Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Jeff Layman]

In the "Re: ULM Everard thread" thread a comment was made: "Especially
as you are a ULM moderator and so never have your own posts suppressed."

Is that true? Is a Moderator's post in ULM not subject to moderation in
the same way that all others are?

The Charter isn't prescriptive on the matter. In the preamble to The
Charter itself, the second paragraph begins: "The normal rule is that
any postings to the group must be approved by a member of the moderation
team before they appear in the group". There is, however, nothing about
this in The Charter itself.

Does this apply to all moderated newsgroups?

--

Jeff

[Roland Perry]

In message <skok54$20f$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:31:32 on Wed, 20 Oct
2021, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

The bulk of postings are auto-approved.

>Does this apply to all moderated newsgroups?

You'd have to ask in the relevant forums for other ("all" is a bit
ambitious I think, is there even a list of them anywhere) groups.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

This is the right place to ask regarding all uk.* groups, AFAIK, but whether
one gets an answer is another thing. Naming the group one wants to ask about
in the subject line might help.

--
Roger Hayter

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-20, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In the "Re: ULM Everard thread" thread a comment was made: "Especially
> as you are a ULM moderator and so never have your own posts suppressed."
>
> Is that true? Is a Moderator's post in ULM not subject to moderation in
> the same way that all others are?

No, that is not true. What the comment was presumably referring to is
the fact that if a moderator's post is held for approval (which they
can be and are, in exactly the same way as happens for any other poster
who is on the whitelist but whose post contains a trigger word), then
pretty much by definition they can approve the post themselves.

You might say that moderators should refrain from approving their own
posts, but such a rule would both be impossible to detect and enforce,
and would serve no purpose - either the post should have been approved,
in which case there is no problem, or it should not, in which case the
problem is the same as if the moderator were approving someone else's
post that should have been rejected.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsmvucj.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>

Jon Ribbens wrote:

>You might say that moderators should refrain from approving their own
>posts, but such a rule would both be impossible to detect and enforce,
>and would serve no purpose - either the post should have been approved,
>in which case there is no problem, or it should not, in which case the
>problem is the same as if the moderator were approving someone else's
>post that should have been rejected.

That's very odd thinking, it would serve the purpose of stopping a
moderator from approving his/her unacceptable post.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his
life.
(Jeremy Thorpe, 1962)

[The Todal]

On 20/10/2021 12:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 20/10/2021 in message
> <slrnsmvucj.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>> You might say that moderators should refrain from approving their own
>> posts, but such a rule would both be impossible to detect and enforce,
>> and would serve no purpose - either the post should have been approved,
>> in which case there is no problem, or it should not, in which case the
>> problem is the same as if the moderator were approving someone else's
>> post that should have been rejected.
>
> That's very odd thinking, it would serve the purpose of stopping a
> moderator from approving his/her unacceptable post.
>

There aren't enough moderators. Moderators are free to approve their own
posts. Any discussion about whether a post was wrongly approved can take
place here, in UNNM. The question of who actually approved it is irrelevant.

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnsmvucj.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 11:12:19
on Wed, 20 Oct 2021, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> remarked:

>On 2021-10-20, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> In the "Re: ULM Everard thread" thread a comment was made: "Especially
>> as you are a ULM moderator and so never have your own posts suppressed."
>>
>> Is that true? Is a Moderator's post in ULM not subject to moderation in
>> the same way that all others are?
>
>No, that is not true. What the comment was presumably referring to is
>the fact that if a moderator's post is held for approval (which they
>can be and are, in exactly the same way as happens for any other poster
>who is on the whitelist but whose post contains a trigger word), then
>pretty much by definition they can approve the post themselves.

As has been discussed in the past, if the trigger-word in question is in
one of the earlier contributions to the thread, and my own comment does
not contain any (identical or different) trigger words, I have no qualms
about self-approving, because the stuff I added would have been
auto-approved if not for the over-sensitivity of the modbot.

And no, I don't have any plans to get the modbot updated.

>You might say that moderators should refrain from approving their own
>posts, but such a rule would both be impossible to detect and enforce,
>and would serve no purpose - either the post should have been approved,
>in which case there is no problem, or it should not, in which case the
>problem is the same as if the moderator were approving someone else's
>post that should have been rejected.

--
Roland Perry

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-20, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsmvucj.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>You might say that moderators should refrain from approving their own
>>posts, but such a rule would both be impossible to detect and enforce,
>>and would serve no purpose - either the post should have been approved,
>>in which case there is no problem, or it should not, in which case the
>>problem is the same as if the moderator were approving someone else's
>>post that should have been rejected.
>
> That's very odd thinking, it would serve the purpose of stopping a
> moderator from approving his/her unacceptable post.

Banning moderators from approving any posts would serve the purpose of
stopping a moderator from approving any unacceptable posts. Clearly it's
a good idea which should be implemented immediately.

[Jeff Gaines]

Perhaps you should advertise for moderators if you need more? The question
of moderators approving their own posts is not irrelevant, I pointed out
the issues in my post.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

Remember, the Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn01b2.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>

That's not what was suggested of course, we are discussing moderators
approving their own posts.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
(Ken Olson, president Digital Equipment, 1977)

[Fredxx]

I agree.

[Roger Hayter]

On 20 Oct 2021 at 13:48:12 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk>

wrote:

> On 20/10/2021 in message <itae3n...@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
>
>> On 20/10/2021 12:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsmvucj.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>
>>>> You might say that moderators should refrain from approving their own
>>>> posts, but such a rule would both be impossible to detect and enforce,
>>>> and would serve no purpose - either the post should have been approved,
>>>> in which case there is no problem, or it should not, in which case the
>>>> problem is the same as if the moderator were approving someone else's
>>>> post that should have been rejected.
>>>
>>> That's very odd thinking, it would serve the purpose of stopping a
>>> moderator from approving his/her unacceptable post.
>>>
>>
>> There aren't enough moderators. Moderators are free to approve their own
>> posts. Any discussion about whether a post was wrongly approved can take
>> place here, in UNNM. The question of who actually approved it is
>> irrelevant.
>
> Perhaps you should advertise for moderators if you need more? The question
> of moderators approving their own posts is not irrelevant, I pointed out
> the issues in my post.

Someone, I think it was Jon Ribbens, pointed out to you that most posts are
auto-approved, making your point at best peripheral.

--
Roger Hayter

[Jeff Gaines]

On 20/10/2021 in message <itanpq...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter
wrote:

>>Perhaps you should advertise for moderators if you need more? The question
>>of moderators approving their own posts is not irrelevant, I pointed out
>>the issues in my post.
>
>Someone, I think it was Jon Ribbens, pointed out to you that most posts are
>auto-approved, making your point at best peripheral.

I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects those
as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
things objectively.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

That's an amazing invention but who would ever want to use one of them?
(President Hayes speaking to Alexander Graham Bell on the invention of the
telephone)

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-20, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 20/10/2021 in message <itanpq...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter
> wrote:
>>>Perhaps you should advertise for moderators if you need more? The question
>>>of moderators approving their own posts is not irrelevant, I pointed out
>>>the issues in my post.
>>
>>Someone, I think it was Jon Ribbens, pointed out to you that most posts are
>>auto-approved, making your point at best peripheral.
>
> I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
> hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
> He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects those
> as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
> things objectively.

What do you think this group is for?

[Roger Hayter]

On 20 Oct 2021 at 19:06:09 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 20/10/2021 in message <itanpq...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter
> wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps you should advertise for moderators if you need more? The question
>>> of moderators approving their own posts is not irrelevant, I pointed out
>>> the issues in my post.
>>
>> Someone, I think it was Jon Ribbens, pointed out to you that most posts are
>> auto-approved, making your point at best peripheral.
>
> I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
> hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
> He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects those
> as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
> things objectively.

What part of "there is usually no reviewable moderation decision to accept the
post" do you not understand?

--
Roger Hayter

[Jeff Gaines]

On 20/10/2021 in message <itb6rp...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter
wrote:

>>I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
>>hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
>>He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects those
>>as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
>>things objectively.
>
>
>What part of "there is usually no reviewable moderation decision to accept
>the
>post" do you not understand?

I don't understand it at all, what does it mean?

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

Every day is a good day for chicken, unless you're a chicken.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn0p15.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>

Jon Ribbens wrote:

>>I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
>>hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
>>He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects those
>>as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
>>things objectively.
>
>What do you think this group is for?

It's to moan about moderators' decisions, not to review them, do you read
it much?

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

Have you ever noticed that all the instruments searching for intelligent
life are pointing away from Earth?

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-20, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn0p15.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
>>>hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
>>>He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects those
>>>as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
>>>things objectively.
>>
>>What do you think this group is for?
>
> It's to moan about moderators' decisions, not to review them, do you
> read it much?

I generally read all of it, except for a few people I've kill-filed or
insane threads from those interminable radio fuckwits.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn12bh.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>

Then you will know that it is rare for a moderator to identify him/herself
as making a decision let alone explaining it.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.

[Roger Hayter]

On 20 Oct 2021 at 21:43:39 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn0p15.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>>> I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
>>> hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
>>> He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects those
>>> as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
>>> things objectively.
>>
>> What do you think this group is for?
>
> It's to moan about moderators' decisions, not to review them, do you read
> it much?

I have *often* seen effective reviews of moderation decisions here, including
some or all of a group's moderators (or an approved spokesman for the
moderators). This sometimes includes an agreeement by the moderators that a
decision was wrong, an apology or an expressed intention to change moderation
practice.

So I strongly disagree with you.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

On 20 Oct 2021 at 22:33:57 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk>

wrote:

> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn12bh.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>> On 2021-10-20, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn0p15.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
>>>>> hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
>>>>> He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects
>>>>> those
>>>>> as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
>>>>> things objectively.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think this group is for?
>>>
>>> It's to moan about moderators' decisions, not to review them, do you
>>> read it much?
>>
>> I generally read all of it, except for a few people I've kill-filed or
>> insane threads from those interminable radio fuckwits.
>
> Then you will know that it is rare for a moderator to identify him/herself
> as making a decision let alone explaining it.

No it's not. It is rare for a moderator to respond to a hectoring demand to
reveal and explain himself, but more rational complainants have *frequently*
been told who made a decision.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

On 20 Oct 2021 at 21:42:24 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 20/10/2021 in message <itb6rp...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter
> wrote:
>
>>> I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
>>> hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
>>> He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects those
>>> as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
>>> things objectively.
>>
>>
>> What part of "there is usually no reviewable moderation decision to accept
>> the
>> post" do you not understand?
>
> I don't understand it at all, what does it mean?

It means, for the twentieth time, that most posts people ohject to were
accepted automatically, so there is little or no point in appointing a third
party to review the bot's decision.


--
Roger Hayter

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-20, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn12bh.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>On 2021-10-20, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn0p15.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
>>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
>>>>>hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
>>>>>He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects
>>>>>those
>>>>>as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
>>>>>things objectively.
>>>>
>>>>What do you think this group is for?
>>>
>>>It's to moan about moderators' decisions, not to review them, do you
>>>read it much?
>>
>>I generally read all of it, except for a few people I've kill-filed or
>>insane threads from those interminable radio fuckwits.
>
> Then you will know that it is rare for a moderator to identify him/herself
> as making a decision let alone explaining it.

Even if we take that to be true for the sake of argument, what's your
point? Can you not discuss a decision without knowing who made it?

[Fredxx]

On 20/10/2021 23:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2021-10-20, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn12bh.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-20, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn0p15.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
>>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>> I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
>>>>>> hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
>>>>>> He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
>>>>>> things objectively.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think this group is for?
>>>>
>>>> It's to moan about moderators' decisions, not to review them, do you
>>>> read it much?
>>>
>>> I generally read all of it, except for a few people I've kill-filed or
>>> insane threads from those interminable radio fuckwits.
>>
>> Then you will know that it is rare for a moderator to identify him/herself
>> as making a decision let alone explaining it.
>
> Even if we take that to be true for the sake of argument, what's your
> point? Can you not discuss a decision without knowing who made it?

It takes integrity and strength of character to admit to a mistake or
justify their decision. I'm certain in most cases the moderator in
question has held their hand up and they have gain respect in doing so.

It is notable that others are shamefully less helpful and even go out of
their way to wind up some posters here on UNNM regarding moderation
decisions.

[Roland Perry]

In message <itbj4l...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:22:13 on Wed, 20
Oct 2021, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

If there's a post which been accepted by the modbot, that a consensus
says shouldn't, it's easy for us to update the trigger lists.

