Re: 2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Ian Smith
> As before, I have to summarise the discussion. After wading
> through over a thousand articles of drivel I have come up with the
> text below.
>
> Please point out anything I have left out or misrepresented. It's
> quite likely that I have made some mistakes (for example, missing the
> odd posting in the sea of flameage, or misunderstanding precisely what
> kind of misconduct we are being accused of planning).
I now think you need to include the assertions by Simon Brooke and
yourself that you plan the "no posts that contain nothing but
repetition" clause to be interpreted as "no posts that contain any
repetition".
On that grounds I will be opposing formation of the group.
I think I will also be taking what measures I can to have the process
aborted for abuse of process, since you are proposing to adopt as an
initial policy something that is not described in the RFD. I don't
actually know what options are open to me, but I expect I will find
out in time.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Ian Jackson
Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>I now think you need to include the assertions by Simon Brooke and
>yourself that you plan the "no posts that contain nothing but
>repetition" clause to be interpreted as "no posts that contain any
>repetition".
That's certainly not the way I'm looking at it. The amount of
repetition has to be looked at in the context of the whole posting.
If I may give two examples at opposite extremes:
If someone posted a new and interesting 50-line essay on using a
tuning fork for measuring spoke tension and then added
And of course, as I have said many times, the way to avoid all of
these difficulties is to tie and solder the spokes at both ends, but
if you really must resort to the newfangled arrangements the
procedure above will extend the life your your wheel.
then that would be quite fine.
On the other hand if someone posted:
I went on a 10-mile TT yesterday and it took me 3h27m
followed by 100-lines of ranting about their hobby horse of tied and
soldered spokes, that should be rejected.
In between `any new material no matter how trivial guarantees
acceptance even if the rest of the posting is borderline rude and full
of oft-repeated arguments' and `any repeated material no matter how
innocuous guarantees rejection even of the most worthy article' there
is a huge middle ground. I'm afraid that this is the kind of thing
where the moderators have to exercise judgement; hard and fast rules
don't work very well.
>On that grounds I will be opposing formation of the group.
I'm sorry to hear that. I'd be happy to discuss this further at least
for a bit as it seems more like a misunderstanding, at least at the
moment.
If we can't resolve this I will certainly include your objection in
the SOD.
>I think I will also be taking what measures I can to have the process
>aborted for abuse of process, since you are proposing to adopt as an
>initial policy something that is not described in the RFD. I don't
>actually know what options are open to me, but I expect I will find
>out in time.
In a spirit of full disclosure:
The most effective measure to demonstrate to me that I'm out on a limb
would be to persuade one or more of the proposed moderators to tell me
that they agree with you, or even to drop out (or threaten to).
They're not my hand-picked mates; rather they're based (as I said) on
the suggestions made in public by posters to urc. So if I'm
wrongheaded and I don't seem to be able to understand when you explain
it to me, I would hope that one of them would add power to your elbow.
If even one dropped out for this kind of reason I would really have to
reconsider my approach (if not my position) and very probably go for a
3rd RFD.
Since time is short - I was planning to request the CFV this evening,
although it looks more like tomorrow now - if you're considering this
approach, you should email the whole moderator panel right away and
ask them to ask me to hold off on the CFV while they think about it.
(As you know we're discussing this already but not quite in these
terms.) The email address in the RFD should already work to reach the
panel but CC me so that I can check that your message got through.
I'm not going to send the CFV on to UKVoting while any of the panel
think I should wait.
The next most effective measure would be to get ROD onto the ballot
(you could ask the committee, who have the power to direct that it
should be included) and then persuade people to vote ROD.
(I'm saying all this because I have no interest in carrying on with
anything I'll regret, or making anyone feel that their voice hasn't
been heard. Inevitably not everyone will get their way - that's
politics - but I don't want any more hurt feelings than necessary.)
--
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
Ian Smith
> In article <slrnh4pse...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>,
> Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> >I now think you need to include the assertions by Simon Brooke and
> >yourself that you plan the "no posts that contain nothing but
> >repetition" clause to be interpreted as "no posts that contain any
> >repetition".
>
> acceptance even if the rest of the posting is borderline rude and
> full of oft-repeated arguments' and `any repeated material no
> matter how innocuous guarantees rejection even of the most worthy
> article' there is a huge middle ground. I'm afraid that this is
> the kind of thing where the moderators have to exercise judgement;
> hard and fast rules don't work very well.
But Simon has said that he would (which I interpret as "will, in the
event that the group is formed as proposed") block a posting by judith
which has as a signature any of the statements she presented.
That is, he would reject the 50-line technical discussion of tuning
fork spoke tensioning if it happens to have a contentious signature.
If that's what you're going to do, that needs to be in the RFD.
> If even one dropped out for this kind of reason I would really have to
> reconsider my approach (if not my position) and very probably go for a
> 3rd RFD.
If you want to adopt such a peculiar reading (ie, so contrary to the
ordinary meaning of the words) of the clause in the initial
guidelines, I think it is essential that you set that out in a third
RFD.
I would remind you again that a very great number of ideas which
started out ridiculous and wrong, spent a good while being contentious
before being obvious.
> but I don't want any more hurt feelings than necessary.)
Stuff feelings. I am a good deal more concerned at the damage you
appear to be intent on wreaking on the good reputation of the uk
hierarchy by having a RFD that has an initial guidelines section not
describing what the initial moderation guidelines actually are.
Roger Thorpe
<Huge snip>
>
> Stuff feelings. I am a good deal more concerned at the damage you
> appear to be intent on wreaking on the good reputation of the uk
> hierarchy by having a RFD that has an initial guidelines section not
> describing what the initial moderation guidelines actually are.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
I find myself torn.
On the one hand, if somebody really wants to post whatever controversial
statement lies in their .sig then it is always possible to put it in the
body of a new post. I don't see that as censorship or a significant
restriction.
On the other hand I haven't seen problematic .sigs in other groups, and
four lined at the bottom of a post shouldn't cause too much problem.
I would like the .sigs to be properly formatted so that they appear in
grey and are not quoted in replies but this is prbably too much to ask.
On balance I think that the same rules should apply to the sig and the
body text. It isn't such a big problem selective, out of context quotes
and personal attacks would all be moderated anyway (I hope).
--
Roger Thorpe
Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....
Clive George
news:slrnh4q2d...@acheron.astounding.org.uk...
Having read this post, I started out with a bit of sympathy towards your
complaint. But I've now gone and looked at the original RFD.
I think there's definitely scope for interpretation of "Repetitious posting
which does not bring new information to the discussion" which includes Simon
and IanJ's version. If a .sig is a conventional one, like yours, it's not
really intended to convey additional information, and can be considered as
not part of the post. OTOH the judith-ones we're talking about are very much
part of the post, since they're intended to provoke.
Ok, that's a bit hand-wavy, but that's how it should be IMO. I agree with
IanJ that setting all this in stone will be counterproductive, and that
essentially the moderators should be allowed to exercise quite a lot of
discretion.
BTW
> I would remind you again that a very great number of ideas which
> started out ridiculous and wrong, spent a good while being contentious
> before being obvious.
is irrelevant. I'd also hope that some of the other helmet .sigs would be
off limits, eg Guy's one about helmet stats and a couple of other ones.
Being contentious is the problem, not being correct.
Ian Smith
> On balance I think that the same rules should apply to the sig and
> the body text. It isn't such a big problem selective, out of
> context quotes and personal attacks would all be moderated anyway
> (I hope).
Which is what I understood the proposal to be until the recent
statements from a couple of would-be moderators. Certainly, if
there's personal abuse (for example) in the sig, the message gets
blocked - that's in the guidelines.
Ian Smith
>
> I think there's definitely scope for interpretation of "Repetitious
> posting which does not bring new information to the discussion"
> which includes Simon and IanJ's version. If a .sig is a
> conventional one, like yours, it's not really intended to convey
> additional information, and can be considered as not part of the
> post. OTOH the judith-ones we're talking about are very much part
> of the post, since they're intended to provoke.
But if someone makes a posting that is partly repeat, and partly new,
that DOES bring new information to the discussion. As such, it can't
be blocked under a criterion that applies to "posting which does not
bring new information to the discussion".
Since that criterion cannot apply, if the posting is blocked, it is
being blocked on a grounds not listed in the guidelines. That is an
abuse of the group formation process (imo).
> is irrelevant. I'd also hope that some of the other helmet .sigs
> would be off limits, eg Guy's one about helmet stats and a couple
> of other ones. Being contentious is the problem, not being correct.
Then "being contentious" needs to be in the guidelines (or charter,
but I think it's better in the guidelines). It isn't, in either RFD,
so cannot be a material matter in the moderator decision.
Unless, as noted previously, it is the moderation panel's intention to
adopt as initial guidelines things which are not listed in the RFD
initial guidelines. Which brings us back to abuse of process.
Nuxx Bar
>
> I think I will also be taking what measures I can to have the process
> aborted for abuse of process
About time. The whole thing's an abuse of process: an attempt to
impose censorship of certain points of view under the guise of
"moderation". It's great that objections are now coming from those
who Jackson can't dismiss with silly names like "troll", and actually
has to answer and pay attention to.
I didn't have much faith in the regulars seeing the whole sorry
business for what it is, but it seems that in some cases at least, I
was wrong. There's hope for URC yet.
Clive George
> Then "being contentious" needs to be in the guidelines (or charter,
> but I think it's better in the guidelines). It isn't, in either RFD,
> so cannot be a material matter in the moderator decision.
I don't agree. If the post contains material, either in the body or the sig,
which is provoking debate, that should be grounds for considering the
repetitious posting rule. If it's not provoking debate, ie it's being
ignored, it should also be ignored by the moderators.
No need to specify "being contentious" in the guidelines.
> Unless, as noted previously, it is the moderation panel's intention to
> adopt as initial guidelines things which are not listed in the RFD
> initial guidelines. Which brings us back to abuse of process.
There's no mention of .sigs in the initial guidelines at all. So there's no
abuse of process there - they're treated the same way as the rest of a post.
If they're purely decorative, as eg "Dear Sir.. Yours etc" would be, they
can be ignored - and would be in nearly all cases.
I don't think you've got any grounds for a claim of abuse of process wrt
what Simon and IanJ have said. You may have a complaint that any .sig would
be blocked by the mod policy - but you're not making that one. And I think
there's no meat to that complaint.
Simon Brooke
> On 02 Jul 2009, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <slrnh4psef.dt8....@acheron.astounding.org.uk>,
> > Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> > >I now think you need to include the assertions by Simon Brooke and
> > >yourself that you plan the "no posts that contain nothing but
> > >repetition" clause to be interpreted as "no posts that contain any
> > >repetition".
