Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
uk.radio.amateur.moderated RFD - Summary of Discussion
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 1, 2013, 4:58:05 AM5/1/13
to
Hello folks. My sincere apologies for the long break before posting
this. It's been a hectic few weeks at Cole Castle, a heady combination
of work, family, health, studying for my intermediate radio license and
exam (passed!) and learning to drive (test next week!) combined to
completely derail my mental condition... As a consequence, writing a
several thousand word essay on this proposal kept getting moved to the
bottom of my agenda. The upshot of this is, though, that all parties
have had plenty of time to digest the debate and tempers have been
allowed to cool.
But I've finished it! It's just a simple summary of all that went on in
the mega-thread of the 1st RFD. Strictly my take on things, so you may
disagree with much or all of it. I've tried to be objective and have
done my best to be fair. RFD2 is in production and will follow shortly...
Enjoy!
---Summary of Discussion---
I have combed through the discussion in this RFD thread and will attempt
to concisely summarise it here. I must point out that whilst I intend
for this summary to be objective and accurate, it is, clearly, based on
my interpretation of the debate and may not be definitive.
I will break the summary down into bullet-points, each examining a
particular topic, in no particular order.
1 - Effect of the moderated group on uk.radio.amateur. A concern was
raised that the creation of a moderated group would have an adverse
effect on the existing uk.radio.amateur. In particular, the fear was
voiced that the audience of uk.radio.amateur could be reduced, with some
current readers and posters abandoning the group altogether in favour of
the moderated group, particularly if the quality of debate to be found
there was consistently of a better quality than in the existing. Over
time, it was pointed out, this could have the effect of hastening the
death or decline of the existing group as the signal to noise ratio gets
ever lower. This was countered by pointing out that the RFD for the
moderated group includes no express or explicit proposals of change to
uk.radio.amateur and that it would remain for use by those who wish to
use it. It was also pointed out that any person would be at his own
liberty in deciding which group to use and could read the moderated
group if he felt that the content in uk.radio.amateur was no longer
sufficient.
2 - It was raised by some parties that the aims of the proposed group
could be achieved by employing adequate filtering techniques, such as
kill-files, watch-lists, use of regexs, and so on. It was responded that
to expect users to have to employ advanced filtering techniques in order
to make the group useable suggests that there are indeed profound issues
with the group. It was also suggested that, for a new user or a person
relatively unfamiliar with Usenet or newsreader software, such advanced
filtering presents a high barrier to entry and that many will simply
give up rather than invest the energy. It was suggested in return that
the effort required is minimal and that the filtering is straightforward
and effective. Another issue related to this is that several parties
said that their own employment of filtering is local to them, affecting
their experience only, as opposed to moderation affecting everybody who
uses the moderated group. It was suggested by some that the nature of
moderation amounts to censorship in this way, whereas their local use of
filtering does not. In response, it was pointed out that moderation is a
part of Usenet and, performed properly, merely enforces a charter rather
than performs censorship.
3 - The current state of uk.radio.amateur was discussed, with polarised
opinions. Some said that the group was in a terrible condition, a
�cess-pit�, others asserted that the group was in a perfectly useable
state. In particular, discussion often centred around end users of the
group employing filtering techniques (kill-file, watch-list, etc.) to
render the group sensible to use, although such filtering is not
(easily?) possible with Google Groups, the most likely resource a
newcomer to Usenet would be using. It was contended by some that
uk.radio.amateur contains a large volume of content that is heavily into
the sphere of abuse, with personal attacks and bigotry common.
Conversely, others pointed out that such can be easily removed from the
end users experience with filtering and that, behind the noise, there is
a seam of on-topic and gentlemanly conversation.
4 - A large volume of debate revolved around the question of what,
exactly, constitutes abuse, and what content precisely would the
putative moderated group seek to prohibit? Abusive comments and remarks
towards individuals (and to a lesser degree) organisations were
categorically outlawed by the proposed charter, and these could take the
form of direct insults, derogatory comments on a person's licence class,
job, family and so on, and in other ways to be determined at the
moderators' discretion. Baiting of others was proposed as being a
prohibited action, although discussion did occur questioning as to
whether a post without any abuse in it should be rejected, whether it is
a bait or not? This point was largely unresolved, but it was broadly
agreed that a non-abusive post that appears baiting could be allowed,
with abusive follow-ups (that have taken the bait) rejected, allowing
the thread to either continue in a proper and polite fashion or die on
the vine. Foul language was discussed at length, with the general
consensus appearing to be that swearing be permitted with only posts
rejected that veer into abuse. There was commentary regarding
�gratuitous swearing� and whether such should be rejected, but again,
this particular point remains unresolved. Another form of abuse that the
charter seeks to prohibit is that of 'crapfloods', broadly defined as a
stream of irrelevant, ridiculous/hysterical or off-topic posts occurring
over a short span of time. The group, uk.radio.amateur, in it's
unfiltered state, currently suffers from a near-daily bombardment of
nonsensical and highly malicious posts. It is proposed that such be
rejected and there was little contrary opinion to this.
5 - Criticism of the RSGB/amateur radio licensing scheme. Currently,
there are several regular posters to uk.radio.amateur who hold very
negative views against the RSGB and the current licensing scheme and air
these views in the group often and with great vehemence. Terms such as
�RSCB� or �Fool's Licence� are used by these posters, which some find
offensive and belittling and are prejudicial to reasoned debate. Others
argued that the use of such terms is not directed at any individuals and
is used to demonstrate the anger with which some harbour towards the
RSGB and current system. This point was largely unresolved between the
two extremes of viewpoint, but it was stated by the proposer that it
would be perfectly acceptable for criticism of the RSGB (or any matter)
to be posted in the moderated group, as long as it did not drift into
abuse.
6 - Name of the proposed group. The putative group is proposed to be
uk.radio.amateur.moderated. This format was chosen in-line with the name
of the existing uk.radio.amateur. It was pointed out that the UK.*
hierarchy naming conventions, in theory, prohibit this naming, although
one interpretation of the naming guidelines supports the proposed name
as it is desirable to group newsgroups together by similarity of topic
(http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroup.names.html). This did not meet with
universal support, with some contributors to the RFD arguing that the
naming guidelines should not be disregarded and that a better place for
the new group would be in uk.rec.*. It was countered that to do so would
place the new group alongside the CB radio group, a group with which
there is a much weaker thematic bond than with uk.radio.amateur.
7 - What is on/off-topic? Clearly, as per the charter, the new group is
intended for discussion of amateur radio, primarily in the UK but
globally also. Would the moderators be rejecting posts for being
off-topic? The suggestion was made by the proposer (and is in the draft
charter) that off-topic chat be permitted in the spirit of on-air
'rag-chews' that amateurs often conduct. It was asked if the moderators
would lock threads after a period of wholly off-topic posting or allow
them to continue indefinitely, to which the response was that if there
were no abuse, why lock the threads?
8 - Moderators. Who, what, where, when, why? Much debate, naturally,
revolved around the question of the moderators and their role. I will
break this down a little. The �Why?� has already been covered.
Firstly, Who will moderate? I, as proponent, will be amongst the first
moderators, and make a commitment to perform these duties indefinitely,
as required. Immediately, some parties questioned my intentions and
suggested that I was, perhaps, attempting to build a little empire. My
response was, of course, that my intentions are pure, which is about all
I can say on the matter. It was pointed out, though, that a proposal for
a moderated group with a single moderator is inherently weak. I
attempted to solicit volunteers from uk.radio.amateur, but there were no
credible candidates (one person volunteered, seemingly half-jokingly,
but on reflection I decided to not follow that up as said person has a
history of difficult behaviour). I made an offer of moderatorship to one
Brian Morrison, a regular poster at uk.radio.amateur, and am yet to hear
definitively either way from him. I was contacted by Paul W. Schleck
with a kind offer to act as a volunteer moderator for an initial
�bedding in� period for the group, with no strict timeline attached but
with the expectation that his commitment would likely be <12 months.
Paul has a long and varied Usenet history and currently serves as a
moderator for rec.radio.amateur.moderated, so I eagerly accepted his
offer and will value his mentorship. Paul also recruited Kathy Morgan to
act in the same role on similar terms (Kathy has not, yet, specified a
maximum length of commitment, but the understanding is that her
participation will not be permanent). Kathy is also a Usenet veteran,
serving on the Big8 Management Board currently and with a large
newsgroup moderation curriculum vitae. Again, I was very glad to accept
Kathy's kind offer. Going forward, it was discussed that it would be far
more attractive to recruit a pool of UK based moderators to manage the
group and part of this discussion included the notion that, eventually,
the established users of the putative group could nominate and vote each
other into the position. Likewise, it was discussed that the users could
also have the power to trigger a recall vote if the moderator(s) became
untenable by consensus in their positions. It is worth mentioning that
there was some meta-discussion regarding this, in particular, would
those who only read the group be included in the voting process or would
it be limited to those who post? Would it be fair to exclude readers?
All food for thought, this will be a nice ideal to aim for but perhaps
is not practical to deal with at this stage. It was pointed out that
there is an established RFD/CFV procedure that can deal with this, if
needed.
