Jackson will suddenly and
magically start listening to you? Hasn't worked so far, has it?
Procida) wrote:
current moderation on UNNM/C, yet you seem to look down on pretty much
everyone who agrees with you, at least outside committee members, the
"Gang of Four" (BTW where did "Trollsworth LeTrole" go and whose sock
was he?), and just one or two others who are usually "important" in
some way.
The paranoid assumptions that you make about why "the rest" (including
Crispin) are having a go at URCM (as it currently is) mirror the
paranoid assumptions about URCM posters that you are continually
telling the URCM moderators not to make.
Crispin may be very far from perfect but your attack on him was
unwarranted. He is polite and his criticisms of URCM invariably have
merit, even if they are motivated primarily by controlling, petulant
resentment at the vote not going his way. At least he is prepared
(even if for the "wrong" reasons) to stand up for the right of people
he disagrees with to post their opinions on URCM, unlike most other
cyclists round here. He has been useful in the effort to reform URCM,
because he's clearly a "proper cyclist", and so shows that Jackson is
lying when he claims that URCM is "under attack from people who hate
cycling" and all that sort of rubbish.
Your melodrama about how you don't know how the moderators manage to
respond to him civilly is just ridiculous. All he is doing is making
valid and polite complaints about the moderation of URCM; to be
inclined to respond uncivilly, one would have to read far more into
his posts than the words themselves, something which you continually
(and rightly) chide the URCM moderators for doing.
Will you bother responding to my valid points? Probably not: no doubt
I am yet another URCM critic who you've decided is beneath you in some
way. Do you perhaps think that if you paint yourself as a superior
class of URCM critic then the arrogant Jackson will suddenly and
magically start listening to you? Hasn't worked so far, has it?
M Wicks
Oct 28, 2012, 8:02:16 PM10/28/12
to
ambiguously.
Amazing that Clive George stays on the whitelist (oops...now my PC
credentials are shot) really, when you consider just how much he
criticises the running of URCM.
> I find it extraordinary if he is.
wouldn't even particularly surprise me if they asked him to be a
moderator.
Sara
Oct 29, 2012, 12:25:30 AM10/29/12
to
In article
<1db57ef3-54ae-4962...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
pretty quickly just by coincidence.
--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.
<1db57ef3-54ae-4962...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you name a single whitelisted URCM poster who regularly comments
> here in a less-than-positive way on URCM's running?
Me. I'm pretty sure I'm whitelisted - or maybe my posts tend to appear
> Can you name a single whitelisted URCM poster who regularly comments
> here in a less-than-positive way on URCM's running?
pretty quickly just by coincidence.
--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.
D.M. Procida
Oct 29, 2012, 4:37:01 AM10/29/12
to
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > God knows I think they are wrong about all kinds of things, but every
> > time this happens it makes them look more generous and you look more
> > spiteful.
>
> I find it odd that you are one of the most vocal critics of URCM's
> current moderation on UNNM/C
I don't think so.
> > God knows I think they are wrong about all kinds of things, but every
> > time this happens it makes them look more generous and you look more
> > spiteful.
>
> I find it odd that you are one of the most vocal critics of URCM's
> current moderation on UNNM/C
> Crispin may be very far from perfect but your attack on him was
> unwarranted. He is polite and his criticisms of URCM invariably have
> merit
> Will you bother responding to my valid points?
Someone makes some claim or argument, then says: do you see what I mean?
If you say yes, they take that for agreement and move onto the next
step; if you say no, they explain it all over again.
This repeats until you're finally able to get out of the car and escape.
Daniele
Bertie Wooster
Oct 29, 2012, 6:38:54 AM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:37:01 +0100,
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > God knows I think they are wrong about all kinds of things, but every
>> > time this happens it makes them look more generous and you look more
>> > spiteful.
>>
>> I find it odd that you are one of the most vocal critics of URCM's
>> current moderation on UNNM/C
>
>I don't think so.