>
> > In between `any new material no matter how trivial guarantees
> > acceptance even if the rest of the posting is borderline rude and
> > full of oft-repeated arguments' and `any repeated material no
> > matter how innocuous guarantees rejection even of the most worthy
> > article' there is a huge middle ground. I'm afraid that this is
> > the kind of thing where the moderators have to exercise judgement;
> > hard and fast rules don't work very well.
>
> But Simon has said that he would (which I interpret as "will, in the
> event that the group is formed as proposed") block a posting by judith
> which has as a signature any of the statements she presented.
Ian. the purpose of a newsgroup is at least partly to engage in
debate. The place for that debate is the body of the post. The origin
of the .signature file dates back to the early days of Usenet, before
the adoption of the internet as a transport layer, as a means for
people to (in those far of and innocent times) publish their snail
mail address and various ways to get email through to them via UUCP,
Over time people took to adding witticisms to their .sigs, and that
has become part of the accepted practice. But the .sig has never been
and should never be a proxy for the actual debate, which belongs in
the body of the post.
More than one poster to this group now habitually uses a .sig the
contents of with appears deliberately intended to provoke other
posters. It's a very underhand form of trolling, because it's against
the established conventions of Usenet to respond to hte ..sig - it is
deemed to be 'not part of the message'. So permitting trolling
in .sigs would just bring into the new group the endless round of ill-
tempered tit-for-tat attacks which have destroyed the old group.
Do you seriously want us to create a group in which the usual suspects
carry on flame wars in .sigs attached to posts the bodies of which are
unacceptable? Obviously not. The same rules apply to the .sig as to
the body, and the rule as expressed in the draft moderation guidelines
which you've all seen is:
The following are prohibited:
* Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
* Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
* Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
discussion
The key point here is 'discussion'. If you have a .sig which gives the
address of your home page, that's not discussion - even if your home
page is http://www.bhit.org/ or http://www.cycle-helmets.org/. But you
cannot allow the .sig to be used as a Trojan Horse to introduce
material to the discussion which is explicitly disallowed by the
moderation policy.
> That is, he would reject the 50-line technical discussion of tuning
> fork spoke tensioning if it happens to have a contentious signature.
I would certainly invite the poster to repost it without the
contentious signature.
Simon Brooke
> "Ian Smith" <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:slrnh4q2d...@acheron.astounding.org.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
I strongly contest that there's anything in what I've suggested which
is not inherent in the RFD.
> Having read this post, I started out with a bit of sympathy towards your
> complaint. But I've now gone and looked at the original RFD.
>
> I think there's definitely scope for interpretation of "Repetitious posting
> which does not bring new information to the discussion" which includes Simon
> and IanJ's version. If a .sig is a conventional one, like yours, it's not
> really intended to convey additional information, and can be considered as
> not part of the post. OTOH the judith-ones we're talking about are very much
> part of the post, since they're intended to provoke.
>
> Ok, that's a bit hand-wavy, but that's how it should be IMO. I agree with
> IanJ that setting all this in stone will be counterproductive, and that
> essentially the moderators should be allowed to exercise quite a lot of
> discretion.
>
> BTW
>
> > I would remind you again that a very great number of ideas which
> > started out ridiculous and wrong, spent a good while being contentious
> > before being obvious.
>
> is irrelevant.
Indeed. I'm not suggesting banning any statements of ideas on any side
of any debate, I'm talking about preventing deliberate repetitious
provocation.
> I'd also hope that some of the other helmet .sigs would be
> off limits, eg Guy's one about helmet stats and a couple of other ones.
> Being contentious is the problem, not being correct.
It was Guy's I was particularly thinking about when I made the
original response, yes.,
Ian Smith
> news:slrnh4q4r...@acheron.astounding.org.uk...
>
> > Then "being contentious" needs to be in the guidelines (or charter,
> > but I think it's better in the guidelines). It isn't, in either RFD,
> > so cannot be a material matter in the moderator decision.
>
> I don't agree. If the post contains material, either in the body or the sig,
> which is provoking debate, that should be grounds for considering the
> repetitious posting rule. If it's not provoking debate, ie it's being
> ignored, it should also be ignored by the moderators.
The repetitious rule clearly states that it applies if NO new
information is brought to the discussion by the posting. A posting
that does have new information is therefore not a suitable candidate
for application of the rule, regardless of any contentious statements
in the sig.
> No need to specify "being contentious" in the guidelines.
>
> > Unless, as noted previously, it is the moderation panel's
> > intention to adopt as initial guidelines things which are not
> > listed in the RFD initial guidelines. Which brings us back to
> > abuse of process.
>
> There's no mention of .sigs in the initial guidelines at all. So
> there's no abuse of process there - they're treated the same way as
> the rest of a post.
EXACTLY. You can't reject a message for containing a contentious
statement in the body, so you can't reject a message for containing a
contentious statement in the sig.
You can't reject a message for containing a single repetition in the
body, so you can't reject a message for containing a single
repetition in the sig.
The ONLY such grounds in the RFD is if the message contains nothing
but repetition. There is no 'contentious' criterion at all.
> I don't think you've got any grounds for a claim of abuse of
> process wrt what Simon and IanJ have said.
I do - the moderators are intending to operate initial guidelines
(being rejection of messages that contain a contentious statement)
that are not set out within the initial guidelines in the RFD. That
is a clear abuse of the process.
Ian Smith
> On 2 July, 20:25, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > But Simon has said that he would (which I interpret as "will, in the
> > event that the group is formed as proposed") block a posting by judith
> > which has as a signature any of the statements she presented.
>
> contents of with appears deliberately intended to provoke other
> posters. It's a very underhand form of trolling, because it's against
> the established conventions of Usenet to respond to hte ..sig - it is
> deemed to be 'not part of the message'. So permitting trolling
> in .sigs would just bring into the new group the endless round of ill-
> tempered tit-for-tat attacks which have destroyed the old group.
Then you need to put that in the RFD.
You cannot have an RFD that states one set of criteria as initial
guidelines and intend to operate additional criteria not recorded at
any time in the RFD.
> Do you seriously want us to create a group in which the usual suspects
> carry on flame wars in .sigs attached to posts the bodies of which are
> unacceptable? Obviously not.
Obviously not. I have obviously not said that. How about addressing
what I have said rather than some straw chum you've created?
> The same rules apply to the .sig as to the body,
Absolutely. I argued for that very strongly. I still argue for that
strongly.
You can't reject a posting for containing a contentious statement in
the body either - because it is not set out in the charter or initial
guidelines.
You very clearly are intent on actually adopting initial guidelines
which are different to the initial guidelines set out in the RFD.
That is abuse of process.
> and the rule as expressed in the draft moderation guidelines
> which you've all seen is:
>
> The following are prohibited:
> * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
> * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
> * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
> discussion
Which bit of that says that contentious statements are prohibited?
I'm having difficulty spotting it.
> The key point here is 'discussion'. If you have a .sig which gives the
> address of your home page, that's not discussion - even if your home
> page is http://www.bhit.org/ or http://www.cycle-helmets.org/. But you
> cannot allow the .sig to be used as a Trojan Horse to introduce
> material to the discussion which is explicitly disallowed by the
> moderation policy.
Where? There is no prohibition on contentious statements.
> > That is, he would reject the 50-line technical discussion of tuning
> > fork spoke tensioning if it happens to have a contentious signature.
>
> I would certainly invite the poster to repost it without the
> contentious signature.
That is not in accordance with the RFD.
If that is the actual working initial guidelines, having different
initial guidelines published in the RFD is an abuse of process.
Simon Brooke
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The repetitious rule clearly states that it applies if NO new
> information is brought to the discussion by the posting. A posting
> that does have new information is therefore not a suitable candidate
> for application of the rule, regardless of any contentious statements
> in the sig.
That clearly cannot be the case or the intent, and isn't what's
expressed in the language.
The 'repetitious' clause says:
The following are prohibited:
[snip]
* Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
discussion.
Now clearly that does not can cannot mean that you can post the same
thousand word rant twice a day provided you add one sentence which is
different each time. Not only does that not make sense but it would be
spam under the Breidbart rules anyway, so would not have to be
specifically mentioned in the charter - it's already banned even in
unmoderated groups. Therefore the clause can only mean what it says:
that posts may not contain repetitious material which does not bring
new information to the discussion. And that's whether in the body or
in the .sig.
You can post about the importance of tied-and-soldered spokes once
every $PERIOD, where $PERIOD is sufficiently infrequently that it
doesn't strike the mods as repetitious. But you can't drag a sentence
about tied and soldered spokes into every post you make, because that
is 'Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
discussion, and is consequently 'prohibited'.
Whether it's in the body of the post or the .sig is a complete red
herring. Whether it's contentious or not is another red herring.
> EXACTLY. You can't reject a message for containing a contentious
> statement in the body, so you can't reject a message for containing a
> contentious statement in the sig.
No, but you can reject a message for having a repetitious statement in
the body, and you can reject it for having a repetitious statement in
the .sig.
> The ONLY such grounds in the RFD is if the message contains nothing
> but repetition.
The RFD does not say anything about 'nothing but'. You added those
words yourself.
Simon Brooke
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Simon Brooke <still...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > and the rule as expressed in the draft moderation guidelines
> > which you've all seen is:
>
> > The following are prohibited:
> > * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
> > * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
> > * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
> > discussion
>
> Which bit of that says that contentious statements are prohibited?
> I'm having difficulty spotting it.
Please note that I have advanced no argument for prohibiting
'contentious' material, either in signatures or in the body. I have
only argued for banning repetitious material - just as the RFD says.
> > The key point here is 'discussion'. If you have a .sig which gives the
> > address of your home page, that's not discussion - even if your home
> > page ishttp://www.bhit.org/orhttp://www.cycle-helmets.org/. But you
> > cannot allow the .sig to be used as a Trojan Horse to introduce
> > material to the discussion which is explicitly disallowed by the
> > moderation policy.
>
> Where? There is no prohibition on contentious statements.
Nor have I suggested they should be prohibited. That is entirely your
idea, not mine.
jms
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>I think there's definitely scope for interpretation of "Repetitious posting
>which does not bring new information to the discussion" which includes Simon
>and IanJ's version. If a .sig is a conventional one, like yours, it's not
>really intended to convey additional information, and can be considered as
>not part of the post. OTOH the judith-ones we're talking about are very much
>part of the post, since they're intended to provoke.
Rubbish - what makes you think that they are intended to provoke -
have you had mind-reading lessons.
I feel very strongly about certain aspects of cycling safety.
There are certain statistics, and quotes from professional
organisation, which I would like to draw to the attention of people.
You do not want me to do that.
That is censorship.
If a sig conforms to the conventional format and is not abusive then
it MUST be allowed.
Are you all so paranoid that someone might just read my sig and decide
to give up cycling because I have shown the number of cyclists killed
per year. Is it not better to question and discuss.
