2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Ian Jackson
2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Administrative note:
At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
and uk.net.news.config. People responding are asked to keep the
followups to both groups.
Note however that the official discussion is regarded only as that which
is seen in uk.net.news.config, readers from uk.rec.cycling are encouraged
to read both groups to ensure that they do not miss important parts of
the discussion through lack of cross-posting.
Newsgroup line:
uk.rec.cycling.moderated Cycling in the UK (Moderated)
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from trolling,
nym-shifting and forgeries. Many of these posts are abusive and
hostile to cycling. There are even credible allegations of real-world
harassment such as abusive late night phone calls. Repetitive flamage
now constitutes 50-75% of the group by number of articles. This
ongoing and worsening problem has been making the group nearly
unuseable for ordinary discussion; many posters have already left.
I therefore propose that we should create:
uk.rec.cycling.moderated
CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
and the UK. Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
other forms of cycling are all on-topic.
Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil,
pleasant, and of interest to cyclists.
The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively
feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group.
Binaries and Formatting
Encoded binaries (eg pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a
pointer may be posted. Cryptographic signatures (eg PGP) may be used
where authentication is important and should be as short as possible.
Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly
formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make some common
news readers comply with this, read http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html
END CHARTER
INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
The following are on-topic and encouraged:
* Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
* Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
on cycling within the UK;
* General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
* Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.
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.
Crossposting is at present generally not permitted.
Brief and constructive discussion of the moderation policy is
permitted in the newsgroup itself.
The moderators operate a passlist system, so that messages from
regular on-topic posters can be posted promptly and automatically.
Threads which have descended into repetition or abuse may be closed by
the moderators.
Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole
moderation panel.
This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit.
The moderators can be reached at
urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/
A summary of approved and rejected posts is available on the website.
The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
advertising the moderated group and inviting posters to switch.
Moderators:
Alan Braggins
Andy Leighton
Danny Colyer
David Damerell
Ian Jackson
Martin Dann
Nigel Cliffe
Peter Clinch
Peter Fox
Roger Thorpe
Simon Brooke
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION, AND CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS RFD:
There has been a full and healthy discussion so far. The consensus of
this discussion is that a 2nd RFD is needed.
The most controversial element of the proposal in the 1st RFD was that
the newsgroup would be clearly intended to be `sympathetic to cyclists
and cycling'. This met with opposition, and in general has given many
people the impression that the planned moderation would be draconian,
which was not our intent.
After consulting the proposed moderators, I have therefore removed
this phrase and replaced it with the substantially watered down `of
interest to cyclists'.
Many people expressed the view that the charter, and the moderation
policy, were too long, too complex, and/or specified matters in too
much detail. (Separately from the charter/modpolicy formatting
problem which I discuss below.)
Much of the length derives from comments during the pre-RFD in
uk.rec.cycling, and of course many of the detailed comments during the
1st RFD discussion raised questions that might be answered in the
moderation policy.
On the whole it seems clear that most people would prefer a much
simpler and shorter document, in more general terms. Many people
responded favourably to a proposal from Ian Smith, from which I have
therefore shamelessly cribbed (with his permission, and my thanks);
any errors or wrongheadednesses in the results are mine.
The result is a substantially shortened and simplified charter and
moderation policy.
It was suggested several times that the solution to the problem was
killfiles and/or willpower: that the troll problem would go away, if
we would only stop feeding them. In principle this is of course true
but we have tried this approach for quite some time (at least a year)
already.
It is necessary to distinguish those cyclist posters to urc who are
proposing the new newsgroup - and proposing to moderate it - from
those who are unable to restrain themselves from troll-feeding.
As we are unable to impose our will on either the trolls or the
troll-wrestlers in urc, it is sadly necessary, as a last resort, to
turn to moderation.
There was disagreement about precisely how strong, and how specific,
the prohibition against crossposting needs to be. Everyone agreed
that crossposting should be approached very cautiously, and that it
would have to be prohibited initially for technical reasons. However
some went further and asserted that crossposting a discussion between
a moderated and unmoderated group is never appropriate.
To try to sidestep this argument, I have consolidated the comments
about crossposting in the moderation policy (as opposed to the
charter), where the moderators can review the policy in the light of
circumstances, but also strengthened the wording discouraging
crossposting.
Various posters asked questions about the selection of the moderation
panel; worries were expressed that they might be a clique, or consist
entirely of like-minded people. The moderators were also asked about
their cycling background. I hope that our answers have been
satisfactory.
Very few people criticised specific individual proposed moderators.
One or two posters have objected to most of the moderators, and
objected also to people not proposed as moderators.
However, there were no objections which I consider justified.
I have therefore retained the panel from the 1st RFD.
Whether discussions of the moderation policy should be permitted in
the group itself, was a question that divided opinion. This question
is now answered in the moderation policy where the moderators can
update the rules in the light of experience.
My intent is that friendly discussions of the moderation policy should
be possible; this was discussed at some length in urc during the
pre-RFD and seemed to command a majority of support, although only a
very rough consensus if a consensus at all.
In any case anyone who has a serious grievance and/or feels that they
may be censored in urcm can of course use unnm.
People asked whether the following would or should be permitted, and
the moderators have indicated that the intent is to allow them:
* Swearing, for example `I just came back from a bloody fast ride'
(as opposed to insults, which are not permitted);
* Discussions on the merits or otherwise of helmets, even
vigorous ones;
* Postings by UK cyclists about things outside the UK. (I have
updated the proposed charter and moderation policy to make this
clearer.)
There was a detailed discussion of the exact status of .sigs. The
consensus was that signatures should be regarded as part of the
posting and fully subject to rules of the group, except that - as is
customary - rules about relevance, repetition and advertising are
relaxed for signatures which are properly formatted and within the
usual size limits. I felt that the dominant view, with which I agree,
was that this did not need to be spelled out in the RFD.
Some people held that postings should always be accepted or rejected
solely based on the body content of a message - ie that the history of
an individual poster should be entirely disregarded. However the
rough consensus appeared to be that the moderators should be entitled
to take account of a person's posting history when making moderation
decisions.
There was a structural problem in the 1st RFD as posted, introduced
during editing, where the moderation policy appeared to be included as
part of the charter. Since the charter requires another RFD process
to change, this is not appropriate.
This was discussed at some length and with some confusion.
I trust this is now fixed.
Some other specific detailed points were raised, which I have
accepted: the charter should not mention any other newsgroups; the
formatting of the newsgroups file line was not correct for automatic
parsing; there is no place for euphemism in the charter; it is
marginally better to use the words `passlist' (and `blocklist') to
avoid distracting questions about whether this is somehow related to
skin colour.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until July 3rd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.cycling
Proponent:
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.9-(Cygwin)
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBSj/f1mOfGXkh8vHZAQJbvAP/ZYQUQ6UtlnPQ3aJJu28yHRVSBZ+ns/L2
kEni2xCTUinK0/cKSbYLA1UXfR4Znj/UmKqkAN+Zi5hXBPpDsUPKLmKiS0vrfEjE
9zcFDO7Q5evwxK/WOSLq97n6vBLDPlGh5P4s1yrFt1xgSfj/6RkI+6+OVMJFunKT
Bg7DTCIdHZo=
=XMd8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
jms
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
I object to:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The following are on-topic and encouraged:
... general discussion amongst UK cyclists".
So anyone in the clique (who no one doubts are cyclists) can have a
general discussion on whatever they like.
It has previously been suggested that the group is not needed - but is
intended for a small number of people who constitute a clique.
This confirms that intention - and should not be allowed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*All* adverts should be banned unless they are for events open to
all-comers.
Once again - you are potentially catering for the clique and business
friends
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly object to Alan Braggins as a moderator.
The only reason he has been chosen as a potential moderator is that
he is a personal friend of yours with whom you share your computing
faclities. It would be of interest to know if any of the other
proposed moderators have similar access - please can you comment.
In the previous discussion Braggins forged a post such that it
incorrectly attributed words to people they and the previous poster
had not said or quoted.
This is just one of many false accusation he has made over the months
to people.
He cannot be trusted as a moderator - he lacks integrity.
Given that similar objections to other proposed moderators have been
made : I propose that there is an election of the moderators.
If you want to retain the concept of the clique - continue with your
proposed clique list.
This will allay the fears of the many people that a clique is forming
a newsgroup for their own exclusive use.
The fact that you chose people who you knew, but who had made little
contribution to urc over the last few years, as moderators supports
that view.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the idea of a block-list.
The way it is to be used must be fair and reasonable. Some of the
things previously said indicate that this may not be the intention -
and that things will happen behind closed doors.
This will be unacceptable
I understand that some of your proposed moderators have suggested that
the block list is set up immediately before the group gets off the
ground.
This stinks - and is another indication of the group being a clique
group.
Posts must not be censored based on what a poster has said in the
past - or has said elsewhere.