You have certainly expressed the view that urcm moderation is of a
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > God knows I think they are wrong about all kinds of things, but every
>> > time this happens it makes them look more generous and you look more
>> > spiteful.
>>
>> I find it odd that you are one of the most vocal critics of URCM's
>> current moderation on UNNM/C
>
>I don't think so.
poor standard.
>> Crispin may be very far from perfect but your attack on him was
>> unwarranted. He is polite and his criticisms of URCM invariably have
>> merit
>
>I don't agree with that either.
complaints have not had any merit, I have always believed I have had a
valid complaint.
M Wicks
Oct 29, 2012, 6:41:15 AM10/29/12
to
On Oct 29, 8:37 am, real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
If I was doing that then you'd have a point. But of course I was doing
nothing of the kind.
Procida) wrote:
nothing of the kind.
M Wicks
Oct 29, 2012, 6:52:56 AM10/29/12
to
On Oct 29, 4:25 am, Sara <saramerri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article
> <1db57ef3-54ae-4962-9a6b-a4df5de22...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
you're an ex-moderator. But I'd be surprised if there were more than
literally one or two others, if that. And I suspect that there is
still resentment towards you among particular moderators for your
"betrayal".
> In article
> <1db57ef3-54ae-4962-9a6b-a4df5de22...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you name a single whitelisted URCM poster who regularly comments
> > here in a less-than-positive way on URCM's running?
>
> Me. I'm pretty sure I'm whitelisted - or maybe my posts tend to appear
> pretty quickly just by coincidence.
Fair enough. I guess (if that's true) that it's a courtesy since
>
> > Can you name a single whitelisted URCM poster who regularly comments
> > here in a less-than-positive way on URCM's running?
>
> Me. I'm pretty sure I'm whitelisted - or maybe my posts tend to appear
> pretty quickly just by coincidence.
you're an ex-moderator. But I'd be surprised if there were more than
literally one or two others, if that. And I suspect that there is
still resentment towards you among particular moderators for your
"betrayal".
Judith
Oct 29, 2012, 7:29:33 AM10/29/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:55:08 +0000, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk>
wrote:
What a stupid reply.
You do not actually need to know the policy to do that. If you really wanted
to got to the trouble, which I doubt anyone would want to, post to a group
regularly, don't argue with anyone and you almost certainly will be made a
white listed poster. (Unless of course it is URCM when I understand that you
either have to have a chiark email address, live in Cambridge, or have your
head up Ian Jackson's arse)
wrote:
You do not actually need to know the policy to do that. If you really wanted
to got to the trouble, which I doubt anyone would want to, post to a group
regularly, don't argue with anyone and you almost certainly will be made a
white listed poster. (Unless of course it is URCM when I understand that you
either have to have a chiark email address, live in Cambridge, or have your
head up Ian Jackson's arse)
Judith
Oct 29, 2012, 7:32:57 AM10/29/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:33:46 +0000, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>I feel that the wording for the new bit about the pass-list policy is
>a little clumsy. Any suggestions? I endeavour to be as inclusive as
>possible, comments from any current or past urcm moderators would be
>particularly welcome.
VG
(I speak, not as a past moderator: possible a future one)
wrote:
<snip>
>I feel that the wording for the new bit about the pass-list policy is
>a little clumsy. Any suggestions? I endeavour to be as inclusive as
>possible, comments from any current or past urcm moderators would be
>particularly welcome.
(I speak, not as a past moderator: possible a future one)
Judith
Oct 29, 2012, 7:34:32 AM10/29/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:01:07 +0000, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>I think you read my motives incorrectly. There little on Usenet I
>would like more than to see a happy and inclusive uk.* cycling group.
>urcm, under good management, has the potential to be both.
>
>If I appear to be mocking, it is only because the urcm moderation
>de-facto policies are so ridiculous, and thus open to ridicule.
>
>My dislike of urcm is directed to the policies, and not individuals,
>although that dislike has probably also extended to the urcm leader.
I rarely agree with BW/TC - but I do here.
