Re: Everyone, will you please tone down the niggling!
Marc
>
> I've just been moderating articles.
>
> There's an awful lot of sarkiness, hostility, niggling, grumbling and
> dissension. We're letting most of it through, for now. But, you know, if
> you want to behave like that, there exists an unmoderated group
> especially for you. The whole point of having a moderated group was to
> provide a less hostile space for discussing cycling on Usenet, and we're
> not really achieving that yet. I'd much prefer that it were self policing
> - if you would just all kindly tone it down for everyone's benefit.
>
The only niggle that I have is the the continuing one of the QR skewer
not holding the rear axle.Luckily it hasn't happened this week when I
was doing 60 MPH down a hill covered in farm debris.
Marc
james...@gmail.com
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> > I've just been moderating articles.
>
> > There's an awful lot of sarkiness, hostility, niggling, grumbling and
> > dissension. We're letting most of it through, for now. But, you know, if
> > you want to behave like that, there exists an unmoderated group
> > especially for you. The whole point of having a moderated group was to
> > provide a less hostile space for discussing cycling on Usenet, and we're
> > not really achieving that yet. I'd much prefer that it were self policing
> > - if you would just all kindly tone it down for everyone's benefit.
Oh, that's odd, I thought the point of the new newsgroup was so that
people like Simon Brooke could arrogantly post repetitive nonsense
while those who debunk it are censored.
James
oldMaxim
wrote:
Whatever next - Uk.Rec.Cycling.Moderated.Moderated?
Happi Monday
>
> Whatever next - Uk.Rec.Cycling.Moderated.Moderated?
Probably - can't wait!
james...@gmail.com
Or maybe ucr.moderators where they could go and play with
themselves :-)
Although to be fair they aren't all bad, all of the time...
James
Happi Monday
> Oh, that's odd, I thought the point of the new newsgroup was so that
> people like Simon Brooke could arrogantly post repetitive nonsense
> while those who debunk it are censored.
>
> James
Correct!
Trevor A Panther
couple of times each week.
The thing is that I actually don't see all the "sarkiness, hostility,
niggling, grumbling and dissention" at all -- well very little.
But that is because the main perpetrators are firmly in my "sin bin" and
don't appear. Most of the occupants were already in there from their days on
urc but there are a few newcomers.
What I do perceive with urcm is a very "flat and largely unexciting" group
following a very narrow remit!
Its problem, in my "f*rty" old mans opinion, is that it is much too straight
laced,too pedantic.
What I had hoped it would become was a troll free place where cyclists could
talk and exchange views and, indeed "chat"! BUT not just about cycling! It
needs a much more normal touch with people exchanging ideas and "news &
views" --- and not just about "cycling" per se. A lighter touch is what is
needed not more "moderation". It needs to be a place where friends can pop
in and chat. Go off at a tangent -- even have the very occassional "rant".
A few "non sequitors" and yes even a few arguements!
"The whole point of having a moderated group was to provide a less hostile
space for discussing cycling on Usenet, and we're not really achieving that
yet. "
I would strongly argue against that statement -- it was formed specifically
to remove the "trolls" and the effects of the endless troll wrestlers. That
was stated in the 2nd RFD.
Most "trolls" are well known, others become quickly apparent and can be
sidelined by moderation but we are all cyclists, pedestrians, motorists (
well I am a motorist 1 day a week -- every Wednesday!) -- in fact a pretty
normal cross section of society with all the peculiarities thereof!
urcm is becoming / has become like "Cromwellian State" where peoples lives
are too controlled and its isn't fun to be there -- too "puritanical"
And just to lighten the post a bit. I have told the tale of me being hit
from behind by a car -- well yesterday in Doncaster market I was hit
directly from behind by a pedestrian!!!!
I was walking around the market, ( quite early so it wasn't busy at all)
doing my weekly shop, pushing my bike and trailer in a straight line at the
time, when a man walked straight into my loaded trailer from directly
behind me. I didn't see his approach but witnesses told me that he was
walking slightly faster than I and just walked straight into it directly
from behind. I suspect that had I been a lamp post he would have done the
same. I actually think that, despite my hi vis jacket and the fact that my
rear light was still on blinking away -- he simply didn't see me at all --
or that he was so taken with my sartorial elegant dress that that his mind
was mesmerised by the sight of an old man in shorts and sandals in early
winter!