If people are to be put on a block list, then the process and result
should be totally transparent and published.
ie - if warning are made to an individual over their action, then
these should be in public. It will then be public knowledge of the
criteria being used to censor posts of an individual.
If people are added to a block list - then the precise reason, and the
duration of the block should be made public.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other moderated groups provide statistics on delays to posts held in
the moderation process (eg uk.legal.moderated) - this requirement
should be a formal requirement of the proposed group.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>Other moderated groups provide statistics on delays to posts held in
>the moderation process (eg uk.legal.moderated) - this requirement
>should be a formal requirement of the proposed group.
There are no SLAs for a voluntary function. No such statistics are
necessary.
jms
No one mentioned an SLA - that is not what is needed
It is fully understood that the moderators will be doing it in their
own time and will be doing their best to turn things round as
reasonably possible; and that is all that they should do.
However - people need to be able to see whether posts by certain
individuals are being "delayed".
It would of course immediately dispel any accusations of such
impropriety; I am amazed that you are against it knowing your own
personal crusade for honesty and truthfulness.
Your disagreement of course supports the view that the moderated group
is for the benefit of the clique - some people will be unwelcome - and
some would do whatever they could to deter them posting.
Full transparency in the moderation policy and the group is needed -
do you not agree?
chris French
<moderat...@live.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------
>"The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>
>... general discussion amongst UK cyclists".
>
>
>So anyone in the clique (who no one doubts are cyclists) can have a
>general discussion on whatever they like.
>
I don't think that is the intention (I think you need to read it in
context of the charter), but I think that yes the line could be
construed as such I suppose.
How about "general discussion related to cycling among UK cyclists"
>It has previously been suggested that the group is not needed - but is
>intended for a small number of people who constitute a clique.
>
However, I do not agree with the reason for your objection
>
>I agree with the idea of a block-list.
>
>The way it is to be used must be fair and reasonable.
<snip>
>
>I understand that some of your proposed moderators have suggested that
>the block list is set up immediately before the group gets off the
>ground.
>
This was discussed as a possibility by various posters in the first RFD
discussions. My impression was that this would not be the approach
taken, but we can see what discussion ensues here.
>
>
>Other moderated groups provide statistics on delays to posts held in
>the moderation process (eg uk.legal.moderated) - this requirement
>should be a formal requirement of the proposed group.
>
Whilst I'm all for providing such information if practicable, I do not
think that making it a requirement is appropriate.
--
Chris French
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:22 +0100, chris French
><newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure there is a need for the bit about abusive phone calls. I've
>>no idea if the allegation is true, or how credible it might be, but I
>>suspect it will just be another area to argue about. I don't think it
>>really adds anything to the argument for the creation of urcm, I think
>>the posting behaviour of some posters to urc is sufficient reason.
>
>As the recipient of said calls I can state that they bloody well did
>happen, contact me via email if you want more evidence
Ah yes - the old ones are the best.
I have plenty of evidence - which I can't post or discuss here - but
I will if *you* e-mail me.
(Oh - Hi Chris - I don't actually have any evidence but I think it
happened, and I think I know *who* did it - I pretend that I have
evidence in order to frighten him. Please keep this to yourself)
Whilst not wanting to post the evidence here - any chance of a pointer
as to what sort of "evidence" it may be?
You have actually previously accused someone of making the calls - so
I assume the evidence also shows who it was.
What did the police say when you contacted them?
There is a real danger that some people do not believe that you are
quite truthful - and there is just a very teeny, tiny, incy, wincey,
slim possibility that you have made this all up.
(I agree that this is not for the moderation issue - so I will set
follow- ups to urc)
--
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.
Ian Jackson
>At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
>and uk.net.news.config. People responding are asked to keep the
>followups to both groups.
In fact, a technical hitch seems to mean that this didn't happen with
this 2nd RFD.
>Note however that the official discussion is regarded only as that which
>is seen in uk.net.news.config, readers from uk.rec.cycling are encouraged
>to read both groups to ensure that they do not miss important parts of
>the discussion through lack of cross-posting.
So this paragraph is even more important.
(I have crossposted this article to both urc and unnc and left the
followups going to both groups, so if you want to post to both and
find it difficult to override your newsreader, you can follow up to
this message from me. Apologies for the inconvenience.)
--
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
jms
<newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Whilst I'm all for providing such information if practicable, I do not
>think that making it a requirement is appropriate.
I for one think that there must be as much transparency in the
moderation policy as possible.
Some people have genuine misgivings on how things will be done - so
anything which shows fairness is to be recommended.
If things are not done openly and fairly and there seems to be some
sort of censorship the group may attract all sorts of disruptive
people.
chris French
<moderat...@live.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:30:39 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
><guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:22 +0100, chris French
>><newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not sure there is a need for the bit about abusive phone calls. I've
>>>no idea if the allegation is true, or how credible it might be, but I
>>>suspect it will just be another area to argue about. I don't think it
>>>really adds anything to the argument for the creation of urcm, I think
>>>the posting behaviour of some posters to urc is sufficient reason.
>>
>>As the recipient of said calls I can state that they bloody well did
>>happen, contact me via email if you want more evidence
>
>
>Ah yes - the old ones are the best.
>
>I have plenty of evidence - which I can't post or discuss here - but
>I will if *you* e-mail me.
>
the RFD
<snip attempts to drag the issue up again>
>(I agree that this is not for the moderation issue - so I will set
>follow- ups to urc)
I disagree, I'm not interested in discussing the specifics of this issue
here, but it pertains to the inclusion or otherwise of reference to it
in the RFD, so followups to unnc reinstated
>
Like I said, it'll likely just be a distraction
--
Chris French
James
wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> considered Mon, 22 Jun
> 2009 20:45:43 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> > 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> >in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> > create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> I can't see anything in this which is significantly problematic (i.e.
> worth delaying creation over).
>
> How soon can we get this thing off the ground?
Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.
James
Colin Nelson
Same here (and thanks to Ian for his efforts).
--
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face
Chris Gerhard
And me.
--chris
David Hansen
<nos...@thegerhards.com> wrote this:-
>And me.
Me too.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
geomannie
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:27:18 +0100 someone who may be Chris Gerhard
><nos...@thegerhards.com> wrote this:-
>
>>And me.
>
>Me too.
>
--
geomannie
Simon Brooke
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> > 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> >in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> I object to:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
> "The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>
> ... general discussion amongst UK cyclists".
>
> So anyone in the clique (who no one doubts are cyclists) can have a
> general discussion on whatever they like.
Are you then of the opinion that discussion in uk.rec.sheds should be
strictly limited to structural details of sloping-roofed buildings, or
that uk.singles should discuss only seven-inch vinyl records? Any
Usenet group is a conversation, among people who often become friends;
it's natural that sometimes they will discuss things which are not
strictly on topic. A cyclist is anyone who cycles - which means a very
substantial proportion of the UK population. No-one can describe that
as a 'clique'.
In brief summary to the rest of your comments, there is no suggestion
that uk.rec.cycling be removed. It will continue to exist, and you can
continue to use it exactly as you do now. If that does not satisfy
you, there are several thousand other troll fests^W^Wusenet groups for
you to partake in. The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
not choose to take part in it, and no-one who is prepared to engage in
it constructively. To object to such a group on the broad grounds that
you have is to make clear that your true objection is to action to
reduce trolling.
Nigel Cliffe
One more supporting creation of the group. (I am listed on the proposed
moderation panel).
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
[in respect of my choosing not to share more details about crank
calls]
> Seems reasonable enough, the details of the issue are not relevant to
> the RFD
Indeed they are not. The fact of the crank calls is sideshow, the
real issue is abuse of urc for the pursuit of personal vendettas; that
abuse is plain and visible in the archives to all, there is no need
for me to share confidential information in order to underscore it.
It is not as if Nuxx's reputaiton could get any lower, after all.
--
Guy
Just zis Guy, you know?
> >As the recipient of said calls I can state that they bloody well did
> >happen, contact me via email if you want more evidence
> Ah yes - the old ones are the best.
> I have plenty of evidence - which I can't post or discuss here - but
> I will if *you* e-mail me.
The reasons for not making the evidence public are very easy to
understand. As you are a perpetrator rather than a victim of
harassment I do not expect you to understand this, but others clearly
do.
> There is a real danger that some people do not believe that you are
> quite truthful - and there is just a very teeny, tiny, incy, wincey,
> slim possibility that you have made this all up.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt. If you want to believe that your
chum Nuxx is not a deranged obsessive then you carry on, the rest of
us are not really in any doubt.
RudiL
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:32:24 +0100, chris French
>
Yes of course the people who have caused the need to have a moderated
group feel misgivings about a moderated group.
Rudi
Just zis Guy, you know?
> The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
> not choose to take part in it, and no-one who is prepared to engage in
> it constructively. To object to such a group on the broad grounds that
> you have is to make clear that your true objection is to action to
> reduce trolling.