Although I don't recall when the last time was that such a discussion
took place. Most of the angst here is people complaining their posting
should not have been rejected, and for some reason they never think to
modify the posting to make it more acceptable. (Retrying an identical
posting is never acceptable).

Perhaps that's because by and large they are using forged email
addresses and don't "get the memo" from the mods. Not just because of
that, I think we are approaching the time on social media in general
that forged accounts need far better monitoring, or even banning
altogether.
--
Roland Perry

[Jeff Gaines]

On 20/10/2021 in message <itbj4l...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter
wrote:

>>>What part of "there is usually no reviewable moderation decision to
>>>accept
>>>the
>>>post" do you not understand?
>>
>>I don't understand it at all, what does it mean?
>
>It means, for the twentieth time, that most posts people ohject to were
>accepted automatically, so there is little or no point in appointing a
>third
>party to review the bot's decision.

That's the first time I've seen that explanation, perhaps if you were less
patronising people would take note of what you say?

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

There are 10 types of people in the world, those who do binary and those
who don't.

[Norman Wells]

They complain when the rejection is clearly wrong and totally
unjustified by the reason given. They also complain, quite rightly,
when the rejection appears personal.

How exactly in those cases should they 'modify the posting to make it
more acceptable'?

Do please say. Without trolling.

> (Retrying an identical
> posting is never acceptable).

Why, if the rejection was totally unjustified?

> Perhaps that's because by and large they are using forged email
> addresses and don't "get the memo" from the mods.

The 'memo from the mods' gives no more detail than is available on:

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm

> Not just because of
> that, I think we are approaching the time on social media in general
> that forged accounts need far better monitoring, or even banning
> altogether.

Well, good luck with that.

With all your contacts, influence and importance, perhaps you should
call an international conference.

[Roland Perry]

In message <itcl1k...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:00:53 on Thu, 21
Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

It'll say in the note attached to the rejection message,

>Do please say. Without trolling.

Perhaps you could follow your own advice.

>> (Retrying an identical posting is never acceptable).
>
>Why, if the rejection was totally unjustified?

And there you go again.

>> Perhaps that's because by and large they are using forged email
>>addresses and don't "get the memo" from the mods.
>
>The 'memo from the mods' gives no more detail than is available on:
>
>http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm

Incorrect, it also includes a free-text message. Do try to get the
absolute basics right!

>> Not just because of that, I think we are approaching the time on
>>social media in general that forged accounts need far better
>>monitoring, or even banning altogether.
>
>Well, good luck with that.
>
>With all your contacts, influence and importance, perhaps you should
>call an international conference.

I think the train has been set in motion sufficiently, so I don't need
to come out of retirement to assist. But sometimes it's tempting.
--
Roland Perry

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-21, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/10/2021 in message <itbj4l...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter
> wrote:
>>>>What part of "there is usually no reviewable moderation decision to
>>>>accept the post" do you not understand?
>>>
>>>I don't understand it at all, what does it mean?
>>
>>It means, for the twentieth time, that most posts people ohject to were
>>accepted automatically, so there is little or no point in appointing a
>>third party to review the bot's decision.
>
> That's the first time I've seen that explanation, perhaps if you were less
> patronising people would take note of what you say?

So it's somehow his fault that you have failed to read posts by multiple
other people?

[Jeff Gaines]

On 21/10/2021 in message <slrnsn2ivv.5...@raven.unequivocal.eu>

Oh dear, patronising is obviously infectious, try learning some manners
and try reading "That's the first time I've seen that explanation" again.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-21, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21/10/2021 in message <slrnsn2ivv.5...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>On 2021-10-21, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On 20/10/2021 in message <itbj4l...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter
>>>wrote:
>>>>>>What part of "there is usually no reviewable moderation decision to
>>>>>>accept the post" do you not understand?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't understand it at all, what does it mean?
>>>>
>>>>It means, for the twentieth time, that most posts people ohject to were
>>>>accepted automatically, so there is little or no point in appointing a
>>>>third party to review the bot's decision.
>>>
>>>That's the first time I've seen that explanation, perhaps if you were less
>>>patronising people would take note of what you say?
>>
>>So it's somehow his fault that you have failed to read posts by multiple
>>other people?
>
> Oh dear, patronising is obviously infectious, try learning some manners
> and try reading "That's the first time I've seen that explanation" again.

Ok, fair enough, I give up. You're simply too stupid to be worth
bothering with.

[Norman Wells]

I doubt it. In what percentage of rejection messages is there any such
kindly advice provided by a friendly moderator? You must have some idea.

>> Do please say.  Without trolling.
>
> Perhaps you could follow your own advice.

All I see is yet another trolling refusal to answer a simple question.

>>> (Retrying an identical  posting is never acceptable).
>>
>> Why, if the rejection was totally unjustified?
>
> And there you go again.

No answer then?

>>> Perhaps that's because by and large they are using forged email
>>> addresses and don't "get the memo" from the mods.
>>
>> The 'memo from the mods' gives no more detail than is available on:
>>
>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm
>
> Incorrect, it also includes a free-text message. Do try to get the
> absolute basics right!

It may have that facility. Perhaps you'd tell us just how often (ie in
what proportion of cases) you have actually availed yourself of it?

>>> Not just because of  that, I think we are approaching the time on
>>> social media in general  that forged accounts need far better
>>> monitoring, or even banning  altogether.
>>
>> Well, good luck with that.
>>
>> With all your contacts, influence and importance, perhaps you should
>> call an international conference.
>
> I think the train has been set in motion sufficiently, so I don't need
> to come out of retirement to assist. But sometimes it's tempting.

Oh, that's OK then. We'll just wait for what you think will happen to
happen.

If you'll excuse me, though, I shan't be holding my breath.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 21/10/2021 in message <slrnsn2mlv.5...@raven.unequivocal.eu>

Jon Ribbens wrote:

>>Oh dear, patronising is obviously infectious, try learning some manners
>>and try reading "That's the first time I've seen that explanation" again.
>
>Ok, fair enough, I give up. You're simply too stupid to be worth
>bothering with.

Oh dear, you missed the "manners" point. What is it about Usenet nowadays
that means you and people like you feel they can be so rude & arrogant? Is
it just falling standards generally or a particular issue with you?

[Jeff Layman]

On 20/10/2021 12:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2021-10-20, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> In the "Re: ULM Everard thread" thread a comment was made: "Especially
>> as you are a ULM moderator and so never have your own posts suppressed."
>>
>> Is that true? Is a Moderator's post in ULM not subject to moderation in
>> the same way that all others are?
>
> No, that is not true. What the comment was presumably referring to is
> the fact that if a moderator's post is held for approval (which they
> can be and are, in exactly the same way as happens for any other poster
> who is on the whitelist but whose post contains a trigger word), then
> pretty much by definition they can approve the post themselves.

Thank you for the answer, but it appears to be somewhat ambiguous in how
the term "moderate" is defined. It is true that the post is subject to
moderation, but as that would usually be by the moderator who wrote it,
and not a different moderator, it is really not moderation at all and is
different from how all other posts are treated. I'm not sure I
understand the "pretty much by definition" part either, other than that
a moderator moderates a post. It seems to me that the Charter is missing
"A moderator cannot moderate his/her own post".

> You might say that moderators should refrain from approving their own
> posts, but such a rule would both be impossible to detect and enforce,
> and would serve no purpose - either the post should have been approved,
> in which case there is no problem, or it should not, in which case the
> problem is the same as if the moderator were approving someone else's
> post that should have been rejected.

Perhaps you could explain the technicalities of moderation. Why would it
not be possible to detect a post by another moderator? Do you "post"
into the newsgroup in a direct way and so missing out the moderation
stage? Or are you saying you could post under any name using that
process and so that post would never be subject to moderation, and also
would not appear to come from you? Also, in non-bot approvals/rejections
surely the moderators could have different opinions on the content of a
post, and whether or not it should be approved or rejected.

Maybe it's me just being slow, but it doesn't appear to be a level
playing field.

--

Jeff

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-21, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/10/2021 12:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2021-10-20, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> In the "Re: ULM Everard thread" thread a comment was made: "Especially
>>> as you are a ULM moderator and so never have your own posts suppressed."
>>>
>>> Is that true? Is a Moderator's post in ULM not subject to moderation in
>>> the same way that all others are?
>>
>> No, that is not true. What the comment was presumably referring to is
>> the fact that if a moderator's post is held for approval (which they
>> can be and are, in exactly the same way as happens for any other poster
>> who is on the whitelist but whose post contains a trigger word), then
>> pretty much by definition they can approve the post themselves.
>
> Thank you for the answer, but it appears to be somewhat ambiguous in how
> the term "moderate" is defined. It is true that the post is subject to
> moderation, but as that would usually be by the moderator who wrote it,

Why do you think that? There is no particular reason that a post written
by a moderator would be moderated by its author. When there is a busy
thread which contains trigger words (thus meaning that most or all of
the posts in that thread go for manual moderation) I often see and
moderate posts from other moderators.

> and not a different moderator, it is really not moderation at all and is
> different from how all other posts are treated.

Why is it different from how other posts are treated?

> I'm not sure I understand the "pretty much by definition" part either,
> other than that a moderator moderates a post. It seems to me that the
> Charter is missing "A moderator cannot moderate his/her own post".

It is only missing that if it is supposed to contain it, which it is not.

>> You might say that moderators should refrain from approving their own
>> posts, but such a rule would both be impossible to detect and enforce,
>> and would serve no purpose - either the post should have been approved,
>> in which case there is no problem, or it should not, in which case the
>> problem is the same as if the moderator were approving someone else's
>> post that should have been rejected.
>
> Perhaps you could explain the technicalities of moderation. Why would it
> not be possible to detect a post by another moderator?

Because it is never possible to determine for certain who any particular
post is from. Many people (perhaps even most) post to the group using
a name which is not that which appears on their birth certificate or
which they are referred to in everday life. Some of them post using
more than one name. If the rules said that moderators could not moderate
their own posts, it would be trivial for a moderator to circumvent that
rule by simply posting using a name other than the one they are known as
as a moderator.

[Norman Wells]

On 21/10/2021 15:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2021-10-21, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20/10/2021 12:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-20, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In the "Re: ULM Everard thread" thread a comment was made: "Especially
>>>> as you are a ULM moderator and so never have your own posts suppressed."
>>>>
>>>> Is that true? Is a Moderator's post in ULM not subject to moderation in
>>>> the same way that all others are?
>>>
>>> No, that is not true. What the comment was presumably referring to is
>>> the fact that if a moderator's post is held for approval (which they
>>> can be and are, in exactly the same way as happens for any other poster
>>> who is on the whitelist but whose post contains a trigger word), then
>>> pretty much by definition they can approve the post themselves.
>>
>> Thank you for the answer, but it appears to be somewhat ambiguous in how
>> the term "moderate" is defined. It is true that the post is subject to
>> moderation, but as that would usually be by the moderator who wrote it,
>
> Why do you think that? There is no particular reason that a post written
> by a moderator would be moderated by its author. When there is a busy
> thread which contains trigger words (thus meaning that most or all of
> the posts in that thread go for manual moderation) I often see and
> moderate posts from other moderators.

So, how many posts by other moderators have you actually rejected over
however many years you've been a moderator?

You see, if it's just a cosy little club, other moderators' posts will
either pass through automatically if they don't contain any naughty
words, or will be approved virtually automatically by another moderator,
who probably doesn't bother to consider them very much if at all.

That's how all the endless tedious whingeing posts about Brexit get
through for example. From anyone else they'd be rejected as being off
topic for this legal group (which of course they are) or, certainly, as
being 'not new'. After all 'they merely reiterate the same stale
arguments that they have been putting forward for years', to paraphrase
the reason given here (wrongly as it happens) for a recent rejection
applied to one of my posts.

Merely moderating moderators' posts that contain a forbidden word gives
them free rein to be otherwise offensive to others on the group, to
troll like mad, to be off topic if they want, and to repeat the same
circular arguments they have for years.

[Owen Rees]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:00:53 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote in <itcl1k...@mid.individual.net>:

>They complain when the rejection is clearly wrong and totally
>unjustified by the reason given.

There has recently been a complaint followed by a discussion of a
rejection where I think the rejection was appropriate but the reason
given was questionable.

There have also been complaints about borderline cases where the
rejection is reasonable but accepting the post would also have been
reasonable.

Complaints where there is an overwhelming majority of support for the
claim that the rejection was clearly wrong are very rare as far as I can
see.