He was unhurt, but abusively verbose, and he had squashed my recently
aquired tomatoes. A pity really -- with a bit of luck he migh have come in
contact with the live crab in there!
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
"Marc" <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote in message
news:mLGdnWyyrf_AcZ_W...@bt.com...
Danny Colyer
> What I do perceive with urcm is a very "flat and largely unexciting" group
> following a very narrow remit!
I find it disappointing that you choose to complain about this in urc
when you have already made it clear that you don't believe the urcm
moderators have a right to reply in urc.
I notice, though, that the newsgroups posted to are "uk.rec.cycling" and
"moderated". Perhaps this thread was intended for urcm? I don't think
the initial mistake was yours.
Well, I'm going to reply anyway.
> Its problem, in my "f*rty" old mans opinion, is that it is much too straight
> laced,too pedantic.
>
> What I had hoped it would become was a troll free place where cyclists could
> talk and exchange views and, indeed "chat"! BUT not just about cycling! It
> needs a much more normal touch with people exchanging ideas and "news &
> views" --- and not just about "cycling" per se. A lighter touch is what is
> needed not more "moderation". It needs to be a place where friends can pop
> in and chat. Go off at a tangent -- even have the very occassional "rant".
> A few "non sequitors" and yes even a few arguements!
That's happening a bit. I think it will happen more as the group
matures and particularly as we make more use of the whitelisting facility.
It /won't/ happen if the people who want it don't participate in the group.
> urcm is becoming / has become like "Cromwellian State" where peoples lives
> are too controlled and its isn't fun to be there -- too "puritanical"
I'm really enjoying the new group. It reminds me of urc 10 years ago.
> And just to lighten the post a bit. I have told the tale of me being hit
> from behind by a car -- well yesterday in Doncaster market I was hit
> directly from behind by a pedestrian!!!!
And /this/ is why I haven't yet unsubscribed from urc. As long as
Trevor is posting stories like this here, and not there, I'm inclined to
keep reading here.
At least Tom seems to be posting his similarly entertaining stories to urcm.
--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson
Ian Smith
> On 18/11/2009 09:38, Trevor A Panther wrote:
> >
> > What I do perceive with urcm is a very "flat and largely
> > unexciting" group following a very narrow remit!
>
> I find it disappointing that you choose to complain about this in urc
> when you have already made it clear that you don't believe the urcm
> moderators have a right to reply in urc.
Are subscribers to this newsgroup not allowed to respond to urcm
subscribers that post here? Simon Brooke brought the thread to
uk.rec.cycling, I believe. Do you think he was complaining about teh
moderators? Are you going to rebuke him, too?
Does your ownership or urcm extend to all teh threads posted by urcm
subscribers anywhere on teh internet? Do they know?
Gosh, I'm so glad you're not all power-crazed.
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Trevor A Panther
news:nNOdnTJ7vPHOKpjW...@brightview.co.uk...
> On 18/11/2009 09:38, Trevor A Panther wrote:
>> What I do perceive with urcm is a very "flat and largely unexciting"
>> group following a very narrow remit!
>
> I find it disappointing that you choose to complain about this in urc when
> you have already made it clear that you don't believe the urcm moderators
> have a right to reply in urc.
>
> I notice, though, that the newsgroups posted to are "uk.rec.cycling" and
> "moderated". Perhaps this thread was intended for urcm? I don't think
> the initial mistake was yours.
>
I made no mistake. I posted on urc --- not urcm!
I did not however initiate the topic on urc but responded to it on urc quite
deliberately --- whether or not it was mistakenly posted here instead of
in "the other place"
--
Marc
> "Danny Colyer" <danny_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nNOdnTJ7vPHOKpjW...@brightview.co.uk...
>> On 18/11/2009 09:38, Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>> What I do perceive with urcm is a very "flat and largely unexciting"
>>> group following a very narrow remit!
>> I find it disappointing that you choose to complain about this in urc when
>> you have already made it clear that you don't believe the urcm moderators
>> have a right to reply in urc.
>>
>> I notice, though, that the newsgroups posted to are "uk.rec.cycling" and
>> "moderated". Perhaps this thread was intended for urcm? I don't think
>> the initial mistake was yours.
>>
> <snipped>
>
> I made no mistake. I posted on urc --- not urcm!