Percy seems to think that he is the moderator of the group when Evans can't be
arsed.
wrote:
<snip>
>I think you read my motives incorrectly. There little on Usenet I
>would like more than to see a happy and inclusive uk.* cycling group.
>urcm, under good management, has the potential to be both.
>
>If I appear to be mocking, it is only because the urcm moderation
>de-facto policies are so ridiculous, and thus open to ridicule.
>
>My dislike of urcm is directed to the policies, and not individuals,
>although that dislike has probably also extended to the urcm leader.
Percy seems to think that he is the moderator of the group when Evans can't be
arsed.
Judith
Oct 29, 2012, 7:39:11 AM10/29/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:02:16 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>It would certainly be wrong, but with URCM it wouldn't surprise me. It
>wouldn't even particularly surprise me if they asked him to be a
>moderator.
I place a bet with Betfair a few years ago, as it was pretty obvious what his
tactics and objective were.
<snip>
>It would certainly be wrong, but with URCM it wouldn't surprise me. It
>wouldn't even particularly surprise me if they asked him to be a
>moderator.
tactics and objective were.
Toom Tabard
Oct 29, 2012, 7:44:09 AM10/29/12
to
On Sunday, 28 October 2012 18:22:55 UTC, Steve Walker wrote:
>
> We don't have a policy. Whitelisting is not a privilege conferred upon
> favoured posters, it's an administrative automation for our convenience.
The group, and moderation of it would work well if contributors were by default
>
> We don't have a policy. Whitelisting is not a privilege conferred upon
> favoured posters, it's an administrative automation for our convenience.
trusted and promptly white-listed.
What standard and fair criteria are used for ensuring white-listing is prompt, equal and just?
People will not, and cannot, enter into discussions where some may freely interact, but where their own posts are consistently delayed by hours or days, and are then out of step with the discussion. Others, not white-listed, cannot freely contribute polite and reasoned messages without a strong probability of their
message being rejected for some minor exceedingly creative interpretation of 'repetition' or 'not adding to the discussion', etc.
If discretionary and unjustified targeting of individual is seen to be going on,
then it is reasonably assumed that it is going on, unless you can explain the
many apparent anomalies in 'fair' moderation and white-listing.
Toom
Sara
Oct 29, 2012, 7:46:31 AM10/29/12
to
In article
<63c35f75-de6f-4ad8...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
I wasn't on the whitelist by choice when I was a moderator, and I've no
idea when after leaving I was put on it. Being on the whitelist isn't a
reward, it's a convenience for the moderators. I would guess my posting
history makes it pretty clear I'm not likely to post anything against
the charter, and that being the case why make more work for themselves
than they need to?
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
<63c35f75-de6f-4ad8...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
idea when after leaving I was put on it. Being on the whitelist isn't a
reward, it's a convenience for the moderators. I would guess my posting
history makes it pretty clear I'm not likely to post anything against
the charter, and that being the case why make more work for themselves
than they need to?
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
Bertie Wooster
Oct 29, 2012, 7:58:45 AM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:32:57 +0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
Thanks. I leave it a few days to allow any moderator now on holiday
the chance to comment before I release it as the urcm faq version 2.0.
wrote:
the chance to comment before I release it as the urcm faq version 2.0.
Toom Tabard
Oct 29, 2012, 8:09:24 AM10/29/12
to news...@colyer.plus.com
On Sunday, 28 October 2012 23:26:00 UTC, Danny Colyer wrote:
> On 28/10/2012 20:27, D.M. Procida wrote:
>
> >
>
> > That's OK, I'm quite happy to publish our policy.
>
> >
> > The policy is: sometimes when one of us notices that a user seems to be
> > reliable enough that it's less trouble to have their messages approved
> > automatically than by hand, he might, if he remembers, add the poster to
> > the whitelist.
> That is exactly the way it works in urcm.
> > The more people on the whitelist, the less work for us, as long as they
> > don't make more work for us by being on the whitelist. That's the only
> > criterion: our convenience.
> Ditto.