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> posted

>In message <itbj4l...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:22:13 on Wed, 20
>Oct 2021, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>>On 20 Oct 2021 at 21:42:24 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/10/2021 in message <itb6rp...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
>>>>> hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
>>>>> He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects those
>>>>> as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
>>>>> things objectively.
>>>>
>>>> What part of "there is usually no reviewable moderation decision to
>>>>accept the post" do you not understand?
>>>
>>> I don't understand it at all, what does it mean?
>>
>>It means, for the twentieth time, that most posts people ohject to were
>>accepted automatically, so there is little or no point in appointing a third
>>party to review the bot's decision.
>
>If there's a post which been accepted by the modbot, that a consensus
>says shouldn't, it's easy for us to update the trigger lists.

The quarrel is not really about posts that are wrongly accepted, it's
about those that are wrongly suppressed. Although there is the
associated issue that moderators' posts are accepted despite being far
"worse" than a non-moderator's post on the same thread.

>Although I don't recall when the last time was that such a discussion
>took place. Most of the angst here is people complaining their posting
>should not have been rejected, and for some reason they never think to
>modify the posting to make it more acceptable.

In the case of Norman's post to the Everard thread that I quoted, there
was no way of doing that. The moderator simply said the post wasn't new
and that was that.

>(Retrying an identical posting is never acceptable).
>
>Perhaps that's because by and large they are using forged email
>addresses and don't "get the memo" from the mods.

People use "forged" e-mail addresses on Usenet to avoid spam. If they
used a real one it's pretty soon be swamped.

--
Algernon

[Owen Rees]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:13:45 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote in <qFkT8rG5...@perry.uk>:

>In message <itcl1k...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:00:53 on Thu, 21
>Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>The 'memo from the mods' gives no more detail than is available on:
>>
>>http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm
>
>Incorrect, it also includes a free-text message. Do try to get the
>absolute basics right!

The messages as logged and available on the web site seem to be copies
of the email sent to the poster, including headers. For example:

https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-163480030317074.txt

The only difference seems to be that '@' is replaced by ' at ..' in
places where email addresses appear.

If there is a dispute about this I will see if I can dig out the code
again to see if it includes the logging mechanism and if so exactly how
that works. I could also see if I can check that any additional text
supplied by a moderator in Webstump is correctly propagated into the
rejection mesage by STUMP. I would expect problems to have been noticed
but the code is sufficiently convoluted that it may not be working as
hoped for.

[Owen Rees]

On 21 Oct 2021 12:10:19 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote in <xn0n4e9u0...@news.individual.net>:

>On 21/10/2021 in message <slrnsn2ivv.5...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
>Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>>On 2021-10-21, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On 20/10/2021 in message <itbj4l...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter
>>>wrote:

[Quoted message has snipped some of the attribution here - I believe
that the author is identified correctly but this next part is from an
earlier post in the thread]

>>>>>>What part of "there is usually no reviewable moderation decision to
>>>>>>accept the post" do you not understand?

Was that said in those words earlier in the discussion? I do not
remember seeing it.

>>>>>
>>>>>I don't understand it at all, what does it mean?
>>>>
>>>>It means, for the twentieth time, that most posts people ohject to were
>>>>accepted automatically, so there is little or no point in appointing a
>>>>third party to review the bot's decision.

I do not remember seeing 19 previous statements in this thread that
unambiguously explain that the process is automated and most posts are
approved without human intervention. The process has been discussed in
the group before but I do not think we should assume that everyone has
read all the previous discussion.

>>>
>>>That's the first time I've seen that explanation, perhaps if you were less
>>>patronising people would take note of what you say?
>>
>>So it's somehow his fault that you have failed to read posts by multiple
>>other people?
>
>Oh dear, patronising is obviously infectious, try learning some manners
>and try reading "That's the first time I've seen that explanation" again.

Perhaps you missed "The bulk of postings are auto-approved" in the first
response to the original post. That remark assumes that readers will
understand that "auto-approved" means approved by the modbot without
human intervention rather than that human moderators apply that policy.

Perhaps people could consider that they are applying their own
understanding of the process when reading what others have written and
not everyone has that pre-existing knowledge of how the moderation
system works.

[Jeff Layman]

On 21/10/2021 15:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:

> On 2021-10-21, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20/10/2021 12:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-20, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In the "Re: ULM Everard thread" thread a comment was made: "Especially
>>>> as you are a ULM moderator and so never have your own posts suppressed."
>>>>
>>>> Is that true? Is a Moderator's post in ULM not subject to moderation in
>>>> the same way that all others are?
>>>
>>> No, that is not true. What the comment was presumably referring to is
>>> the fact that if a moderator's post is held for approval (which they
>>> can be and are, in exactly the same way as happens for any other poster
>>> who is on the whitelist but whose post contains a trigger word), then
>>> pretty much by definition they can approve the post themselves.
>>
>> Thank you for the answer, but it appears to be somewhat ambiguous in how
>> the term "moderate" is defined. It is true that the post is subject to
>> moderation, but as that would usually be by the moderator who wrote it,
>
> Why do you think that? There is no particular reason that a post written
> by a moderator would be moderated by its author.

Then I must have been misinterpreting your reply to my OP, although I
can't see how:
"if a moderator's post is held for approval... then pretty much by

definition they can approve the post themselves."

Where is another moderator involved in that?

When there is a busy
> thread which contains trigger words (thus meaning that most or all of
> the posts in that thread go for manual moderation) I often see and
> moderate posts from other moderators.

But not /all/ posts by other moderators. As alluded to above, it appears
that moderators can approve their own posts.

>> and not a different moderator, it is really not moderation at all and is
>> different from how all other posts are treated.
>
> Why is it different from how other posts are treated?

Because *all* "external" posts by non-moderators are subject to
moderation. A moderator's post might not be.

>> I'm not sure I understand the "pretty much by definition" part either,
>> other than that a moderator moderates a post. It seems to me that the
>> Charter is missing "A moderator cannot moderate his/her own post".
>
> It is only missing that if it is supposed to contain it, which it is not.

Well, that's a lawyer's answer. :-)

I'll reply with "I said "It seems to me" that the Charter is missing
(...). I did not say that it is definitively missing. A little off topic
for this discussion, but has the original Charter never been modified
since it was created in 2004? Has the original wording been mislaid? If
not, why does the wording "The foregoing information is believed to be
accurate as at 27th September 2016." appear at the end of it?

>>> You might say that moderators should refrain from approving their own
>>> posts, but such a rule would both be impossible to detect and enforce,
>>> and would serve no purpose - either the post should have been approved,
>>> in which case there is no problem, or it should not, in which case the
>>> problem is the same as if the moderator were approving someone else's
>>> post that should have been rejected.
>>
>> Perhaps you could explain the technicalities of moderation. Why would it
>> not be possible to detect a post by another moderator?
>
> Because it is never possible to determine for certain who any particular
> post is from. Many people (perhaps even most) post to the group using
> a name which is not that which appears on their birth certificate or
> which they are referred to in everday life. Some of them post using
> more than one name. If the rules said that moderators could not moderate
> their own posts, it would be trivial for a moderator to circumvent that
> rule by simply posting using a name other than the one they are known as
> as a moderator.

Yes, but that's nym-shifting and associated with trolling. A moderator
who did that is not fit for purpose.

--

Jeff

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-21, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 21/10/2021 15:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2021-10-21, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Thank you for the answer, but it appears to be somewhat ambiguous in how
>>> the term "moderate" is defined. It is true that the post is subject to
>>> moderation, but as that would usually be by the moderator who wrote it,
>>
>> Why do you think that? There is no particular reason that a post written
>> by a moderator would be moderated by its author.
>
> Then I must have been misinterpreting your reply to my OP, although I
> can't see how:
> "if a moderator's post is held for approval... then pretty much by
> definition they can approve the post themselves."
>
> Where is another moderator involved in that?

I said they "can" approve their own posts, for some unknown reason you
jumped straight from "can" to "would usually".

>> Why is it different from how other posts are treated?
>
> Because *all* "external" posts by non-moderators are subject to
> moderation. A moderator's post might not be.

That's not true. Posts from moderators are treated exactly the same as
any other post.

>>> I'm not sure I understand the "pretty much by definition" part either,
>>> other than that a moderator moderates a post. It seems to me that the
>>> Charter is missing "A moderator cannot moderate his/her own post".
>>
>> It is only missing that if it is supposed to contain it, which it is not.
>
> Well, that's a lawyer's answer. :-)
>
> I'll reply with "I said "It seems to me" that the Charter is missing
> (...). I did not say that it is definitively missing.

Ok. So my answer is that it is not missing.

> A little off topic for this discussion, but has the original Charter
> never been modified since it was created in 2004? Has the original
> wording been mislaid? If not, why does the wording "The foregoing
> information is believed to be accurate as at 27th September 2016."
> appear at the end of it?

You can see the original vote to create uk.legal.moderated, which
defined its charter, here: https://ukvoting.org.uk/results/XULM
The charter has never been changed so far as I'm aware.

>> Because it is never possible to determine for certain who any particular
>> post is from. Many people (perhaps even most) post to the group using
>> a name which is not that which appears on their birth certificate or
>> which they are referred to in everday life. Some of them post using
>> more than one name. If the rules said that moderators could not moderate
>> their own posts, it would be trivial for a moderator to circumvent that
>> rule by simply posting using a name other than the one they are known as
>> as a moderator.
>
> Yes, but that's nym-shifting and associated with trolling. A moderator
> who did that is not fit for purpose.

If you say so. But you're missing the point, which is that there is no
way to detect someone doing that.

[Owen Rees]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:59:00 +0100, Jeff Layman
<jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote in <skskam$m0m$1...@dont-email.me>:

>Because *all* "external" posts by non-moderators are subject to
>moderation. A moderator's post might not be.

Perhaps some explanation of the mechanisms might help here. Moderators
and those who have studied the code will be aware that this is not a
complete description of all the facilities, but I believe it is a
sufficient explanation of the relevant parts.

Posts to ulm (and some other uk.* groups) are processed by a modbot that
can automatically approve, automatically reject or send the post for
manual moderation.

There is a so-called 'whitelist' of posters whose posts are candidates
for automatic approval. Any poster may be added to the list by a
moderator. Moderators may be on the list, but this is not automatic and
their posting identities can be added and removed in the same way as the
identities of other posters.

There is a list of patterns that will cause messages from whitelisted
posters to be sent for manual moderation.

The moderation is done through a web interface that presents all the
messages waiting for manual moderation to any moderator who logs in to
the moderation system. The moderator may accept or reject whichever of
the messages they choose, there is no mechanism to compel them to make a
decision on any particular message.

As far as the machinery is concerned, a moderator on the whitelist is
treated like any other poster on the whitelist. The criteria for sending
a message for manual moderation are exactly the same as for any other
whitelisted poster.

The machinery allows but does not compel a moderator to accept or reject
posts of their own that are sent for manual moderation.

How the moderators choose to use these facilities is up to them.

On the whole I think it would be better if moderators did not process
posts of their own that are sent for manual moderation but left them for
other moderators to process.

[Roland Perry]

In message <OOsfsOIZ...@invalid.com>, at 16:48:41 on Thu, 21 Oct
2021, Algernon Goss-Custard <B...@nowhere.com> remarked:

>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> posted
>>In message <itbj4l...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:22:13 on Wed, 20
>>Oct 2021, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>>>On 20 Oct 2021 at 21:42:24 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/10/2021 in message <itb6rp...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
>>>>>> hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
>>>>>> He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects those
>>>>>> as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
>>>>>> things objectively.
>>>>>
>>>>> What part of "there is usually no reviewable moderation decision
>>>>>to accept the post" do you not understand?
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand it at all, what does it mean?
>>>
>>>It means, for the twentieth time, that most posts people ohject to were
>>>accepted automatically, so there is little or no point in appointing a third
>>>party to review the bot's decision.
>>
>>If there's a post which been accepted by the modbot, that a consensus
>>says shouldn't, it's easy for us to update the trigger lists.
>
>The quarrel is not really about posts that are wrongly accepted, it's
>about those that are wrongly suppressed.

I do not recognise the concept of "suppressed", it's not the way the
group is managed.

>Although there is the associated issue that moderators' posts are
>accepted despite being far "worse" than a non-moderator's post on the
>same thread.

You need to talk to the modbot about that, because most acceptances are
automatic.

>>Although I don't recall when the last time was that such a discussion
>>took place. Most of the angst here is people complaining their posting
>>should not have been rejected, and for some reason they never think to
>>modify the posting to make it more acceptable.
>
>In the case of Norman's post to the Everard thread that I quoted, there
>was no way of doing that. The moderator simply said the post wasn't new
>and that was that.

A post rejected as "not new" isn't particularly susceptible to a small
edit making it acceptable.