The question came up regarding the practical physicality of moderating,
namely, where will the moderation software be hosted? Ian Jackson kindly
volunteered to host the putative group on Chiark's server. Chiark is the
home to, amongst others, the moderated cycling newsgroup, so the
technology, to my untrained eye, seemed to be in place. There was a
vociferous negative response to this, though, from a selection of
individuals. Broadly, they said that to host the group on Ian's server
would be a fatal mistake, would be beset by technical flaws and would
align the putative group with a moderation regime that they find
abhorrent. Many said that this would lead them to down-vote the
proposal. I make no judgement on any of this as I simply am uninformed
about the situation regarding Ian and Chiark. Paul Schleck suggested
using Panix, a US based offering that currently hosts
rec.radio.amateur.moderated, amongst others, proving that the technology
is adaquete and with the added benefit that Paul, as moderator of rram,
is already familiar with it's workings. Paul offered to fully setup a
STUMP system on Panix should I decide to go with it. On balance, I have
decided that it is the best option to go with Panix, mainly due to
Paul's existing knowledge on it's operation. The only downside is that
there will be an annual cost of around $100, but I am happy enough to
meet that personally for a year or two until such time that I am able to
migrate the moderation to a (preferably free/cheaper) UK based solution.
In terms of managing the moderation on a day by day basis, many people
asked how this would be achieved. Would new posters be placed on
probation indefinitely/until they started posting �on message� was a
popular question, the answer to which being, broadly, no. Consensus
seemed to form around new posters being manually moderated for their
first few posts and, if their contributions have satisfied the
charter/modpol, they will then be added to whitelist and allowed to post
freely. This, to me, seemed the fairest and most sensible way of
operating. It was broadly agreed that should a whitelisted poster start
to post abuse or otherwise act in contravention of the modpol, then they
risk being placed on manual moderation again, all standard practice for
moderated groups it seems.
A much more contentious issue was surrounding how the moderation would
be enacted, what would be moderated out? The charter seeks to prohibit
abuse, as above, and the moderation policy will outline how such will be
achieved. My stated desire is that these documents and policies are both
unambiguous and comprehensive, and it will be a good balancing act to
achieve this goal. By this I mean that the policies should be simple and
easy for all to follow. This led my input into the debate and seemed to
form a pretty good consensus, in principle. Primarily, this was
expressed by many people voicing the opinion that moderation should be
strictly performed on content only, not on the contributor. If a post
contains abuse or otherwise is outwith the charter/modpol, then it
should be rejected, if it doesn't then it should be posted. If a
contributor makes a series of posts that are rejected, the first that he
makes that is not in contravention should be posted with no prejudice
applied. There was the suggestion that a moderator could use their
discretion to determine if a poster was acting in bad faith, but again,
the overall consensus was that if the post is without abuse then it
should be posted. It was discussed that if a moderator is able to
determine that a poster is blatantly abusing the system by subtly hiding
abuse within a post then the moderator could/should make a decision, but
this would be expected to be a rare intervention. It was suggested that
there could be a set of �trigger words� that would flag a contribution
from a whitelisted poster for manual moderation. The case of
uk.rec.cycling.moderated was often referred to as a failure of
moderation. Many contributors voiced deep suspicion with moderation as a
whole and pointed to the cycling group as proof positive that it is a
doomed endeavour. Equally, many people pointed to uk.legal.moderated as
representing the gold standard in moderated newsgroups. Clearly, it
would be wise to observe how the legal group is operated and follow that
lead, and the consensus in the debate was such. A final major point was
to do with retromoderation and changing the content of submitted posts
prior to authorizing them. Clearly, this is unacceptable and is not
permitted within UK.* and the consensus was unanimous that a post should
either be rejected or approved, never edited.
9 - The final point that I will summarise is a simple one. Why waste the
effort on a Usenet newsgroup? Quite a few people suggested that the idea
of making a moderated newsgroup for a relatively niche interest is a
folly. Many said that Usenet is a dying medium and that the same can be
(and is) achieved using web based services. My response to this was,
broadly, Usenet may be in a diminished state but there remains a
hardcore of users. The existing group, uk.radio.amateur, has a quite
large pool of regular posters so one could argue that there is certainly
an audience. Indeed, there were quite a few positive responses from
radio amateurs expressing an interest in using the putative moderated
group. With regard to web based services, there are many already,
fractured and disorganized and often with a small or non-existent
take-up. A Usenet group would be available to all, in one place. It
would also be a public concern, archived for posterity by Google and
others. When dealing with a web based service, Yahoo, say, there is
always the inherent possibility that the owner could, at any time,
switch it off and junk the history of discussion. This is not possible
with Usenet. These views were met with a small amount of positive and
negative response, but nothing hugely controversial.
To wrap this summary up, I will include a list of posters (with message
IDs) who expressed either support or disapproval for the proposal. Some
explicitly said �Yes! Great idea!�, while others explicitly said �No,
this is terrible!�. I have also included posters, in both camps, who
have not explicitly made such a statement but have generally been either
supportive or against. If I have misrepresented anybody here, my
apologies.
For
JP Gilliver - pN3KuGJn...@soft255.demon.co.uk
Mike Tomlinson - kBTx3OCP...@jasper.org.uk
Huge - aqgqmu...@mid.individual.net
URA Monitor - almarsoft.7488...@news.aioe.org
Mick 5144d7ac$0$52098$c3e8da3$5d8f...@news.astraweb.com
Mark Goodge b017k81l2mqpukctt...@news.markshouse.net
Ian Jackson (Chiark) hIC*05...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk
Dr Zoidberg khva49$cak$1...@dont-email.me
John Benn khv69o$n78$1...@dont-email.me
LordGnome Q5A3t.180252$Q01.1...@fx13.fr7
Ian Jackson (Demon) g54tVHGg...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk
Steve Firth
822783156385053562.520524%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
Mike Tomlinson Do8zeUAf...@jasper.org.uk
Crn ki4sfu$48i$1...@news.albasani.net
Against
Steve Eldridge - Sq07t.384281$zx2....@fx29.fr7
MM3QRO/MM - xn0ifyps1...@news.albasani.net
Brian (as drafted) 2ci9k8ded6mv6eijn...@4ax.com
Fred Roberts 99%0t.133216$Nd1....@fx30.fr7
Paul Cummins memo.2013032...@postmaster.cix.co.uk
Spike aqgpjs...@mid.individual.net
Hils kimk6q$59k$1...@speranza.aioe.org
Percy Picacity 6ds08i....@news.alt.net
Brian Morrison 20130315133...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk
RipeCrisbie khv3j5$96u$1...@dont-email.me
--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
Remove the obvious to email me - REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com
-------------------
this. It's been a hectic few weeks at Cole Castle, a heady combination
of work, family, health, studying for my intermediate radio license and
exam (passed!) and learning to drive (test next week!) combined to
completely derail my mental condition... As a consequence, writing a
several thousand word essay on this proposal kept getting moved to the
bottom of my agenda. The upshot of this is, though, that all parties
have had plenty of time to digest the debate and tempers have been
allowed to cool.
But I've finished it! It's just a simple summary of all that went on in
the mega-thread of the 1st RFD. Strictly my take on things, so you may
disagree with much or all of it. I've tried to be objective and have
done my best to be fair. RFD2 is in production and will follow shortly...
Enjoy!
---Summary of Discussion---
I have combed through the discussion in this RFD thread and will attempt
to concisely summarise it here. I must point out that whilst I intend
for this summary to be objective and accurate, it is, clearly, based on
my interpretation of the debate and may not be definitive.
I will break the summary down into bullet-points, each examining a
particular topic, in no particular order.
1 - Effect of the moderated group on uk.radio.amateur. A concern was
raised that the creation of a moderated group would have an adverse
effect on the existing uk.radio.amateur. In particular, the fear was
voiced that the audience of uk.radio.amateur could be reduced, with some
current readers and posters abandoning the group altogether in favour of
the moderated group, particularly if the quality of debate to be found
there was consistently of a better quality than in the existing. Over
time, it was pointed out, this could have the effect of hastening the
death or decline of the existing group as the signal to noise ratio gets
ever lower. This was countered by pointing out that the RFD for the
moderated group includes no express or explicit proposals of change to
uk.radio.amateur and that it would remain for use by those who wish to
use it. It was also pointed out that any person would be at his own
liberty in deciding which group to use and could read the moderated
group if he felt that the content in uk.radio.amateur was no longer
sufficient.
2 - It was raised by some parties that the aims of the proposed group
could be achieved by employing adequate filtering techniques, such as
kill-files, watch-lists, use of regexs, and so on. It was responded that
to expect users to have to employ advanced filtering techniques in order
to make the group useable suggests that there are indeed profound issues
with the group. It was also suggested that, for a new user or a person
relatively unfamiliar with Usenet or newsreader software, such advanced
filtering presents a high barrier to entry and that many will simply
give up rather than invest the energy. It was suggested in return that
the effort required is minimal and that the filtering is straightforward
and effective. Another issue related to this is that several parties
said that their own employment of filtering is local to them, affecting
their experience only, as opposed to moderation affecting everybody who
uses the moderated group. It was suggested by some that the nature of
moderation amounts to censorship in this way, whereas their local use of
filtering does not. In response, it was pointed out that moderation is a
part of Usenet and, performed properly, merely enforces a charter rather
than performs censorship.