Precisely. Nobody is forcing anyone to subscribe or post to the
proposed group, the RFC is a response to a clear demand expressed by a
number of people for a group in which discussion is not constantly
disrupted by off-topic rants, personal attacks, vendettas and the
pursuit of grudges.
The stated opposition does not address the RFC in any meaningful way -
we are already well aware that the two individuals most clearly
identified with the trolling problem in urc are unhappy about the idea
of a group from which they clearly feel they will be excluded, but
that has already been addressed directly in the discussion: everybody
gets a clean slate, nobody will be blacklisted unless they violate the
moderation policy or charter. If these individuals whose abuse of urc
has caused the moderated group to be proposed, can abide by the
charter and moderation policy, then their posts will be passed. If
they can't, they won't.
If their opposition is based on the potential for blacklisting for
repeated violations of charter or moderation policy, then there is a
really simple solution: don't do that. There is a limit to the amount
of junk that volunteer mods should have to wade through and use of
blacklists is perfectly normal for any moderated newsgroup. In fact
the proposed moderation policy is a good deal more forgiving than most
moderated online forums and looks to me to be no more onerous or
restrictive than any other moderated group in the uk.* hierarchy.
--
Guy
Mark
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:27:18 +0100 someone who may be Chris Gerhard
><nos...@thegerhards.com> wrote this:-
>
>>And me.
>
>Me too.
+1
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing 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.
Judith M Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:03:59 +0100, jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Given the reservations which have been raised about some of the
>>proposed moderators - why do you not allow a vote of the moderation
>>panel - and allow other people to stand if they wish.
>
>Have these reservations been expressed by anyone other than you and
>Nuxx and your invisible friends?
>
>Guy
Not yet.
Why would the clique have any reservations about the proposal?
By the clique for the clique.
I am trying to bring some sensible and open balance.
It would be terrible if the population at large thought that the whole
issue was some sort of stitch up.
PS - I can see that comments like your above "invisible friends" are
the sort which have forced the requirement for the moderated group; I
don't think there is any place for them in the discussion.
Please try and keep things civil and sensible.
Roger Thorpe
> geomannie wrote:
>> In message <ml114513nht7pqks6...@4ax.com>, David Hansen
>> <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:27:18 +0100 someone who may be Chris Gerhard
>>> <nos...@thegerhards.com> wrote this:-
>>>
>>>> And me.
>>> Me too.
>>>
>> Count me in too.
>
> One more supporting creation of the group. (I am listed on the proposed
> moderation panel).
Since I can't think of an original way to express it:
Me too.
--
Roger Thorpe
She said her stereo was four-way, and I'd just love it in her room.....
Adam Funk
> Are you then of the opinion that discussion in uk.rec.sheds should be
> strictly limited to structural details of sloping-roofed buildings, or
> that uk.singles should discuss only seven-inch vinyl records? Any
> Usenet group is a conversation, among people who often become friends;
> it's natural that sometimes they will discuss things which are not
> strictly on topic. A cyclist is anyone who cycles - which means a very
> substantial proportion of the UK population. No-one can describe that
> as a 'clique'.
>
> In brief summary to the rest of your comments, there is no suggestion
> that uk.rec.cycling be removed. It will continue to exist, and you can
> continue to use it exactly as you do now. If that does not satisfy
> you, there are several thousand other troll fests^W^Wusenet groups for
> you to partake in. The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
> not choose to take part in it, and no-one who is prepared to engage in
> it constructively. To object to such a group on the broad grounds that
> you have is to make clear that your true objection is to action to
> reduce trolling.
Good arguments. I agree.
Richard Fairhurst
> Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
> wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.
+1.
As it's reasonably well attested that two of the initial proposed
moderators (Messrs Jackson and Damerell) have absolutely no time for
me, and vice versa, I would also submit this as evidence against any
of this "clique" nonsense. ;)
Richard
Just zis Guy, you know?
> >Have these reservations been expressed by anyone other than you and
> >Nuxx and your invisible friends?
> Not yet.
> Why would the clique have any reservations about the proposal?
Ah, so a meaningless definition of "clique", then. Everybody but you
and Nuxx agrees, therefore this is prima facie evidence that you and
Nuxx are not the problem? I think not.
I think that about the only thing all of urc agrees about is that the
vituperative crap form you and Nuxx is a problem. This is quite
remarkable unanimity if you look at the history of debates on spokes,
wind resistance, helmets or anything else relevant to cycling.
--
Guy
James
TBH I think it's a bit problematic to explicitly invite any and all
"General discussion amongst UK cyclists" - on the face of it it says
anything is on-topic so long as the poster rides a bike.
James
Clare Boothby
James <james...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
>wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.
+1
I would subscribe to this group; I anticipate its much improved
signal-to-noise ratio will make it readable by occasional visitors
in the way that the urc trollpit is not.
Clare
--
clare...@chiark.greenend.org.uk grass grass grass grass grass grass g
grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass pheasant grass grass gra
ass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass gr
wafflycat
"Simon Brooke" <stil...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:b365b2c4-036e-459e...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>Are you then of the opinion that discussion in uk.rec.sheds should be
>strictly limited to structural details of sloping-roofed buildings, or
>that uk.singles should discuss only seven-inch vinyl records? Any
>Usenet group is a conversation, among people who often become friends;
>it's natural that sometimes they will discuss things which are not
>strictly on topic. A cyclist is anyone who cycles - which means a very
>substantial proportion of the UK population. No-one can describe that
>as a 'clique'.
>
>In brief summary to the rest of your comments, there is no suggestion
>that uk.rec.cycling be removed. It will continue to exist, and you can
>continue to use it exactly as you do now. If that does not satisfy
>you, there are several thousand other troll fests^W^Wusenet groups for
>you to partake in. The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
>not choose to take part in it, and no-one who is prepared to engage in
>it constructively. To object to such a group on the broad grounds that
>you have is to make clear that your true objection is to action to
>reduce trolling.
Very well said that man.
Mike Clark
Clare Boothby <cla...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <cb2c14fc-c082-4d65...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> James <james...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
> >wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.
>
> +1
>
> I would subscribe to this group; I anticipate its much improved
> signal-to-noise ratio will make it readable by occasional visitors
> in the way that the urc trollpit is not.
>
> Clare
>
+1
My queries from the 1st RFD have been answered and the continuing troll
wrestling that also infected that discussion has now persuaded me that a
moderated group is worth trialing.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
jms
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <1j1rki8.14g3bjq1ncbri1N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
>Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>It's probably goping to need a vote, the Committee can't just strike out
>>objections because you don't want them to exist or because you are in a
>>tearing hurry.
>
>I presume the Committee would feel able to disregard objections made
>by sock puppets. The difficulty is that unmasking socks can be hard
>work - work which will need to be done anyway if we have a vote.
>
>So as I say my current view is that I'll ask the Committee's advice,
>after we've given it a bit more time to see what the discussion here
>thinks of the 2nd RFD.
Vote takers will need to keep your eye out for Lou Knee.
Guy Chapman has posted using this nym. at least a couple of times -
probably more.
Nuxx Bar
<GUY.CHAP...@SPAMCOP.NET> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:47 pm, jms <moderation2...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >As the recipient of said calls I can state that they bloody well did
> > >happen, contact me via email if you want more evidence
> > Ah yes - the old ones are the best.
> > I have plenty of evidence - which I can't post or discuss here - but
> > I will if *you* e-mail me.
>
> The reasons for not making the evidence public are very easy to
> understand.
Will you make the evidence available to me if I email you? As you are
accusing me I have a right to know what you are basing those
accusations upon. Maybe (not at all likely, but it's just possible)
there's a genuine misunderstanding on your part, and if so, perhaps
I'll be able to clear it up.
If you pretend not to have read this post then it will show that, just
as I suspect, you're making the whole thing up and you don't want to
be found out.
jms
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:51:52 -0700 (PDT), RudiL <rudi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Yes of course the people who have caused the need to have a moderated
>group feel misgivings about a moderated group.
>
>Rudi
Are you saying Chapman is not in favour of the moderated group?
Odd - I thought that he was.
jms
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 22 June, 22:28, jms <moderation2...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
>>
>> <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> > � � � � � � � � � �2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>> >in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>
>> I object to:
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
>> "The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>>
>> ... general discussion amongst UK cyclists".
>>
>> So anyone in the clique �(who no one doubts are cyclists) �can have a
>> general discussion on whatever they like.
>
>Are you then of the opinion that discussion in uk.rec.sheds should be
>strictly limited to structural details of sloping-roofed buildings, or
>that uk.singles should discuss only seven-inch vinyl records?
I think that you will find that both uk.sheds and uk.singles are
populated by social misfits; they are hardly representative of society
at large. Many from urc would be at home
Do you frequent either? - I understand that Chapman does.