>>(Retrying an identical posting is never acceptable).
>>
>>Perhaps that's because by and large they are using forged email
>>addresses and don't "get the memo" from the mods.
>
>People use "forged"

Why the quotes, they are most certainly forged.

>e-mail addresses on Usenet to avoid spam. If they used a real one it's
>pretty soon be swamped.

You are perhaps a decade or more out of date in your perception of what
triggers spam emails. There are plenty of people posting in numerous
usenet groups with very real email addresses, and they don't get swamped
(or even spammed at all) in the way you suggest.

And there's a bit of confusion here I think between using a forged
address to anonymise, and using one to avoid being replied to.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <s8p3ng5266e9rde33...@4ax.com>, at 23:38:47 on
Thu, 21 Oct 2021, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> remarked:

>On the whole I think it would be better if moderators did not process
>posts of their own that are sent for manual moderation but left them for
>other moderators to process.

I disagree strongly with that, because of the way the modbot barfs at
trigger-words in quoted content, and even if a benign new posting is
made in the subthread, it's sent for manual moderation.

And no, I do not propose upgrading the modbot to 'correct' this
behaviour, because that quickly turns into a major exercise.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <itd5sl...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:48:23 on Thu, 21

I don't see the rejection messages of other moderators, so it's
literally impossible for me to say.

>>> Do please say.  Without trolling.

>> Perhaps you could follow your own advice.
>
>All I see is yet another trolling refusal to answer a simple question.

The simple answer was: "It'll say in the note attached to the rejection
message".

>>>> (Retrying an identical  posting is never acceptable).
>>>
>>> Why, if the rejection was totally unjustified?

>> And there you go again.
>
>No answer then?

There are no "totally unjustified rejections", but those which are
justified because the postings was needlessly aggressive/abusive might
well be accepted if the poster moderated their language a bit.

>>>> Perhaps that's because by and large they are using forged email
>>>>addresses and don't "get the memo" from the mods.
>>>
>>> The 'memo from the mods' gives no more detail than is available on:
>>>
>>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm

>> Incorrect, it also includes a free-text message. Do try to get the
>>absolute basics right!
>
>It may have that facility. Perhaps you'd tell us just how often (ie in
>what proportion of cases) you have actually availed yourself of it?

Very few, as a percentage, because the majority of my rejections are to
sex-spammers, and it'd be pointless commenting to them - they won't be
listening!

If you want to know the percentage of rejections which aren't to
sex-spammers, then if the rejection was due to being abusive, and are
therefore susceptible to some judicious toning down (while retaining the
basic point) perhaps half of them.

>>>> Not just because of  that, I think we are approaching the time on
>>>>social media in general  that forged accounts need far better
>>>>monitoring, or even banning  altogether.
>>>
>>> Well, good luck with that.
>>>
>>> With all your contacts, influence and importance, perhaps you should
>>>call an international conference.

>> I think the train has been set in motion sufficiently, so I don't
>>need to come out of retirement to assist. But sometimes it's
>>tempting.
>
>Oh, that's OK then. We'll just wait for what you think will happen to
>happen.
>
>If you'll excuse me, though, I shan't be holding my breath.

I was heavily involved in laying the foundations for this three years
ago (but Parliament being consumed by Brexit, stalled the process).
Anyway from this week's PMQs - mindful that an Online Safety Bill will
cover a range of abusive behaviour (and enablers for abusive behaviour)
across all platforms, not just ones highlighted here:

Keir Starmer
------------
I thank the whole House for the way the tributes to Sir David were
handled on Monday. We saw the best of this House, and I want to see if
we can use that collaborative spirit to make progress on one of the
issues that was raised on Monday: tackling violent extremism. It is
three years since the Government promised an online safety Bill, but
it is not yet before the House. Meanwhile, the damage caused by
harmful content online is worse than ever with dangerous algorithms on
Facebook and Instagram. Hope not Hate has shown me an example of
violent Islamism and far-right propaganda on TikTok. What I was shown
has been reported to the moderators but it stayed online because,
apparently, it did not contravene the guidelines. I have to say, I
find that hard to believe.

Will the Prime Minister build on the desire shown by this House on
Monday to get things done and commit to bring forward the Second
Reading of the online safety Bill by the end of this calendar year? If
he does, we will support it.

The Prime Minister
------------------

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the spirit in which he has
approached this issue. I echo what he says about the need for co-operation
across the House, because the safety of MPs - indeed, of all public servants
and everybody who engages with the public - is of vital importance. The
online safety Bill is of huge importance and is one of the most important
tools in our armoury. What we are doing is ensuring that we crack down on
companies that promote illegal and dangerous content, and we will be
toughening up those provisions.

What we will also do is ensure that the online safety Bill completes its
stages in the House before Christmas - or rather, that we bring it forward
before Christmas in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman
suggests. I am delighted that he is offering his support and we look forward
to that.

While it's unfortunate that Boris contradicted himself in the same
breath in the penultimate sentence above, the ensuing exchanges make it
extremely likely that the Bill will at least be published by Xmas, and
available for committee scrutiny in the New Year.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <m333ngl4q01r58bk9...@4ax.com>, at 17:05:51 on
Thu, 21 Oct 2021, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> remarked:

I'm unaware that the freestyle rejection message would be included in
the log as shown above. But I'll send a test posting, and reject it, and
perhaps you can have a look at it.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <$fy2aK2j...@perry.uk>, at 06:04:35 on Fri, 22 Oct 2021,
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:

... and the custom reject message appears as the very first line of the
rejection notification email to the poster. Ahead of the canned reply:

"The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected
by a moderator. "
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

On 21/10/2021 23:05, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2021-10-21, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 21/10/2021 15:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:

> I said they "can" approve their own posts, for some unknown reason you
> jumped straight from "can" to "would usually".
>
>>> Why is it different from how other posts are treated?
>>
>> Because *all* "external" posts by non-moderators are subject to
>> moderation. A moderator's post might not be.
>
> That's not true. Posts from moderators are treated exactly the same as
> any other post.

No they aren't. They are only even possibly treated the same as posts
from others who are similarly white-listed. And white-listed posters'
posts are only even queued for moderation if they contains certain
naughty words on a trigger list.

So, a moderator, being white-listed, who avoids the trigger words, will
automatically have his posts accepted even if they are abusive or
hurtful to others, if they are not new, if they are off topic, or even
if they are blatantly trolling.

And we've seen several examples of all of those.

[Norman Wells]

On 22/10/2021 05:44, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <itd5sl...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:48:23 on Thu, 21
> Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 21/10/2021 09:13, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <itcl1k...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:00:53 on Thu, 21
>>> Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>> On 21/10/2021 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:

>>>>> Most of the angst here is people complaining
>>>>> their posting  should not have been rejected, and for some reason
>>>>> they never think to  modify the posting to make it more acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> They complain when the rejection is clearly wrong and totally
>>>> unjustified by the reason given.  They also complain, quite rightly,
>>>> when the rejection appears personal.
>>>>
>>>> How exactly in those cases should they 'modify the posting to make
>>>> it more acceptable'?
>
>>> It'll say in the note attached to the rejection message,
>>
>> I doubt it. In what percentage of rejection messages is there any such
>> kindly advice provided by a friendly moderator? You must have some
>> idea.
>
> I don't see the rejection messages of other moderators, so it's
> literally impossible for me to say.

Since you have no idea, let me tell you my idea. It will be under 10%
and quite possibly very near zero if not actually zero.

>>>> Do please say.  Without trolling.
>
>>> Perhaps you could follow your own advice.
>>
>> All I see is yet another trolling refusal to answer a simple question.
>
> The simple answer was: "It'll say in the note attached to the rejection
> message".

Which is untrue. You said you had no idea. And indeed you admit later
that there are in fact very few such notes even from yourself.

An honest answer would have been appreciated.

>>>>> (Retrying an identical  posting is never acceptable).
>>>>
>>>> Why, if the rejection was totally unjustified?
>
>>> And there you go again.
>>
>> No answer then?
>
> There are no "totally unjustified rejections",

So, you think you're perfect, which I think we all knew anyway, and that
all the other moderators are perfect too?

I think that's nonsense.

> but those which are
> justified because the postings was needlessly aggressive/abusive might
> well be accepted if the poster moderated their language a bit.
>
>>>>> Perhaps that's because by and large they are using forged email
>>>>> addresses and don't "get the memo" from the mods.
>>>>
>>>> The 'memo from the mods' gives no more detail than is available on:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm
>
>>> Incorrect, it also includes a free-text message. Do try to get the
>>> absolute basics right!
>>
>> It may have that facility. Perhaps you'd tell us just how often (ie in
>> what proportion of cases) you have actually availed yourself of it?
>
> Very few, as a percentage, because the majority of my rejections are to
> sex-spammers, and it'd be pointless commenting to them - they won't be
> listening!

Diversion noted.

> If you want to know the percentage of rejections which aren't to
> sex-spammers,

Of course. It's what we were talking about.

> then if the rejection was due to being abusive, and are
> therefore susceptible to some judicious toning down (while retaining the
> basic point) perhaps half of them.

So, on just half of one of the several grounds of rejection, perhaps.

Or perhaps not.

It seems you don't have much idea, or are being disingenuous.

It wouldn't be the first time.

[Norman Wells]

On 22/10/2021 05:54, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <OOsfsOIZ...@invalid.com>, at 16:48:41 on Thu, 21 Oct
> 2021, Algernon Goss-Custard <B...@nowhere.com> remarked:

>> The quarrel is not really about posts that are wrongly accepted, it's
>> about those that are wrongly suppressed.
>
> I do not recognise the concept of "suppressed",

It's not a concept but a word. It means what it says, and it's exactly
what happens.

Do please stop your clever-clever weaselling that is utterly transparent
and impresses no-one.

> it's not the way the group is managed.

It's what happens.

>> Although there is the associated issue that moderators' posts are
>> accepted despite being far "worse" than a non-moderator's post on the
>> same thread.
>
> You need to talk to the modbot about that, because most acceptances are
> automatic.

That is exactly the problem.

Your further evasion is noted though.

>
>>> Although I don't recall when the last time was that such a discussion
>>> took place. Most of the angst here is people complaining their
>>> posting should not have been rejected, and for some reason they never
>>> think to modify the posting to make it more acceptable.
>>
>> In the case of Norman's post to the Everard thread that I quoted,
>> there was no way of doing that. The moderator simply said the post
>> wasn't new and that was that.
>
> A post rejected as "not new" isn't particularly susceptible to a small
> edit making it acceptable.

But it was not 'not new' on any rational basis. No edit was necessary
at all. Why should it not have been resubmitted and accepted exactly as
it was originally written?

[Norman Wells]

On 21/10/2021 23:38, Owen Rees wrote:

> Posts to ulm (and some other uk.* groups) are processed by a modbot that
> can automatically approve, automatically reject or send the post for
> manual moderation.
>
> There is a so-called 'whitelist' of posters whose posts are candidates
> for automatic approval. Any poster may be added to the list by a
> moderator. Moderators may be on the list, but this is not automatic and
> their posting identities can be added and removed in the same way as the
> identities of other posters.

When was the last time a moderator was not white-listed, or was removed
from the white-list for some abusive reason presumably by someone other
than himself?

> There is a list of patterns that will cause messages from whitelisted
> posters to be sent for manual moderation.

What on earth is a 'list of patterns'? If you mean just trigger words,
please say so. Otherwise please explain further.

Does it, for example, include being abusive or hurtful to others
(provided the trigger words are avoided of course), posting off-topic,
being 'not new' or even blatant trolling?

You see, we've had several examples of moderators doing all of those.

How can it be stopped?

[Norman Wells]

Is this a general principle? We don't need to do anything because it
will involve effort?

[Owen Rees]

As you know, code that probably does the job in most cases is available.

[Owen Rees]

https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-163487906225259.txt

That looks like the one and the message is there in the log.

[Roger Hayter]

My suspicion is that the problem is not as great as you claim. But the simple
answer is that it can be stopped, if necessary, by quoting the offending posts
in this group. If the consensus here is that the post(s) is or are
objectionable then the moderators will no doubt be shamed into mending their
ways. If, however, the majority sympathise with the moderators for becoming
impatient with people who pompously repeat self-important nonsense dozens of
times while ignoring others' logic and legal knowledge then the outcome may be
different.

--
Roger Hayter

[The Todal]

On 22/10/2021 09:47, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 21/10/2021 23:38, Owen Rees wrote:
>
>> Posts to ulm (and some other uk.* groups) are processed by a modbot that
>> can automatically approve, automatically reject or send the post for
>> manual moderation.
>>
>> There is a so-called 'whitelist' of posters whose posts are candidates
>> for automatic approval. Any poster may be added to the list by a
>> moderator. Moderators may be on the list, but this is not automatic and
>> their posting identities can be added and removed in the same way as the
>> identities of other posters.
>
> When was the last time a moderator was not white-listed, or was removed
> from the white-list for some abusive reason presumably by someone other
> than himself?

