Message from discussion A URCM Query
Received: by 10.180.105.41 with SMTP id gj9mr2028336wib.3.1351512564953;
Mon, 29 Oct 2012 05:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.71.38 with SMTP id r6mr5339520vdu.12.1351512564783; Mon, 29
Oct 2012 05:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 05:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=126.96.36.199; posting-account=ZvqUQgoAAADxFIC7jPHbV6-GpwTpjmhB
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: A URCM Query
From: Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:09:24 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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 t=
> > 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.
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 j=
ustifies criticism of URCM and which renders it useless, and now almost mor=
So, the assumption is that everyone is guilty until some individual moderat=
or, at some time, might get around to favouring someone he finds doesn't of=
fend 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 e=
rror or offence. That would minimise moderation, maximise interaction and d=
iscussion and save rejection of valid contributions by individual moderator=
s micro-managing by spurious rejection of individuals and message content w=
ho/which offend their own prejudices.
What is missing is a credible explanation of why things aren't done this wa=