3 - The current state of uk.radio.amateur was discussed, with polarised
opinions. Some said that the group was in a terrible condition, a
�cess-pit�, others asserted that the group was in a perfectly useable
state. In particular, discussion often centred around end users of the
group employing filtering techniques (kill-file, watch-list, etc.) to
render the group sensible to use, although such filtering is not
(easily?) possible with Google Groups, the most likely resource a
newcomer to Usenet would be using. It was contended by some that
uk.radio.amateur contains a large volume of content that is heavily into
the sphere of abuse, with personal attacks and bigotry common.
Conversely, others pointed out that such can be easily removed from the
end users experience with filtering and that, behind the noise, there is
a seam of on-topic and gentlemanly conversation.
4 - A large volume of debate revolved around the question of what,
exactly, constitutes abuse, and what content precisely would the
putative moderated group seek to prohibit? Abusive comments and remarks
towards individuals (and to a lesser degree) organisations were
categorically outlawed by the proposed charter, and these could take the
form of direct insults, derogatory comments on a person's licence class,
job, family and so on, and in other ways to be determined at the
moderators' discretion. Baiting of others was proposed as being a
prohibited action, although discussion did occur questioning as to
whether a post without any abuse in it should be rejected, whether it is
a bait or not? This point was largely unresolved, but it was broadly
agreed that a non-abusive post that appears baiting could be allowed,
with abusive follow-ups (that have taken the bait) rejected, allowing
the thread to either continue in a proper and polite fashion or die on
the vine. Foul language was discussed at length, with the general
consensus appearing to be that swearing be permitted with only posts
rejected that veer into abuse. There was commentary regarding
�gratuitous swearing� and whether such should be rejected, but again,
this particular point remains unresolved. Another form of abuse that the
charter seeks to prohibit is that of 'crapfloods', broadly defined as a
stream of irrelevant, ridiculous/hysterical or off-topic posts occurring
over a short span of time. The group, uk.radio.amateur, in it's
unfiltered state, currently suffers from a near-daily bombardment of
nonsensical and highly malicious posts. It is proposed that such be
rejected and there was little contrary opinion to this.
5 - Criticism of the RSGB/amateur radio licensing scheme. Currently,
there are several regular posters to uk.radio.amateur who hold very
negative views against the RSGB and the current licensing scheme and air
these views in the group often and with great vehemence. Terms such as
�RSCB� or �Fool's Licence� are used by these posters, which some find
offensive and belittling and are prejudicial to reasoned debate. Others
argued that the use of such terms is not directed at any individuals and
is used to demonstrate the anger with which some harbour towards the
RSGB and current system. This point was largely unresolved between the
two extremes of viewpoint, but it was stated by the proposer that it
would be perfectly acceptable for criticism of the RSGB (or any matter)
to be posted in the moderated group, as long as it did not drift into
abuse.
6 - Name of the proposed group. The putative group is proposed to be
uk.radio.amateur.moderated. This format was chosen in-line with the name
of the existing uk.radio.amateur. It was pointed out that the UK.*
hierarchy naming conventions, in theory, prohibit this naming, although
one interpretation of the naming guidelines supports the proposed name
as it is desirable to group newsgroups together by similarity of topic
(http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroup.names.html). This did not meet with
universal support, with some contributors to the RFD arguing that the
naming guidelines should not be disregarded and that a better place for
the new group would be in uk.rec.*. It was countered that to do so would
place the new group alongside the CB radio group, a group with which
there is a much weaker thematic bond than with uk.radio.amateur.
7 - What is on/off-topic? Clearly, as per the charter, the new group is
intended for discussion of amateur radio, primarily in the UK but
globally also. Would the moderators be rejecting posts for being
off-topic? The suggestion was made by the proposer (and is in the draft
charter) that off-topic chat be permitted in the spirit of on-air
'rag-chews' that amateurs often conduct. It was asked if the moderators
would lock threads after a period of wholly off-topic posting or allow
them to continue indefinitely, to which the response was that if there
were no abuse, why lock the threads?
8 - Moderators. Who, what, where, when, why? Much debate, naturally,
revolved around the question of the moderators and their role. I will
break this down a little. The �Why?� has already been covered.
Firstly, Who will moderate? I, as proponent, will be amongst the first
moderators, and make a commitment to perform these duties indefinitely,
as required. Immediately, some parties questioned my intentions and
suggested that I was, perhaps, attempting to build a little empire. My
response was, of course, that my intentions are pure, which is about all
I can say on the matter. It was pointed out, though, that a proposal for
a moderated group with a single moderator is inherently weak. I
attempted to solicit volunteers from uk.radio.amateur, but there were no
credible candidates (one person volunteered, seemingly half-jokingly,
but on reflection I decided to not follow that up as said person has a
history of difficult behaviour). I made an offer of moderatorship to one
Brian Morrison, a regular poster at uk.radio.amateur, and am yet to hear
definitively either way from him. I was contacted by Paul W. Schleck
with a kind offer to act as a volunteer moderator for an initial
�bedding in� period for the group, with no strict timeline attached but
with the expectation that his commitment would likely be <12 months.
Paul has a long and varied Usenet history and currently serves as a
moderator for rec.radio.amateur.moderated, so I eagerly accepted his
offer and will value his mentorship. Paul also recruited Kathy Morgan to
act in the same role on similar terms (Kathy has not, yet, specified a
maximum length of commitment, but the understanding is that her
participation will not be permanent). Kathy is also a Usenet veteran,
serving on the Big8 Management Board currently and with a large
newsgroup moderation curriculum vitae. Again, I was very glad to accept
Kathy's kind offer. Going forward, it was discussed that it would be far
more attractive to recruit a pool of UK based moderators to manage the
group and part of this discussion included the notion that, eventually,
the established users of the putative group could nominate and vote each
other into the position. Likewise, it was discussed that the users could
also have the power to trigger a recall vote if the moderator(s) became
untenable by consensus in their positions. It is worth mentioning that
there was some meta-discussion regarding this, in particular, would
those who only read the group be included in the voting process or would
it be limited to those who post? Would it be fair to exclude readers?
All food for thought, this will be a nice ideal to aim for but perhaps
is not practical to deal with at this stage. It was pointed out that
there is an established RFD/CFV procedure that can deal with this, if
needed.
The question came up regarding the practical physicality of moderating,
namely, where will the moderation software be hosted? Ian Jackson kindly
volunteered to host the putative group on Chiark's server. Chiark is the
home to, amongst others, the moderated cycling newsgroup, so the
technology, to my untrained eye, seemed to be in place. There was a
vociferous negative response to this, though, from a selection of
individuals. Broadly, they said that to host the group on Ian's server
would be a fatal mistake, would be beset by technical flaws and would
align the putative group with a moderation regime that they find
abhorrent. Many said that this would lead them to down-vote the
proposal. I make no judgement on any of this as I simply am uninformed
about the situation regarding Ian and Chiark. Paul Schleck suggested
using Panix, a US based offering that currently hosts
rec.radio.amateur.moderated, amongst others, proving that the technology
is adaquete and with the added benefit that Paul, as moderator of rram,
is already familiar with it's workings. Paul offered to fully setup a
STUMP system on Panix should I decide to go with it. On balance, I have
decided that it is the best option to go with Panix, mainly due to
Paul's existing knowledge on it's operation. The only downside is that
there will be an annual cost of around $100, but I am happy enough to
meet that personally for a year or two until such time that I am able to
migrate the moderation to a (preferably free/cheaper) UK based solution.
In terms of managing the moderation on a day by day basis, many people
asked how this would be achieved. Would new posters be placed on
probation indefinitely/until they started posting �on message� was a
popular question, the answer to which being, broadly, no. Consensus
seemed to form around new posters being manually moderated for their
first few posts and, if their contributions have satisfied the
charter/modpol, they will then be added to whitelist and allowed to post
freely. This, to me, seemed the fairest and most sensible way of
operating. It was broadly agreed that should a whitelisted poster start
to post abuse or otherwise act in contravention of the modpol, then they
risk being placed on manual moderation again, all standard practice for
moderated groups it seems.