Someone could read one of my sigs and then start a new thread on that
topic in order to get a wider more balanced view.
We wouldn't want that would we?
It is of course interesting that the true views of some people are now
appearing.
Perhaps they think it is all over.
Clive George
news:24d88795-f3d2-44b7...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>Whether it's in the body of the post or the .sig is a complete red
>herring. Whether it's contentious or not is another red herring.
and plenty of other wise words.
Expressing it very well - I agree entirely, and thanks for phrasing it in a
less hand-wavy fashion than me.
>> The ONLY such grounds in the RFD is if the message contains nothing
>> but repetition.
>
>The RFD does not say anything about 'nothing but'. You added those
>words yourself.
I think that's an important distinction.
jms
Why do the proposed moderators not each say whether they would block
one of my posts because it contained a sig which was not abusive, was
factually correct - but I had used it before (assume for this purpose
that the format/character count of the sig conformed) and that the
rest of the post was squeaky clean.
eg:
DfT Figures 2007
Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians 384
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795
Percy Picacity
@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.co
m:
> On 2 July, 22:15, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The repetitious rule clearly states that it applies if NO new
>> information is brought to the discussion by the posting. �A
>> posting that does have new information is therefore not a
>> suitable candidate for application of the rule, regardless of any
>> contentious statements in the sig.
>
> That clearly cannot be the case or the intent, and isn't what's
> expressed in the language.
>
> The 'repetitious' clause says:
>
> The following are prohibited:
> [snip]
> * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
> discussion.
>
> Now clearly that does not can cannot mean that you can post the
> same thousand word rant twice a day provided you add one sentence
> which is different each time. Not only does that not make sense
> but it would be spam under the Breidbart rules anyway, so would
> not have to be specifically mentioned in the charter - it's
> already banned even in unmoderated groups. Therefore the clause
> can only mean what it says: that posts may not contain repetitious
> material which does not bring new information to the discussion.
> And that's whether in the body or in the .sig.
>
An attempted proof by reductio ad absurdum. You are wrong. The
original statement has to be interpreted in a reasonable way. IE,
it means that the repetitious part is not vastly longer than the
original part, the post is not an apparently new posting merely used
as an excuse to post the repetitious part, or, broadly, a reasonable
moderator would not regard the post as merely an annoying
repetition. If your position (banning any repetitious annoyance in
an otherwise reasonable post, even if it is just in the sig) is not
repudiated by the rest of the moderators, then a clarification needs
to go into the version of the RFD voted on.
I am quite sure that your interpretation was not intended, and your
example of the 1000 line repetition with one new sentence is not
challenging to a reasonable moderator who can easily reject this
without your reversal of the plain meaning of the statement
--
Percy Picacity
jms
sigs *are* repetitious.
You do not have to read them - let alone reply to them.
If you do not like what it says in a sig and it is not
abusive/libel/etc - then just ignore it.
This will of course mean that you will not be able to censor some
people's views.
jms
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 2 July, 22:21, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Simon Brooke <still...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > �and the rule as expressed in the draft moderation guidelines
>> > �which you've all seen is:
>>
>> > �The following are prohibited:
>> > � * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
>> > � * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
>> > � * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>> > � �discussion
>>
>> Which bit of that says that contentious statements are prohibited? �
>> I'm having difficulty spotting it.
>
>Please note that I have advanced no argument for prohibiting
>'contentious' material, either in signatures or in the body. I have
>only argued for banning repetitious material - just as the RFD says.
In general sigs are usually the same - ie repetitious.
I think what you are saying is that sigs will not be allowed.
chris French
<b8bfdcad-02d8-4bb6...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Simon Brooke <stil...@googlemail.com> writes
>On 2 July, 20:25, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 02 Jul 2009, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > �In article <slrnh4psef.dt8....@acheron.astounding.org.uk>,
>> > �Ian Smith �<i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> > >I now think you need to include the assertions by Simon Brooke and
>> > >yourself that you plan the "no posts that contain nothing but
>> > >repetition" clause to be interpreted as "no posts that contain any
>> > >repetition".
>>
>> > �In between `any new material no matter how trivial guarantees
>> > �acceptance even if the rest of the posting is borderline rude and
>> > �full of oft-repeated arguments' and `any repeated material no
>> > �matter how innocuous guarantees rejection even of the most worthy
>> > �article' there is a huge middle ground. �I'm afraid that this is
>> > �the kind of thing where the moderators have to exercise judgement;
>> > �hard and fast rules don't work very well.
>>
>> But Simon has said that he would (which I interpret as "will, in the
>> event that the group is formed as proposed") block a posting by judith
>> which has as a signature any of the statements she presented.
>
>Ian. the purpose of a newsgroup is at least partly to engage in
>debate.
>But the .sig has never been
>and should never be a proxy for the actual debate, which belongs in
>the body of the post.
>
OK, I can agree with that.
>More than one poster to this group now habitually uses a .sig the
>contents of with appears deliberately intended to provoke other
>posters. It's a very underhand form of trolling, because it's against
>the established conventions of Usenet to respond to hte ..sig - it is
>deemed to be 'not part of the message'. So permitting trolling
>in .sigs would just bring into the new group the endless round of ill-
>tempered tit-for-tat attacks which have destroyed the old group.
It might do, I can see there might be attempts to provoke such a
situation. However, one would hope that the existing moderation policy
would stop things developing too far as they would likely to fall foul
of either the 'personal abuse, flames' or 'repetition not adding new
information to the discussion' sections of the policy
>
>Do you seriously want us to create a group in which the usual suspects
>carry on flame wars in .sigs attached to posts the bodies of which are
>unacceptable? Obviously not.
Did you really mean 'unacceptable' there? Surely if the body was
unacceptable it wouldn't get passed by moderation anyway? And if it was
a flame war then wouldn't they again get caught by the policy as it is?
Actually, as it happens I don't think I do have a problem with people
with having a debate/argument/discussion in their sigs if they so wish.
1. It would have to be attached to a post that was otherwise acceptable
to be posted to urmc - that is what I would be reading.
2. Assuming the 4 lines limit is applied, there is a limit to how
annoying it might be anyway even if I was bothered to pay much attention
to it. Note flame wars, abuse etc wouldn't be acceptable anyway. Surely
what has been annoying about the troll baiting, repetitive threads etc.
has been the length of the posts, and the often slipping into personal
abuse, and that the post was just about this, there was no substantive
content. This wouldn't apply to sigs really.
3. I would like to see the sig sep properly applied so as to avoid sigs
being quoted in replies. Rejecting posts without one seems reasonable.
>The same rules apply to the .sig as to
>the body,
Yup, but it doesn't seem to be what you are doing. There appears to be a
criteria of the sig 'being contentious' slipping in, soa re you saying a
contentious post would not be allowed either?
>and the rule as expressed in the draft moderation guidelines
>which you've all seen is:
>
>The following are prohibited:
> * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
> * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
> * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
> discussion
>
>The key point here is 'discussion'. If you have a .sig which gives the
>address of your home page, that's not discussion - even if your home
>page is http://www.bhit.org/ or http://www.cycle-helmets.org/. But you
>cannot allow the .sig to be used as a Trojan Horse to introduce
>material to the discussion which is explicitly disallowed by the
>moderation policy.
If the sig contains abuse yes, if it just a flame yes, these are
disallowed. Where is 'being contentious' a criteria?
>
>> That is, he would reject the 50-line technical discussion of tuning
>> fork spoke tensioning if it happens to have a contentious signature.
>
>I would certainly invite the poster to repost it without the
>contentious signature.
On what grounds, seeing as being contentious isn't a criteria for
rejecting a post?
OK, if I was to make all my postings with a short, contentious statement
prefacing all my posts, and then just carry on with the rest of the
posting - which would probably be unrelated to the contentious
statement, but otherwise be a substantiate post, adding to a discussion
and would be civil etc.
Would you reject it? on what grounds if you would?
ISTM that the real problem on urc has been the long, argumentative,
abusive and repetitive threads that go on and on, I think the moderation
policy can catch and stop these threads from developing as is.
I was probbaly more on yours and Ian J's side ealier this evening when I
read the posts on this, I think I'm now with Ian S though.
I don't wish to see the mod policy ful of endless rules, but if a
'contentious sig' is wanted as a rejection criteria then it is probably
important enough to be in the RFD
--
Chris French
chris French
<24d88795-f3d2-44b7...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Simon Brooke <stil...@googlemail.com> writes
>On 2 July, 22:15, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The repetitious rule clearly states that it applies if NO new
>> information is brought to the discussion by the posting. �A posting
>> that does have new information is therefore not a suitable candidate
>> for application of the rule, regardless of any contentious statements
>> in the sig.
>
>That clearly cannot be the case or the intent, and isn't what's
>expressed in the language.
No I agree, it shouldn't be interpreted any small piece of new
information is enough.
>
>The 'repetitious' clause says:
>
>The following are prohibited:
> [snip]
> * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
> discussion.
>
>Now clearly that does not can cannot mean that you can post the same
>thousand word rant twice a day provided you add one sentence which is
>different each time.
Indeed not.
>Not only does that not make sense but it would be
>spam under the Breidbart rules anyway, so would not have to be
>specifically mentioned in the charter - it's already banned even in
>unmoderated groups. Therefore the clause can only mean what it says:
>that posts may not contain repetitious material which does not bring
>new information to the discussion. And that's whether in the body or
>in the .sig.
I think you are interpreting that in a way was not intended, I certainly
wouldn't have read it as meaning 'no repetitive material at all, no
matter how small a part of the total post'
It certainly doesn't seem to have Been Ian J's intention going by
Message-ID: <Sxy*pd...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
" The amount of repetition has to be looked at in the context of the
whole posting."
>
>Whether it's in the body of the post or the .sig is a complete red
>herring. Whether it's contentious or not is another red herring.
>
I agree that contentious-ness shouldn't be a criteria, a shame then that
said in another post that you would reject a post with a contentious sig
>> EXACTLY. �You can't reject a message for containing a contentious
>> statement in the body, so you can't reject a message for containing a
>> contentious statement in the sig.
>
>No, but you can reject a message for having a repetitious statement in
>the body, and you can reject it for having a repetitious statement in
>the .sig.
CAN yes, depending on context, you seem to be interpreting it as SHOULD.
>
>> The ONLY such grounds in the RFD is if the message contains nothing
>> but repetition.
>
>The RFD does not say anything about 'nothing but'. You added those
>words yourself.
>
You are right it doesn't, but neither does it say 'any repetition at
all'
I'm feeling that you approach to the moderation is on the over zealous
side Simon
--
Chris French
Wm...
uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>Are you all so paranoid that someone might just read my sig and decide
>to give up cycling because I have shown the number of cyclists killed
>per year.