> Any
>Usenet group is a conversation, among people who often become friends;
>it's natural that sometimes they will discuss things which are not
>strictly on topic. A cyclist is anyone who cycles - which means a very
>substantial proportion of the UK population. No-one can describe that
>as a 'clique'.
I think you will find that the cycle fascists who frequent urc are
atypical of the UK cycling community - and hopefully represent a very
tiny portion of them
>In brief summary to the rest of your comments, there is no suggestion
>that uk.rec.cycling be removed. It will continue to exist, and you can
>continue to use it exactly as you do now.
I think you fill find that the need to do so will disappear,
>The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
>not choose to take part in it, and no-one who is prepared to engage in
>it constructively.
I am more than willing to engage in the new group constructively.
I wonder if I will be given to a chance.
I do hope so.
>To object to such a group on the broad grounds that
>you have is to make clear that your true objection is to action to
>reduce trolling.
Oh really.
If you think that creation of a new group will stop who you call
"trolls" then I suggest that you think again.
I think you will find that if certain people conduct themselves as
they have done so to date - and I am not referring to those *you* call
trolls, that the new group will most likely turn to rat-shit in the
same way that this one nearly did.
PS How long have you known Jackson? I see that you are one of his
cronies? Cambridge perhaps?
Tom Crispin
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
>Administrative note:
>
>At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
>and uk.net.news.config. People responding are asked to keep the
>followups to both groups.
Follow-ups have not been set to urc and unnc. urc regulars who do not
subscribe to unnc are being excluded from this discussion unless the
crosspost is put in manually (as I have).
[snip]
>CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
>This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
>and the UK. Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
>other forms of cycling are all on-topic.
I refer to:
Message-ID: <h0nvev$2ur$1...@corncockle-nntp.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Would this post be allowed or moderated in urcm?
If it would be allowed, I suggest the following wording:
This group is for the discussion of all matters, especially those
matters relating to cycling and the UK. Recreational cycling, cycling
for transport, racing, and other forms of cycling are all on-topic.
[snip]
>Moderators:
>
> Alan Braggins
> Andy Leighton
> Danny Colyer
> David Damerell
> Ian Jackson
> Martin Dann
> Nigel Cliffe
> Peter Clinch
> Peter Fox
> Roger Thorpe
> Simon Brooke
Not all the above have been regular and frequent posters over the past
year. The selection process was neither transparent or democratic.
In answer to a simple question:
"Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
Message-ID: <9r9825tptdqibhjm4...@4ax.com>
Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
request.
However, one chose to be deliberately unhelpful, suggesting a full
Google Groups search on their posting history to trawl for the answer.
Message-ID: <slrnh28h1...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
A simple answer, a reply stating that he did not consider that
information to be necessary, or simply ignoring the post would all
have been appropriate responses. The response given tells a lot about
the person and I do not consider him appropriate as moderator. This
puts me in the somewhat uncomfortable position of agreeing with
Judith.
I would prefer to see a democratic process for the selection of
moderators, or, if this is not possible for the new group to be
formed, a timescale and process put in place for a future democratic
process for the selection of moderators.
[snip]
In its present form I am unlikely to support the new group. However,
I admire and appreciate the work Ian Jackson has put in so far to
right the ills of urc. The creation of urcm is likely to be the death
of urc, and if not its death, urc's character will be irreversibly
changed. urcm will never be like urc of old - not while it is a
moderated group.
Civil and useful discourse is still possible in urc. A selection is
referenced below:
Message-ID:
<d10c5a51-9639-40b0...@l2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID:
<27d70524-29c7-400a...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <1rgt3550a4qorcid1...@4ax.com>
(Went slightly off track)
Message-ID: <v26t35h4s51b55ko7...@4ax.com>
(One forged reply)
Message-ID: <w3M_l.29393$9M6....@newsfe13.ams2>
Message-ID: <Y7bj5zA7a2OKFwCu@downie#n0sapm#.co.uk>
Message-ID: <odGdneRkZ4wa0KfX...@pipex.net>
While in theory a moderated group would not prevent such discussion,
in practise it may.
New posters may be put off by moderation.
Regular posters may be put off by moderation.
Posters may think twice about starting topic drift, humour or banter.
Therefore, to support a moderated group I have to be convinced that
the new group is likely to be better than the group which is about to
have its character changed.
1. Several of the proposed moderators have not been regular posters to
urc over the past year.
2. One of the proposed moderators has been deliberately unhelpful.
3. All the proposed moderators have been selected by a single person,
not through a democratic and representative process.
While not alone a sufficient reason to oppose the new group, I have a
fear that the new group will form into more of a clique than the
current group, and it would be better served by a mailing list.
Unless something is done to rectify one or more of the points above I
will not support this group's creation, and urge others to consider
the same questions I have asked of myself.
Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.
jms
Personal vendettas?
I wonder if you are self-delusional?
Do you ever wonder why it is that *you* are the one to fall out with
so many people?
What do *you* think is the common factor?
Could it be that people do see you as despicable?
Any chance of answering the question?
Judith M Smith
What do you mean "As you are a perpetrator rather than a victim of
harassment"
that's rather strong.
OH - I see - poor lickle Guy has been victimised as he?
Well perhaps poor lickle Guy should not be such a despicable fuckwit.
I bet you think that you were bullied at school as well don't you?
jms
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Control wrote:
>>At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
>>and uk.net.news.config. People responding are asked to keep the
>>followups to both groups.
>
>In fact, a technical hitch seems to mean that this didn't happen with
>this 2nd RFD.
>
Ah yes - a "technical hitch" - happens all the time.
Common name : "cock-up"
Who will be responsible for the technical operation of the moderation
system?
Chapman had a technical hitch when he posted as Lou Knee and didn't
spot it was from an IP address he had used earlier.
Roger Thorpe
<snip>
> Therefore, to support a moderated group I have to be convinced that
> the new group is likely to be better than the group which is about to
> have its character changed.
>
> 1. Several of the proposed moderators have not been regular posters to
> urc over the past year.
>
> 2. One of the proposed moderators has been deliberately unhelpful.
>
> 3. All the proposed moderators have been selected by a single person,
> not through a democratic and representative process.
>
I am one of the proposed moderators. I think that almost everyone who
volunteered to be a moderator with the intention of making the group
work has been proposed as one in this RFD.
To be honest I don't think that a democratic election is practical and
(IMO) not necessary. I would expect to disagree with some of the other
moderators on a range of issues, but I don't expect there to be a heavy
hand used.
> While not alone a sufficient reason to oppose the new group, I have a
> fear that the new group will form into more of a clique than the
> current group, and it would be better served by a mailing list.
>
> Unless something is done to rectify one or more of the points above I
> will not support this group's creation, and urge others to consider
> the same questions I have asked of myself.
>
> Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.
I think that we'll agree with that, but the situation at the moment
leads to polarisation, rather than a broad spectrum of opinions.
It's an experiment that we should try to make work.
--
Roger Thorpe
Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....
Ian Smith
>
> In answer to a simple question:
> "Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
> Message-ID: <9r9825tptdqibhjm4...@4ax.com>
> Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
> request.
>
> However, one chose to be deliberately unhelpful, suggesting a full
> Google Groups search on their posting history to trawl for the answer.
> Message-ID: <slrnh28h1...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
No, that answer is more helpful than silence. This seems to reflect
your stated opinion on answering the helmets questions - you seem to
maintain that it would be better to have a decisive answer than an
accurate answer.
Here, you seem to be saying an answer that sets out a method of
finding all you want with full nuance and elaboration is unhelpful.
Apparently, you'd prefer a decisive simplification, even if it's an
over-simplification.
As I've said before, I'd rather have the truth, even if it's messy and
unclear, than a tidily packaged soundbite.
> I would prefer to see a democratic process for the selection of
> moderators, or, if this is not possible for the new group to be
> formed, a timescale and process put in place for a future democratic
> process for the selection of moderators.
You basically can't have a democratic process. There are no
democratic moderated groups - at best, you get to influence the
initial choice of dictator. (Possibly, I overstate it a bit, but in
practice I think not much.)
Further, adding a detailed and complex election process will simply
encourage amateur lawyering nit-pickery from the trolls. I don't
believe it could be made to work as effectively as a benevolent
dictatorship.
> New posters may be put off by moderation.
New posters are more likely to be put off by the antics of the trolls
and wrestlers.
> Regular posters may be put off by moderation.
Regular posters HAVE been put off by the antics of the trolls and
wrestlers, and have voted with their feet.
> Posters may think twice about starting topic drift, humour or banter.
Good, so they should. Everyone should think twice before posting.
> 1. Several of the proposed moderators have not been regular posters to
> urc over the past year.
Who, and to what definition?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Tosspot
<snip>
> I think that we'll agree with that, but the situation at the moment
> leads to polarisation, rather than a broad spectrum of opinions.
>
> It's an experiment that we should try to make work.
No, you run an experiment, look at the results, and they stand by
themselves. This venture may fail miserably, turn into a clique of
mutual masterbation, but I think it should be tried, no more, no less.