A much more contentious issue was surrounding how the moderation would
be enacted, what would be moderated out? The charter seeks to prohibit
abuse, as above, and the moderation policy will outline how such will be
achieved. My stated desire is that these documents and policies are both
unambiguous and comprehensive, and it will be a good balancing act to
achieve this goal. By this I mean that the policies should be simple and
easy for all to follow. This led my input into the debate and seemed to
form a pretty good consensus, in principle. Primarily, this was
expressed by many people voicing the opinion that moderation should be
strictly performed on content only, not on the contributor. If a post
contains abuse or otherwise is outwith the charter/modpol, then it
should be rejected, if it doesn't then it should be posted. If a
contributor makes a series of posts that are rejected, the first that he
makes that is not in contravention should be posted with no prejudice
applied. There was the suggestion that a moderator could use their
discretion to determine if a poster was acting in bad faith, but again,
the overall consensus was that if the post is without abuse then it
should be posted. It was discussed that if a moderator is able to
determine that a poster is blatantly abusing the system by subtly hiding
abuse within a post then the moderator could/should make a decision, but
this would be expected to be a rare intervention. It was suggested that
there could be a set of �trigger words� that would flag a contribution
from a whitelisted poster for manual moderation. The case of
uk.rec.cycling.moderated was often referred to as a failure of
moderation. Many contributors voiced deep suspicion with moderation as a
whole and pointed to the cycling group as proof positive that it is a
doomed endeavour. Equally, many people pointed to uk.legal.moderated as
representing the gold standard in moderated newsgroups. Clearly, it
would be wise to observe how the legal group is operated and follow that
lead, and the consensus in the debate was such. A final major point was
to do with retromoderation and changing the content of submitted posts
prior to authorizing them. Clearly, this is unacceptable and is not
permitted within UK.* and the consensus was unanimous that a post should
either be rejected or approved, never edited.
9 - The final point that I will summarise is a simple one. Why waste the
effort on a Usenet newsgroup? Quite a few people suggested that the idea
of making a moderated newsgroup for a relatively niche interest is a
folly. Many said that Usenet is a dying medium and that the same can be
(and is) achieved using web based services. My response to this was,
broadly, Usenet may be in a diminished state but there remains a
hardcore of users. The existing group, uk.radio.amateur, has a quite
large pool of regular posters so one could argue that there is certainly
an audience. Indeed, there were quite a few positive responses from
radio amateurs expressing an interest in using the putative moderated
group. With regard to web based services, there are many already,
fractured and disorganized and often with a small or non-existent
take-up. A Usenet group would be available to all, in one place. It
would also be a public concern, archived for posterity by Google and
others. When dealing with a web based service, Yahoo, say, there is
always the inherent possibility that the owner could, at any time,
switch it off and junk the history of discussion. This is not possible
with Usenet. These views were met with a small amount of positive and
negative response, but nothing hugely controversial.
To wrap this summary up, I will include a list of posters (with message
IDs) who expressed either support or disapproval for the proposal. Some
explicitly said �Yes! Great idea!�, while others explicitly said �No,
this is terrible!�. I have also included posters, in both camps, who
have not explicitly made such a statement but have generally been either
supportive or against. If I have misrepresented anybody here, my
apologies.
For
JP Gilliver - pN3KuGJn...@soft255.demon.co.uk
Mike Tomlinson - kBTx3OCP...@jasper.org.uk
Huge - aqgqmu...@mid.individual.net
URA Monitor - almarsoft.7488...@news.aioe.org
Mick 5144d7ac$0$52098$c3e8da3$5d8f...@news.astraweb.com
Mark Goodge b017k81l2mqpukctt...@news.markshouse.net
Ian Jackson (Chiark) hIC*05...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk
Dr Zoidberg khva49$cak$1...@dont-email.me
John Benn khv69o$n78$1...@dont-email.me
LordGnome Q5A3t.180252$Q01.1...@fx13.fr7
Ian Jackson (Demon) g54tVHGg...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk
Steve Firth
822783156385053562.520524%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
Mike Tomlinson Do8zeUAf...@jasper.org.uk
Crn ki4sfu$48i$1...@news.albasani.net
Against
Steve Eldridge - Sq07t.384281$zx2....@fx29.fr7
MM3QRO/MM - xn0ifyps1...@news.albasani.net
Brian (as drafted) 2ci9k8ded6mv6eijn...@4ax.com
Fred Roberts 99%0t.133216$Nd1....@fx30.fr7
Paul Cummins memo.2013032...@postmaster.cix.co.uk
Spike aqgpjs...@mid.individual.net
Hils kimk6q$59k$1...@speranza.aioe.org
Percy Picacity 6ds08i....@news.alt.net
Brian Morrison 20130315133...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk
RipeCrisbie khv3j5$96u$1...@dont-email.me
--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
Remove the obvious to email me - REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com
-------------------
John Benn
May 1, 2013, 5:18:53 AM5/1/13
to
"Stephen Thomas Cole" <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:REMOVEsteve.t.cole-F...@news.virginmedia.com...
> Hello folks. My sincere apologies for the long break before posting
> this. It's been a hectic few weeks at Cole Castle, a heady combination
> of work, family, health, studying for my intermediate radio license and
> exam (passed!) and learning to drive (test next week!) combined to
> completely derail my mental condition... As a consequence, writing a
> several thousand word essay on this proposal kept getting moved to the
> bottom of my agenda. The upshot of this is, though, that all parties
> have had plenty of time to digest the debate and tempers have been
> allowed to cool.
>
> But I've finished it! It's just a simple summary of all that went on in
> the mega-thread of the 1st RFD. Strictly my take on things, so you may
> disagree with much or all of it. I've tried to be objective and have
> done my best to be fair. RFD2 is in production and will follow shortly...
>
> Enjoy!
>
> ---Summary of Discussion---
<snipped>
> this. It's been a hectic few weeks at Cole Castle, a heady combination
> of work, family, health, studying for my intermediate radio license and
> exam (passed!) and learning to drive (test next week!) combined to
> completely derail my mental condition... As a consequence, writing a
> several thousand word essay on this proposal kept getting moved to the
> bottom of my agenda. The upshot of this is, though, that all parties
> have had plenty of time to digest the debate and tempers have been
> allowed to cool.
>
> But I've finished it! It's just a simple summary of all that went on in
> the mega-thread of the 1st RFD. Strictly my take on things, so you may
> disagree with much or all of it. I've tried to be objective and have
> done my best to be fair. RFD2 is in production and will follow shortly...
>
> Enjoy!
>
> ---Summary of Discussion---
Thanks Stephen for your effort, it is much appreciated.
Paul Cummins
May 1, 2013, 5:43:00 AM5/1/13
to
In article <klqmfl$sjs$1...@dont-email.me>, mrbenn...@yahoo.com (John
I would suggest that with such balanced polarisation, it's never going to
pass though...
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
Benn) wrote:
> Thanks Stephen for your effort, it is much appreciated.
It seems a fair summary of discussion.
> Thanks Stephen for your effort, it is much appreciated.
I would suggest that with such balanced polarisation, it's never going to
pass though...
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 1, 2013, 5:46:09 AM5/1/13
to
In article <klqmfl$sjs$1...@dont-email.me>, "John Benn"
No problems John. It has been a pleasure, strangely enough! ;-)
--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
Remove the obvious to send e-mail: REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com
-------------------
No problems John. It has been a pleasure, strangely enough! ;-)
--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
-------------------
Message has been deleted
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 1, 2013, 5:49:26 AM5/1/13
to
In article <memo.2013050...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
Usenet....@gstgroup.co.uk wrote:
> In article <klqmfl$sjs$1...@dont-email.me>, mrbenn...@yahoo.com (John
> Benn) wrote:
>
> > Thanks Stephen for your effort, it is much appreciated.
>
> It seems a fair summary of discussion.
>
> I would suggest that with such balanced polarisation, it's never going to
> pass though...
Maybe not. But without at least trying, it'd never happen anyway!
> In article <klqmfl$sjs$1...@dont-email.me>, mrbenn...@yahoo.com (John
> Benn) wrote:
>
> > Thanks Stephen for your effort, it is much appreciated.
>
> It seems a fair summary of discussion.
>
> I would suggest that with such balanced polarisation, it's never going to
> pass though...
Steve Firth
May 1, 2013, 7:11:03 AM5/1/13
to
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> Hear, hear.
What he said. Clearly a lot of work went into that summary.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
What he said. Clearly a lot of work went into that summary.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Lordgnome
May 1, 2013, 11:31:25 AM5/1/13
to
Les. (MW0SEC).
John
May 1, 2013, 1:06:17 PM5/1/13
to
"John Benn" wrote
>> Hello folks. My sincere apologies for the long break before posting
>> this. It's been a hectic few weeks at Cole Castle, a heady combination
>> of work, family, health, studying for my intermediate radio license and
>> exam (passed!) and learning to drive (test next week!) combined to
>> completely derail my mental condition... As a consequence, writing a
>> several thousand word essay on this proposal kept getting moved to the
>> bottom of my agenda. The upshot of this is, though, that all parties
>> have had plenty of time to digest the debate and tempers have been
>> allowed to cool.
>>
>> But I've finished it! It's just a simple summary of all that went on in
>> the mega-thread of the 1st RFD. Strictly my take on things, so you may
>> disagree with much or all of it. I've tried to be objective and have
>> done my best to be fair. RFD2 is in production and will follow shortly...
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> ---Summary of Discussion---
>
> <snipped>
>
> Thanks Stephen for your effort, it is much appreciated.
Paul Cummins
May 1, 2013, 2:02:00 PM5/1/13
to
In article <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>,
I disagree with what you are doing, and why you are doing it, but agree
with the sentiment of others, that you are doing it well.