I won't. You are the weird person not me.
>Perhaps they think it is all over.
Probably. Is that a ref to a TV programme? I don't do TV.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Just zis Guy, you know?
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>Perhaps they think it is all over.
>Probably. Is that a ref to a TV programme? I don't do TV.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net>
>On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:50:11 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Perhaps they think it is all over.
>>Probably. Is that a ref to a TV programme? I don't do TV.
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_think_it%27s_all_over>
Thanks, Guy, but soccer never really made sense to me.
Particularly wrt cycling.
Ian Smith
> On 2 July, 22:15, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > The repetitious rule clearly states that it applies if NO new
> > information is brought to the discussion by the posting. �A posting
> > that does have new information is therefore not a suitable candidate
> > for application of the rule, regardless of any contentious statements
> > in the sig.
>
> That clearly cannot be the case or the intent, and isn't what's
> expressed in the language.
>
> The 'repetitious' clause says:
>
> The following are prohibited:
> [snip]
> * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
> discussion.
>
> Now clearly that does not can cannot mean that you can post the same
> thousand word rant twice a day provided you add one sentence which is
> different each time.
What, exactly, do you think "no" means?
That is PRECISELY what it DOES NOT say. If you want it to say
something different, then that's fine, but in that case it needs
changing. You can't take a guideline that clearly and explicitly says
something and then decide you wished it had said something else.
If you (being the moderator panel) want the initial guidelines to say
"no posting that is mainly repetitious posting" then it needs to say
that.
> unmoderated groups. Therefore the clause can only mean what it says:
> that posts may not contain repetitious material which does not bring
> new information to the discussion. And that's whether in the body or
> in the .sig.
NO IT BLOODY WELL DOES NOT SAY THAT.
That is an outright absolute lie.
It clearly posting which brings NO (none, zero) new information to the
discussion. It DOES NOT SAY posting in which any part is repetitious.
> You can post about the importance of tied-and-soldered spokes once
> every $PERIOD, where $PERIOD is sufficiently infrequently that it
> doesn't strike the mods as repetitious. But you can't drag a sentence
> about tied and soldered spokes into every post you make, because that
> is 'Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
> discussion, and is consequently 'prohibited'.
If that's what you are proposing as initial guidelines, then the
initial guidelines need to say that. They don't.
The moderator panel continues to be intent on operating initial
guidelines which are different to those set out in the RFD.
> No, but you can reject a message for having a repetitious statement in
> the body, and you can reject it for having a repetitious statement in
> the .sig.
Not according to any part of the RFD.
> > The ONLY such grounds in the RFD is if the message contains nothing
> > but repetition.
>
> The RFD does not say anything about 'nothing but'. You added those
> words yourself.
It contains the word "no". You seem to think "no" means "mostly
not". That is not true, in plain English. No means no.
Ian Smith
The RFD saya "NO" new information. I take it, then, you are another
person that things "no" means "not very much".
So what, taking only a few hundred pounds from your bank account
without permission is the same thing as taking nothing from you, as
long as I think it's not very much?
What, exactly, do you think the word "NO" means?
Ian Smith
>
> Please note that I have advanced no argument for prohibiting
> 'contentious' material, either in signatures or in the body. I have
> only argued for banning repetitious material - just as the RFD says.
That statement is untrue:
>>From: Simon Brooke <stil...@googlemail.com>
>>Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
>>Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
>>Message-ID: <b8bfdcad-02d8-4bb6...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
[snip]
>>> That is, he would reject the 50-line technical discussion of
>>>tuning fork spoke tensioning if it happens to have a contentious
>>>signature.
>>
>>I would certainly invite the poster to repost it without the
>>contentious signature.
So a message with 50 lines of new, interesting, relevant material
would be rejected by you because of one contentious statement. So the
moderator panel is proposing an initial guidelines that will reject a
message for containing a contentious statement in the signature.
Which is NOT in the initial guidelines.
> Nor have I suggested they should be prohibited. That is entirely your
> idea, not mine.
I tabled it as a test example. You said you would reject it
(oitherwise, there's no pooint asking for it to be resubmitted without
teh one contentious statement).
Alan Braggins
>
>Thanks, Guy, but soccer never really made sense to me.
>Particularly wrt cycling.
Tricycle with soccer balls for tyres:
http://www.bikeforall.net/news.php?articleshow=201
Percy Picacity
I agree with you in the main point you are making, but you are in
danger of going too far the other way in taking the words too
literally. Two practical day-to-day cases spring to mind: firstly,
if a post is made which contains ostensibly new but irrelevant or
silly words, just as an excuse to display a repetitious sig message
yet again; and secondly, the last 17 or 18 of 20 posts made by
different people rebutting the answer given by a particular poster
to a FAQ. In both cases I think the moderation policy might allow
blocking these posts on grounds of repetitiousness or lack of
contribution to the argument under the term in question. Even
though they do contain some new material in a technical sense.
--
Percy Picacity
Ian Smith
>
> I agree with you in the main point you are making, but you are in
> danger of going too far the other way in taking the words too
> literally. Two practical day-to-day cases spring to mind: firstly,
> if a post is made which contains ostensibly new but irrelevant or
> silly words, just as an excuse to display a repetitious sig message
> yet again; and secondly, the last 17 or 18 of 20 posts made by
> different people rebutting the answer given by a particular poster
> to a FAQ. In both cases I think the moderation policy might allow
> blocking these posts on grounds of repetitiousness or lack of
> contribution to the argument under the term in question. Even
> though they do contain some new material in a technical sense.
At least one moderator has explicitly and specifically said they would
block a message that is 90% new interestinga nd relevant material, if
the 10% contains something that is contentious and repeated.
One other has said they would reject a message if just one statement
in it is contentious and repeated.
The proponent has expressed general agreement with both these
moderators.
And you claim it is me that is pushing the words beyond their
reasonable interpretation?
Alistair Gunn
> > Now clearly that does not can cannot mean that you can post the same
> > thousand word rant twice a day provided you add one sentence which is
> > different each time.
> What, exactly, do you think "no" means?
So you think that so long as the words and/or word order are changed (or
a few new words are added / taken away) slightly between each post
reposting the same message is not repetition?
So a hypothetical poster could post the following statements in seperate
messages and you wouldn't find it repetitious?
1 All drivers should be made to wear pink tutus ...
2 Pink tutus, all drivers should be made to wear them
3 I think all drivers should be made to wear pink tutus ...
4 Pink tutu wearing by drivers should be compulsory ...
5 It should be compulsory for drivers to wear pink tutus ...
etc etc
IMHO, there's no new information provided in posts 2+ and I *would*
regard them as repetitious. (Of course, I'd also regard the entire
sequence as being off-topic for a cycling newsgroup but I wanted to use
as an example something that people wouldn't get distracted over
discussing.)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Simon Brooke
wrote:
> In message
> <b8bfdcad-02d8-4bb6-a752-475a61cba...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Simon Brooke <still...@googlemail.com> writes
>
> >Do you seriously want us to create a group in which the usual suspects
> >carry on flame wars in .sigs attached to posts the bodies of which are
> >unacceptable? Obviously not.
>
> Did you really mean 'unacceptable' there? Surely if the body was
> unacceptable it wouldn't get passed by moderation anyway? And if it was
> a flame war then wouldn't they again get caught by the policy as it is?
I'm sorry, this was a typographical slip on my part. I meant to write:
"Do you seriously want us to create a group in which the usual
suspects
carry on flame wars in .sigs attached to posts the bodies of which
are
acceptable? Obviously not."
I hope that clarifies this statement; I appreciate it does not make it
more palatable to you.
> 2. Assuming the 4 lines limit is applied, there is a limit to how
> annoying it might be anyway even if I was bothered to pay much attention
> to it. Note flame wars, abuse etc wouldn't be acceptable anyway. Surely
> what has been annoying about the troll baiting, repetitive threads etc.
> has been the length of the posts, and the often slipping into personal
> abuse, and that the post was just about this, there was no substantive
> content. This wouldn't apply to sigs really.
I simply don't agree with you here. I think several of the usual
suspects are capable of being sufficiently provocative in four lines
to create flamewars as destructive as anything we've seen.
> >The same rules apply to the .sig as to
> >the body,
>
> Yup, but it doesn't seem to be what you are doing. There appears to be a
> criteria of the sig 'being contentious' slipping in, soa re you saying a
> contentious post would not be allowed either?
I am not proposing that people should not be able to make contentious
statements. I'm proposing that people should not be able to repeat
contentious statements ad nauseam. The issue is repetition, not
contention.
> >The key point here is 'discussion'. If you have a .sig which gives the
> >address of your home page, that's not discussion - even if your home
> >page ishttp://www.bhit.org/orhttp://www.cycle-helmets.org/. But you
> >cannot allow the .sig to be used as a Trojan Horse to introduce
> >material to the discussion which is explicitly disallowed by the
> >moderation policy.
>
> If the sig contains abuse yes, if it just a flame yes, these are
> disallowed. Where is 'being contentious' a criteria?
There is none. There is a repetitious criteria.
Obviously, as others have said, the content of the .sig is
repetitious. But the content of the .sig is not normally part of the
discussion. If it becomes so, then the rules which apply to discussion
must apply to it.
> >> That is, he would reject the 50-line technical discussion of tuning
> >> fork spoke tensioning if it happens to have a contentious signature.
>
> >I would certainly invite the poster to repost it without the
> >contentious signature.
>
> On what grounds, seeing as being contentious isn't a criteria for
> rejecting a post?
Repetition.
> OK, if I was to make all my postings with a short, contentious statement
> prefacing all my posts, and then just carry on with the rest of the
> posting - which would probably be unrelated to the contentious
> statement, but otherwise be a substantiate post, adding to a discussion
> and would be civil etc.
>
> Would you reject it? on what grounds if you would?
Repetition.
Let's be clear about this - it has to be a judgement call. One
sentence repeated every two or three days in a body of generally
useful contribution is probably going to get past. But if someone is
posting dozens of mainly vacuous posts every day with the same one
sentence statement, then the moderators must act.
But the reason for action is repetition, not contention.
Ian Smith
[I said]
> > What, exactly, do you think "no" means?
>
> So you think that so long as the words and/or word order are changed (or
> a few new words are added / taken away) slightly between each post
> reposting the same message is not repetition?
I didn't say that.
If new information is added, the clause that refers to a post with "no
new information" clearly cannot apply.
Besides which, Simon has said that he will reject a posting that is
90% new relevant material and less than 10% repeated statement, if
that statement is contentious.
That is a matter of fact. It is in the record.