Martin.
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Tom Crispin <> wrote:
>
> > New posters may be put off by moderation.
>
> New posters are more likely to be put off by the antics of the trolls
> and wrestlers.
I think to some extent they will be put off, but one of the real
problems at the moment is that new posters are likely to be suspected
of being a nym shift of a troll. e.g. the recent question on the
primary position, when I replied I did wonder if I was being trolled.
> > Regular posters may be put off by moderation.
>
> Regular posters HAVE been put off by the antics of the trolls and
> wrestlers, and have voted with their feet.
Regulat posters with valid email addresses, and good posting histories
will probably be put on a passlist, so won't have to worry about
delays.
> > Posters may think twice about starting topic drift, humour or banter.
>
> Good, so they should. Everyone should think twice before posting.
I often write replies, and then hit cancel before sending. However I
think that a lot of topic drift and homour in the past has made URC
good.
Simon Brooke
wrote:
> In answer to a simple question:
> "Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
> Message-ID: <9r9825tptdqibhjm4...@4ax.com>
> Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
> request.
I had not previously seen this message.
I'm not sure what relevance the bikes I have has to this discussion,
but, for the record, my 'working set' include a Klein Mantra, a
Cannondale Jekyll, a Dolan time trial bike and a Dolan cross bike.
This year in addition to being foreman of the routing crew for the
Girvan Race I have been safety officer for two criteriums. I time
trial a bit but don't race much these days. I take part in club runs
and occasional longer organised rides as well as pootling by myself
and commuting regularly to work by bicycle,
> I would prefer to see a democratic process for the selection of
> moderators, or, if this is not possible for the new group to be
> formed, a timescale and process put in place for a future democratic
> process for the selection of moderators.
This isn't a perfect world, and votes on Usenet are exceedingly open
to abuse. If nothing is done to control trolling uk.rec.cycling will
gradually die as the noise-to-signal ratio becomes untenable; as has
happened to all the other Usenet groups I used to frequent. Ian
Jackson's proposal may work; personally I'm not enormously helpful,
but it could. If we don't try it, we had better accept the fact that
the era of Usenet is over, and that, sad though it is, the privatised
fiefdoms of the various web fora now provide a more civil and
constructive place for cyclists to share experience online.
> 1. Several of the proposed moderators have not been regular posters to
> urc over the past year.
I stopped posting two years ago. I stopped partly because the trolling
had become so excessive as to render the group a hostile,
argumentative and unpleasant place to hang out, and partly because,
like Guy, I find myself too easily tempted to wrestle with trolls - so
I perceived that I had become part of the problem.
> 2. One of the proposed moderators has been deliberately unhelpful.
We're none of us perfect. I've made a couple of posts myself in the
past fortnight which, looked at in the cool light of day, have been
decidedly unhelpful.
> While not alone a sufficient reason to oppose the new group, I have a
> fear that the new group will form into more of a clique than the
> current group, and it would be better served by a mailing list.
The benefit of a Usenet group is that it is easy for anyone to take
part. Those who have thus far been proposed as potential mods form a
pretty broad church. If we can achieve a light moderating touch I
believe we could achieve a group which is open, welcoming, good
humoured and well mannered. I agree it's not perfect but I believe
it's our last, best chance.
> Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.
On that, I wholeheartedly agree.
Andy Leighton
Roger Thorpe <myinitiald...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>> Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.
>
> I think that we'll agree with that, but the situation at the moment
> leads to polarisation, rather than a broad spectrum of opinions.
>
> It's an experiment that we should try to make work.
Absolutely. I am heartened by the number of people I have seen support
the 2nd RFD who are not urc posters. If urcm is a place where they feel
more at home and they become regulars (OK a couple of big ifs) then
it can only help diversity. At the moment they are not being served by
urc as they either cannot or will not put up with the ranting and
raving.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Tom Crispin
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>This isn't a perfect world, and votes on Usenet are exceedingly open
>to abuse. If nothing is done to control trolling uk.rec.cycling will
>gradually die as the noise-to-signal ratio becomes untenable; as has
>happened to all the other Usenet groups I used to frequent. Ian
>Jackson's proposal may work; personally I'm not enormously helpful,
>but it could. If we don't try it, we had better accept the fact that
>the era of Usenet is over, and that, sad though it is, the privatised
>fiefdoms of the various web fora now provide a more civil and
>constructive place for cyclists to share experience online.
Perhaps urc will gradually die, just like the telegram, telex and
other forms of communication have gradually died. But I have shown
that there is still use in urc. What I fear is that the creation of
urcm will speed the death of both groups, not prolong them.
You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. As someone who has
already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
Andy Leighton
Martin. <marti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 June, 23:24, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Tom Crispin <> wrote:
>
>>
>> Good, so they should. �Everyone should think twice before posting.
>
> I often write replies, and then hit cancel before sending. However I
> think that a lot of topic drift and homour in the past has made URC
> good.
A number of the moderators (ok one of them is me) have been around usenet
for a long time. We know what makes usenet special (when it works) and
we aren't trying to enforce some totally alien set of rules on to the
group. I fully expect that a certain amount of topic drift and homour
(whatever that is) will certainly continue to get posted to the
moderated group. Also people always have the option of putting an
obBike sentence/paragraph in their post.
Andy Leighton
Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. As someone who has
> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts? You enjoy Guy taunting
them from other threads? Doug? I certainly don't. The level of crap
reached the point of members leaving long ago. If it continues at the
current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
sensible posters remaining. People will piss off to web-based fora,
and the blogosphere. As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
cyclists.
Alan Braggins
>In answer to a simple question:
>"Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
>Message-ID: <9r9825tptdqibhjm4...@4ax.com>
>Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
>request.
>
>However, one chose to be deliberately unhelpful, suggesting a full
>Google Groups search on their posting history to trawl for the answer.
>Message-ID: <slrnh28h1...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>
>A simple answer, a reply stating that he did not consider that
>information to be necessary, or simply ignoring the post would all
>have been appropriate responses.
I'm sorry you feel that way. My answer at the time was hurried - I
thought that the information was unnecessary and not directly relevent
to uk.net.news.config, but that it was available for those who really
cared (and that the fact that my posting history covered it was
relevent).
Most of my cycling is commuting, either a few miles on a folding bike
from a Park and Ride car park, or a longer distance on a road bike
(Raleigh Vitesse), a hybrid (GT Arette) I originally bought as a tow
bike for a Cycle Design Tag-a-long (since sold, as was a Pashley U+2),
or an Orange (model unknown) originally bought at a police cycle auction
as a spare bike to keep at work while commuting by train (I didn't have
the folder (Dawes Kingpin) then). More recently, I bought a Dawes XC
for use on off-road family cycle rides.
The Arrete is currently (and has been for some time) part way through
having an electric assist kit fitted.
Alan Braggins
> The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
>not choose to take part in it
That's not necessarily strictly true: if posters give up on the unmoderated
group in favour of the moderated one, then those who prefer an unmoderated
discussion will have lost some of their audience, and they have a reduced
change of useful answer to questions, or less debate stimulated.
Obviously I personally think the potential benefits of a moderated group
curreently outweigh the disadvantages, but I wouldn't say that someone who
feels otherwise has no possible cause for concern.
Andy Leighton
>
> This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
> uk.net.news.announce
> uk.net.news.config
> uk.rec.cycling
I notice that one individual has totally misrepresented the charter
and moderation policy and seems to have solicited for votes against
in a couple of unrelated groups (uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport).
James
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. As someone who has
> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
If urcm turns out as badly as you are worrying, there is nothing to
stop people using urc. Of course people will drift away, they always
do, the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
let alone 10.
James
Brendan Halpin
> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. As someone who has
> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
As you are probably aware, Simon was, for a very long time, one of the
dozen or so regular posters that made URC what it was -- interesting,
informative, mostly civilised if anarchic, and one of the last
worthwhile social usenet groups.
I would have been strongly against moderation, until quite recently, but
I now feel it is the only hope for the group.
Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:brendan...@ul.ie http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html
Marc
James
> James wrote:
> > the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
> > let alone 10.
>
> I am!
Can I borrow your mirror?
James
Brendan Halpin
He has an ASCII-art portrait in the attic.
chris French
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>
>> create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>
>
>>Moderators:
>>
>> Alan Braggins
>> Andy Leighton
>> Danny Colyer
>> David Damerell
>> Ian Jackson
>> Martin Dann
>> Nigel Cliffe
>> Peter Clinch
>> Peter Fox
>> Roger Thorpe
>> Simon Brooke
>
>Not all the above have been regular and frequent posters over the past
>year.
I don't think that really matters, all are long time regulars of urc.
> The selection process was neither transparent or democratic.
>
<snip
>I would prefer to see a democratic process for the selection of
>moderators, or, if this is not possible for the new group to be
>formed, a timescale and process put in place for a future democratic
>process for the selection of moderators.