>
> I did not however initiate the topic on urc but responded to it on urc quite
> deliberately --- whether or not it was mistakenly posted here instead of
> in "the other place"
I started the thread , by mistake!
Andy Leighton
Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Danny Colyer <danny_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18/11/2009 09:38, Trevor A Panther wrote:
>> >
>> > What I do perceive with urcm is a very "flat and largely
>> > unexciting" group following a very narrow remit!
>>
>> I find it disappointing that you choose to complain about this in urc
>> when you have already made it clear that you don't believe the urcm
>> moderators have a right to reply in urc.
>
> Are subscribers to this newsgroup not allowed to respond to urcm
> subscribers that post here? Simon Brooke brought the thread to
> uk.rec.cycling, I believe. Do you think he was complaining about teh
> moderators? Are you going to rebuke him, too?
It was Marc who started this thread - with what looks to have been
a typo.
--
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_
Tom Crispin
<initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>I started the thread , by mistake!
Simon Brooke started the thread in urcm, setting follow-ups to unnm.
You simply reset the newsgroup header.
Ian Smith
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:19:41 +0000 (UTC),
> Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Danny Colyer <danny_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 18/11/2009 09:38, Trevor A Panther wrote:
> >> >
> >> > What I do perceive with urcm is a very "flat and largely
> >> > unexciting" group following a very narrow remit!
> >>
> >> I find it disappointing that you choose to complain about this in urc
> >> when you have already made it clear that you don't believe the urcm
> >> moderators have a right to reply in urc.
> >
> > Are subscribers to this newsgroup not allowed to respond to urcm
> > subscribers that post here? Simon Brooke brought the thread to
> > uk.rec.cycling, I believe. Do you think he was complaining about teh
> > moderators? Are you going to rebuke him, too?
>
> It was Marc who started this thread - with what looks to have been
> a typo.
My apologies.
It seems that slrn will show a message in a newsgroup to which it was
not posted, if it is following a references chain backwards. That is,
if I take Marc's message in this group and go back up the thread, it
shows me Simon's message in urc, even though it seems you are right
and Simon's message was not posted to urc.
However, I think you are right and Simon did not bring the thread
here, sorry.
However, that in itself is slightly peculiar, because discussion of
urcm moderation process etc. is not allowed in urcm - I had messages
rejected on that grounds (even when I wasn't discussing process and
merely trying to alert the active participants of an active
discussion that the thread was killed because a moderator had become
bored). Why would a moderator post a message that would not pass
moderation? How did Marc see a message that wouldn't pass moderation?
regards, Ian SMith
Jim A
> ..., because discussion of
If only that were, in practice, true ... :-(
Tom Crispin
<i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>discussion of
>urcm moderation process etc. is not allowed in urcm
I think that depends on the poster.
Marc
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:22:53 +0000, Marc
> <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>
>> I started the thread , by mistake!
>
> Simon Brooke started the thread in urcm, setting follow-ups to unnm.
about people niggling but using the power of moderation to not only get
his niggle heard but stopping others commenting on him in URCM!
> You simply reset the newsgroup header.
Yes, by accident, when trying to comment on it in URCM.
Tom Crispin
<initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:22:53 +0000, Marc
>> <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I started the thread , by mistake!
>>
>> Simon Brooke started the thread in urcm, setting follow-ups to unnm.
>He did, and cowardly and hypocritical act it was too, having a niggle
>about people niggling but using the power of moderation to not only get
>his niggle heard but stopping others commenting on him in URCM!
I am not convinced that such a discussion does belong in urcm.
However, Simon made it clear that he was speaking in a /personal/
capacity, not on behalf of the moderator team. I doubt that the post
would have been allowed had it come from anyone else other than a
moderator, and if that is the case, Simon was using his position to
impose his /personal/ views on others without allowing others the
right to reply in the same forum.
>> You simply reset the newsgroup header.
>
>Yes, by accident, when trying to comment on it in URCM.
No blame is attached to you. Resetting headers is an unwieldly thing
to have to do.
Marc
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:46:51 +0000, Marc
> <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:22:53 +0000, Marc
>>> <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I started the thread , by mistake!
>>> Simon Brooke started the thread in urcm, setting follow-ups to unnm.
>> He did, and cowardly and hypocritical act it was too, having a niggle
>> about people niggling but using the power of moderation to not only get
>> his niggle heard but stopping others commenting on him in URCM!