You can try and argue about other extreme cases, but I am not
concerned with them, I am concerned with the case noted above, which
reveals an intention to adopt as initial policy something not set out
in the RFD.
regards, Ian SMith
Simon Brooke
wrote:
> In message
> <24d88795-f3d2-44b7-b3c8-53626033b...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Simon Brooke <still...@googlemail.com> writes
> >Not only does that not make sense but it would be
> >spam under the Breidbart rules anyway, so would not have to be
> >specifically mentioned in the charter - it's already banned even in
> >unmoderated groups. Therefore the clause can only mean what it says:
> >that posts may not contain repetitious material which does not bring
> >new information to the discussion. And that's whether in the body or
> >in the .sig.
>
> I think you are interpreting that in a way was not intended, I certainly
> wouldn't have read it as meaning 'no repetitive material at all, no
> matter how small a part of the total post'
>
> It certainly doesn't seem to have Been Ian J's intention going by
>
> Message-ID: <Sxy*pd...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>
> " The amount of repetition has to be looked at in the context of the
> whole posting."
I actually think we're agreed, here.
Yes, it's a matter of context, and degree of repetition. A signature
is small, but it is repeated extremely frequently, so it represents
the same amount of repetition as a longer passage repeated less
frequently. The moderators have to respond using their judgement, in
order to create a space in which civil discussion can thrive. How
often they'll have to respond is what's at issue.
When the new group is set up, the usual suspects will at first be
gaming the system, trying to find what they can get away with, and, in
that period, as you suspect, I anticipate being fairly heavy handed. I
would hope that within a month or two we'd get to a situation where
the moderators could relax and block nothing at all in an average week
- but if we're to get to there the game-players have to be persuaded
that there are no chinks in the armour and gaming isn't worth it.
> >Whether it's in the body of the post or the .sig is a complete red
> >herring. Whether it's contentious or not is another red herring.
>
> I agree that contentious-ness shouldn't be a criteria, a shame then that
> said in another post that you would reject a post with a contentious sig
And was careful to say that I would reject it because it was
repetitious. Contention of itself is not and should not be a grounds
for rejection.
> >No, but you can reject a message for having a repetitious statement in
> >the body, and you can reject it for having a repetitious statement in
> >the .sig.
>
> CAN yes, depending on context, you seem to be interpreting it as SHOULD.
We have to put a stop to the trolling. If we don't put a stop to the
trolling, this whole exercise is a futile waste of time. So if .sigs
are being used as trojan horses to bring trolling into the proposed
group, then absolutely the mods SHOULD, and if they don't, the
proposed group will fail. Not might, will.
Simon Brooke
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Simon Brooke <still...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 2 July, 22:15, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > The repetitious rule clearly states that it applies if NO new
> > > information is brought to the discussion by the posting. A posting
> > > that does have new information is therefore not a suitable candidate
> > > for application of the rule, regardless of any contentious statements
> > > in the sig.
>
> > That clearly cannot be the case or the intent, and isn't what's
> > expressed in the language.
>
> > The 'repetitious' clause says:
>
> > The following are prohibited:
> > [snip]
> > * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
> > discussion.
>
> > Now clearly that does not can cannot mean that you can post the same
> > thousand word rant twice a day provided you add one sentence which is
> > different each time.
>
> What, exactly, do you think "no" means?
The word 'no' is not present in the quotation you cite. It isn't
there, Ian. Read it again.
So in this context, 'no' does not mean anything, because there is no
word 'no'.
> > unmoderated groups. Therefore the clause can only mean what it says:
> > that posts may not contain repetitious material which does not bring
> > new information to the discussion. And that's whether in the body or
> > in the .sig.
>
> NO IT BLOODY WELL DOES NOT SAY THAT.
>
> That is an outright absolute lie.
Apologise.
Nuxx Bar
>
> The moderator panel continues to be intent on operating initial
> guidelines which are different to those set out in the RFD.
People now need to ask themselves two questions:
- Will they initially defy other parts of the "guidelines"? (Answer:
Yes.)
- Why have they written guidelines which they have no intention of
following? (Answer: Because the whole thing is an exercise in
censorship and the guidelines were just produced to make sure people
voted "yes".)
Disgraceful. I'm glad "regulars" have now smelt a rat and are
opposing the plans before it's too late.
Keitht
>
> is irrelevant. I'd also hope that some of the other helmet .sigs would be
> off limits, eg Guy's one about helmet stats and a couple of other ones.
> Being contentious is the problem, not being correct.
>
>
The contentious bit is that they all say that thier version is the
correct one ;-)
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
James
> We have to put a stop to the trolling. If we don't put a stop to the
> trolling, this whole exercise is a futile waste of time. So if .sigs
> are being used as trojan horses to bring trolling into the proposed
> group, then absolutely the mods SHOULD, and if they don't, the
> proposed group will fail. Not might, will.
I don't agree with everything you have said, Simon, but I do agree
with this. Ultimately it does require a judgement as to whether a sig
is just a sig or being used to provoke. If anyone can think of a
foolproof way of encapsulating that judgement then I'm all ears.
Of course there are potentially contentious sigs on both sides of the
debate....
James
Keitht
> Fri, 3 Jul 2009 01:41:26 <6rkq451amp6lqjba0...@4ax.com>
> uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net>
>
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:50:11 +0100, "Wm..."
>> <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Perhaps they think it is all over.
>
>>> Probably. Is that a ref to a TV programme? I don't do TV.
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_think_it%27s_all_over>
>
> Thanks, Guy, but soccer never really made sense to me.
>
> Particularly wrt cycling.
>
Anyone got a link to cycle-polo?
O.K. not exactly cycle-football but it's got balls and bikes.
Mark
The 2nd RFD at the beginning of this thread does not contain the word
"NO". It states "... new information ..." which may be interpretted
in more than one way IMHO.
It might be better to say "little or no new information" to clarify
its meaning.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
Wm...
<2879987f-aef5-4e70...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
uk.net.news.config James <james...@gmail.com>
It is possible, from a plain technical POV, to strip .sigs before
posting. I'd prefer mine to be seen as it is plain and honest and
doesn't say much really.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Hello, you shouldn't really be reading this bit :)
Wm...
<1e69c9f0-a502-4202...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
uk.net.news.config Simon Brooke <stil...@googlemail.com>
>When the new group is set up, the usual suspects will at first be
>gaming the system, trying to find what they can get away with, and, in
>that period, as you suspect, I anticipate being fairly heavy handed. I
>would hope that within a month or two we'd get to a situation where
>the moderators could relax and block nothing at all in an average week
>- but if we're to get to there the game-players have to be persuaded
>that there are no chinks in the armour and gaming isn't worth it.
I think the number of actual gamers is sufficiently small that they
could be dealt with easily.
OR
They might have valid points of view and self moderate when refused a
post or two or three.
We shall see what happens once the group is created. I'm positive about
it.
Mark
I am very concerned on what you mean by "heavy handed". If it means
that you will reject posts that wouldn't normally be rejected then I
would say that's a very bad idea. We need to allow the group to
develop and stifling it at birth is not the way to proceed.
Alistair Gunn
> It is possible, from a plain technical POV, to strip .sigs before
> posting. I'd prefer mine to be seen as it is plain and honest and
> doesn't say much really.
One assumes that would rely on the presence of a properly formatted .sig
seperator? (Well, obvious you could search for and act on the presence
of known improper seperators as well.) So the thought occurs that you
*could*[1] also both enforce the McQuary limit for properly formatted
seperators and treat anything with an improper seperator as not a
signature but part of the article?
[1] I'm not necessarily advocating this, but I think it's a little
interesting and want to explore it!
Clive George
news:slrnh4r85...@acheron.astounding.org.uk...
Um, Ian, I think you're wrong there - and no amount of shouting is going to
make you right.
It doesn't specify the proportion of the post which is repetitive at all.
It's left to the mods to decide what counts as a sufficient proportion of
repetitious material to count as reasons to reject, and that's the way it
should be IMO.
>> The RFD does not say anything about 'nothing but'. You added those
>> words yourself.
>
> It contains the word "no". You seem to think "no" means "mostly
> not". That is not true, in plain English. No means no.
Actually the relevant section doesn't contain the word "no". It's quoted
above, or you can refer back to the original if you don't believe me.
With that in mind, would you care to revisit some of your recent posts?
Percy Picacity
No, not at all!! I *agree* with your interpretation of the words.
They do say things should be rejected only if they have no new
content. I am just saying that if you interpreted them strictly
literally they wouldn't give scope to reject some non-meritorious
posts, which should be rejected on the grounds of not having useful
new content.
As to your main point, that a perfectly good post should not be
rejected because it has a somewhat tendentious repeated sig, then I
100% (but no more) agree.
--
Percy Picacity
jms
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>I agree with you in the main point you are making, but you are in
>danger of going too far the other way in taking the words too
>literally. Two practical day-to-day cases spring to mind: firstly,
>if a post is made which contains ostensibly new but irrelevant or
>silly words, just as an excuse to display a repetitious sig message
>yet again;
sig messages are repetitious - get used to it.
It is actually the content which people are objecting to.
We would not want people saying something nasty like
"The BMA recommend cycle-helmets" would we?
Wm...
Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com>
>One assumes that would rely on the presence of a properly formatted .sig
>seperator? (Well, obvious you could search for and act on the presence
>of known improper seperators as well.) So the thought occurs that you
>*could*[1] also both enforce the McQuary limit for properly formatted
>seperators and treat anything with an improper seperator as not a
>signature but part of the article?
>
>[1] I'm not necessarily advocating this, but I think it's a little
> interesting and want to explore it!
There is no article?
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>
>O.K. not exactly cycle-football but it's got balls and bikes.
I have played that game, I think. If I recall correctly it is called
"what the hell are you doing, it is prep time"
Ian Smith
> "Ian Smith" <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnh4r85...@acheron.astounding.org.uk...
> > On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Simon Brooke <stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2 July, 22:15, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The repetitious rule clearly states that it applies if NO new
> >> > information is brought to the discussion by the posting. A posting
> >> > that does have new information is therefore not a suitable candidate
> >> > for application of the rule, regardless of any contentious statements
> >> > in the sig.
> >>
> >> That clearly cannot be the case or the intent, and isn't what's
> >> expressed in the language.
> >>
> >> The 'repetitious' clause says:
> >>
> >> The following are prohibited:
> >> [snip]
> >> * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
> >> discussion.
> >>
> >> Now clearly that does not can cannot mean that you can post the same
> >> thousand word rant twice a day provided you add one sentence which is
> >> different each time.
(snip)
> >> unmoderated groups. Therefore the clause can only mean what it says:
> >> that posts may not contain repetitious material which does not bring
> >> new information to the discussion. And that's whether in the body or
> >> in the .sig.
> >
> > NO IT BLOODY WELL DOES NOT SAY THAT.
> >
> > That is an outright absolute lie.