I am a regular in uk.r.a, and have no issue with most of the crap-floods.
I think Moderation is not necessary, and would cause more problems than
it solves.
However, I would use the froup if it existed, provided it wasn;t
chiarkian.
REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
> Maybe not. But without at least trying, it'd never happen anyway!
True.
> Maybe not. But without at least trying, it'd never happen anyway!
I disagree with what you are doing, and why you are doing it, but agree
with the sentiment of others, that you are doing it well.
I am a regular in uk.r.a, and have no issue with most of the crap-floods.
I think Moderation is not necessary, and would cause more problems than
it solves.
However, I would use the froup if it existed, provided it wasn;t
chiarkian.
MM3QRO/MM
May 1, 2013, 4:56:56 PM5/1/13
to
Steve Firth wrote:
>
> What he said. Clearly a lot of work went into that summary.
Apparently 'someone' forgot to mention the bit where 'someone'
>
> What he said. Clearly a lot of work went into that summary.
announced that he had looked forward to the day when those
who have been licensed a long time were dead and gone.
The same people who have kept amateur radio alive and going
while 'someone' wasnt even born.
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 1, 2013, 5:02:40 PM5/1/13
to
in the way it would have been completed a good couple weeks ago
--
Stephen Thomas Cole - Sent from my iPhone so please forgive any spelling
mistakes or botched snipping.
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 1, 2013, 5:02:41 PM5/1/13
to
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 1, 2013, 5:02:41 PM5/1/13
to
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 1, 2013, 5:02:42 PM5/1/13
to
it didn't happen in the RFD thread.
And that's not to mention that it didn't happen anything like you're trying
to portray it did.
The mind boggles sometimes...
Judith
May 1, 2013, 5:48:01 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 1 May 2013 20:56:56 +0000 (UTC), "MM3QRO/MM" <mm3...@yjahoo.com> wrote:
>Steve Firth wrote:
>
>>
>> What he said. Clearly a lot of work went into that summary.
>
>Apparently 'someone' forgot to mention the bit where 'someone'
>announced that he had looked forward to the day when those
>who have been licensed a long time were dead and gone.
I missed that in the RFD discussion - do you have a pointer to the specific
>Steve Firth wrote:
>
>>
>> What he said. Clearly a lot of work went into that summary.
>
>Apparently 'someone' forgot to mention the bit where 'someone'
>announced that he had looked forward to the day when those
>who have been licensed a long time were dead and gone.
post please.
Mike Tomlinson
May 1, 2013, 11:22:52 PM5/1/13
to
En el art�culo <klqmfl$sjs$1...@dont-email.me>, John Benn
<mrbenn...@yahoo.com> escribi�:
>Thanks Stephen for your effort, it is much appreciated.
+1. Skimmed it but going back for a closer read.
Steve: you've included me twice in the 'For' list.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
<mrbenn...@yahoo.com> escribi�:
>Thanks Stephen for your effort, it is much appreciated.
Steve: you've included me twice in the 'For' list.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 2, 2013, 5:10:23 AM5/2/13
to
In article <UbJGC9CM...@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson
<mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> En el artículo <klqmfl$sjs$1...@dont-email.me>, John Benn
> <mrbenn...@yahoo.com> escribió:
:-/
--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
Remove the obvious to send e-mail: REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com
-------------------
<mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> En el artículo <klqmfl$sjs$1...@dont-email.me>, John Benn
> <mrbenn...@yahoo.com> escribió:
>
> >Thanks Stephen for your effort, it is much appreciated.
>
> +1. Skimmed it but going back for a closer read.
>
> Steve: you've included me twice in the 'For' list.
So I did! My bad!
> >Thanks Stephen for your effort, it is much appreciated.
>
> +1. Skimmed it but going back for a closer read.
>
> Steve: you've included me twice in the 'For' list.
:-/
--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
-------------------
Molly Mockford
May 2, 2013, 7:40:37 AM5/2/13
to
At 10:10:23 on Thu, 2 May 2013, Stephen Thomas Cole
<REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
<REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>:
>In article <UbJGC9CM...@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson
><mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
>> Steve: you've included me twice in the 'For' list.
>
>So I did! My bad!
IRTA "My dad", and thought that was a bit of a stretch to lay the blame
on him!
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
<REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
<REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>:
>In article <UbJGC9CM...@jasper.org.uk>, Mike Tomlinson
><mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
>> Steve: you've included me twice in the 'For' list.
>
>So I did! My bad!
on him!
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Mike Tomlinson
May 2, 2013, 6:49:30 PM5/2/13
to
En el art�culo <RHQf8hm1...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> escribi�:
>IRTA "My dad", and thought that was a bit of a stretch to lay the blame
>on him!
I'm far too young to have bred offspring :-)
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> escribi�:
>IRTA "My dad", and thought that was a bit of a stretch to lay the blame
>on him!
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
May 3, 2013, 7:54:48 AM5/3/13
to
On 02/05/13 23:49, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> En el art�culo <RHQf8hm1...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
> <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> escribi�:
>
>> IRTA "My dad", and thought that was a bit of a stretch to lay the blame
>> on him!
>
> I'm far too young to have bred offspring :-)
>
I wish I could say the same.
> En el art�culo <RHQf8hm1...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
> <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> escribi�:
>
>> IRTA "My dad", and thought that was a bit of a stretch to lay the blame
>> on him!
>
> I'm far too young to have bred offspring :-)
>
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.co.uk
.
Ubuntu 12.04
Thunderbirds are go.
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 3, 2013, 9:06:33 AM5/3/13
to
Stephen Thomas Cole <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
> Hello folks. <snip>
I'm pleased with the tone of feedback to this, thanks all! Given that
there's been no major dissent, would I be safe to assume that everyone is
happy with this and I'm safe to fold it all into the 2nd RFD? Speak now or
forever hold your peace!
> Hello folks. <snip>
I'm pleased with the tone of feedback to this, thanks all! Given that
there's been no major dissent, would I be safe to assume that everyone is
happy with this and I'm safe to fold it all into the 2nd RFD? Speak now or
forever hold your peace!
Ian Jackson
May 3, 2013, 10:38:43 AM5/3/13
to
In message
<624860472389279175.113088REMO...@news.eternal
-september.org>, Stephen Thomas Cole
<REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> writes
uk.legal and uk.legal.moderated can co-exist, then so can uk.r.a and
uk.r.a.m.
--
Ian
<624860472389279175.113088REMO...@news.eternal
-september.org>, Stephen Thomas Cole
<REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> writes
>Stephen Thomas Cole <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello folks. <snip>
>
>I'm pleased with the tone of feedback to this, thanks all! Given that
>there's been no major dissent, would I be safe to assume that everyone is
>happy with this and I'm safe to fold it all into the 2nd RFD? Speak now or
>forever hold your peace!
>
I'm in favour of it - although I certainly won't be deserting uk.r.a. If
>> Hello folks. <snip>
>
>I'm pleased with the tone of feedback to this, thanks all! Given that
>there's been no major dissent, would I be safe to assume that everyone is
>happy with this and I'm safe to fold it all into the 2nd RFD? Speak now or
>forever hold your peace!
>
uk.legal and uk.legal.moderated can co-exist, then so can uk.r.a and
uk.r.a.m.
--
Ian
Mike Tomlinson
May 3, 2013, 11:52:49 AM5/3/13
to
En el artículo <dYvytmAz...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> escribió:
>I'm in favour of it - although I certainly won't be deserting uk.r.a. If
>uk.legal and uk.legal.moderated can co-exist, then so can uk.r.a and
>uk.r.a.m.
Agreed. This was a common theme of the previous RFD - that uk.ram would
be in addition to, not replacing, uk.ra.
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> escribió:
>I'm in favour of it - although I certainly won't be deserting uk.r.a. If
>uk.legal and uk.legal.moderated can co-exist, then so can uk.r.a and
>uk.r.a.m.
be in addition to, not replacing, uk.ra.
Message has been deleted
Brian Reay
May 4, 2013, 11:27:27 AM5/4/13
to
Llymru <lly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> section of the RSGB, either (and that was my favourite bit);-)
>
> Thanks for your efforts, Steve
As Paul knows all too well, it is his confederates who wish people dead (eg
via a stroke)
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 20:56:56 +0000, MM3QRO/MM wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What he said. Clearly a lot of work went into that summary.
>>
>> Apparently 'someone' forgot to mention the bit where 'someone' announced
>> that he had looked forward to the day when those who have been licensed
>> a long time were dead and gone.
>
> No mention of the theory that Steve is being manipulated by the black-ops
>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What he said. Clearly a lot of work went into that summary.
>>
>> Apparently 'someone' forgot to mention the bit where 'someone' announced
>> that he had looked forward to the day when those who have been licensed
>> a long time were dead and gone.