I will speak only for myself - I am not whitelisted and haven't been for
many years.

>
>> There is a list of patterns that will cause messages from whitelisted
>> posters to be sent for manual moderation.
>
> What on earth is a 'list of patterns'?  If you mean just trigger words,
> please say so.  Otherwise please explain further.

There's also a "watch list" for posters who have repeatedly been abusive
or defamatory. There are hardly any names on it. Yours isn't.

>
> Does it, for example, include being abusive or hurtful to others
> (provided the trigger words are avoided of course), posting off-topic,
> being 'not new' or even blatant trolling?
>
> You see, we've had several examples of moderators doing all of those.
>
> How can it be stopped?

It would have to be much stricter moderation for everyone, so that any
off topic posts were rejected and any repetition of a point previously
made (even by other people) was rejected.

There would be far less to read. On the other hand, far more work for
the moderators.

[Roland Perry]

In message <sktubn$15l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:56:23 on Fri, 22 Oct

2021, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <s8p3ng5266e9rde33...@4ax.com>, at 23:38:47 on
>> Thu, 21 Oct 2021, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> On the whole I think it would be better if moderators did not process
>>> posts of their own that are sent for manual moderation but left them for
>>> other moderators to process.
>>
>> I disagree strongly with that, because of the way the modbot barfs at
>> trigger-words in quoted content, and even if a benign new posting is
>> made in the subthread, it's sent for manual moderation.
>>
>> And no, I do not propose upgrading the modbot to 'correct' this
>> behaviour, because that quickly turns into a major exercise.
>
>As you know, code that probably does the job in most cases is available.

Testing that hypothesis, and getting the live system updated, is vastly
more work than I expect the moderators to put into the project.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <sktuk2$2tp$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:00:50 on Fri, 22 Oct
2021, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> remarked:

So it is. Problem solved then (in as much as posters with forged email
addresses being unable to see the advice offered to them after rejection
of certain examples of posting).
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <itfc77...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:48:40 on Fri, 22
Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

Disproportionate effort.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

On 22/10/2021 10:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2021 at 09:47:12 BST, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/2021 23:38, Owen Rees wrote:
>>
>>> Posts to ulm (and some other uk.* groups) are processed by a modbot that
>>> can automatically approve, automatically reject or send the post for
>>> manual moderation.
>>>
>>> There is a so-called 'whitelist' of posters whose posts are candidates
>>> for automatic approval. Any poster may be added to the list by a
>>> moderator. Moderators may be on the list, but this is not automatic and
>>> their posting identities can be added and removed in the same way as the
>>> identities of other posters.
>>
>> When was the last time a moderator was not white-listed, or was removed
>> from the white-list for some abusive reason presumably by someone other
>> than himself?
>>
>>> There is a list of patterns that will cause messages from whitelisted
>>> posters to be sent for manual moderation.
>>
>> What on earth is a 'list of patterns'? If you mean just trigger words,
>> please say so. Otherwise please explain further.
>>
>> Does it, for example, include being abusive or hurtful to others
>> (provided the trigger words are avoided of course), posting off-topic,
>> being 'not new' or even blatant trolling?
>>
>> You see, we've had several examples of moderators doing all of those.
>>
>> How can it be stopped?
>
> My suspicion is that the problem is not as great as you claim.

It shouldn't be a problem at all. But it happens. Repeatedly.

Anyway, it shouldn't be 'a suspicion'. All the evidence is out there.

> But the simple
> answer is that it can be stopped, if necessary, by quoting the offending posts
> in this group. If the consensus here is that the post(s) is or are
> objectionable then the moderators will no doubt be shamed into mending their
> ways.

You really think so?

You see, I have my doubts.

> If, however, the majority sympathise with the moderators for becoming
> impatient with people who pompously repeat self-important nonsense dozens of
> times while ignoring others' logic and legal knowledge then the outcome may be
> different.

Poor Roland's in for the chop then.

[Roland Perry]

In message <itfaki...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:21:38 on Fri, 22

Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 22/10/2021 05:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <itd5sl...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:48:23 on Thu, 21
>> Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 21/10/2021 09:13, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <itcl1k...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:00:53 on Thu, 21
>>>> Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>>> On 21/10/2021 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>>>>> Most of the angst here is people complaining
>>>>>> their posting  should not have been rejected, and for some reason
>>>>>> they never think to  modify the posting to make it more acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> They complain when the rejection is clearly wrong and totally
>>>>> unjustified by the reason given.  They also complain, quite rightly,
>>>>> when the rejection appears personal.
>>>>>
>>>>> How exactly in those cases should they 'modify the posting to make
>>>>> it more acceptable'?
>>
>>>> It'll say in the note attached to the rejection message,
>>>
>>> I doubt it. In what percentage of rejection messages is there any such
>>> kindly advice provided by a friendly moderator? You must have some
>>> idea.

>> I don't see the rejection messages of other moderators, so it's
>> literally impossible for me to say.
>
>Since you have no idea, let me tell you my idea. It will be under 10%
>and quite possibly very near zero if not actually zero.

It's actually zero, because I append such notes from time to time. Now
that I know can see them, despite posting from a forged email address, I
might write you a few more.

>>>>> Do please say.  Without trolling.
>>
>>>> Perhaps you could follow your own advice.
>>>
>>> All I see is yet another trolling refusal to answer a simple question.

>> The simple answer was: "It'll say in the note attached to the
>>rejection message".
>
>Which is untrue. You said you had no idea. And indeed you admit later
>that there are in fact very few such notes even from yourself.
>
>An honest answer would have been appreciated.

You appear to have got yourself in a right royal muddle.

The answer to the question about "how does the poster know what to do"
is an entirely different matter the question "how many are there".

Both were answered completely honestly (as it happens).

>>>>>> (Retrying an identical  posting is never acceptable).
>>>>>
>>>>> Why, if the rejection was totally unjustified?
>>
>>>> And there you go again.
>>>
>>> No answer then?
>> There are no "totally unjustified rejections",
>
>So, you think you're perfect, which I think we all knew anyway, and
>that all the other moderators are perfect too?
>
>I think that's nonsense.

In all the time I've been a moderator I can only think of a couple of
times my finger slipped and rejected an acceptable posting rather than
approving it. I'll give the other moderators the benefit of that doubt
too.

>> but those which are
>> justified because the postings was needlessly aggressive/abusive might
>> well be accepted if the poster moderated their language a bit.
>>
>>>>>> Perhaps that's because by and large they are using forged email
>>>>>> addresses and don't "get the memo" from the mods.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'memo from the mods' gives no more detail than is available on:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm
>>
>>>> Incorrect, it also includes a free-text message. Do try to get
>>>>

>>>> absolute basics right!
>>>
>>> It may have that facility. Perhaps you'd tell us just how often (ie in
>>> what proportion of cases) you have actually availed yourself of it?

>> Very few, as a percentage, because the majority of my rejections are
>>to sex-spammers, and it'd be pointless commenting to them - they
>>won't be listening!
>
>Diversion noted.

You wanted an honest answer. And you got one. If you don't like it, then
tough!

>> If you want to know the percentage of rejections which aren't to
>> sex-spammers,
>
>Of course. It's what we were talking about.
>
>> then if the rejection was due to being abusive, and are therefore
>>susceptible to some judicious toning down (while retaining the basic
>>point) perhaps half of them.
>
>So, on just half of one of the several grounds of rejection, perhaps.
>
>Or perhaps not.
>
>It seems you don't have much idea, or are being disingenuous.

I'm being quite clear that in my opinion it's only worth making
suggestions in the reject message, if there's a possibility that a quick
edit will resolve the issue. Abusive and libellous are the only
categories which stand out.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <itfbcv...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:34:39 on Fri, 22

Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>On 22/10/2021 05:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <OOsfsOIZ...@invalid.com>, at 16:48:41 on Thu, 21 Oct
>>2021, Algernon Goss-Custard <B...@nowhere.com> remarked:
>
>>> The quarrel is not really about posts that are wrongly accepted,
>>>it's about those that are wrongly suppressed.

>> I do not recognise the concept of "suppressed",
>
>It's not a concept but a word. It means what it says, and it's exactly
>what happens.

You are paranoid about that. It's not what's happening, and there's
really no point in continuing flogging this dead horse (unless you
haven't got anything better to do, but I have).
--
Roland Perry

[Brian]

Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In the "Re: ULM Everard thread" thread a comment was made: "Especially
> as you are a ULM moderator and so never have your own posts suppressed."
>
> Is that true? Is a Moderator's post in ULM not subject to moderation in
> the same way that all others are?
>

> The Charter isn't prescriptive on the matter. In the preamble to The
> Charter itself, the second paragraph begins: "The normal rule is that
> any postings to the group must be approved by a member of the moderation
> team before they appear in the group". There is, however, nothing about
> this in The Charter itself.
>
> Does this apply to all moderated newsgroups?
>

Not all groups but it clearly does to ulm judging by the content of some
moderator’s posts.

[Brian]

The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:

> On 20/10/2021 12:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 20/10/2021 in message

>> <slrnsmvucj.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>
>>> You might say that moderators should refrain from approving their own
>>> posts, but such a rule would both be impossible to detect and enforce,
>>> and would serve no purpose - either the post should have been approved,
>>> in which case there is no problem, or it should not, in which case the
>>> problem is the same as if the moderator were approving someone else's
>>> post that should have been rejected.
>>

>> That's very odd thinking, it would serve the purpose of stopping a
>> moderator from approving his/her unacceptable post.
>>
>
> There aren't enough moderators. Moderators are free to approve their own
> posts. Any discussion about whether a post was wrongly approved can take
> place here, in UNNM. The question of who actually approved it is irrelevant.
>
>
>

ROTFL

[Brian]

Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
> On 2021-10-20, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn12bh.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-20, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn0p15.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>

>>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>> I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
>>>>>> hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
>>>>>> He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
>>>>>> things objectively.
>>>>>

>>>>> What do you think this group is for?
>>>>
>>>> It's to moan about moderators' decisions, not to review them, do you
>>>> read it much?
>>>
>>> I generally read all of it, except for a few people I've kill-filed or
>>> insane threads from those interminable radio fuckwits.
>>
>> Then you will know that it is rare for a moderator to identify him/herself
>> as making a decision let alone explaining it.
>
> Even if we take that to be true for the sake of argument, what's your
> point? Can you not discuss a decision without knowing who made it?
>

If the same moderator displays a pattern of rejections it is relevant,
especially if the reasons given don’t make sense.

[Brian]

Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2021 at 22:33:57 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk>

> wrote:
>
>> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn12bh.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-10-20, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 20/10/2021 in message <slrnsn0p15.8...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
>>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>> I disagree I'm afraid, self regulation doesn't work. My landlord's MD
>>>>>> hears all complaints, including those against him, and rejects them all.
>>>>>> He also hears all appeals, including those against him, and rejects
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> as well. All processes need a system whereby a third party can look at
>>>>>> things objectively.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think this group is for?
>>>>
>>>> It's to moan about moderators' decisions, not to review them, do you
>>>> read it much?
>>>
>>> I generally read all of it, except for a few people I've kill-filed or
>>> insane threads from those interminable radio fuckwits.
>>
>> Then you will know that it is rare for a moderator to identify him/herself
>> as making a decision let alone explaining it.
>

> No it's not. It is rare for a moderator to respond to a hectoring demand to
> reveal and explain himself, but more rational complainants have *frequently*
> been told who made a decision.
>

Spoken like an autocratic moderator who claims not to believe in moderated
groups but moderates one anyway.

Rather like sitting on a selection board not employing anyone with an Asian
sounding name yet claiming not to be a racist.

[Brian]

Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21/10/2021 in message <slrnsn2ivv.5...@raven.unequivocal.eu>
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>> On 2021-10-21, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 20/10/2021 in message <itbj4l...@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter

>>> wrote:
>>>>>> What part of "there is usually no reviewable moderation decision to
>>>>>> accept the post" do you not understand?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand it at all, what does it mean?
>>>>
>>>> It means, for the twentieth time, that most posts people ohject to were

>>>> accepted automatically, so there is little or no point in appointing a

>>>> third party to review the bot's decision.
>>>

>>> That's the first time I've seen that explanation, perhaps if you were less
>>> patronising people would take note of what you say?
>>
>> So it's somehow his fault that you have failed to read posts by multiple
>> other people?
>
> Oh dear, patronising is obviously infectious, try learning some manners
> and try reading "That's the first time I've seen that explanation" again.
>

Jon Ribbens turns to insults when he can’t answer. Odd he should agree with
Roger - one of those radio amateurs he just insulted.

