Re: Roland's take on defaming legislation authors

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:b6hlk99a3ie54rmlv...@4ax.com...

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:52:17 +0100, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>

> Personally I think that
>moderators should not be anonymous

I agree - I have raised that a number of times - and the answer is that they
*may* suffer harassment as a result of a rejection.

I do not agree: and it certainly does not help the transparency of the
decision
making process. I have no problem with them being anonymous by using a
different moderation name (eg Modbot3000) - but if the moderator could be
identified by such a name then at least others could see the sensibility of
their decisions over a period of time. (I have no idea who is Modbot3000 -
nor have any idea of his moderation history)

If the same moderator was rejecting posts repeatedly - then it would
certainly
seem to be sensible for the ULM population of readers to know who was doing
what, why, and how frequently.

I always find it very reassuring when one of a couple of moderators respond
to
a criticism and say "I would not have rejected that post" or "I agree with
that
rejection"

But - I really cannot see a genuine and sensible reason for the moderators
to
be hidden. They could of course use their posting name eg The Todal, Attila
the Moderator, Mike the Moderator or Modbot3000 when they say whether they
had
accepted or rejected a particular post - and I really cannot see that they
would suffer any "harassment" - more than they would if someone really
wanted
to harass an individual moderator.

I certainly think if a query is raised: then the relevant moderator ought to
have the decency to say (eg) "I rejected that post because of X,Y, and Z)

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:o9qnk9drppq5o0gga...@4ax.com...

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:06:48 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

<snip>


>I think we do sometimes say "it was I who rejected/accepted that post".

Yes, you and another moderator invariably do do that when asked.
I would like to see all moderators doing that when there is a query about a
post: even if the moderators were not associated with all rejections as a
matter of course.
I find it annoying when a contentious post is rejected - and the rejecting
moderator keeps totally schtum. I do not think that contributes to the
normal
transparency of the moderation process: and I certainly do not accept that
there is a real danger of a moderator being "harassed" in those
circumstances.




>However I don't want to say "the moderator who rejected it wasn't me, it
>was [insert name]" because that could lead to certain assumptions about
>whether the moderators were having some sort of internal feud, whether a
>moderator was regularly out of step, whether he should be criticised for
>leaving it to others to explain his decisions.
>


Yes - I can understand that approach as well

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:q53ok91hr2slr11ht...@4ax.com...

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 15:42:00 +0100, Sara Merriman
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <o9qnk9drppq5o0gga...@4ax.com>, Judith

><jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I find it annoying when a contentious post is rejected - and the
>> rejecting
>> moderator keeps totally schtum. I do not think that contributes to the
>> normal
>> transparency of the moderation process: and I certainly do not accept
>> that
>> there is a real danger of a moderator being "harassed" in those
>> circumstances.
>

>I nearly snorted tea down my nose when I read that. You (however many
>of you there are) are the most prolific witch-hunter I've seen on
>usenet.
>
>If this was a rule, you would be in there like a rat up a drain pipe,
>hounding whoever admitted to rejecting any of your posts in your usual
>inimitable way.
>
>I occasionally wonder if you have any kind of real life at all. Not
>often, but just sometimes.


Fuck off

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:d83ok99a1ah7alphl...@4ax.com...

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:04:45 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

>On 14/4/14 16:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <o9qnk9drppq5o0gga...@4ax.com>, at 15:02:40 on
>> Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>> I find it annoying when a contentious post is rejected - and the
>>> rejecting
>>> moderator keeps totally schtum.
>>

>> That's never been me.

>>
>>> I do not think that contributes to the normal
>>> transparency of the moderation process: and I certainly do not accept
>>> that
>>> there is a real danger of a moderator being "harassed" in those
>>> circumstances.
>>

>> The volume of flack generated this time is totally disproportionate, so
>> I can easily see why people think that there's a big danger in sticking
>> their head above the parapet.
>
>A few people took great exception to the decision to reject the post.
>Most users of the group probably would have been indifferent if they had
>expressed an opinion.
>
>Some of the moderators prefer not to contribute to this group. They
>probably feel that whatever explanation they give for their decision
>will not placate those who complain. They don't want to get bogged down
>in a lengthy argument about a decision that they took within the space
>of five minutes.
>
>That's what I'd guess, but we haven't discussed it within the moderation
>group. For me it is sufficient that people give generously of their time
>to help with moderating the posts or indeed, to help design the modbot
>software. I don't expect them to continually defend themselves against
>criticism as if they were providing a paid service. Some may choose to
>do so. Some won't.


Are all the current moderators active in the moderation activities?

[Judith]

"Roland Perry" wrote in message news:BJ$pw2TdC...@perry.co.uk...

In message <hhqpk9po1hfmffh9r...@4ax.com>, at 09:16:06 on
Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>I would be quite interested in reading some of your *published work* in
>order
>to understand your point of view a little better; but I could not see a
>list on
>your CV.

Indeed you can't. I'm not an academic and therefore such things don't
feature in my CV.
--
Roland Perry

good idea telling judith personal info

ask yourself why he hides

simple judith is a coward

[Judith]

"Roland Perry" wrote in message news:04g0Mhii...@perry.co.uk...

In message <4mmqk99fpgdv1caqc...@4ax.com>, at 17:15:12 on

Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>So you have *published* work: but you cannot give us links to any of it.

You'd only accuse me of blowing my own trumpet, and I've tired of your
baiting, so you'll just have to do without.
--


wise more roland

lots of people have him in a kilfile

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:jldsk9d1u09b712i1...@4ax.com...

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 21:37:54 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <4mmqk99fpgdv1caqc...@4ax.com>, at 17:15:12 on
>Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>So you have *published* work: but you cannot give us links to any of it.
>
>You'd only accuse me of blowing my own trumpet, and I've tired of your
>baiting, so you'll just have to do without.

Responding to a request for clarification of your claims would not be that
at
all.