>
As has been pointed out in other replies to the thread (by Pedt I
think), there are various issues with moderator voting.
>[snip]
>
>In its present form I am unlikely to support the new group. However,
>I admire and appreciate the work Ian Jackson has put in so far to
>right the ills of urc. The creation of urcm is likely to be the death
>of urc, and if not its death, urc's character will be irreversibly
>changed. urcm will never be like urc of old - not while it is a
>moderated group.
Well, hopefully it will be more like the urc of old than the current urc
though. Which seems more pertinent.
>
>Civil and useful discourse is still possible in urc.
<snip>
It is, but not enough IMO to counter the crap. urc feels like somewhere
to be endured nowadays rather than enjoyed.
>
>New posters may be put off by moderation.
>Regular posters may be put off by moderation.
>Posters may think twice about starting topic drift, humour or banter.
>
People are being put off urc as it is.
>Therefore, to support a moderated group I have to be convinced that
>the new group is likely to be better than the group which is about to
>have its character changed.
>
Strikes me that urc as is doesn't provide a very high bar here.
>
>Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.
I agree.
--
Chris French
chris French
<initial...@btintenret.com> writes
Me too :-)
And there are a number of regulars that ISTR as being around for a long
time
--
Chris French
chris French
<an...@azaal.plus.com> writes
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. As someone who has
>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>
>You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts? You enjoy Guy taunting
>them from other threads? Doug? I certainly don't. The level of crap
>reached the point of members leaving long ago. If it continues at the
>current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
>sensible posters remaining.
Indeed, I gave up on urc a while back because of the crap level. I've
been back here a bit more recently, but it's no better, probably worse.
Basically it's not fun anymore. I will give up on it again I imagine,
possibly for good..
> People will piss off to web-based fora,
>and the blogosphere. As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
>the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
>cyclists.
>
Yep.
--
Chris French
jms
<almo...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On 22 June, 20:45, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> Moderators:
>>
>> � Alan Braggins
>> � Andy Leighton
>> � Danny Colyer
>> � David Damerell
>> � Ian Jackson
>> � Martin Dann
>> � Nigel Cliffe
>> � Peter Clinch
>> � Peter Fox
>> � Roger Thorpe
>> � Simon Brooke
>
>A panel who's common-sense contributions in URC I have always read and
>enjoyed. I support the choice.
>
>Peter.
Could you point out the common sense contributions made by Braggins -
I seem to have missed them.
There was the one where he altered what someone had said - and then
replied to it. "Forgery" is I think the term; hardly common sense.
I see there is the odd one who has professed to having qualifications
he hasn't actually got yet - that was hardly common-sense.
Clinch posts all through the day and is likely to get his wrists
slapped by the University sometime soon for doing so in University
time : hardly common sense.
URCM : by the clique - for the clique.
OG
"Brendan Halpin" <brendan...@ul.ie> wrote in message
news:87k532b...@wivenhoe.ul.ie...
> On Tue, Jun 23 2009, James wrote:
>
>>> James wrote:
>>
>>> > the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
>>> > let alone 10.
>>>
>>> I am!
>>
>> Can I borrow your mirror?
>
> He has an ASCII-art portrait in the attic.
>
The one in the attic is MP4 by now
Colin Reed
"jms" <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0pq24515jiv7f2hjg...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:22:19 +0100, "Colin Reed"
> <colin...@no-spam.lineone.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Matt B" <matt....@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
>>news:7aae45F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
>>>>
>>>> The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>>>> * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
>>>
>>> Good.
>>>
>>>> * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
>>>> on cycling within the UK;
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>> * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
>>>
>>> What's that then? Discussion between cyclists (but disallowing
>>> contributions by non-cyclists) about something which is nothing to do
>>> with
>>> cycling?
>>
>>I see nothing to say that anyone would be "disallowed" according to this.
>>It is a statement of what is to be encouraged, rather than what it
>>prohibited by the moderation policy. As always, IIUC, the moderation
>>policy
>>consists of guidelines to the moderators who then must exercise a certain
>>discretion. I don't really think if a thread happens to wander into
>>public
>>transport discussions (trains seem popular with many contributors to URC!)
>>then the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
>>regularly.
>>
>>Colin
>>
>
>
> So the group is only for those who the moderators *think* "cycle
> regularly"
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> (It gets better all the time)
>
Well that was an only slightly better attempt than the deliberate
misrepresentation of this very post on two unrelated groups in a rather
pathetic attempt to garner "no" votes when the CFV arrives. As is more than
clear to most other people who read this, the above quote was to suggest
that actually the moderators would *not* do exactly what you suggest.
Anyway, I see no reason why this discussion should be dumbed down enough
just so the exceptionally vocal "me, me, listen to me, me me - look at me,
I'm being really clever" annoying little child in the corner can understand
it. As long as you actually quote the entire phrase, unlike your deliberate
lying on the other groups earlier, then most people will be able to
understand what was really being said, and your misunderstanding of it -
deliberate or just plain stupidity - will be clear for others to see.
Colin
James
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> New posters may be put off by moderation.
> Regular posters may be put off by moderation.
> Posters may think twice about starting topic drift, humour or banter.
>
> Therefore, to support a moderated group I have to be convinced that
> the new group is likely to be better than the group which is about to
> have its character changed.
I think it's worth explicitly drawing your (and others') attention to
the fact that a significant number of ex-contributors (who I presume
have been occasionally lurking, but basically not posting) have been
tempted back to add their support for this proposal. These old posters
are real people with a history you can check, who have (understandably
but regrettably IMO) given up on urc as it now is. I think their real
contribution substantially outweighs the vague spectre of hypothetical
newcomers who might potentially be put off by - shock, horror - the
spectre of having to think before they post.
James
Rob Morley
"Martin." <marti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I often write replies, and then hit cancel before sending.
I increasingly find myself discarding replies, for a variety of
reasons.
Marc
Tom Crispin
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. As someone who has
>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>
>You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts? You enjoy Guy taunting
>them from other threads? Doug? I certainly don't.
I can tolerate them, just as I could tolerate a chap with Tourette's
sitting in a pub.
Tom Crispin
My point is that ucrm will speed the decline of urc, not prolong it.
bod43
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> > geomannie wrote:
> >> In message <ml114513nht7pqks6ih43redtuned4u...@4ax.com>, David Hansen
> >> <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk> writes
> >>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:27:18 +0100 someone who may be Chris Gerhard
> >>> <nos...@thegerhards.com> wrote this:-
>
> >>>> And me.
> >>> Me too.
>
> >> Count me in too.
>
> > One more supporting creation of the group. (I am listed on the proposed
> > moderation panel).
>
> Since I can't think of an original way to express it:
>
> Me too.
Me too, too.
I support the creation of the moderated group ukrcm.
Alan Braggins
But is the decline reversible, and if so how? If the decline is
inevitable, speeding it up might well be a worthwhile price to pay
(assuming that the moderated group doesn't suffer a similar decline).
Just zis Guy, you know?
Braggins) wrote:
>But is the decline reversible, and if so how? If the decline is
>inevitable, speeding it up might well be a worthwhile price to pay
>(assuming that the moderated group doesn't suffer a similar decline).
I do not know whether both groups will thrive, whether the moderated
group will get all the interesting stuff and the unmoderated die, or
whether the lack of an audience will cause judith and Nuxx to give up
and go home, in which case people will probably move back to urc.
I don't think this matters. The resources required are modest, so
whether there is a long-term future for both groups is probably not
that relevant to the question of whether there is, right now,
significant (and sufficient) demand for the new group.
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.
Roger Merriman
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
> <stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >This isn't a perfect world, and votes on Usenet are exceedingly open
> >to abuse. If nothing is done to control trolling uk.rec.cycling will
> >gradually die as the noise-to-signal ratio becomes untenable; as has
> >happened to all the other Usenet groups I used to frequent. Ian
> >Jackson's proposal may work; personally I'm not enormously helpful,
> >but it could. If we don't try it, we had better accept the fact that
> >the era of Usenet is over, and that, sad though it is, the privatised
> >fiefdoms of the various web fora now provide a more civil and
> >constructive place for cyclists to share experience online.
>
> Perhaps urc will gradually die, just like the telegram, telex and
> other forms of communication have gradually died. But I have shown
> that there is still use in urc. What I fear is that the creation of
> urcm will speed the death of both groups, not prolong them.
>
> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. As someone who has
> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
some other newsgroups are doing fine others are not. URC is one of the
nots, for what it's worth, with my newsreader and it's kill all
followups URC is quite readable as most of the trolling/flaming is all
gone.
but i can see that there are large threads/sub threads all the time,
some groups manage to not to reply to them others do.
as to URCM is there a real danger of the group disapeapering? Yes this
said since people seem to lack the abilty to ignore trolls this may be
it's only chance.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
Roger Merriman
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >
> > You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. As someone who has
> > already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> > fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>
> You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts? You enjoy Guy taunting
> them from other threads? Doug? I certainly don't. The level of crap
> reached the point of members leaving long ago. If it continues at the
> current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
> sensible posters remaining. People will piss off to web-based fora,
> and the blogosphere. As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
> the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
> cyclists.
it's not impossible to get newsreaders to kill file author and then
followups so I don't see guy taunting them or what ever as it's all been
killed.
so for me it's fine thank you very much.