[Norman Wells]

On 22/10/2021 10:57, The Todal wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 09:47, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 21/10/2021 23:38, Owen Rees wrote:
>>
>>> Posts to ulm (and some other uk.* groups) are processed by a modbot that
>>> can automatically approve, automatically reject or send the post for
>>> manual moderation.
>>>
>>> There is a so-called 'whitelist' of posters whose posts are candidates
>>> for automatic approval. Any poster may be added to the list by a
>>> moderator. Moderators may be on the list, but this is not automatic and
>>> their posting identities can be added and removed in the same way as the
>>> identities of other posters.
>>
>> When was the last time a moderator was not white-listed, or was
>> removed from the white-list for some abusive reason presumably by
>> someone other than himself?
>
> I will speak only for myself - I am not whitelisted and haven't been for
> many years.

I believe you've said that before. But how many posts have you had
rejected by other moderators in that time?

You see, I'm sort of suspecting a cosy coterie where all of your posts
will be accepted, probably with no real surveillance, by the others.

How else are your clearly off-topic posts about Brexit allowed?

Indeed, the latest thread, which you started, began with a statement
that it was probably off-topic (which of course you knew it was) but was
passed nevertheless. Similar posts from others I am sure would have
been rejected.

If there is no surveillance in any real sense, you're effectively
white-listed. Maintaining that you're not therefore makes no difference.

>>> There is a list of patterns that will cause messages from whitelisted
>>> posters to be sent for manual moderation.
>>
>> What on earth is a 'list of patterns'?  If you mean just trigger
>> words, please say so.  Otherwise please explain further.
>
> There's also a "watch list" for posters who have repeatedly been abusive
> or defamatory. There are hardly any names on it. Yours isn't.

Of course it isn't. That's because I never am.

But no watch list for posters who post 'off-topic' or 'not new', or who
just troll?

That would include a fair few moderators in my estimation.

>> Does it, for example, include being abusive or hurtful to others
>> (provided the trigger words are avoided of course), posting off-topic,
>> being 'not new' or even blatant trolling?
>>
>> You see, we've had several examples of moderators doing all of those.
>>
>> How can it be stopped?
>
> It would have to be much stricter moderation for everyone, so that any
> off topic posts were rejected

Since that's a ground for rejection, surely they should be, shouldn't
they? Otherwise, why have the ground, and on what basis is it applied
to some posts (or posters) but not to others?

[Roland Perry]

In message <itfibj...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:33:24 on Fri, 22

Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>But no watch list for posters who post 'off-topic' or 'not new', or who
>just troll?

Your definition of "trolling" please...
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

Quite.

> because I append such notes from time to time.

But you have no idea how often. Or won't say.

> Now that I know can see them, despite posting from a forged email address, I
> might write you a few more.

How lovely! I do so look forward to it.

The fact is, though, I have never seen any comment from any moderator in
respect of any post of mine that has ever been rejected.

I really do doubt that I will in future either.

>>>>>> Do please say.  Without trolling.
>>>
>>>>>   Perhaps you could follow your own advice.
>>>>
>>>> All I see is yet another trolling refusal to answer a simple question.
>
>>>  The simple answer was: "It'll say in the note attached to the
>>> rejection  message".
>>
>> Which is untrue.  You said you had no idea.  And indeed you admit
>> later that there are in fact very few such notes even from yourself.
>>
>> An honest answer would have been appreciated.
>
> You appear to have got yourself in a right royal muddle.
>
> The answer to the question about "how does the poster know what to do"
> is an entirely different matter the question "how many are there".
>
> Both were answered completely honestly (as it happens).

The two are related. If there are no such messages, as seems to be the
case, they cannot possibly know how they should 'modify the posting to
make it more acceptable' as you fatuously suggested.

>>>>>>> (Retrying an identical  posting is never acceptable).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why, if the rejection was totally unjustified?
>>>
>>>>>   And there you go again.
>>>>
>>>> No answer then?
>>>  There are no "totally unjustified rejections",
>>
>> So, you think you're perfect, which I think we all knew anyway, and
>> that all the other moderators are perfect too?
>>
>> I think that's nonsense.
>
> In all the time I've been a moderator I can only think of a couple of
> times my finger slipped and rejected an acceptable posting rather than
> approving it. I'll give the other moderators the benefit of that doubt too.

It happens far more frequently than you make out. That's why there is
so much correspondence in this forum.

In fact, the amount of correspondence here I think reflects the standard
of moderation. Shouldn't this group really be unnecessary, or at least
a lot shorter, if everything in the garden was rosy?

So, your comment that people 'for some reason never think to modify the
posting to make it more acceptable' is utter bullshit. There is no way
they can do that despite your maintaining that 'It'll say in the note
attached to the rejection message' when in the vast majority of cases
such a message doesn't even exist.

You've been as opaque as mud. And not for the first time.

[Norman Wells]

Rejection of a post is suppressing it.

It's the English language, see?

[Roger Hayter]

There aren't that many threads here. And the volume is due a) to people
getting sidetracked into Brexit etc. and b), self-important idiots arguing the
toss endlessly, despite having made their point many posts ago. You won't
induce people to agree with you simply by bombarding them with leading
questions.

--
Roger Hayter

[Norman Wells]

The above.

[Norman Wells]

On 22/10/2021 13:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2021 at 13:14:00 BST, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 11:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <itfaki...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:21:38 on Fri, 22
>>> Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>> So, you think you're perfect, which I think we all knew anyway, and
>>>> that all the other moderators are perfect too?
>>>>
>>>> I think that's nonsense.
>>>
>>> In all the time I've been a moderator I can only think of a couple of
>>> times my finger slipped and rejected an acceptable posting rather than
>>> approving it. I'll give the other moderators the benefit of that doubt too.
>>
>> It happens far more frequently than you make out. That's why there is
>> so much correspondence in this forum.
>>
>> In fact, the amount of correspondence here I think reflects the standard
>> of moderation. Shouldn't this group really be unnecessary, or at least
>> a lot shorter, if everything in the garden was rosy?
>
> There aren't that many threads here. And the volume is due a) to people
> getting sidetracked into Brexit etc. and b), self-important idiots arguing the
> toss endlessly, despite having made their point many posts ago. You won't
> induce people to agree with you simply by bombarding them with leading
> questions.

Once again, you demonstrate you don't understand what a 'leading
question' is, or you'd appreciate that what I ask never is.

That's a bit sad in someone who contributes to a legal newsgroup.

[Jeff Layman]

On 21/10/2021 23:38, Owen Rees wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:59:00 +0100, Jeff Layman
> <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote in <skskam$m0m$1...@dont-email.me>:
>
>> Because *all* "external" posts by non-moderators are subject to
>> moderation. A moderator's post might not be.
>
> Perhaps some explanation of the mechanisms might help here. Moderators
> and those who have studied the code will be aware that this is not a
> complete description of all the facilities, but I believe it is a
> sufficient explanation of the relevant parts.

>
> Posts to ulm (and some other uk.* groups) are processed by a modbot that
> can automatically approve, automatically reject or send the post for
> manual moderation.
>
> There is a so-called 'whitelist' of posters whose posts are candidates
> for automatic approval. Any poster may be added to the list by a
> moderator. Moderators may be on the list, but this is not automatic and
> their posting identities can be added and removed in the same way as the
> identities of other posters.
>

> There is a list of patterns that will cause messages from whitelisted
> posters to be sent for manual moderation.
>

> The moderation is done through a web interface that presents all the
> messages waiting for manual moderation to any moderator who logs in to
> the moderation system. The moderator may accept or reject whichever of
> the messages they choose, there is no mechanism to compel them to make a
> decision on any particular message.
>
> As far as the machinery is concerned, a moderator on the whitelist is
> treated like any other poster on the whitelist. The criteria for sending
> a message for manual moderation are exactly the same as for any other
> whitelisted poster.
>
> The machinery allows but does not compel a moderator to accept or reject
> posts of their own that are sent for manual moderation.
>
> How the moderators choose to use these facilities is up to them.

>
> On the whole I think it would be better if moderators did not process
> posts of their own that are sent for manual moderation but left them for
> other moderators to process.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. FWIW I agree with your final paragraph.

--

Jeff

[Brian]

Oh the irony.

[Roland Perry]

In message <itfo87...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:14:00 on Fri, 22

Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>>> In what percentage of rejection messages is there any such
>>>>> kindly advice provided by a friendly moderator?  You must have some
>>>>> idea.
>>
>>>>  I don't see the rejection messages of other moderators, so it's
>>>> literally impossible for me to say.
>>>
>>> Since you have no idea, let me tell you my idea.  It will be under
>>>10% and quite possibly very near zero if not actually zero.

>> It's actually zero,
>
>Quite.

Oops, typo. Missing "not".

>> because I append such notes from time to time.
>
>But you have no idea how often. Or won't say.

Sorry if my non-photographic memory disappoints you.

>> Now that I know can see them, despite posting from a forged email
>>address, I might write you a few more.
>
>How lovely! I do so look forward to it.
>
>The fact is, though, I have never seen any comment from any moderator
>in respect of any post of mine that has ever been rejected.

Is that because of your forged email address, or have you not bothered
to look at the logs discussed the last 24hrs?

>I really do doubt that I will in future either.

I will make a point of it.

>>>>>>> Do please say.  Without trolling.
>>>>
>>>>>>   Perhaps you could follow your own advice.
>>>>>
>>>>> All I see is yet another trolling refusal to answer a simple question.
>>
>>>>  The simple answer was: "It'll say in the note attached to the
>>>>rejection  message".
>>>
>>> Which is untrue.  You said you had no idea.  And indeed you admit
>>>later that there are in fact very few such notes even from yourself.
>>>
>>> An honest answer would have been appreciated.
>> You appear to have got yourself in a right royal muddle.
>> The answer to the question about "how does the poster know what to
>>do" is an entirely different matter the question "how many are there".
>> Both were answered completely honestly (as it happens).
>
>The two are related.

But you [falsely] accused me over the first question.

>If there are no such messages, as seems to be the case, they cannot
>possibly know how they should 'modify the posting to make it more
>acceptable' as you fatuously suggested.

Getting a bit close to name-calling there, Norm. But you don't do that,
you claim.

>> In all the time I've been a moderator I can only think of a couple
>>of times my finger slipped and rejected an acceptable posting rather
>>than approving it. I'll give the other moderators the benefit of that
>>doubt too.
>
>It happens far more frequently than you make out. That's why there is
>so much correspondence in this forum.

You have evidence the rejections you object to are because of finger
trouble, rather than because of what you wrote?

>In fact, the amount of correspondence here I think reflects the
>standard of moderation. Shouldn't this group really be unnecessary, or
>at least a lot shorter, if everything in the garden was rosy?

It's be a lot quieter if you spent less time trying to justify the
unjustifiable.

>> I'm being quite clear that in my opinion it's only worth making
>>suggestions in the reject message, if there's a possibility that a
>>quick edit will resolve the issue. Abusive and libellous are the only
>>categories which stand out.
>
>So, your comment that people 'for some reason never think to modify the
>posting to make it more acceptable' is utter bullshit.

The times such a modification is made are rare.

>There is no way they can do that despite your maintaining that 'It'll
>say in the note attached to the rejection message' when in the vast
>majority of cases such a message doesn't even exist.

It does then there's a possibility a small edit would turn an ad-hominem
attack into something that scrapes into the realm of acceptability.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <itfoac...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:15:09 on Fri, 22

Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 22/10/2021 11:04, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <itfbcv...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:34:39 on Fri, 22
>>Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 22/10/2021 05:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <OOsfsOIZ...@invalid.com>, at 16:48:41 on Thu, 21
>>>>Oct 2021, Algernon Goss-Custard <B...@nowhere.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> The quarrel is not really about posts that are wrongly accepted,
>>>>>it's  about those that are wrongly suppressed.
>>
>>>>  I do not recognise the concept of "suppressed",
>>>
>>> It's not a concept but a word.  It means what it says, and it's
>>>exactly what happens.

>> You are paranoid about that. It's not what's happening, and there's
>>really no point in continuing flogging this dead horse (unless you
>>haven't got anything better to do, but I have).
>
>Rejection of a post is suppressing it.