> >
> > It clearly posting which brings NO (none, zero) new information to the
> > discussion. It DOES NOT SAY posting in which any part is repetitious.
>
> Um, Ian, I think you're wrong there - and no amount of shouting is going to
> make you right.
>
> It doesn't specify the proportion of the post which is repetitive at all.
* Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
discussion.
If a posting contains any new information then it is not a posting
"which does not bring new information to the discussion".
If you buy a basket of apples which is described as "does not contain
bananas" then if it has even one banana in it, it is not as described.
If you adopt a policy that says "we will ban anyone that does not
keep a goat" you can't ban someone on the grounds that their goat is
only a little goat.
Unless, of course, you change the policy or guidelines. Clearly the
moderators are allowed to change the policy and guidelines. However,
I believe that they can't do that before the CFV without highlighting
it in the CFV/SOD as a change to the RFD, or having a new RFD.
Otherwise the "initial guidelines" are not the initial guidelines, and
it is this (having a RFD or CFV that says one thing when the
moderators have decided another in advance) which I belive is an abuse
of process.
> It's left to the mods to decide what counts as a sufficient proportion of
> repetitious material to count as reasons to reject, and that's the way it
> should be IMO.
In which case, the RFD should say that, or the SOD should list it as
a revision to the RFD.
> >> The RFD does not say anything about 'nothing but'. You added those
> >> words yourself.
> >
> > It contains the word "no". You seem to think "no" means "mostly
> > not". That is not true, in plain English. No means no.
>
> Actually the relevant section doesn't contain the word "no". It's quoted
> above, or you can refer back to the original if you don't believe me.
>
> With that in mind, would you care to revisit some of your recent posts?
OK. it does not contain the word "no". I accept that. It contains
the word "not" which in context means exactly what I have described
it to mean.
The statement "this basket contains no bananas" has the same meaning
with respect to banana content as the statement "this basket does not
contain bananas". The statement "this basket contains things which
are mostly not bananas" has a very different meaning.
Daniel Barlow
Daniel Barlow
> If a posting contains any new information then it is not a posting
> "which does not bring new information to the discussion".
However, it may still be a post containing material which is
"repetitious and [does] not bring new information to the discussion".
Posting this material is prohibited. Should this prohibition be ignored
so that the new information also present can be allowed through?
You can still read it both ways. The mod policy talks about "repetitous
posting", not "a repetitious post" - it's a mass noun, not a count noun.
What about a post which is 50% on-topic new content and 50% personal
abuse? Do we let that in as well because it's not composed entirely of
personal abuse?
-dan
aard...@the.zoo
wrote:
I think it might be better to actually have a definition on what a
troll _is_ in this context first.
Clive George
Here's where we disagree. The phrase "repetitious posting" doesn't need to
apply to the entire post IMO, and I believe I'm not alone in this.
Compare eg the uk.legal.moderated rule about no adverts - the presence of an
advert renders the entire of the rest of the post banned. Similarly the
presence of a section of repetitious text in this rule renders the rest of
the post banned. What makes up what such a section is not defined - it's
quite rightly left to the moderators to decide.
> If you buy a basket of apples which is described as "does not contain
> bananas" then if it has even one banana in it, it is not as described.
Correct, but not relevant. Such a thing has not been mentioned in the RFD.
> If you adopt a policy that says "we will ban anyone that does not
> keep a goat" you can't ban someone on the grounds that their goat is
> only a little goat.
Correct, but not relevant. Such a thing has not been mentioned.
>> It's left to the mods to decide what counts as a sufficient proportion
>> of
>> repetitious material to count as reasons to reject, and that's the way
>> it
>> should be IMO.
>
> In which case, the RFD should say that, or the SOD should list it as
> a revision to the RFD.
No it doesn't need to. There's no mention of the proportion of the post
which can be repetition in the RFD - that doesn't mean that it only applies
to 100% of the post, it means it's not specified and is therefore up to
moderator's discretion.
This 100% thing applies to all moderation decisions - a post doesn't need to
be 100% offensive to be rejected. A post doesn't need to be 100% adverts to
be rejected. And similarly a post doesn't need 100% repetition to be
rejected. And in no case is the proportion mentioned - and that's how it
should be.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>However, it may still be a post containing material which is
>"repetitious and [does] not bring new information to the discussion".
>Posting this material is prohibited. Should this prohibition be ignored
>so that the new information also present can be allowed through?
>You can still read it both ways. The mod policy talks about "repetitous
>posting", not "a repetitious post" - it's a mass noun, not a count noun.
>What about a post which is 50% on-topic new content and 50% personal
>abuse? Do we let that in as well because it's not composed entirely of
>personal abuse?
This is the beauty of a cluocracy. In a bureaucracy there has to be a
process for defining what proportion of a post must be new, and how
bad an attack needs to be and so on. Which of course is taken by some
as an open invitation to game the system.
In a cluocracy the moderators apply clue on a post-by-post basis, and
one of the aspects of clue is working out whether the poster is indeed
simply gaming the system.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
>Unless, of course, you change the policy or guidelines. Clearly the
>moderators are allowed to change the policy and guidelines. However,
>I believe that they can't do that before the CFV without highlighting
>it in the CFV/SOD as a change to the RFD, or having a new RFD.
>
>Otherwise the "initial guidelines" are not the initial guidelines, and
>it is this (having a RFD or CFV that says one thing when the
>moderators have decided another in advance) which I belive is an abuse
>of process.
You will need to be a lot more clear about policy and guidelines before
I consider your post worth thinking about.
They are uk.* docs to me.
If you want to challenge the uk.* thing as a whole you want the group
next door. unnm
Wm...
Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net>
>Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> writes:
>
>> If a posting contains any new information then it is not a posting
>> "which does not bring new information to the discussion".
>
>However, it may still be a post containing material which is
>"repetitious and [does] not bring new information to the discussion".
>Posting this material is prohibited. Should this prohibition be ignored
>so that the new information also present can be allowed through?
I'd say no. The uk.legal.moderatered model suggests it should be
represented without the offence.
>You can still read it both ways. The mod policy talks about "repetitous
>posting", not "a repetitious post" - it's a mass noun, not a count noun.
Hmmmn. What is a mass noun? I thought I knew what mass was.
Is a pound a mass?
>What about a post which is 50% on-topic new content and 50% personal
>abuse? Do we let that in as well because it's not composed entirely of
>personal abuse?
Reject it, ask the person to post again without the 50% wastage.
jms
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
If I have as my sig:
Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle
helmets protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents. (The BMA)
Would you ban the message which contained it for any reason concerning
the sig and the sig alone?
jms
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 3 July, 23:05, chris French <newspost-c-...@familyfrench.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <b8bfdcad-02d8-4bb6-a752-475a61cba...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>> Simon Brooke <still...@googlemail.com> writes
>>
>> >Do you seriously want us to create a group in which the usual suspects
>> >carry on flame wars in .sigs attached to posts the bodies of which are
>> >unacceptable? Obviously not.
>>
>> Did you really mean 'unacceptable' there? Surely if the body was
>> unacceptable it wouldn't get passed by moderation anyway? And if it was
>> a flame war then wouldn't they again get caught by the policy as it is?
>
>I'm sorry, this was a typographical slip on my part. I meant to write:
>
>"Do you seriously want us to create a group in which the usual
>suspects
> carry on flame wars in .sigs attached to posts the bodies of which
>are
> acceptable? Obviously not."
>
>I hope that clarifies this statement; I appreciate it does not make it
>more palatable to you.
>
>> 2. Assuming the 4 lines limit is applied, there is a limit to how
>> annoying it might be anyway even if I was bothered to pay much attention
>> to it. Note flame wars, abuse etc wouldn't be acceptable anyway. Surely
>> what has been annoying about the troll baiting, repetitive threads etc.
>> has been the length of the posts, and the often slipping into personal
>> abuse, and that the post was just about this, there was no substantive
>> content. This wouldn't apply to sigs really.
>
>I simply don't agree with you here. I think several of the usual
>suspects are capable of being sufficiently provocative in four lines
>to create flamewars as destructive as anything we've seen.
>
>> >The same rules apply to the .sig as to
>> >the body,
>>
>> Yup, but it doesn't seem to be what you are doing. There appears to be a
>> criteria of the sig 'being contentious' slipping in, soa re you saying a
>> contentious post would not be allowed either?
>
>I am not proposing that people should not be able to make contentious
>statements. I'm proposing that people should not be able to repeat
>contentious statements ad nauseam. The issue is repetition, not
>contention.
>
>
>
>> >The key point here is 'discussion'. If you have a .sig which gives the
>> >address of your home page, that's not discussion - even if your home
>> >page ishttp://www.bhit.org/orhttp://www.cycle-helmets.org/. But you
>> >cannot allow the .sig to be used as a Trojan Horse to introduce
>> >material to the discussion which is explicitly disallowed by the
>> >moderation policy.
>>
>> If the sig contains abuse yes, if it just a flame yes, these are
>> disallowed. Where is 'being contentious' a criteria?
>
>There is none. There is a repetitious criteria.
>
>Obviously, as others have said, the content of the .sig is
>repetitious. But the content of the .sig is not normally part of the
>discussion. If it becomes so, then the rules which apply to discussion
>must apply to it.
>
>> >> That is, he would reject the 50-line technical discussion of tuning
>> >> fork spoke tensioning if it happens to have a contentious signature.
>>
>> >I would certainly invite the poster to repost it without the
>> >contentious signature.
>>
>> On what grounds, seeing as being contentious isn't a criteria for
>> rejecting a post?
>
>Repetition.
>
>> OK, if I was to make all my postings with a short, contentious statement
>> prefacing all my posts, and then just carry on with the rest of the
>> posting - which would probably be unrelated to the contentious
>> statement, but otherwise be a substantiate post, adding to a discussion
>> and would be civil etc.
>>
>> Would you reject it? on what grounds if you would?
>
>Repetition.
>
>Let's be clear about this - it has to be a judgement call. One
>sentence repeated every two or three days in a body of generally
>useful contribution is probably going to get past. But if someone is
>posting dozens of mainly vacuous posts every day with the same one
>sentence statement, then the moderators must act.
>
>But the reason for action is repetition, not contention.
So you object to a sig being repetitious do you?
Why not admit it - you just want to censor posts based on the
"content" of sigs.
I have said it before, I will say it again : you are not suitable as a
moderator.
Geoff Berrow
>The statement "this basket contains no bananas" has the same meaning
>with respect to banana content as the statement "this basket does not
>contain bananas". The statement "this basket contains things which
>are mostly not bananas" has a very different meaning.
You forget that moderators are able to use judgment. If the banana
was a small scrawny blackened thing it may still technically be a
banana but would not be on in any practical sense.