>
> I am not convinced that such a discussion does belong in urcm.
I'm not bothered if it is or it isn't , it's their bat and ball they can
make the rules.
> However, Simon made it clear that he was speaking in a /personal/
> capacity, not on behalf of the moderator team. I doubt that the post
> would have been allowed had it come from anyone else other than a
> moderator, and if that is the case, Simon was using his position to
> impose his /personal/ views on others without allowing others the
> right to reply in the same forum.
True, hence my opinion that it was cowardly and hypocritical. They might
set the rules, but the least I would expect is for them to abide by them.
>
>>> You simply reset the newsgroup header.
>> Yes, by accident, when trying to comment on it in URCM.
>
> No blame is attached to you. Resetting headers is an unwieldly thing
> to have to do.
I'm not bothered about a question of "blame" i was only trying to
clafify the situation.
Now that I'm writing....
Now that I'm the almost proud owner of a Brompton,it's a case of have
train/brompton will travel. Is anyone else going to be doing the WNBR
next year?
Hmm is this the sort of thread that should be encouraged in URCM, on
topic, of interest to cyclists.... Ohh bugger it's X posted to URC and
URN so can't be! Ho hum!
X posted to URN
leandr42
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> I am not convinced that such a discussion does belong in urcm.
I think it does, not for specific problem posts but for certainly for
general issues of principal.
> However, Simon made it clear that he was speaking in a /personal/
> capacity, not on behalf of the moderator team. I doubt that the post
> would have been allowed had it come from anyone else other than a
> moderator, and if that is the case, Simon was using his position to
> impose his /personal/ views on others without allowing others the
> right to reply in the same forum.
Did you try replying in the same forum? I was considered replying, but
didn't have enough to say on that issue to make it worth bothering. If I
had replied, it would certainly have gone to urcm. Whether the mods would
have let it through is a different matter. I think the idea that the
discussion should have moved to unnm is a rather dated view of how Usenet
should work. If it is to survive - which ultimately seems doubtful - it
should not be clinging to dated behaviours.
--
Rob
Marc
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:12:05 -0000, Tom Crispin
> <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>> I am not convinced that such a discussion does belong in urcm.
>
> I think it does, not for specific problem posts but for certainly for
> general issues of principal.
>
>> However, Simon made it clear that he was speaking in a /personal/
>> capacity, not on behalf of the moderator team. I doubt that the post
>> would have been allowed had it come from anyone else other than a
>> moderator, and if that is the case, Simon was using his position to
>> impose his /personal/ views on others without allowing others the
>> right to reply in the same forum.
>
> Did you try replying in the same forum?
I did, it was rejected for being xposted
2009-11-17 18:14:00 GMT <LqKdneP0i4Irep_W...@bt.com>
Marc <initial.surname at .. intenret.com> Re: Everyone, will you please
tone down the niggling! notify reject crosspost
Which was suprising considering that I didn't think it was, however that
was probably easier to justify than rejecting it for pointing out that
the post it was replying to was hypocritical.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:12:05 -0000, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>> I am not convinced that such a discussion does belong in urcm.
>
>I think it does, not for specific problem posts but for certainly for
>general issues of principal.
>
>> However, Simon made it clear that he was speaking in a /personal/
>> capacity, not on behalf of the moderator team. I doubt that the post
>> would have been allowed had it come from anyone else other than a
>> moderator, and if that is the case, Simon was using his position to
>> impose his /personal/ views on others without allowing others the
>> right to reply in the same forum.
>
>Did you try replying in the same forum?
No. I am not going to waste my time composing a message that may or
may not be allowed.
Danny Colyer
> leandr42 wrote:
>> Did you try replying in the same forum?
>
> I did, it was rejected for being xposted
>
> 2009-11-17 18:14:00 GMT <LqKdneP0i4Irep_W...@bt.com>
> Marc <initial.surname at .. intenret.com> Re: Everyone, will you please
> tone down the niggling! notify reject crosspost
>
>
> Which was suprising considering that I didn't think it was, however that
> was probably easier to justify than rejecting it for pointing out that
> the post it was replying to was hypocritical.
Cross postings are rejected automatically. The software doesn't know
whether you cross posted deliberately or accidentally!
Marc
> On 20/11/2009 18:58, Marc wrote:
>> leandr42 wrote:
>>> Did you try replying in the same forum?