Well, it depends on the rate at which it is done, and how subjective it is, but this illustrates the contemptuous complacency and impertinence which justifies criticism of URCM and which renders it useless, and now almost moribund.
> On 28/10/2012 20:27, D.M. Procida wrote:
>
> >
>
> > That's OK, I'm quite happy to publish our policy.
>
> >
> > The policy is: sometimes when one of us notices that a user seems to be
> > reliable enough that it's less trouble to have their messages approved
> > automatically than by hand, he might, if he remembers, add the poster to
> > the whitelist.
> That is exactly the way it works in urcm.
> > The more people on the whitelist, the less work for us, as long as they
> > don't make more work for us by being on the whitelist. That's the only
> > criterion: our convenience.
> Ditto.
So, the assumption is that everyone is guilty until some individual moderator, at some time, might get around to favouring someone he finds doesn't offend his sensibilities.
There should be a presumption of innocence at an early stage, and free and immediate interaction for individuals unless they commit some substantive error or offence. That would minimise moderation, maximise interaction and discussion and save rejection of valid contributions by individual moderators micro-managing by spurious rejection of individuals and message content who/which offend their own prejudices.
What is missing is a credible explanation of why things aren't done this way.
Toom
Bertie Wooster
Oct 29, 2012, 8:28:52 AM10/29/12
to
As soon as someone makes their first post I put them on the pass list.
The only person I have ever taken off the pass-list was someone whose
email got hijacked and they spewed the group.
That person thanked me for my action, and as soon as his email was
clean he went back on the pass-list.
It ain't rocket science.
Message has been deleted
Danny Colyer
Oct 29, 2012, 4:06:52 PM10/29/12
to
On 29/10/2012 12:09, Toom Tabard wrote:
> On Sunday, 28 October 2012 23:26:00 UTC, Danny Colyer wrote:
>> On 28/10/2012 20:27, D.M. Procida wrote:
>>> That's OK, I'm quite happy to publish our policy.
>>>
>>> The policy is: sometimes when one of us notices that a user seems to be
>>> reliable enough that it's less trouble to have their messages approved
>>> automatically than by hand, he might, if he remembers, add the poster to
>>> the whitelist.
>
>> That is exactly the way it works in urcm.
>
>>> The more people on the whitelist, the less work for us, as long as they
>>> don't make more work for us by being on the whitelist. That's the only
>>> criterion: our convenience.
>
>> Ditto.
>
> Well, it depends on the rate at which it is done, and how subjective it is, but this illustrates the contemptuous complacency and impertinence which justifies criticism of URCM and which renders it useless, and now almost moribund.
Using the same whitelisting policy as the ulm moderators indicates
> On Sunday, 28 October 2012 23:26:00 UTC, Danny Colyer wrote:
>> On 28/10/2012 20:27, D.M. Procida wrote:
>>> That's OK, I'm quite happy to publish our policy.
>>>
>>> The policy is: sometimes when one of us notices that a user seems to be
>>> reliable enough that it's less trouble to have their messages approved
>>> automatically than by hand, he might, if he remembers, add the poster to
>>> the whitelist.
>
>> That is exactly the way it works in urcm.
>
>>> The more people on the whitelist, the less work for us, as long as they
>>> don't make more work for us by being on the whitelist. That's the only
>>> criterion: our convenience.
>
>> Ditto.
>
> Well, it depends on the rate at which it is done, and how subjective it is, but this illustrates the contemptuous complacency and impertinence which justifies criticism of URCM and which renders it useless, and now almost moribund.
"contemptuous complacency and impertinence"? Does this mean that the
ulm moderators also demonstrate those characteristics?
I'm interested to know why it's OK for you to use that policy to
moderate ulm, but not for us to use it to moderate urcm.
> So, the assumption is that everyone is guilty until some individual moderator, at some time, might get around to favouring someone he finds doesn't offend his sensibilities.