>
> section of the RSGB, either (and that was my favourite bit);-)
>
> Thanks for your efforts, Steve
As Paul knows all too well, it is his confederates who wish people dead (eg
via a stroke)
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 10, 2013, 11:32:41 AM5/10/13
to
In article <Lo6dnbIxwrRhlRjM...@giganews.com>, Llymru
many conspiracy theories. They live on in our memories, though!
> > Steve Firth wrote:
> >
> >
> >> What he said. Clearly a lot of work went into that summary.
> >
> > Apparently 'someone' forgot to mention the bit where 'someone' announced
> > that he had looked forward to the day when those who have been licensed
> > a long time were dead and gone.
>
> >
> >
> >> What he said. Clearly a lot of work went into that summary.
> >
> > Apparently 'someone' forgot to mention the bit where 'someone' announced
> > that he had looked forward to the day when those who have been licensed
> > a long time were dead and gone.
>
> No mention of the theory that Steve is being manipulated by the black-ops
> section of the RSGB, either (and that was my favourite bit);-)
>
> Thanks for your efforts, Steve
I did make a concious decision to not reproduce the most absurd of the
> section of the RSGB, either (and that was my favourite bit);-)
>
> Thanks for your efforts, Steve
many conspiracy theories. They live on in our memories, though!
c...@nospam.netunix.com
May 17, 2013, 8:59:41 AM5/17/13
to
Stephen Thomas Cole <REMOVEste...@removegmail.com> wrote:
>
> ---Summary of Discussion---
>
> I have combed through the discussion in this RFD thread and will attempt
> to concisely summarise it here. I must point out that whilst I intend
> for this summary to be objective and accurate, it is, clearly, based on
> my interpretation of the debate and may not be definitive.
> I will break the summary down into bullet-points, each examining a
> particular topic, in no particular order.
>
The fighting has stopped - time for a CFV.
>
> ---Summary of Discussion---
>
> I have combed through the discussion in this RFD thread and will attempt
> to concisely summarise it here. I must point out that whilst I intend
> for this summary to be objective and accurate, it is, clearly, based on
> my interpretation of the debate and may not be definitive.
> I will break the summary down into bullet-points, each examining a
> particular topic, in no particular order.
>
The fighting has stopped - time for a CFV.
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 17, 2013, 12:25:59 PM5/17/13
to
Tony
May 17, 2013, 12:45:54 PM5/17/13
to
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Paul W. Schleck
Jun 2, 2013, 8:34:49 AM6/2/13
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In <REMOVEsteve.t.cole-F...@news.virginmedia.com> Stephen Thomas Cole <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> writes:
[...]
>5 - Criticism of the RSGB/amateur radio licensing scheme. Currently,
>there are several regular posters to uk.radio.amateur who hold very
>negative views against the RSGB and the current licensing scheme and air
>these views in the group often and with great vehemence. Terms such as
>³RSCB² or ³Fool's Licence² are used by these posters, which some find
>offensive and belittling and are prejudicial to reasoned debate. Others
>argued that the use of such terms is not directed at any individuals and
>is used to demonstrate the anger with which some harbour towards the
>RSGB and current system. This point was largely unresolved between the
>two extremes of viewpoint, but it was stated by the proposer that it
>would be perfectly acceptable for criticism of the RSGB (or any matter)
>to be posted in the moderated group, as long as it did not drift into
>abuse.
[...]
Someone earlier asked me about British humor. I don't know if there is
an equivalent to Beavis and Butthead in the UK, but Beavis and Butthead
are an example of sophomoric individuals who get wrapped around the axle
by "dirty words". For example, they can't get through a sex education
class without collapsing into laughter at every mention of either the
medically correct or street names for various body parts, and hence get
sent to the principal's office. Don't ask them to explain their
motivations on an intellectual level, because there aren't any at that
level.
Repetitive use of catch-phrases like "RSCB" and "Fool's License" are,
IMHO, lazy, ad-hominem, do not elucidate specifically why the RSGB
should be criticized, do not add useful new and newsworthy information
to the discussion, do not provide practical suggestions or roadmaps to
get to appropriate and politically realistic outcomes that are better,
and ultimately represent low-brow, Beavis and Butthead type humor on the
level of, "He said butt, heh heh heh heh."
Though I am an ARRL member, I certainly have the presence-of-mind to
understand that no human-led organization like the ARRL, or the RSGB, is
perfect, and without involvement and oversight, can devolve into
corruption and incompetence. However, I've always strived to support
positive initiatives, whether ARRL-led or not, and constructively
criticize those that I feel are misguided or damaging. Unlike others in
the past, I won't repetitively rant about "St. Hiram" or the "Church of
Morse Code."
- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAlGrO7MACgkQ6Pj0az779o5rTgCdHhkqvYgldQolpKEH14sGJCjZ
pV4AoMkXLqWA1m7Kt+uemfw4hdoZCkLr
=bNit
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
In <REMOVEsteve.t.cole-F...@news.virginmedia.com> Stephen Thomas Cole <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> writes:
[...]
>5 - Criticism of the RSGB/amateur radio licensing scheme. Currently,
>there are several regular posters to uk.radio.amateur who hold very
>negative views against the RSGB and the current licensing scheme and air
>these views in the group often and with great vehemence. Terms such as
>³RSCB² or ³Fool's Licence² are used by these posters, which some find
>offensive and belittling and are prejudicial to reasoned debate. Others
>argued that the use of such terms is not directed at any individuals and
>is used to demonstrate the anger with which some harbour towards the
>RSGB and current system. This point was largely unresolved between the
>two extremes of viewpoint, but it was stated by the proposer that it
>would be perfectly acceptable for criticism of the RSGB (or any matter)
>to be posted in the moderated group, as long as it did not drift into
>abuse.
[...]
Someone earlier asked me about British humor. I don't know if there is
an equivalent to Beavis and Butthead in the UK, but Beavis and Butthead
are an example of sophomoric individuals who get wrapped around the axle
by "dirty words". For example, they can't get through a sex education
class without collapsing into laughter at every mention of either the
medically correct or street names for various body parts, and hence get
sent to the principal's office. Don't ask them to explain their
motivations on an intellectual level, because there aren't any at that
level.
Repetitive use of catch-phrases like "RSCB" and "Fool's License" are,
IMHO, lazy, ad-hominem, do not elucidate specifically why the RSGB
should be criticized, do not add useful new and newsworthy information
to the discussion, do not provide practical suggestions or roadmaps to
get to appropriate and politically realistic outcomes that are better,
and ultimately represent low-brow, Beavis and Butthead type humor on the
level of, "He said butt, heh heh heh heh."
Though I am an ARRL member, I certainly have the presence-of-mind to
understand that no human-led organization like the ARRL, or the RSGB, is
perfect, and without involvement and oversight, can devolve into
corruption and incompetence. However, I've always strived to support
positive initiatives, whether ARRL-led or not, and constructively
criticize those that I feel are misguided or damaging. Unlike others in
the past, I won't repetitively rant about "St. Hiram" or the "Church of
Morse Code."
- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAlGrO7MACgkQ6Pj0az779o5rTgCdHhkqvYgldQolpKEH14sGJCjZ
pV4AoMkXLqWA1m7Kt+uemfw4hdoZCkLr
=bNit
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Molly Mockford
Jun 2, 2013, 8:50:06 AM6/2/13
to
At 12:34:49 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013, Paul W. Schleck <psch...@novia.net>
wrote in <51ab3be9$0$5609$740e...@novia.net>:
>Someone earlier asked me about British humor. I don't know if there is
>an equivalent to Beavis and Butthead in the UK, but Beavis and Butthead
>are an example of sophomoric individuals who get wrapped around the axle
>by "dirty words". For example, they can't get through a sex education
>class without collapsing into laughter at every mention of either the
>medically correct or street names for various body parts
Such as <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gropecunt_Lane>?
;-)
wrote in <51ab3be9$0$5609$740e...@novia.net>:
>Someone earlier asked me about British humor. I don't know if there is
>an equivalent to Beavis and Butthead in the UK, but Beavis and Butthead
>are an example of sophomoric individuals who get wrapped around the axle
>by "dirty words". For example, they can't get through a sex education
>class without collapsing into laughter at every mention of either the
>medically correct or street names for various body parts
;-)
Spike
Jun 2, 2013, 9:29:24 AM6/2/13
to
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:34:49 +0000, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
> Repetitive use of catch-phrases like "RSCB" and "Fool's License" are,
> IMHO, lazy, ad-hominem, do not elucidate specifically why the RSGB
> should be criticized, do not add useful new and newsworthy information
> to the discussion, do not provide practical suggestions or roadmaps to
> get to appropriate and politically realistic outcomes that are better,
> and ultimately represent low-brow, Beavis and Butthead type humor on the
> level of, "He said butt, heh heh heh heh."
I'd like to point out that the issue of the term 'RSCB' was mentioned in response to STC's statement essentially
> Repetitive use of catch-phrases like "RSCB" and "Fool's License" are,
> IMHO, lazy, ad-hominem, do not elucidate specifically why the RSGB
> should be criticized, do not add useful new and newsworthy information
> to the discussion, do not provide practical suggestions or roadmaps to
> get to appropriate and politically realistic outcomes that are better,
> and ultimately represent low-brow, Beavis and Butthead type humor on the
> level of, "He said butt, heh heh heh heh."
banning it from the new group. I suggested a neutral phrase that IMV encapsulated the reasons why the term
could be seen to be appropriate, noting that it's much easier to say 'RSCB' rather then keep writing out the
sentence yet again.