Mark Goodge
typed:
It would be technically, possible, yes. However, unless the charter
explicitly gives the moderators the right to edit posts before
approving them it would be utterly unacceptable for any moderator to
do so, either manually or by automated means.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Marc
You have said everything before, you will say everything again.
Alistair Gunn
> > I have said it before, I will say it again :
> You have said everything before, you will say everything again.
Well if they're saying it again, doesn't that make it a repetitious post
with no/minimal new content? :-)
Ian Smith
Simon says he intends to ban a posting if it is 90% good but
contains one repeated and contentious statement.
Marc
> In uk.rec.cycling Marc twisted the electrons to say:
>>> I have said it before, I will say it again :
>> You have said everything before, you will say everything again.
>
> Well if they're saying it again, doesn't that make it a repetitious post
> with no/minimal new content? :-)
You have obviously met the judith?
You have obviously met the judith?
You have obviously met the judith?
You have obviously met the judith?
You have obviously met the judith?
You have obviously met the judith?
You have ...
...
jms
Ho, ho, ho - but not necessarily true.
(I kept quiet about sniffing cycle seats when the topic came up - but
I did think of you ;-)
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk>
That banana may be a plantain, good for cooking.
Wm...
<d43s459nt8dasmsh7...@news.markshouse.net>
uk.net.news.config Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>It would be technically, possible, yes. However, unless the charter
>explicitly gives the moderators the right to edit posts before
>approving them it would be utterly unacceptable for any moderator to
>do so, either manually or by automated means.
Your point then becomes the .sig (which you and I use traditionally)
becomes part of the message and *should* be moderated upon.
So any message words, in a .sig or not should be moderated.
Headers too.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Marc <initial...@btintenret.com>
>You have obviously met the judith?
>You have ...
started processing, Marc. I look forward to your results. Unfortunately
your time is hours and days not months and weeks if you expect anyone to
be interested. Such is life.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>(I kept quiet about sniffing cycle seats when the topic came up - but
>I did think of you ;-)
MartinS (not in this group) is a friend of mine. I believe he started
the cycle seat sniffing in the comedy world. He also started the
balloons and naked men. But that was more than 20 years ago.
So, I'm wondering if Judith may actually be someone I know.
jms
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:24:55 <7j8s45plvrhts2b5v...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>
>>(I kept quiet about sniffing cycle seats when the topic came up - but
>>I did think of you ;-)
>
>MartinS (not in this group) is a friend of mine. I believe he started
>the cycle seat sniffing in the comedy world. He also started the
>balloons and naked men. But that was more than 20 years ago.
>
>So, I'm wondering if Judith may actually be someone I know.
Spot on - and I can confirm that you are a wanker in the real world as
well as in here.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
I thought your father had payed Martin off.
Percy Picacity
news:g02s45pho565j0lsg...@4ax.com:
This sentence appears to say that helmets protect against injuries
by causing cycling accidents. I hadn't heard that suggestion
before.
--
Percy Picacity
Just zis Guy, you know?
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>This sentence appears to say that helmets protect against injuries
>by causing cycling accidents. I hadn't heard that suggestion
>before.
It was written from BeHIT press releases as a way of undermining the
BMA's board of science, they had to remove some material that was
provably false but they have left the rest of it there to see how long
it takes Ben Goldacre to notice it and show them up for the idiots
they are.
Chris Gerhard
> Fri, 3 Jul 2009 01:11:42
> uk.net.news.config Simon Brooke <stil...@googlemail.com>
>
>> When the new group is set up, the usual suspects will at first be
>> gaming the system, trying to find what they can get away with, and, in
>> that period, as you suspect, I anticipate being fairly heavy handed. I
>> would hope that within a month or two we'd get to a situation where
>> the moderators could relax and block nothing at all in an average week
>> - but if we're to get to there the game-players have to be persuaded
>> that there are no chinks in the armour and gaming isn't worth it.
>
> could be dealt with easily.
>
> OR
>
> They might have valid points of view and self moderate when refused a
> post or two or three.
I would have thought just not being on the automatically approved list
would be enough to discourage all but the most determined.
>
> We shall see what happens once the group is created. I'm positive about
> it.
>
So am I.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:53:40
><d43s459nt8dasmsh7...@news.markshouse.net>
>uk.net.news.config Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>
>>It would be technically, possible, yes. However, unless the charter
>>explicitly gives the moderators the right to edit posts before
>>approving them it would be utterly unacceptable for any moderator to
>>do so, either manually or by automated means.
>
>Your point then becomes the .sig (which you and I use traditionally)
>becomes part of the message and *should* be moderated upon.
Yes, it should. However, it is traditional in Usenet for a sig to not
be subject to some of the usual constrants regarding advertising and
on-topicness, so moderation should take that into account. But in
principle, yes, a sig should be considered by the moderators when
deciding whether or not to approve a post.
Clive George
news:1iss45pbf7t2lq9ni...@news.markshouse.net...
> Yes, it should. However, it is traditional in Usenet for a sig to not
> be subject to some of the usual constrants regarding advertising and
> on-topicness, so moderation should take that into account. But in
> principle, yes, a sig should be considered by the moderators when
> deciding whether or not to approve a post.
uk.legal.moderated doesn't allow advertising in .sigs.
jms
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Yes, it should. However, it is traditional in Usenet for a sig to not
>be subject to some of the usual constrants regarding advertising and
>on-topicness, so moderation should take that into account. But in
>principle, yes, a sig should be considered by the moderators when
>deciding whether or not to approve a post.
>
>Mark
But only in the content - is it in the sig and abusive - then block
it.
Is it in the sig and not abusive then allow it.
Treat sig and body the same - with of course the proviso that you may
see the sig more than once and hence by definition it will be
repetitious.
Dave J.
+0100, in uk.net.news.config, 'Roger Thorpe' wrote:
>On the other hand I haven't seen problematic .sigs in other groups, and
>four lined at the bottom of a post shouldn't cause too much problem.
>I would like the .sigs to be properly formatted so that they appear in
>grey and are not quoted in replies but this is prbably too much to ask.
I don't see anything wrong with insisting that sigs conform to the rough
character and strict line limit. IMHO the freedom to use any correctly
presented signature should absolutely not be interfered with, but that
freedom surely *requires* conformity to the accepted bounds. That's sort
of the point of it.
There has to be a line in the sand..
Dave Johnson.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>I don't see anything wrong with insisting that sigs conform to the rough
>character and strict line limit. IMHO the freedom to use any correctly
>presented signature should absolutely not be interfered with, but that
>freedom surely *requires* conformity to the accepted bounds. That's sort
>of the point of it.
You say.
Guy
--
You're a wanker and you can't stop me saying so because it's in a
correctly formatted sigblock. Get it now?
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>I don't see anything wrong with insisting that sigs conform to the rough
>>character and strict line limit. IMHO the freedom to use any correctly
>>presented signature should absolutely not be interfered with, but that
>>freedom surely *requires* conformity to the accepted bounds. That's sort
>>of the point of it.
>
>You say.
>
>Guy
>--
>You're a wanker and you can't stop me saying so because it's in a
>correctly formatted sigblock. Get it now?
No - I think that that was abusive and shouldn't be allowed.
Whereas if you said:
--
Compulsory helmet wearing is a 'safety measure' whose costs fall
entirely on the cyclist; no government is spending required. It is an
attractive quick fix. (Guy Chapman)
I think that that should be left as it is - as it is in fact true -
and it is a direct quote of an authority figure.
Are you getting the hang of things now?
If you keep it up - you could say that you were a thought-leader on
sigs ;-)
Dave J.
23:18:56 +0100, in uk.net.news.config, 'Just zis Guy, you know?' wrote:
>Guy
>--
>You're a wanker and you can't stop me saying so because it's in a
>correctly formatted sigblock. Get it now?
OT: curious about your sig, who're you refering to?
Dave J.
James
> In MsgID<58lv45piih6f2aai606jigrjp669md4...@4ax.com> on Sat, 04 Jul 2009
I can't possibly imagine.
James
--
Dave J. is a tosser
Nuxx Bar
Yet another person is insulted, and no doubt put off URC for life,
when all he did was disagree with one or two of the regulars about
something. *That* is the real problem that URC has, and censorship
dressed up as "moderation" won't help things in the slightest.
Dave J.
on Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:10:03 -0700 (PDT), in uk.net.news.config, 'Nuxx Bar'
wrote:
That was interesting, I'd read his post, assumed he was following my lead
in encouraging 'guy' to make it identifiable enough to be *certainly*
bounced by the moderators, and was reading this posting where you've
quoted the sig before I even *saw* it!
It confirms my attitude, I'm certainly happy with an anything goes policy
for signatures, though it *obviously* wouldn't extend to personal abuse -
general etiquette applies to anything on usenet. (As I've said if you look
back)
Anyhow, my *wetware* filter had removed the sig, despite it being extreme
enough that no moderator on the planet's going to pass it, and I was
genuinely reading your posting before I even saw it!
Just to be clear, the worrying idea is the moderators bouncing an
otherwise interesting message because of a signature that *isn't*
personally abusive, that *doesn't* break any serious rules, but that just
happens to highlight an opinion they object to. IMO that is being
hypersensitive, and is casting the other contributors as being equally
hypersensitive.
The way I just read James' posting, and saw nothing of relevance, despite
the sig being way outside reasonable bounds and containing abuse
specifically directed at me, just serves to confirm that (to a reasonable
poster) the sig is an area that's usually ignored.
Given that personal abuse is impermissible (it's really just the 'no
repetition esp. of topics we don't like' clause that can't be applied)
only someone who's *actively looking* for a fight is going to react to a
sig containing a questionable comment. Remember, it can't be abusive and
must be polite; it's therefore quite easy to ignore. To the point that I
do so without even thinking about it.
Dave J.
Just zis Guy, you know?
> OT: curious about your sig, who're you refering to?
Nobody in particular, it was simply an example pointing out why the
sigblock has to be counted as part of the post when considering
moderation.
--
Guy
Ian Smith
>
> >On Jul 6, 3:15�am, James <james.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In MsgID<58lv45piih6f2aai606jigrjp669md4...@4ax.com> on Sat, 04 Jul 2009
> >> > 23:18:56 +0100, in uk.net.news.config, 'Just zis Guy, you know?' wrote:
> >>
> >> > >--
> >> > >You're a wanker and you can't stop me saying so because it's in a
> >> > >correctly formatted sigblock. Get it now?
> >>
> >> Dave J. is a tosser
> >
>
> the sig being way outside reasonable bounds and containing abuse
> specifically directed at me, just serves to confirm that (to a reasonable
> poster) the sig is an area that's usually ignored.
>
> Given that personal abuse is impermissible (it's really just the 'no
> repetition esp. of topics we don't like' clause that can't be applied)
> only someone who's *actively looking* for a fight is going to react to a
> sig containing a questionable comment. Remember, it can't be abusive and
> must be polite; it's therefore quite easy to ignore. To the point that I
> do so without even thinking about it.
