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)
Path: ha8ni72696wib.1!nntp.google.com!e17no11443056qar.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 05:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ULadnY4oE6yVIhDNnZ2dnUVZ8j-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2.25.10.249; posting-account=ZvqUQgoAAADxFIC7jPHbV6-GpwTpjmhB
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2.25.10.249
References: <7cgo889bo375hrpfs6a2dsnp83entdhg7f@4ax.com> <k6isr0$2am$1@dont-email.me>
 <62fjei.7pt.17.1@news.alt.net> <g5bq88pigri9mcii9akfq7m8p11bnj1mmq@4ax.com>
 <87vcdu7g1f.fsf@macbeth.sac.ac.uk> <1ksp1ix.uar1pqr0p3raN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>
 <ULadnY4oE6yVIhDNnZ2dnUVZ8j-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f14190bf-df54-44ee-966d-f5c2f5cb18e7@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A URCM Query
From: Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com>
Cc: news2...@colyer.plus.com
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:09:24 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, 28 October 2012 23:26:00 UTC, Danny Colyer  wrote:
> On 28/10/2012 20:27, D.M. Procida wrote:
>=20

> >
>=20
> > That's OK, I'm quite happy to publish our policy.
>=20
> >=20
> > 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=
o
> > the whitelist.

> That is exactly the way it works in urcm.
=20
> > The more people on the whitelist, the less work for us, as long as they=
=20
> > don't make more work for us by being on the whitelist. That's the only=
=20
> > criterion: our convenience.
=20
> 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 j=
ustifies criticism of URCM and which renders it useless, and now almost mor=
ibund.

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=
y.

Toom