> There should be a presumption of innocence at an early stage, and free and immediate interaction for individuals unless they commit some substantive error or offence. That would minimise moderation, maximise interaction and discussion and save rejection of valid contributions by individual moderators micro-managing by spurious rejection of individuals and message content who/which offend their own prejudices.
>
> What is missing is a credible explanation of why things aren't done this way.
It's done to make moderation easier.
I'll explain my thoughts on why that wouldn't be workable for urcm, then
perhaps you can explain why you don't do it that way in ulm.
It's simply open to abuse. If we were to whitelist someone after his
first post, then all that would be necessary to bypass moderation would
be to make a single post, get whitelisted, then launch a torrent of
abuse. Dozens of abusive posts could get through before a moderator
checked the group and removed the poster from the whitelist.
Anyone who doesn't believe that would happen really hasn't been paying
attention for the last few years. If there weren't people wanting to
post abuse then moderation wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
So, build up a good, clean posting history without posting anything
rejection-worthy and you stand a good chance of being whitelisted (for
the convenience of the moderators). Seems reasonable to me.
Clive George
Oct 29, 2012, 4:17:03 PM10/29/12
to
On 29/10/2012 20:06, Danny Colyer wrote:
> On 29/10/2012 12:09, Toom Tabard wrote:
>> On Sunday, 28 October 2012 23:26:00 UTC, Danny Colyer wrote:
>>> On 28/10/2012 20:27, D.M. Procida wrote:
>>>> That's OK, I'm quite happy to publish our policy.
>>>>
>>>> The policy is: sometimes when one of us notices that a user seems to be
>>>> reliable enough that it's less trouble to have their messages approved
>>>> automatically than by hand, he might, if he remembers, add the
>>>> poster to
>>>> the whitelist.
>>
>>> That is exactly the way it works in urcm.
>>
>>>> The more people on the whitelist, the less work for us, as long as they
>>>> don't make more work for us by being on the whitelist. That's the only
>>>> criterion: our convenience.
>>
>>> Ditto.
>>
>> Well, it depends on the rate at which it is done, and how subjective
>> it is, but this illustrates the contemptuous complacency and
>> impertinence which justifies criticism of URCM and which renders it
>> useless, and now almost moribund.
>
> Using the same whitelisting policy as the ulm moderators indicates
> "contemptuous complacency and impertinence"? Does this mean that the
> ulm moderators also demonstrate those characteristics?
>
> I'm interested to know why it's OK for you to use that policy to
> moderate ulm, but not for us to use it to moderate urcm.
...
> On 29/10/2012 12:09, Toom Tabard wrote:
>> On Sunday, 28 October 2012 23:26:00 UTC, Danny Colyer wrote:
>>> On 28/10/2012 20:27, D.M. Procida wrote:
>>>> That's OK, I'm quite happy to publish our policy.
>>>>
>>>> The policy is: sometimes when one of us notices that a user seems to be
>>>> reliable enough that it's less trouble to have their messages approved
>>>> automatically than by hand, he might, if he remembers, add the
>>>> poster to
>>>> the whitelist.
>>
>>> That is exactly the way it works in urcm.
>>
>>>> The more people on the whitelist, the less work for us, as long as they
>>>> don't make more work for us by being on the whitelist. That's the only
>>>> criterion: our convenience.
>>
>>> Ditto.
>>
>> Well, it depends on the rate at which it is done, and how subjective
>> it is, but this illustrates the contemptuous complacency and
>> impertinence which justifies criticism of URCM and which renders it
>> useless, and now almost moribund.
>
> Using the same whitelisting policy as the ulm moderators indicates
> "contemptuous complacency and impertinence"? Does this mean that the
> ulm moderators also demonstrate those characteristics?
>
> I'm interested to know why it's OK for you to use that policy to
> moderate ulm, but not for us to use it to moderate urcm.
> I'll explain my thoughts on why that wouldn't be workable for urcm, then
> perhaps you can explain why you don't do it that way in ulm.
Point of order - Toom Tabard isn't a ULM mod, unless he's a sock, and I
> perhaps you can explain why you don't do it that way in ulm.
doubt the latter. Are you getting confused with The Todal?