Not in the context you used the word. It simply means that posting was
off-charter.
--
Roland Perry

[Jeff Layman]

On 21/10/2021 23:05, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2021-10-21, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 21/10/2021 15:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-21, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Thank you for the answer, but it appears to be somewhat ambiguous in how
>>>> the term "moderate" is defined. It is true that the post is subject to
>>>> moderation, but as that would usually be by the moderator who wrote it,
>>>
>>> Why do you think that? There is no particular reason that a post written
>>> by a moderator would be moderated by its author.
>>
>> Then I must have been misinterpreting your reply to my OP, although I
>> can't see how:
>> "if a moderator's post is held for approval... then pretty much by
>> definition they can approve the post themselves."
>>
>> Where is another moderator involved in that?
>
> I said they "can" approve their own posts, for some unknown reason you
> jumped straight from "can" to "would usually".

Agreed. That was a jump too far. I withdraw that comment.

>>> Why is it different from how other posts are treated?

>>
>> Because *all* "external" posts by non-moderators are subject to
>> moderation. A moderator's post might not be.
>

> That's not true. Posts from moderators are treated exactly the same as
> any other post.

That doesn't tie in with your statement above: "I said they "can"
approve their own posts,...". Non-moderators who post to ULM cannot
approve their own posts. Whether or not the moderator approves their own
post is irrelevant. The fact that it is available to them but not others
is the point.

>>>> I'm not sure I understand the "pretty much by definition" part either,
>>>> other than that a moderator moderates a post. It seems to me that the
>>>> Charter is missing "A moderator cannot moderate his/her own post".
>>>
>>> It is only missing that if it is supposed to contain it, which it is not.
>>
>> Well, that's a lawyer's answer. :-)
>>
>> I'll reply with "I said "It seems to me" that the Charter is missing
>> (...). I did not say that it is definitively missing.
>
> Ok. So my answer is that it is not missing.

Perhaps it could be considered, especially as your point below suggests
that the Charter hasn't been modified in any way (see below, and the
reply by Owen Rees).

>> A little off topic for this discussion, but has the original Charter
>> never been modified since it was created in 2004? Has the original
>> wording been mislaid? If not, why does the wording "The foregoing
>> information is believed to be accurate as at 27th September 2016."
>> appear at the end of it?
>
> You can see the original vote to create uk.legal.moderated, which
> defined its charter, here: https://ukvoting.org.uk/results/XULM
> The charter has never been changed so far as I'm aware.

I compared the original charter page
(<https://ukvoting.org.uk/results/XULM>) and the current one
(<https://uklegal.weebly.com/>) in a side-by-side comparison, in
relation to the Charter and also to Moderation. There are some
differences in the Charter, but they appear to be minor and of little
significance. One clear difference is that the original has the words
"END CHARTER", presumably to define the end of the Charter.

Those words do not appear in the current charter, which therefore could
be interpreted as including the moderation policy. That, under the
heading "Proposed Initial Moderation Policy Document" is handled
separately to the Charter in the original. What is perhaps most relevant
here is that there are *considerable* differences between the initial
moderation policy and that which now exists.

Even if the Charter has not changed significantly, it appears that the
Moderation Policy has. I assume there is some agreed machinery by which
this takes place. It would appear to be pertinent to this thread.

Finally, I read the reply downthread by Owen Rees, and, as you can see,
agree with his conclusion.

>>> Because it is never possible to determine for certain who any particular
>>> post is from. Many people (perhaps even most) post to the group using
>>> a name which is not that which appears on their birth certificate or
>>> which they are referred to in everday life. Some of them post using
>>> more than one name. If the rules said that moderators could not moderate
>>> their own posts, it would be trivial for a moderator to circumvent that
>>> rule by simply posting using a name other than the one they are known as
>>> as a moderator.
>>
>> Yes, but that's nym-shifting and associated with trolling. A moderator
>> who did that is not fit for purpose.
>
> If you say so. But you're missing the point, which is that there is no
> way to detect someone doing that.

I had thought that, despite a changed "From", there was a way of at
least partially detecting it via headers if the same news server was
used for posting, but perhaps not.

--

Jeff

[Roland Perry]

In message <itfqpq...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:57:31 on Fri, 22

Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 22/10/2021 12:40, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <itfibj...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:33:24 on Fri, 22
>>Oct 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>
>>> But no watch list for posters who post 'off-topic' or 'not new', or
>>>who just troll?

>> Your definition of "trolling" please...
>
>The above.

There's no definition there. Just repeating an undefined word.
--
Roland Perry

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-22, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 21/10/2021 23:05, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2021-10-21, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Because *all* "external" posts by non-moderators are subject to
>>> moderation. A moderator's post might not be.
>>
>> That's not true. Posts from moderators are treated exactly the same as
>> any other post.
>
> That doesn't tie in with your statement above: "I said they "can"
> approve their own posts,...". Non-moderators who post to ULM cannot
> approve their own posts. Whether or not the moderator approves their own
> post is irrelevant. The fact that it is available to them but not others
> is the point.

Yes, moderators can moderate posts. That's pretty obvious.

>>> I'll reply with "I said "It seems to me" that the Charter is missing
>>> (...). I did not say that it is definitively missing.
>>
>> Ok. So my answer is that it is not missing.
>
> Perhaps it could be considered, especially as your point below suggests
> that the Charter hasn't been modified in any way (see below, and the
> reply by Owen Rees).

I'm not sure what your point is. Moderated groups were not new in 2004,
and neither was the question of whether moderators should moderate their
own posts. What do you think has changed since then?

> I compared the original charter page
> (<https://ukvoting.org.uk/results/XULM>) and the current one
> (<https://uklegal.weebly.com/>) in a side-by-side comparison, in
> relation to the Charter and also to Moderation. There are some
> differences in the Charter, but they appear to be minor and of little
> significance. One clear difference is that the original has the words
> "END CHARTER", presumably to define the end of the Charter.
>
> Those words do not appear in the current charter, which therefore could
> be interpreted as including the moderation policy. That, under the
> heading "Proposed Initial Moderation Policy Document" is handled
> separately to the Charter in the original. What is perhaps most relevant
> here is that there are *considerable* differences between the initial
> moderation policy and that which now exists.

The moderation policy is, as you say, not part of the group charter.
I agree it would be slightly better if there was a larger heading
at that point on the web page to make it clear the following text
was in a different section.

> Even if the Charter has not changed significantly, it appears that the
> Moderation Policy has. I assume there is some agreed machinery by which
> this takes place. It would appear to be pertinent to this thread.

As far as I'm aware it's "Todal decides to do it".

>> If you say so. But you're missing the point, which is that there is no
>> way to detect someone doing that.
>
> I had thought that, despite a changed "From", there was a way of at
> least partially detecting it via headers if the same news server was
> used for posting, but perhaps not.

I don't really want to get bogged down in technical details, but bear in
mind that posts arrive at the moderation system via email. There may not
be a news server involved at all.

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnsn5pmd.5...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 16:29:01
on Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> remarked:

[operating a sock-puppet]
]

>>> If you say so. But you're missing the point, which is that there is no
>>> way to detect someone doing that.
>>
>> I had thought that, despite a changed "From", there was a way of at
>> least partially detecting it via headers if the same news server was
>> used for posting, but perhaps not.
>
>I don't really want to get bogged down in technical details, but bear in
>mind that posts arrive at the moderation system via email. There may not
>be a news server involved at all.

I suspect he means "from the same news server account", because many
people post via a news service like Google Groups, or Eternal September,
even if that news service then forwards the posting to the modbot by
email. The way they do that is by noting that (eg) ulm is a moderated
group then looking up a directory for the email address of the modbot
for that specific group.

As it happens, my usenet client can be set up to short-circuit the
process and do that targeted lookup (and subsequent email) itself;
although I don't currently have that feature switched on.

To auto-detect a glove puppet it would require (as well as the coding
necessary) the headers to have some tracing information in them which
would uniquely identify either the usenet service accountholder, or the
PC [/internet access account] from which the posting emanated. Typically
they don't.

And even they did, it's obviously trivial for someone to have two (or
more) different accounts with potentially different news services,
and/or run multiple Usenet clients on their potentially multiple PCs.
And now lots of people have mobile data accounts for phones/tablets too,
multiple internet access accounts.

AIUI there are even specialist clients for running sock-puppets, and
sometimes that's what trips people up: finger trouble when setting up
or operating such a client.
--
Roland Perry

[Jeff Layman]

On 22/10/2021 17:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2021-10-22, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 21/10/2021 23:05, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-21, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Because *all* "external" posts by non-moderators are subject to
>>>> moderation. A moderator's post might not be.
>>>
>>> That's not true. Posts from moderators are treated exactly the same as
>>> any other post.
>>
>> That doesn't tie in with your statement above: "I said they "can"
>> approve their own posts,...". Non-moderators who post to ULM cannot
>> approve their own posts. Whether or not the moderator approves their own
>> post is irrelevant. The fact that it is available to them but not others
>> is the point.
>
> Yes, moderators can moderate posts. That's pretty obvious.

That's a tad facetious, don't you think? I was being perfectly clear.
Your reply chose to generalise what I was referring to in a specific
way. Let's put it another way, ignoring the verb "moderate". You can
choose to approve or reject your own posts to ULM; non-moderators don't
have that choice.

>>>> I'll reply with "I said "It seems to me" that the Charter is missing
>>>> (...). I did not say that it is definitively missing.
>>>
>>> Ok. So my answer is that it is not missing.
>>
>> Perhaps it could be considered, especially as your point below suggests
>> that the Charter hasn't been modified in any way (see below, and the
>> reply by Owen Rees).
>
> I'm not sure what your point is. Moderated groups were not new in 2004,
> and neither was the question of whether moderators should moderate their
> own posts. What do you think has changed since then?

Maybe someone thinking about it 17 years later? I really do not know if
the same moderation policy is used for all moderated groups. If it
isn't, perhaps it should be so that anybody posting for the first time
to a moderated group would know what the policy is. But, as pointed out
below, the policy has changed since it was proposed. It now could appear
to be a part of the Charter, but that isn't clear. If the ULM moderation
policy changes, is it announced in ULM or only UNNM? Or is it not
announced at all?

>> I compared the original charter page
>> (<https://ukvoting.org.uk/results/XULM>) and the current one
>> (<https://uklegal.weebly.com/>) in a side-by-side comparison, in
>> relation to the Charter and also to Moderation. There are some
>> differences in the Charter, but they appear to be minor and of little
>> significance. One clear difference is that the original has the words
>> "END CHARTER", presumably to define the end of the Charter.
>>
>> Those words do not appear in the current charter, which therefore could
>> be interpreted as including the moderation policy. That, under the
>> heading "Proposed Initial Moderation Policy Document" is handled
>> separately to the Charter in the original. What is perhaps most relevant
>> here is that there are *considerable* differences between the initial
>> moderation policy and that which now exists.
>
> The moderation policy is, as you say, not part of the group charter.
> I agree it would be slightly better if there was a larger heading
> at that point on the web page to make it clear the following text
> was in a different section.
>
>> Even if the Charter has not changed significantly, it appears that the
>> Moderation Policy has. I assume there is some agreed machinery by which
>> this takes place. It would appear to be pertinent to this thread.
>
> As far as I'm aware it's "Todal decides to do it".

Raises eyebrows...

>>> If you say so. But you're missing the point, which is that there is no
>>> way to detect someone doing that.
>>
>> I had thought that, despite a changed "From", there was a way of at
>> least partially detecting it via headers if the same news server was
>> used for posting, but perhaps not.
>
> I don't really want to get bogged down in technical details, but bear in
> mind that posts arrive at the moderation system via email. There may not
> be a news server involved at all.

OK. RP's reply is sufficient.

--

Jeff

[Roland Perry]

In message <sl0g4l$t5l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:12:04 on Sat, 23 Oct
2021, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>>Moderated groups were not new in 2004, and neither was the question
>>of whether moderators should moderate their own posts. What do you
>>think has changed since then?
>
>Maybe someone thinking about it 17 years later? I really do not know if
>the same moderation policy is used for all moderated groups.

As far as I'm aware most moderated groups have their own very custom
policies. That's one reason why they are difficult to inaugurate,
because there's endless quibbling about what the policy should be.

That's one of the crosses we have to bear with Usenet being a classic
example of bottom-up governance. Whereas Zuckerberg's top-down
governance means you accept his policy or take a hike.

>If it isn't, perhaps it should be so that anybody posting for the first
>time to a moderated group would know what the policy is.

I'm sure you'll find the generic literature on Netiquette will strongly
recommend that people not only seek out and read the policy before
posting, but should lurk for long enough to see the policy in action
before sticking their oar in with their first posting.