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>URCM : by the clique - for the clique.
That's what a moderated group is. Did you have some idea it might be
otherwise?
If you want a group to be exactly how you want it to be, RFD one.
Geoff Berrow
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>I don't think this matters. The resources required are modest, so
>whether there is a long-term future for both groups is probably not
>that relevant to the question of whether there is, right now,
>significant (and sufficient) demand for the new group.
There seems to be a lot of support for urcm, and very little
opposition. It may even qualify for fast track from what I've seen.
As for the future I suspect that is one or two people got bored and
moved on urc would be fine and there would be no need for urcm.
My prediction is that it will follow ulym, but we'll have to see.
Mike
> My queries from the 1st RFD have been answered and the continuing troll
> wrestling that also infected that discussion has now persuaded me that a
> moderated group is worth trialing.
>
> Mike
> --
I also support the creation of the group.
Mike
Molly Mockford
wrote in
<d8addcab-6448-4dc0...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
>On 23 June, 20:22, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>wrote:
>> 2. One of the proposed moderators has been deliberately unhelpful.
>
>We're none of us perfect. I've made a couple of posts myself in the
>past fortnight which, looked at in the cool light of day, have been
>decidedly unhelpful.
Nobody is expected to be perfect 100% of the time. So long as the
moderators are diligent and helpful *as moderators*, it really doesn't
affect the moderation of the group if they are sometimes neither in the
rest of their lives. The same applies to everyone else with
responsibilities in Usenet - Committee members, votetakers, mentors etc.
While it would be just lovely if we were all sweetness and light all the
time, that ain't the way that life works. So long as we fulfil our
responsibilities to the expected standard, that is all that anyone else
can require.
--
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee. If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Nuxx Bar
wrote:
> In message <slrnh42ih4.3rj.an...@azaal.plus.com>, Andy Leighton
Amazing the way that even when they're talking about "last hopes", the
regulars *still* won't even discuss the possibility that those who are
more anti-motorist than pro-cyclist are the real problem in URC
(especially the ones who lie about being anti-motorist, not to mention
everything else), and getting rid of them would make things far more
pleasant, depoliticise the group, and also attract a lot more people
(at the moment, anyone who sticks up for motorists in *any way* is
made to feel very unwelcome, and is either called a "troll" or very
reluctantly tolerated, which simply shouldn't happen in a cycling
newsgroup). Surely it's worth at least talking about that approach
before giving up on the group for good?
Just ask yourself a question: "If Guy Chapman and Spindrift left the
group, would it get better overall as a result, or worse?" We all
know the answer. Yet Chapman's sycophants rally round and ensure once
again that the Dreadful Truth isn't mentioned, lest it offend their
Master. Even when they're desperately trying to save their group,
they still daren't even mention the one solution that would actually
work. They would rather lose their group than risk incurring
Chapman's wrath. It's just bizarre. What has Chapman done to earn
this "position", and why are they so scared of him: what can he do to
them if they "disobey" him?
Colin Reed
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:dbf345tvb6rrp1v4j...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:33:24 -0500, Andy Leighton
> <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
>> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>
>>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. As someone who has
>>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>>
>>You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts? You enjoy Guy taunting
>>them from other threads? Doug? I certainly don't.
>
> I can tolerate them, just as I could tolerate a chap with Tourette's
> sitting in a pub.
>
Although if people came into a pub deliberately being provocative with
things like "all beer drinkers are fuckwits" and suggesting that it is
inevitable that a bib wearing law would be passed, then you might reasonably
expect the landlord to chuck them out.
Colin
wafflycat
"chris French" <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uf6nCVGP...@gauva.familyfrench.co.uk...
> In message <slrnh42ih4...@azaal.plus.com>, Andy Leighton
> <an...@azaal.plus.com> writes
>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
>> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>
>>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. As someone who has
>>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>>
>>You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts? You enjoy Guy taunting
>>them from other threads? Doug? I certainly don't. The level of crap
>>reached the point of members leaving long ago. If it continues at the
>>current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
>>sensible posters remaining.
>
> Indeed, I gave up on urc a while back because of the crap level. I've been
> back here a bit more recently, but it's no better, probably worse.
> Basically it's not fun anymore. I will give up on it again I imagine,
> possibly for good..
>
Same here. Even with kill-files of the obvious trolls, it was the trolls'
nym-shifting and those who for some odd reason seem to think that entering
dialogue with a troll is going to produce rational discussion that has
ruined the group.
Another couple of newsgroups I frequent (non-cycling and also unmoderated)
that have been around for years and continue to thrive have little problem
with trolls for the simple reason that trolls are ignored. Starved of
'oxygen' the trolls get bored and go away. Newcomers to the groups are
welcomed, but if a welcomed newbie turns out to be a troll after all, then
the only thing that works is done. And it works. For some reason, too many
on URC can't do this and the group, which *was* a welcoming place for the
discussion of all aspects of cycling has effectively been destroyed by
trolls and those who keep on responding to the trolls. I periodically have a
look at what is going on in URC, having once been a regular denizen of the
group and alas it's the now usual troll-fest. And it's a shame it happened.
>> People will piss off to web-based fora,
>>and the blogosphere. As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
>>the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
>>cyclists.
>>
> Yep.
Indeed. I see a lot of people I know originally via URC now on web-based
fora which are all moderated, and on blogs. Years ago URC gave me a lot of
information and encouragement when I got back into cycling after years and
years away from it and I am grateful for that. I have also made some good
friends over the years thanks to participation in the group. Good
discussions were held - it was never a place where everyone agreed with each
other all the time - robust discussions were held - but it was never the
troll-fest it has become these days. Indeed if I were a newbie to cycling
now, I'd take one look at the current URC and never go back again. It would
be, I think, good try to get back to that original ethos of URC and I think
that having a moderated group is the only way it is likely to have a chance
of succeeding.
> --
> Chris French
>
chris French
Merriman <NE...@wodger.demon.co.uk> writes
well.
It's as much that amount of the enjoyable cycling discussion has gone
down, presumably because of people stopping reading the group?
--
Chris French
Simon Brooke
Thing is, I don't /want/ to killfile Guy. He is well informed, well
connected, and often has useful, valuable interesting and amusing
things to say. But under present conditions you pretty much have to,
because every cast of a lure from a troll and he's on it like a flash.
Roger Merriman
> In message <1j1t1yn.1bg6az1198694N%NE...@wodger.demon.co.uk>, Roger
> Merriman <NE...@wodger.demon.co.uk> writes
> >Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
> >> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. As someone who has
> >> > already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> >> > fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
> >>
> >> You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts? You enjoy Guy taunting
> >> them from other threads? Doug? I certainly don't. The level of crap
> >> reached the point of members leaving long ago. If it continues at the
> >> current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
> >> sensible posters remaining. People will piss off to web-based fora,
> >> and the blogosphere. As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
> >> the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
> >> cyclists.
> >
> >it's not impossible to get newsreaders to kill file author and then
> >followups so I don't see guy taunting them or what ever as it's all been
> >killed.
> >
> >so for me it's fine thank you very much.
> >
> It's just the crap that gets posted, much of that is killed here as
> well.
in many ways usenet needs killfiles as it's largely un moderated, so you
need to either killfile or other ways of filtering though.
>
> It's as much that amount of the enjoyable cycling discussion has gone
> down, presumably because of people stopping reading the group?
does apear so yes.
Roger Merriman
you don't have to!
i don't and i still don't see any of his replys to trolls they are
mostly all killfiled with a rule thats says killfile this author
auto-kill any replys to this post. so i only see guy's posts about
bromptons, to be honest.
Roger Thorpe
than I am by the way that every thread either originates as, or is
turned into an argument about road safety.
I'm not sure that moderation will change that, but I hope it will.
--
Roger Thorpe
She said her stereo was four-way, and I'd just love it in her room.....
Roger Merriman
it has been uk.transport.cycling for some time now which is why i have
mostly shifted to web forums.
as there only so many primary/helmets etc that one can be intrested in,
or rather not.
al Mossah
>
> I think it's worth explicitly drawing your (and others') attention to
> the fact that a significant number of ex-contributors (who I presume
> have been occasionally lurking, but basically not posting) have been
> tempted back to add their support for this proposal. These old posters
> are real people with a history you can check, who have (understandably
> but regrettably IMO) given up on urc as it now is. I think their real
> contribution substantially outweighs the vague spectre of hypothetical
> newcomers who might potentially be put off by - shock, horror - the
> spectre of having to think before they post.