The response was that this would count as 'abuse', and be banned.
This is, of course, tantamount to stifling that form of criticism of the RSGB, as one could not use the short form,
or the long form of the reasons that some say brought it into disrepute in the first place.
In short, it amounts to censorship of this particular criticism of the RSGB.
--
Spike
Stephen Thomas Cole
Jun 2, 2013, 9:28:35 AM6/2/13
to
very likely wouldn't cause concern. What does cause concern is your implied
intention to post it repetitively.
Spike
Jun 2, 2013, 9:36:10 AM6/2/13
to
Astounding.
--
Spike
Message has been deleted
Stephen Thomas Cole
Jun 2, 2013, 9:58:20 AM6/2/13
to
Hils <hi...@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> So posters will be allowed one critical comment about the RSCB before
> being forced to use the RSCB's preferred name for itself. Under your
> system Jimmy Savile's victims would have been allowed one complaint
> before being told they must be quiet and stop saying nasty things about
> Mr Savile, Icon of the British Establishment. Oh, wait a mo... you
> weren't there too, were you?
>
> When the RSCB looks as though it's seriously trying to make amends for
> the damage it's done, the criticism will disappear.
*sigh*
Constructive criticism in civil language of *any* matter relating to
amateur radio is welcomed. Childish and derogatory catchphrases, such as
"RSCB" will not be welcomed. Repetitive spamming of supposedly "neutral"
variations on the theme will not be welcomed.
HTH
> being forced to use the RSCB's preferred name for itself. Under your
> system Jimmy Savile's victims would have been allowed one complaint
> before being told they must be quiet and stop saying nasty things about
> Mr Savile, Icon of the British Establishment. Oh, wait a mo... you
> weren't there too, were you?
>
> When the RSCB looks as though it's seriously trying to make amends for
> the damage it's done, the criticism will disappear.
*sigh*
Constructive criticism in civil language of *any* matter relating to
amateur radio is welcomed. Childish and derogatory catchphrases, such as
"RSCB" will not be welcomed. Repetitive spamming of supposedly "neutral"
variations on the theme will not be welcomed.
HTH
Percy Picacity
Jun 2, 2013, 10:12:47 AM6/2/13
to
'RSCB" is not a term of abuse, let alone a vulgar reference. It is a
political slogan.[1] The RSGB has brought in (and it could be argued
about whether for honest but mistaken reasons or more cynical ones) a
so-called progressive licence system. All the privileges of the full
UK licence can be obtained by taking a very simple test an average
(rather than exceptional) 6 year old could easily be taught to pass. I
say 'all' the privileges, but those that are excluded are either not
policed or irrelevant to the type of people using this licence. It has
resulted in the wholesale adoption of AR frequencies by CB operators
who only wish to continue their previous activities over a wider
bandwidth: indeed motor sports people are advised to get a foundation
licence purely to use walkie-talkies in furtherance of their sport.
(Local free use two way radio is very restricted in this country and
amateur equipment and bands are more useful.) In other words, far
from creating new amateurs, it is just handing all amateur frequencies
and privileges to people with no interest in amateur radio. Of course
this manifesto is contentious, but RSCB is a convenient slogan to
express it. Are you sure its use can be characterised as sniggering
abuse?
[1] Compare your local slogan, now part of the accepted language in
news bulletins etc, "Pro Life". Now who (with the possible exception
of the American military) is anti-life? Very few, but this slogan
neatly encapsulates the views of a rabid fundamentalist sect that your
country is terrorised by. Saves explaining it in every message and
news bulletin.
--
Percy Picacity
Stephen Thomas Cole
Jun 2, 2013, 12:30:36 PM6/2/13
to
In article <6kc9e0....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
What it also is *not* is conducive to civil discourse. If people want to
criticise the RSGB, do it in civil and rational language befitting the
learned souls they claim to be.
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> 'RSCB" is not a term of abuse, let alone a vulgar reference. It is a
> political slogan.
It's hardly "Make Love, Not War", is it Percy?
> 'RSCB" is not a term of abuse, let alone a vulgar reference. It is a
> political slogan.
What it also is *not* is conducive to civil discourse. If people want to
criticise the RSGB, do it in civil and rational language befitting the
learned souls they claim to be.
Percy Picacity
Jun 2, 2013, 3:45:26 PM6/2/13
to
On 2013-06-02 16:30:36 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole said:
> In article <6kc9e0....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 'RSCB" is not a term of abuse, let alone a vulgar reference. It is a
>> political slogan.
>
> It's hardly "Make Love, Not War", is it Percy?
>
> What it also is *not* is conducive to civil discourse. If people want to
> criticise the RSGB, do it in civil and rational language befitting the
> learned souls they claim to be.
I was responding to our American friend's rather patronising homily
> In article <6kc9e0....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 'RSCB" is not a term of abuse, let alone a vulgar reference. It is a
>> political slogan.
>
> It's hardly "Make Love, Not War", is it Percy?
>
> What it also is *not* is conducive to civil discourse. If people want to
> criticise the RSGB, do it in civil and rational language befitting the
> learned souls they claim to be.
about Beavis and Butthead.[1] I really don't think 'RSCB' is abusive.
It is scathing in its implications about RSGB policy and competence,
but it contains no necessary personal insult to any individual or
group: unless anyone wants to stick up for their part in setting up
the present licensing system. The licensing system is such a disaster,
not for the reason many of the old guard say (too easy, no morse), but
because it encourages neither involvement in amateur activities other
than traditional CB type activities nor progression. A little bit of
hyperbole and abrasive talking about this seem non-abusive to me,
thought I suppose repetition could kick in as a rejection reason if we
run out of good new ideas for a solution.
[1] If, contrarily, he was talking about the Scots, then he will find
them very far from acting-out middle class adolescents; some at least
are middle-aged ex-CBers with somewhat interesting life histories, and
little affinity with the intellectual, I almost said the legal, side
of amateur radio.
--
Percy Picacity
Molly Mockford
Jun 2, 2013, 3:50:39 PM6/2/13
to
At 20:45:26 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote in <6kcsto....@news.alt.net>:
>On 2013-06-02 16:30:36 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole said:
>
>> In article <6kc9e0....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
>> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> 'RSCB" is not a term of abuse, let alone a vulgar reference. It is
>>>
Micro$oft or Microshit?
wrote in <6kcsto....@news.alt.net>:
>On 2013-06-02 16:30:36 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole said:
>
>> In article <6kc9e0....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
>> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> 'RSCB" is not a term of abuse, let alone a vulgar reference. It is
>>>
>>> political slogan.
>> It's hardly "Make Love, Not War", is it Percy?
>> What it also is *not* is conducive to civil discourse. If people
>>want to
>> criticise the RSGB, do it in civil and rational language befitting the
>> learned souls they claim to be.
>
>I was responding to our American friend's rather patronising homily
>about Beavis and Butthead.[1] I really don't think 'RSCB' is abusive.
>It is scathing in its implications about RSGB policy and competence,
>but it contains no necessary personal insult to any individual or group:
I wonder whether it might be regarded as similar to expressions such as
>> It's hardly "Make Love, Not War", is it Percy?
>> What it also is *not* is conducive to civil discourse. If people
>>want to
>> criticise the RSGB, do it in civil and rational language befitting the
>> learned souls they claim to be.
>
>I was responding to our American friend's rather patronising homily
>about Beavis and Butthead.[1] I really don't think 'RSCB' is abusive.
>It is scathing in its implications about RSGB policy and competence,
>but it contains no necessary personal insult to any individual or group:
Micro$oft or Microshit?
Percy Picacity
Jun 2, 2013, 4:09:00 PM6/2/13
to
On 2013-06-02 19:50:39 +0000, Molly Mockford said:
> At 20:45:26 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
> wrote in <6kcsto....@news.alt.net>:
>
>> On 2013-06-02 16:30:36 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole said:
>>
>>> In article <6kc9e0....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
>>> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'RSCB" is not a term of abuse, let alone a vulgar reference. It is
>>>> political slogan.
>>> It's hardly "Make Love, Not War", is it Percy?
>>> What it also is *not* is conducive to civil discourse. If people want to
>>> criticise the RSGB, do it in civil and rational language befitting the
>>> learned souls they claim to be.
>>
>> I was responding to our American friend's rather patronising homily
>> about Beavis and Butthead.[1] I really don't think 'RSCB' is abusive.
>> It is scathing in its implications about RSGB policy and competence,
>> but it contains no necessary personal insult to any individual or group:
>
> I wonder whether it might be regarded as similar to expressions such as
> Micro$oft or Microshit?
