Received: by 10.224.219.144 with SMTP id hu16mr4863012qab.1.1351468937017;
        Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.91.168 with SMTP id cf8mr5264396vdb.6.1351468936993; Sun,
 28 Oct 2012 17:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: gf5ni61qab.0!nntp.google.com!e17no4714704qar.0!postnews.google.com!p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.7.136.228; posting-account=y24izwoAAACH4Qt6y-4Y6sTFkFcACtKO
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.7.136.228
References: <7cgo889bo375hrpfs6a2dsnp83entdhg7f@4ax.com> <k6isr0$2am$1@dont-email.me>
 <62fjei.7pt.17.1@news.alt.net> <g5bq88pigri9mcii9akfq7m8p11bnj1mmq@4ax.com>
 <87vcdu7g1f.fsf@macbeth.sac.ac.uk> <k6jt5u$vjf$1@dont-email.me>
 <slrnk8r287.fp6.andyl@azaal.plus.com> <1db57ef3-54ae-4962-9a6b-a4df5de2215a@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <dq8r88l347r58q9dn1s8gjciu0e9ai0pss@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/16.0,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <96ad855d-92ac-4c65-a975-30b4700068e8@p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A URCM Query
From: M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:02:17 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Oct 28, 9:39=A0pm, Bertie Wooster <b...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:38:06 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 28, 7:35=A0pm, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:21:42 -0000, Steve Walker <spamt...@beeb.net> w=
rote:
>
> >> > "Matthew Vernon" <matt...@debian.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:87vcdu7g1f.fsf@macbeth.sac.ac.uk...
> >> >> nomen-nes...@outlook.com writes:
>
> >> >>> Perhaps it would be helpful if they published the white-listing po=
licy as
> >> >>> it
> >> >>> applies to the general posting public.
>
> >> >> I note that the ulm moderators do not do this.
>
> >> > We don't have a policy. =A0 Whitelisting is not a privilege conferre=
d upon
> >> > favoured posters, it's an administrative automation for our convenie=
nce.
>
> >> 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 hel=
p
> >> 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
> >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.
>
> Is Phil Lee really on the pass-list?

No, sorry, I meant that only Clive George was, but I phrased it
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.

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.