>
> James
Exactly right. Makes me look forward to URCM.
Steve Firth
> Same here. Even with kill-files of the obvious trolls, it was the trolls'
> nym-shifting and those who for some odd reason seem to think that entering
> dialogue with a troll is going to produce rational discussion that has
> ruined the group.
I beg to differ. What ruined the group was accepting the militant
cyclists as regulars and then adopting their views. URC became a cycling
madrasah, indoctrinating the faithfull in the "one true path" and where
any voice of dissent was howled down by the massed loons.
I'm going to be amused to see what happens in the moderated group.
Steve Firth
> Although if people came into a pub deliberately being provocative with
> things like "all beer drinkers are fuckwits" and suggesting that it is
> inevitable that a bib wearing law would be passed, then you might reasonably
> expect the landlord to chuck them out.
I don't think so. I've seen people with similar views in pubs. They get
ignored or people treat them with respect for their views but they only
get asked to leave if they start being aggressive. Judith passed over
that particular hurdle some time ago. Indeed she is combative and
pointlessly aggressive each time she tries to indulge in conversation
with others. The real way for dealing with such people in newsgroups is
discipline among the other newsgroup users.
Sadly the URC regulars seem rather short on personal discipline and have
this bizarre view that an insult to a bicycle is just cause for
vituperative attack. Weird.
Steve Firth
> I don't /want/ to killfile Guy. He is well informed, well
> connected, and often has useful, valuable interesting and amusing
> things to say.
<boggle>
He's become an obsessed one-trick pony.
jms
<newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <ff12451hhruo56k22...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes
>>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
>><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>>
>>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>>>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>>
>>> create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>>
>>
><snip>
>>>Moderators:
>>>
>>> Alan Braggins
>>> Andy Leighton
>>> Danny Colyer
>>> David Damerell
>>> Ian Jackson
>>> Martin Dann
>>> Nigel Cliffe
>>> Peter Clinch
>>> Peter Fox
>>> Roger Thorpe
>>> Simon Brooke
>>
>>Not all the above have been regular and frequent posters over the past
>>year.
>
>I don't think that really matters, all are long time regulars of urc.
>
>> The selection process was neither transparent or democratic.
>>
><snip
>
>>I would prefer to see a democratic process for the selection of
>>moderators, or, if this is not possible for the new group to be
>>formed, a timescale and process put in place for a future democratic
>>process for the selection of moderators.
>>
>
>As has been pointed out in other replies to the thread (by Pedt I
>think), there are various issues with moderator voting.
>>[snip]
There are no "issues" - other than pretending it is too difficult and
a lack of will
much too difficult to do something fairly and democratic - just chose
a bunch of mates from the clique
Colin Reed
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1j1tf6i.7e9saey0qzvuN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Colin Reed <colin...@no-spam.lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> Although if people came into a pub deliberately being provocative with
>> things like "all beer drinkers are fuckwits" and suggesting that it is
>> inevitable that a bib wearing law would be passed, then you might
>> reasonably
>> expect the landlord to chuck them out.
>
> I don't think so. I've seen people with similar views in pubs. They get
> ignored or people treat them with respect for their views but they only
> get asked to leave if they start being aggressive. Judith passed over
> that particular hurdle some time ago. Indeed she is combative and
> pointlessly aggressive each time she tries to indulge in conversation
> with others. The real way for dealing with such people in newsgroups is
> discipline among the other newsgroup users.
Quite - I'd imagined someone in the aggressive "judith" mode as my
provocative pub customer, maybe it didn't come across that way when I wrote
it.
>
> Sadly the URC regulars seem rather short on personal discipline and have
> this bizarre view that an insult to a bicycle is just cause for
> vituperative attack. Weird.
Well I don't see it quite as bad as that, but if that's your perception then
so be it. Opinions vary, and as long as they're not deliberately
misrepresented in other groups in an effort to sabotage the vote, then
everyone is entitled to their own.
Colin
Just zis Guy, you know?
> > I don't /want/ to killfile Guy. He is well informed, well
> > connected, and often has useful, valuable interesting and amusing
> > things to say.
> <boggle>
> He's become an obsessed one-trick pony.
But on the plus side if you're only going to have one trick then it's
a great trick: designing virtual infrastructures, SANs and disaster
recovery environments while simultaneously developing an endpoint
management and compliance framework, all while building a model
railway, singing and riding a bicycle.
--
Guy
Ian Jackson
Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100,
>Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> uk.net.news.announce
>> uk.net.news.config
>> uk.rec.cycling
>
>I notice that one individual has totally misrepresented the charter
>and moderation policy and seems to have solicited for votes against
>in a couple of unrelated groups (uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport).
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll take a look and consider whether to
follow up there.
--
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
Jeremy Parker
> One more supporting creation of the group. (I am listed on the
> proposed moderation panel).
>
>
> - Nigel
I support creation too.
Add my thanks, too for those volunteering to be part of the panel,
and to those who have put in the work to date on setting up the group
Jeremy Parker
wafflycat
"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:HB*OZ...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article <slrnh42jbb...@azaal.plus.com>,
> Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100,
>>Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>>> uk.net.news.announce
>>> uk.net.news.config
>>> uk.rec.cycling
>>
>>I notice that one individual has totally misrepresented the charter
>>and moderation policy and seems to have solicited for votes against
>>in a couple of unrelated groups (uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport).
>
> Thanks for the heads-up. I'll take a look and consider whether to
> follow up there.
>
It's the obvious troll stirring things up as usual by crosspoting to
uk.transport & uk.rec.driving.
Just fancy that... the predictable trolling and just proving exactly why a
moderated URC needs to be given the go-ahead.
jms
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100,
> Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> DISTRIBUTION:
>>
>> This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>> uk.net.news.announce
>> uk.net.news.config
>> uk.rec.cycling
>
>I notice that one individual has totally misrepresented the charter
>and moderation policy and seems to have solicited for votes against
>in a couple of unrelated groups (uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport).
Don't beat about the bush sunshine - that was me.
They are not unrelated newsgroups at all - you wish.
Indeed many here are so anti the transport people that they have
invented the name uk.tossposts - which as discussed will be allowed in
the moderated group.
I hope that the members of uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport take an
interest in what is happening here.
They will of course be eligible to vote - as members of many other
groups will be.
They will have experienced the views of the cycling clique before and
may well have relevant views to express in the moderated group.
However - they will not be able to do so - however relevant their
views to a particular issue - if the moderating clique do not even
*think* that they are cyclists.
This seems as good a reason for voting against the proposal as any.
Steve Firth
> Thanks for the heads-up. I'll take a look and consider whether to
> follow up there.
Several have already pointed out that the individual in question is
telling lies and have corrected the wilful misquoting of the discussion.
I for one loathe individuals who consider that their particular
hobby-horse gives them a licence to tell any lie necessary to achoeve
their aims. Whether those individuals are politicians or simply
net-loons is largely irrelevant.
Steve Firth
> designing virtual infrastructures, SANs and disaster recovery environments
> while simultaneously developing an endpoint management and compliance
> framework,
How odd, that's what I do. You're not unique.
> all while building a model railway, singing and riding a bicycle.
Yeah, I had to share a desk with someone as tedious as that last year
while building a pair of data centres. There's something about DCs that
seems to attract the lycra brigade, unfortunately. Fortunately the car
park was full of the usual collection of BMWs, Jags, Astons, Porsches
etc so we could ignore the smelly loon on a bike most of the time.
However as is usual with loons, you seem to try to justify your
monomaniacal car-hating habits by reference to something completely
unrelated.
Judith M Smith
Braggins) wrote:
>In article <ff12451hhruo56k22...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>In answer to a simple question:
>>"Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
>>Message-ID: <9r9825tptdqibhjm4...@4ax.com>
>>Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
>>request.
>>
>>However, one chose to be deliberately unhelpful, suggesting a full
>>Google Groups search on their posting history to trawl for the answer.
>>Message-ID: <slrnh28h1...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>
<snip>
Perhaps you could tell us (as a proposed moderator ) ..... what should
happen if someone was caught forging a post - eg altering the names of
people in a post made by someone else?
Should they be block-listed?
Are they suitable people to be posting in the moderated group?
Would they be suitable as a moderator?
Do you expect moderators to be able to justify their actions and
answer relevant questions when asked?
Judith M Smith
<james...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 24, 6:24�am, Tom Crispin
><kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. �As someone who has
>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>
>If urcm turns out as badly as you are worrying, there is nothing to
>stop people using urc. Of course people will drift away, they always
>do, the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
>let alone 10.
>
>James
There has been an inability for certain individuals (eg Guy Chapman)
to use a kill-file.
This is not a good reason to introduce the moderated group.
The vast majority of nym-shifts were not made by the "trolls" but by
people like Chapman and Raven who thought that they could post
anonymously - but were in fact caught out.