Danny Colyer
Oct 29, 2012, 4:53:09 PM10/29/12
to
On 29/10/2012 20:17, Clive George wrote:
> Point of order - Toom Tabard isn't a ULM mod, unless he's a sock, and I
> doubt the latter. Are you getting confused with The Todal?
Yes I am. Sorry Todal.
> Point of order - Toom Tabard isn't a ULM mod, unless he's a sock, and I
> doubt the latter. Are you getting confused with The Todal?
Judith
Oct 29, 2012, 6:49:46 PM10/29/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 23:26:37 +0000, Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>> The more people on the whitelist, the less work for us, as long as they
>> don't make more work for us by being on the whitelist. That's the only
>> criterion: our convenience.
>
>Ditto.
How does the passing of posts round from moderator to moderator trying to
decide whether to approve or reject a particular post work for the moderator's
convenience?
Could you also say "ditto" to the other points made by the ULM mods:
We don't blacklist anyone, currently. I would only envisage blacklisting
someone if they were inundating us with irrelevant posts (advertising,
or paranoid fantasies perhaps) in such quantities that it was seriously
wasting our time.
If a conversation has become heated a person might be temporarily
removed from the whitelist until things get cooler.
We have a blacklist function on the modbot apparently, but we've never used
it. We moderate on content.
wrote:
<snip>
>> The more people on the whitelist, the less work for us, as long as they
>> don't make more work for us by being on the whitelist. That's the only
>> criterion: our convenience.
>
>Ditto.
decide whether to approve or reject a particular post work for the moderator's
convenience?
Could you also say "ditto" to the other points made by the ULM mods:
We don't blacklist anyone, currently. I would only envisage blacklisting
someone if they were inundating us with irrelevant posts (advertising,
or paranoid fantasies perhaps) in such quantities that it was seriously
wasting our time.
If a conversation has become heated a person might be temporarily
removed from the whitelist until things get cooler.
We have a blacklist function on the modbot apparently, but we've never used
it. We moderate on content.
Toom Tabard
Oct 30, 2012, 7:02:30 AM10/30/12
to news...@colyer.plus.com
On Monday, 29 October 2012 20:06:12 UTC, Danny Colyer wrote:
> On 29/10/2012 12:09, Toom Tabard wrote:
>
> > Well, it depends on the rate at which it is done, and how subjective it is, but this illustrates the contemptuous complacency and impertinence which justifies criticism of URCM and which renders it useless, and now almost moribund.
>
>
>
> Using the same whitelisting policy as the ulm moderators indicates
> "contemptuous complacency and impertinence"? Does this mean that the
> ulm moderators also demonstrate those characteristics?
>
> I'm interested to know why it's OK for you to use that policy to
> moderate ulm, but not for us to use it to moderate urcm.
I'm not a ulm moderator. I contribute to ulm and urcm. As I clearly state, claiming you use the same policy may be nominally true but it depends on how soon you white-list and how subjective you are in whitelisting users and rejecting messages. I have never had problems or delays in contributing to ulm and I think my rejection rate is virtually nil.
> On 29/10/2012 12:09, Toom Tabard wrote:
>
> > Well, it depends on the rate at which it is done, and how subjective it is, but this illustrates the contemptuous complacency and impertinence which justifies criticism of URCM and which renders it useless, and now almost moribund.
>
>
>
> Using the same whitelisting policy as the ulm moderators indicates
> "contemptuous complacency and impertinence"? Does this mean that the
> ulm moderators also demonstrate those characteristics?
>
> I'm interested to know why it's OK for you to use that policy to
> moderate ulm, but not for us to use it to moderate urcm.
I have experienced long delays on urcm and frequent rejection for contrived
excuses on minor issues. It is frequently not possible to state robust but fair and polite views on urcm, and I abandoned trying to do so some time ago. It is now a moribund and antiseptic group.