Spot on. Except that I don't think Microsoft has as many friends on
> At 20:45:26 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
> wrote in <6kcsto....@news.alt.net>:
>
>> On 2013-06-02 16:30:36 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole said:
>>
>>> In article <6kc9e0....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
>>> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'RSCB" is not a term of abuse, let alone a vulgar reference. It is
>>>> political slogan.
>>> It's hardly "Make Love, Not War", is it Percy?
>>> What it also is *not* is conducive to civil discourse. If people want to
>>> criticise the RSGB, do it in civil and rational language befitting the
>>> learned souls they claim to be.
>>
>> I was responding to our American friend's rather patronising homily
>> about Beavis and Butthead.[1] I really don't think 'RSCB' is abusive.
>> It is scathing in its implications about RSGB policy and competence,
>> but it contains no necessary personal insult to any individual or group:
>
> I wonder whether it might be regarded as similar to expressions such as
> Micro$oft or Microshit?
Usenet as the RSGB has in amateur radio. Close thing though.
--
Percy Picacity
Message has been deleted
Stephen Thomas Cole
Jun 2, 2013, 4:32:25 PM6/2/13
to
Hils <hi...@saynotospam.net> wrote:
>
> Other examples from Usenet:
>
> Notwork Rail/ Network Fail
> Worst Late Western
> Nu-Labour
> Kippers
> Nasty Party
> OPWTN
> Camoron
> Cleggeron
> Feminazis
> etc etc etc
>
> Contrary to what STC has been implying in uknnc, the terms "Fool's
> Licence" and "Idiot's Licence" are rarely used as personal insults within
> ukra. "Fool's Licence" does not mean "fool of a licensee" but "licence
> which even a fool could obtain". The criticism is of the licensing system
> (supported and administered by the RSCB) which drastically lowered the
> bar for the qualifying exam. If anything, the terms empathise with
> candidates of average intelligence, who have to dumb-down to pass the
> (mandatory) "foundation" stage which is the subject of the epithet.
>
> "Snooper's Charter" is similar...
Without getting drawn into a debate that's happened several times already,
can you hand on heart say that any of these acronyms/phrases actually serve
civil discourse in any way? Or do they merely serve as brainless slogans
tossed around without furthering any debates or advancing any human
understanding of a situation?
> On 02/06/13 20:50, Molly Mockford wrote:
>> At 20:45:26 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
>> wrote in <6kcsto....@news.alt.net>:
>>
>>> On 2013-06-02 16:30:36 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole said:
>>>
>>>> In article <6kc9e0....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
>>>> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 'RSCB" is not a term of abuse, let alone a vulgar reference. It is
>>>>> political slogan.
>>>> It's hardly "Make Love, Not War", is it Percy?
>>>> What it also is *not* is conducive to civil discourse. If people want to
>>>> criticise the RSGB, do it in civil and rational language befitting the
>>>> learned souls they claim to be.
>>>
>>> I was responding to our American friend's rather patronising homily
>>> about Beavis and Butthead.[1] I really don't think 'RSCB' is abusive.
>>> It is scathing in its implications about RSGB policy and competence,
>>> but it contains no necessary personal insult to any individual or group:
>>
>> I wonder whether it might be regarded as similar to expressions such as
>> Micro$oft or Microshit?
>
> I suggested as much some time ago. It functions as an epithet.
>> At 20:45:26 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
>> wrote in <6kcsto....@news.alt.net>:
>>
>>> On 2013-06-02 16:30:36 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole said:
>>>
>>>> In article <6kc9e0....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
>>>> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 'RSCB" is not a term of abuse, let alone a vulgar reference. It is
>>>>> political slogan.
>>>> It's hardly "Make Love, Not War", is it Percy?
>>>> What it also is *not* is conducive to civil discourse. If people want to
>>>> criticise the RSGB, do it in civil and rational language befitting the
>>>> learned souls they claim to be.
>>>
>>> I was responding to our American friend's rather patronising homily
>>> about Beavis and Butthead.[1] I really don't think 'RSCB' is abusive.
>>> It is scathing in its implications about RSGB policy and competence,
>>> but it contains no necessary personal insult to any individual or group:
>>
>> I wonder whether it might be regarded as similar to expressions such as
>> Micro$oft or Microshit?
>
>
> Other examples from Usenet:
>
> Notwork Rail/ Network Fail
> Worst Late Western
> Nu-Labour
> Kippers
> Nasty Party
> OPWTN
> Camoron
> Cleggeron
> Feminazis
> etc etc etc
>
> Contrary to what STC has been implying in uknnc, the terms "Fool's
> Licence" and "Idiot's Licence" are rarely used as personal insults within
> ukra. "Fool's Licence" does not mean "fool of a licensee" but "licence
> which even a fool could obtain". The criticism is of the licensing system
> (supported and administered by the RSCB) which drastically lowered the
> bar for the qualifying exam. If anything, the terms empathise with
> candidates of average intelligence, who have to dumb-down to pass the
> (mandatory) "foundation" stage which is the subject of the epithet.
>
> "Snooper's Charter" is similar...
Without getting drawn into a debate that's happened several times already,
can you hand on heart say that any of these acronyms/phrases actually serve
civil discourse in any way? Or do they merely serve as brainless slogans
tossed around without furthering any debates or advancing any human
understanding of a situation?
Percy Picacity
Jun 2, 2013, 4:56:14 PM6/2/13
to
point quickly.
No: consider "poll tax". A very content-laden slogan, encapsulating
the point at issue.
--
Percy Picacity
Message has been deleted
MM3QRO/MM
Jun 2, 2013, 7:16:11 PM6/2/13
to
Spike wrote:
> > Posted once, your "neutral" long-form version of your gripes with the
> > RSGB very likely wouldn't cause concern. What does cause concern is
> > your implied intention to post it repetitively.
>
> So in essence you're banning any non-positive form of comment on the
> RSGB's history, after the first mention?
>
> Astounding.
I'd like to see if I have this right - so all of ye out there who are up
> > Posted once, your "neutral" long-form version of your gripes with the
> > RSGB very likely wouldn't cause concern. What does cause concern is
> > your implied intention to post it repetitively.
>
> So in essence you're banning any non-positive form of comment on the
> RSGB's history, after the first mention?
>
> Astounding.
to speed on the latest latest version of the latest latest RFD please
check my logic...
1. (for example)
Its OK to say on UK-ram 'The RSGB are great.'
2. (for example)
Its not OK to say on UK-ram 'The ARRL is a better deal than the RSGB'
3. (for example)
Its not OK on UK-ram to say -
'If the RSGB get control of licensing then they could make things
difficult for some people whose faces do not fit'.
Stephen Thomas Cole
Jun 3, 2013, 1:59:05 AM6/3/13
to
In article <6kcsto....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
abuse. As the proponent of the moderated group, I feel perfectly justified
in ruling it as unwelcome and against the group's aims of creating a forum
free of abuse.
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> I really don't think 'RSCB' is abusive.
It's a heavily loaded term, with a long history of being used as a tool of
> I really don't think 'RSCB' is abusive.
abuse. As the proponent of the moderated group, I feel perfectly justified
in ruling it as unwelcome and against the group's aims of creating a forum
free of abuse.
Message has been deleted
Brian Morrison
Jun 3, 2013, 5:55:04 AM6/3/13
to
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:13:56 +0100
Hils wrote:
> IIRC the Conservatives and their media
> insisted on referring to "Community Charge" even when they were the
> only people still calling it that.
That was its official name, that's why the government side stuck to
using it.
--
Brian Morrison
Hils wrote:
> IIRC the Conservatives and their media
> insisted on referring to "Community Charge" even when they were the
> only people still calling it that.
That was its official name, that's why the government side stuck to
using it.
--
Brian Morrison
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Judith
Jun 4, 2013, 7:29:55 PM6/4/13
to
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 23:46:16 +0100, Hils wrote:
> If contributors are only allowed to use their chosen epithets once, only
> readers of their initial postings gain the additional information. Later
> readers would incorrectly assume them to be neutral if they are not
> allowed to repeat the epithets.
I think what you're saying is correct! From now on I'm going to add
'youradick', my chosen epithet for you, to every post you make.
> If contributors are only allowed to use their chosen epithets once, only
> readers of their initial postings gain the additional information. Later
> readers would incorrectly assume them to be neutral if they are not
> allowed to repeat the epithets.
I think what you're saying is correct! From now on I'm going to add
'youradick', my chosen epithet for you, to every post you make.
Message has been deleted
Spike
Jun 5, 2013, 2:38:19 AM6/5/13
to
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:41:13 +0100, Hils wrote:
> Whatever butters your muffin.
It looks like 'judith' is going to discover the Briedbart Index.
--
Spike
It looks like 'judith' is going to discover the Briedbart Index.
--
Spike
Percy Picacity
Jun 5, 2013, 3:51:48 AM6/5/13
to
group is that you would be allowed to do that to third parties (such as
national radio societies) but not to other contributors to the
discussion. Much like the ulm rules. I'd actually support that. Much
like posting everywhere with a sig taking sides on a contentious issue,
but probably not getting away with one that says the moderators of the
group you are currently posting to are idiots.
--
Percy Picacity
0 new messages