Exactly.
Quite what Guy demonstarting that he's from the same mould as judith,
and thinks that reacting to someone behaving like judith is a sensible
thing to do, is supposed to prove, I don't know.
Keitht
Shirley I can't be the only one who sussed that and just waited for the
the rest of the posts - especially as previous posts were all about
sigs ;-)
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
Just zis Guy, you know?
> Quite what Guy demonstarting that he's from the same mould as judith,
> and thinks that reacting to someone behaving like judith is a sensible
> thing to do, is supposed to prove, I don't know.
*whoosh*
--
Guy
jms
wrote:
<snip>
>The way I just read James' posting, and saw nothing of relevance, despite
>the sig being way outside reasonable bounds and containing abuse
>specifically directed at me, just serves to confirm that (to a reasonable
>poster) the sig is an area that's usually ignored.
Just to be clear as to who said what - it was the person known as
"Guy" (aka Lou Knee) who replied to you with:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:16:40 +0100, Dave J. <req...@freeuk.com>
wrote:
>I don't see anything wrong with insisting that sigs conform to the rough
>character and strict line limit. IMHO the freedom to use any correctly
>presented signature should absolutely not be interfered with, but that
>freedom surely *requires* conformity to the accepted bounds. That's sort
>of the point of it.
You say.
Guy
jms
And that is a real problem Guy - much of what you say is over the
heads of people:
When you said that I was "a silly bitch who could fuck right off" -
or words to that effect - I actually took it as a personal insult.
Silly old me.
jms
Has anyone said otherwise?
Ho, ho, ho
You are now struggling.
The same rules (except repetition) should apply to the sig as apply to
the body. As simple as that.
The point is - that something said in a sig (if it would be acceptable
in the body of the post) should be permitted.
And that is what you, Jackson, and his little helpers do not want.
Of course there was a very clear example quoted - but Jackson didn't
want to be pinned down - he wants to be able to censor at will - so
he ignored it.
I can see it now - email to Jackson:
Guy: I am really fed up with Judith's sig - even though I must admit
what she says in her posts makes sense - I do not think people should
be reminded of what she says. Can we block-list her?
Jackson: Consider it done. You are the second person to complain -
Lou Knee did so earlier.
Ian Smith
No Guy, the fact that you think it's an appropriate way to make your
point shows you to be from teh same mould as judith.
The fact that your best defence is as above confirms it.
Do you want to really, resally hammer the point home?
Off you go then:
The Happy Hippy
"jms" <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote ...
> If I have as my sig:
>
>
>
>
> Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle
> helmets protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
> as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents. (The BMA)
>
>
> Would you ban the message which contained it for any reason concerning
> the sig and the sig alone?
Seems no one has wanted to touch this when it's come up before. Speaking
from my perspective and not for Simon I have problems with that sig and
would ban it unless modified ( and bear in mind that my position is that
moderation should not be censorship ) ...
1) It's not throwaway humour, purely informative or statement of fact (
"Reply email valid 7 days", "Raleigh Chopper. Green Lycra. Proud and
free!" ), nor a link to a site which is relevant ( which may or not be
contentious, missioning etc ).
2) It is overtly contentious, it is not clear what part of it is your
opinion and which is the opinion of the BMA, how much of whatever the BMA
says has been interpreted by yourself. It falls halfway between (seemingly )
personal viewpoint and (alleged) BMA viewpoint; impossible to tell which.
3) "Several studies" how many ... Two, more ? "Solid scientific evidence"
... is it solid, is it scientific, where is the evidence ? That's mere
assertion without the ability to check and confirm.
4) You present this as if it were "established fact" ( which it may be ) but
I'd expect people to argue otherwise and feel compelled to say so and demand
it be substantiated, proven or additional information provided to have the
facts established and considered for themselves.
5) There is no way to tell if you are just cherry-picking what you want to
say, only telling half the story, or even making it up to be provocative.
If you wanted that as an acceptable signature, I'd accept it and pass it if
there was a link to a site which justified every claim made with links to
where those claims come from so what is claimed can be verified or judged by
anyone who cares to.
It would be preferable to me if it were just a link to such a page, with a
more neutral(ish) tag-line.
Or, if it's an actual quote from the BMA, put it in quotes and give an exact
link to where they said that.
I'd categorise it as flaming otherwise, much like saying "ACPO studies shows
whites are more than five times more likely to commit racist attacks than
Asians". That's a matter for debate and disputes, and sigs are not there for
instigating such debate. Either make it an actual factual statement ( with
supporting proof, ie, a link ) or make it a pointer to an alternative
viewpoint, again, via link.
As it is now, I'd consider it to largely be trolling or deliberately
fractious and would ban it if moderating.
The Happy Hippy
"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote ...
[snips]
> Compare eg the uk.legal.moderated rule about no adverts - the presence of
an
> advert renders the entire of the rest of the post banned. Similarly the
> presence of a section of repetitious text in this rule renders the rest of
> the post banned. What makes up what such a section is not defined - it's
> quite rightly left to the moderators to decide.
I think this highlights the problems of interpretation and ambiguity. This
is perhaps a problem of trying to define what is on topic and what is off
topic.
This is prime territory for accusations of, and actual, censorship. Two
identical posts, part repetition and part added insights, may go either way,
rejected for the repetition or passed because of the addition.
That's no way to run moderation. You need one set of rules; what will be
permitted, or what will be allowed. I'd say what is not allowed is easier to
define, and "no" must mean "no". If it fails any "no", then it's rejected.
There will always be unavoidable transgression of repetition; "That's why I
said "...." and I stand by that" but I hope everyone has common sense to see
what is incidental and cannot be sensibly avoided, and what is a deliberate
repetition of a position. That's where a moderator's judgement comes in,
determining if it is repetition in fair judgement or not. If it is it fails,
regardless of whatever else is added.
I am still of the opinion that moderation will be - and is intended to be -
to make it one rule for some and another for others. Any reason to reject a
post will be used against some, while any reason to approve a post will be
used for others. That amounts to censorship not moderation.
The moderation policy needs to change, but I'm convinced that the moderators
will change it to whatever they want anyway if the group is created or will
do whatever they want to anyway, and the proposed charter gives them the
power to choose to do whatever they damned well please anyway.
It's been an interesting debate to follow, and I've gone full-circle from
one-side to the other a number of times. For me it's now a question of do I
believe the moderated group is being proposed to perform censorship ( or has
the potential to become that ) or for moderation purposes. Unless something
drastic changes in the proposed charter before CFV I believe it's the former
and will vote accordingly.
Andy Leighton
The Happy Hippy <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote ...
>
> [snips]
>
>> Compare eg the uk.legal.moderated rule about no adverts - the presence of
> an
>> advert renders the entire of the rest of the post banned. Similarly the
>> presence of a section of repetitious text in this rule renders the rest of
>> the post banned. What makes up what such a section is not defined - it's
>> quite rightly left to the moderators to decide.
>
> I think this highlights the problems of interpretation and ambiguity. This
> is perhaps a problem of trying to define what is on topic and what is off
> topic.
>
> This is prime territory for accusations of, and actual, censorship. Two
> identical posts, part repetition and part added insights, may go either way,
> rejected for the repetition or passed because of the addition.
>
> That's no way to run moderation. You need one set of rules; what will be
> permitted, or what will be allowed. I'd say what is not allowed is easier to
> define, and "no" must mean "no". If it fails any "no", then it's rejected.
I would defy anyone to write a set of rules for a moderated group where
I could not find a loophole to exploit and still post nuisance articles.
There needs to be human judgement somewhere along the line.
Nearly all moderated groups where there are human moderators (and that
is very nearly all of them) rely on judgement calls for some things. In
some of those groups they rely on judgement calls for most things.
Whilst it is true that there are groups with very long charters and
moderation policies full of many rules I don't think it is true to
say that they are better moderated than all those groups with a less
formal moderation policy.
> I am still of the opinion that moderation will be - and is intended to be -
> to make it one rule for some and another for others. Any reason to reject a
> post will be used against some, while any reason to approve a post will be
> used for others. That amounts to censorship not moderation.
Well a number of us have said that isn't the case. I think that we are
trying to make sure that we are as impartial as possible. Now obviously
until the group gets underway you either have to give in to your fears
or listen to our assurances - there is no hard data and how we will
perform. However if you aren't going to assume good faith then there
is going to be little I (or anyone else) can say that will sway you from
your views.
--
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_
jms
<the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>I am still of the opinion that moderation will be - and is intended to be -
>to make it one rule for some and another for others. Any reason to reject a
>post will be used against some, while any reason to approve a post will be
>used for others. That amounts to censorship not moderation.
I agree totally - and I think that the discussion has confirmed this
in spades; particularly with some of the things said by the
hand-picked moderators.
I would urge anyone who is against censorship to vote against the
proposed formation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated when it is time to
vote.
jms
<the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"jms" <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote ...
>
>> If I have as my sig:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle
>> helmets protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
>> as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents. (The BMA)
>>
>>
>> Would you ban the message which contained it for any reason concerning
>> the sig and the sig alone?
>
>Seems no one has wanted to touch this when it's come up before. Speaking
>from my perspective and not for Simon I have problems with that sig and
>would ban it unless modified ( and bear in mind that my position is that
>moderation should not be censorship ) ...
>
>1) It's not throwaway humour, purely informative or statement of fact (
>"Reply email valid 7 days", "Raleigh Chopper. Green Lycra. Proud and
>free!" ), nor a link to a site which is relevant ( which may or not be
>contentious, missioning etc ).
>
>2) It is overtly contentious, it is not clear what part of it is your
>opinion and which is the opinion of the BMA, how much of whatever the BMA
>says has been interpreted by yourself. It falls halfway between (seemingly )
>personal viewpoint and (alleged) BMA viewpoint; impossible to tell which.
It is what the BMA have stated - it is NOT my opinion
>3) "Several studies" how many ... Two, more ? "Solid scientific evidence"
>... is it solid, is it scientific, where is the evidence ? That's mere
>assertion without the ability to check and confirm.
ffs - It is not intended as a full scientific discussion - it is what
the BMA have said - what they believe - short and sweet - perfect for
a sig.
How many studies there were is immaterial.
The fact that people wish that the BMA had not said it is more to the
point.
I have added nothing to it I lifted it from cyclehelmets.org.
(However they are prone to misrepresenting things - so perhaps they
misrepresented what the BMA said)
I strongly believe in the wearing pf cycle helmets. There is no need
why my sig which promotes them should be censored - which is obviously
the object of the exercise.
--
"The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances
and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence
should wear one." Mr Justice Griffith Williams