>
> > So, the assumption is that everyone is guilty until some individual moderator, at some time, might get around to favouring someone he finds doesn't offend his sensibilities.
> > There should be a presumption of innocence at an early stage, and free and immediate interaction for individuals unless they commit some substantive error or offence. That would minimise moderation, maximise interaction and discussion and save rejection of valid contributions by individual moderators micro-managing by spurious rejection of individuals and message content who/which offend their own prejudices.
> >
> > What is missing is a credible explanation of why things aren't done this way.
>
> Whitelisting is a moderation tool. It's not done to "favour" a poster.
> It's done to make moderation easier.
>
moderate - 'keeping or kept within reasonable limits, not extreme or excessive' OED. That's best done by taking action on the objectively extreme and excessive when it happens, not by censoring to the lowest threshold of tolerance and sensitivities - reader should have the responsibility of ignoring issues of no
interest to them or views which offend their individual psyches.
> I'll explain my thoughts on why that wouldn't be workable for urcm, then
> perhaps you can explain why you don't do it that way in ulm.
>
> It's simply open to abuse. If we were to whitelist someone after his
> first post, then all that would be necessary to bypass moderation would
> be to make a single post, get whitelisted, then launch a torrent of
> abuse. Dozens of abusive posts could get through before a moderator
> checked the group and removed the poster from the whitelist.
>
> Anyone who doesn't believe that would happen really hasn't been paying
> attention for the last few years. If there weren't people wanting to
> post abuse then moderation wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
>
> So, build up a good, clean posting history without posting anything
> rejection-worthy and you stand a good chance of being whitelisted (for
> the convenience of the moderators). Seems reasonable to me.
>
Someone whitelisted and bombarding the group is always possible, but if a few individual happened to manage that once each, what is the problem compared to the
advantages of allowing many to interact politely and reasonably freely? It's now a small newsgroup, now with little interest or traffic - it's not going to be a major problem if few offensive messages just might occasionally appear in it,
and I think your scenario that it would be open to abuse is overstated.
Toom
Nomen Nescio
Nov 4, 2012, 10:10:55 AM11/4/12
to
In article <3hqq88l97ds3bs0al...@4ax.com>
> >> "Matthew Vernon" wrote in message news:87vcdu7...@macbeth.sac.ac.uk...
> >>
> >> I also note that there are very few problems with the running ULM.
you just aren't liked much, accept it
nomen-...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:13:18 +0000, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >On 28/10/2012 16:11, John Benn wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:13:18 +0000, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >> "Matthew Vernon" wrote in message news:87vcdu7...@macbeth.sac.ac.uk...
> >>
> >> nomen-...@outlook.com writes:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy
> >>> as it
> >>> applies to the general posting public.
> >>
> >> I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
> >> ========================================
> >> nomen-...@outlook.com writes:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing policy
> >>> as it
> >>> applies to the general posting public.
> >>
> >> I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
> >>
> >> I also note that there are very few problems with the running ULM.
> >
> >Which implies that not publishing the white-listing policy is probably a
> >sensible thing.
>
>
> I have made a separate post asking the moderators of the three groups cycling,
> legal, and christian if they will do so. I cannot see any reason at all for
> not doing so, why do you think it is sensible not to publish?
> I doubt if two out of three of the moderated groups will have anything to hide.
> >Which implies that not publishing the white-listing policy is probably a
> >sensible thing.
>
>
> I have made a separate post asking the moderators of the three groups cycling,
> legal, and christian if they will do so. I cannot see any reason at all for
> not doing so, why do you think it is sensible not to publish?
you just aren't liked much, accept it
nomen-...@outlook.com
Nov 4, 2012, 11:46:13 AM11/4/12
to
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 16:10:55 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com>
wrote:
As I predicted: moderators from two out of the three were more than willing to
explain what their policy was. Moderators from the third could only AOL.
Thanks to the "christian" and "legal" moderators.
wrote:
explain what their policy was. Moderators from the third could only AOL.
Thanks to the "christian" and "legal" moderators.
0 new messages