>>
>> I did, it was rejected for being xposted
>>
>> 2009-11-17 18:14:00 GMT
>> <LqKdneP0i4Irep_W...@bt.com> Marc <initial.surname at ..
>> intenret.com> Re: Everyone, will you please tone down the
>> niggling! notify reject crosspost
>>
>>
>> Which was suprising considering that I didn't think it was, however
>> that was probably easier to justify than rejecting it for pointing out
>> that the post it was replying to was hypocritical.
>
> Cross postings are rejected automatically. The software doesn't know
> whether you cross posted deliberately or accidentally!
>
Marc
Nope just checked! Message was sent to the right NG
Tom Crispin
Perhaps it would help if you posted the original message headers. It
would be a mistake for moderators to reject a non-crossposted message
for being crossposted. Resetting follow-ups to the original group is
not the same as crossposting, but before deciding if a mistake has
been made it would be useful to see the headers.
Ian Jackson
The message we're talking about appears to be the one I quote below.
It was indeed rejected entirely automatically because the software
thought it was crossposted. Since the robot automatically rejects all
crosspostings there is no need for moderators to ever manually reject
a message for crossposting.
Examining the headers by eye shows this oddity:
Newsgroups: UK.rec.cycling.moderated,uk.rec.cycling.moderated
There doesn't seem to be any actual confirmed specification for
whether newsgroup names are case-sensitive but most news software
treats them as case-sensitive, so these would be two different
newsgroup names.
Thus most news servers would treat "UK.rec.cycling.moderated" as a
nonexistent newsgroup (which would have no practical effect, as
entries in Newsgroups lines referring to nonexistent groups are
ignored) but it is possible that some software would try to file the
article twice in "uk.rec.cycling.moderated", and also that this
strangeness might trigger bugs. So even with the benefit of expert
scrutiny, the message should probably be rejected.
However I don't think the moderation robot could reasonably be
expected to think about all of this in this way; it simply saw that
there was more than one newsgroup listed and rejected the message.
I think the moderation robot was correct to do so.
I don't know how "UK.rec.cycling.moderated" got there. Perhaps Marc
was going to change the newsgroup, or try to crosspost, or something,
but changed his mind, and the manual editing of the newsgroups list
caused this lossage.
[mail headers deleted -iwj]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:13:10 -0600
From: Marc <initial...@btintenret.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Everyone, will you please tone down the niggling!
References: <7md7sfF...@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-DF-Seen-By: ms
Message-ID: <LqKdneP0i4Irep_W...@bt.com>
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser
X-Trace: sv3-R3bGTxdAh7DMZucnq0Yxq0joo978Ke2ahwoK6NI4OlOhG5QjVd4TZkwddaPmWAZssrm6zTVeHn3PCf8!MPI9q9mQdJ4iPNg2Q/+MTsL/CJvwwijFWD4nq9+dGAX6gXnwFVvHBR+zsj/QEZ8f33zWOPFByC5R
X-Complaints-To: ab...@btinternet.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: ab...@btinternet.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Newsgroups: UK.rec.cycling.moderated,uk.rec.cycling.moderated
[To: header resulting from moderation forwarding deleted -iwj]
Simon Brooke wrote:
> [text written by Simon deleted -iwj]
The only niggle that I have is the the continuing one of the QR skewer
not holding the rear axle.Luckily it hasn't happened this week when I
was doing 60 MPH down a hill covered in farm debris.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Tom Crispin
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Examining the headers by eye shows this oddity:
> Newsgroups: UK.rec.cycling.moderated,uk.rec.cycling.moderated
It looks as if Marc was either testing your software or had made an
error. In either case, it is entirely understandable that the message
was rejected.
I can understand Marc's reluctance to post the message header himself.
Marc
>
> However I don't think the moderation robot could reasonably be
> expected to think about all of this in this way; it simply saw that
> there was more than one newsgroup listed and rejected the message.
> I think the moderation robot was correct to do so.
So do I
>
> I don't know how "UK.rec.cycling.moderated" got there. Perhaps Marc
> was going to change the newsgroup, or try to crosspost, or something,
> but changed his mind, and the manual editing of the newsgroups list
> caused this lossage.
It was something like that.
Marc
I didn't reply to your request because I didn't see it, until today, by
which time Ian had solved the "mystery"