--
Roland Perry

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-23, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 17:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2021-10-22, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> That doesn't tie in with your statement above: "I said they "can"
>>> approve their own posts,...". Non-moderators who post to ULM cannot
>>> approve their own posts. Whether or not the moderator approves their own
>>> post is irrelevant. The fact that it is available to them but not others
>>> is the point.
>>
>> Yes, moderators can moderate posts. That's pretty obvious.
>
> That's a tad facetious, don't you think? I was being perfectly clear.
> Your reply chose to generalise what I was referring to in a specific
> way.

Specifically generalised, eh? Do you think that possibly I had a purpose
in doing that?

>> I'm not sure what your point is. Moderated groups were not new in 2004,
>> and neither was the question of whether moderators should moderate their
>> own posts. What do you think has changed since then?
>
> Maybe someone thinking about it 17 years later? I really do not know if
> the same moderation policy is used for all moderated groups. If it
> isn't, perhaps it should be so that anybody posting for the first time
> to a moderated group would know what the policy is. But, as pointed out
> below, the policy has changed since it was proposed. It now could appear
> to be a part of the Charter, but that isn't clear. If the ULM moderation
> policy changes, is it announced in ULM or only UNNM? Or is it not
> announced at all?

I don't think it is announced at all.

I must admit I find it slightly amusing when people complain about the
service they're given free, gratis, and at no charge.

[Jeff Layman]

On 21/10/2021 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 21/10/2021 15:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:

> You see, if it's just a cosy little club, other moderators' posts will
> either pass through automatically if they don't contain any naughty
> words, or will be approved virtually automatically by another moderator,
> who probably doesn't bother to consider them very much if at all.
>
> That's how all the endless tedious whingeing posts about Brexit get
> through for example. From anyone else they'd be rejected as being off
> topic for this legal group (which of course they are) or, certainly, as
> being 'not new'. After all 'they merely reiterate the same stale
> arguments that they have been putting forward for years', to paraphrase
> the reason given here (wrongly as it happens) for a recent rejection
> applied to one of my posts.

I've just had a great example of that, which I somewhat set up. In the
thread "Doing Britain down", there was a post by The Todal (on
21/10/2021 at 22.25) in reply to a post I'd made to a post of his
criticising Brexit. The 22.25 post contained the paragraph:

"Seemingly the Leavers don't mind being harmed by Brexit because they are
so pleased that for once in their miserable little lives, they expressed
an opinion and the government acted on it."

My particular reply to that was one I expected would be rejected. It was:

"Also, may I remind you:

"Moderation Policy

a) Contributors are permitted to express strong disagreement using
whatever language they wish, but if they post offensive personal remarks
about another contributor the post will normally be rejected. Posts (a
term which means a message intended for publication in the group as part
of a discussion) will normally be rejected if they imply that another
contributor who is likely to see the post is stupid or dishonest,
regardless of whether such observations contain any truth..."

At least your answer has clarified one issue concerning Moderators
approving their own posts to ULM. See "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
thread in UNNM."

I doubt that anyone would disagree that the words "... because they are
so pleased that for once in their miserable little lives..." is an
offensive personal remark. So either a different moderator missed it or
allowed it, or more likely it was self-approved by the poster - moderator.

I was not surprised that my reply didn't appear, and as I have a fake
From address I went to
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-163497461717572.txt>
to find the reason. The full text of my post is there, but this is the
reason for the rejection:

"Do make an effort to comply with the moderation policy.

The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a
moderator.

Discussions about whether someone's post should have been rejected or
accepted are not generally permitted in the group, and should be taken
to uk.net.news.moderation."

Note that paragraph is missing an important part of the moderation
policy on that point.The unedited moderation policy on that point is:
"n) Discussions about moderation policy and whether individual posts
should have been accepted or rejected will not as a general rule be
permitted within the group and should instead take place in
uk.net.news.moderation. Occasionally discussions about moderation
policy may be permitted to a limited extent and at the discretion of the
moderators, if it is felt that they would assist contributors in
understanding how to post within moderation guidelines."

Seems to me it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black about making
an effort to comply with the moderation policy.

--

Jeff

[Jeff Layman]

On 23/10/2021 14:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2021-10-23, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 17:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-22, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> That doesn't tie in with your statement above: "I said they "can"
>>>> approve their own posts,...". Non-moderators who post to ULM cannot
>>>> approve their own posts. Whether or not the moderator approves their own
>>>> post is irrelevant. The fact that it is available to them but not others
>>>> is the point.
>>>
>>> Yes, moderators can moderate posts. That's pretty obvious.
>>
>> That's a tad facetious, don't you think? I was being perfectly clear.
>> Your reply chose to generalise what I was referring to in a specific
>> way.
>
> Specifically generalised, eh? Do you think that possibly I had a purpose
> in doing that?

Twisting words, maybe?

>>> I'm not sure what your point is. Moderated groups were not new in 2004,
>>> and neither was the question of whether moderators should moderate their
>>> own posts. What do you think has changed since then?
>>
>> Maybe someone thinking about it 17 years later? I really do not know if
>> the same moderation policy is used for all moderated groups. If it
>> isn't, perhaps it should be so that anybody posting for the first time
>> to a moderated group would know what the policy is. But, as pointed out
>> below, the policy has changed since it was proposed. It now could appear
>> to be a part of the Charter, but that isn't clear. If the ULM moderation
>> policy changes, is it announced in ULM or only UNNM? Or is it not
>> announced at all?
>
> I don't think it is announced at all.
>
> I must admit I find it slightly amusing when people complain about the
> service they're given free, gratis, and at no charge.

Nay, nay, and thrice nay (to continue a sort of Roman theme). Just
because something is free doesn't mean it is perfect and cannot be
improved. You see it as a complaint, but I see it as constructive
criticism. Up to a point, Owen Rees (who appears to know a fair amount
about moderated newsgroups) agrees with me: "On the whole I think it

would be better if moderators did not process posts of their own that
are sent for manual moderation but left them for other moderators to
process."

--

Jeff

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-23, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/10/2021 14:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2021-10-23, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 22/10/2021 17:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-22, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> That doesn't tie in with your statement above: "I said they "can"
>>>>> approve their own posts,...". Non-moderators who post to ULM cannot
>>>>> approve their own posts. Whether or not the moderator approves their own
>>>>> post is irrelevant. The fact that it is available to them but not others
>>>>> is the point.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, moderators can moderate posts. That's pretty obvious.
>>>
>>> That's a tad facetious, don't you think? I was being perfectly clear.
>>> Your reply chose to generalise what I was referring to in a specific
>>> way.
>>
>> Specifically generalised, eh? Do you think that possibly I had a purpose
>> in doing that?
>
> Twisting words, maybe?

If you're going to be pointlessly insulting and rude then I'll not
bother to read or respond to your posts any more.

> Nay, nay, and thrice nay (to continue a sort of Roman theme). Just
> because something is free doesn't mean it is perfect and cannot be
> improved. You see it as a complaint, but I see it as constructive
> criticism. Up to a point, Owen Rees (who appears to know a fair amount
> about moderated newsgroups) agrees with me: "On the whole I think it
> would be better if moderators did not process posts of their own that
> are sent for manual moderation but left them for other moderators to
> process."

Yes. Obviously it is a valid viewpoint. But I disagree with it.
And nobody seems to have even attempted to make an argument as to
why anyone who disagrees should change their mind.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2021-10-23, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I've just had a great example of that, which I somewhat set up. In the
> thread "Doing Britain down", there was a post by The Todal (on
> 21/10/2021 at 22.25) in reply to a post I'd made to a post of his
> criticising Brexit. The 22.25 post contained the paragraph:
>
> "Seemingly the Leavers don't mind being harmed by Brexit because they are
> so pleased that for once in their miserable little lives, they expressed
> an opinion and the government acted on it."
>
> My particular reply to that was one I expected would be rejected. It was:
>
> "Also, may I remind you:
>
> "Moderation Policy

Ok so your post was entirely validly rejected. Not only that, you admit
you knew it would be. So you were deliberately abusing the free service
provided by the moderators.

> I doubt that anyone would disagree that the words "... because they are
> so pleased that for once in their miserable little lives..." is an
> offensive personal remark. So either a different moderator missed it or
> allowed it, or more likely it was self-approved by the poster - moderator.

Or it was auto-approved. But no matter how it was approved, that was
a correct result, as the post was not against the moderation policy.
The policy prohibits abuse against individuals in the newsgroup, not
against groups.

> Seems to me it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black about making
> an effort to comply with the moderation policy.

Nope, you'll need to take back that retort and hold it in reserve for
when and if it might actually be appropriate.

[Owen Rees]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:51:57 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote in <n71wjXU9...@perry.uk>:

>In message <sktubn$15l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:56:23 on Fri, 22 Oct
>2021, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <s8p3ng5266e9rde33...@4ax.com>, at 23:38:47 on
>>> Thu, 21 Oct 2021, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> remarked:

>>>
>>>> On the whole I think it would be better if moderators did not process
>>>> posts of their own that are sent for manual moderation but left them for
>>>> other moderators to process.
>>>

>>> I disagree strongly with that, because of the way the modbot barfs at
>>> trigger-words in quoted content, and even if a benign new posting is
>>> made in the subthread, it's sent for manual moderation.
>>>
>>> And no, I do not propose upgrading the modbot to 'correct' this
>>> behaviour, because that quickly turns into a major exercise.
>>
>>As you know, code that probably does the job in most cases is available.
>
>Testing that hypothesis, and getting the live system updated, is vastly
>more work than I expect the moderators to put into the project.

If anyone reading this is interested in the possible solution or the fix
for the bogus quoting of lines starting 'From ' then they can find it
at:

https://github.com/owenrees/stump

You should be able to see it without needing an account or having to
sign in.

[Owen Rees]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:47:12 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote in <itfc4f...@mid.individual.net>:

>On 21/10/2021 23:38, Owen Rees wrote:
>
>> Posts to ulm (and some other uk.* groups) are processed by a modbot that
>> can automatically approve, automatically reject or send the post for
>> manual moderation.
>>
>> There is a so-called 'whitelist' of posters whose posts are candidates
>> for automatic approval. Any poster may be added to the list by a
>> moderator. Moderators may be on the list, but this is not automatic and
>> their posting identities can be added and removed in the same way as the
>> identities of other posters.
>

>When was the last time a moderator was not white-listed, or was removed
>from the white-list for some abusive reason presumably by someone other
>than himself?
>

>> There is a list of patterns that will cause messages from whitelisted
>> posters to be sent for manual moderation.
>

>What on earth is a 'list of patterns'? If you mean just trigger words,
>please say so. Otherwise please explain further.

The matching is done using regular expressions rather than simple string
comparisons, except for the 'good.posters.list' (whitelist) where string
comparison is used. 'Pattern' is a sufficiently standard piece of
terminology for a specific regular expression that 'Pattern' was chosen
as the Java Class name for objects that hold compiled regular
expressions that can be used in various ways to match against strings.

Webstump is implemented in perl and perl regular expressions are
sufficiently powerful that this feature of Webstump is both powerful and
dangerous should a moderator use it to its full extent.

>
>Does it, for example, include being abusive or hurtful to others
>(provided the trigger words are avoided of course), posting off-topic,
>being 'not new' or even blatant trolling?

Neither STUMP nor Webstump have any AI features that would support the
kind of natural language processing that would be needed to
automatically detect abusive or hurtful content, content that is not
new, or trolling. Systems such as Facebook and Twitter are reported to
have such AI features but opinions differ on how well they work.

>
>You see, we've had several examples of moderators doing all of those.

In order to respond to that I would need specific examples with a proper
analysis of each example rather than mere assertion of the existence of
examples or the mere assertion that an example is abusive, hurtful,
repetitive or trolling.

>
>How can it be stopped?

The simple way to avoid seeing these problems is to stop reading the
group. Controlling the behaviour of other people has generally been
found to be difficult over a very long period of time. It is
particularly difficult where the behaviour is specified in a vague way
and where the need to stop the behaviour is seen only by a small number
of people. Even ruthless dictators with highly trained and heavily armed
ruthless lackeys have not managed to be completely successful in
stopping unwanted behaviour in everyone they consider to be subservient
to them.

[Roland Perry]

In message <r359ng5p54lpthala...@4ax.com>, at 00:09:09 on
Sun, 24 Oct 2021, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> remarked:

We wasted enormous amounts of time discussing such proposals last time
it cropped up. I have no appetite for wasting more time this week,
unless you can "go fund me" at perhaps £20/hr for my time.
--
Roland Perry

[The Todal]

On 23/10/2021 22:15, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 21/10/2021 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 21/10/2021 15:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>> You see, if it's just a cosy little club, other moderators' posts will
>> either pass through automatically if they don't contain any naughty
>> words, or will be approved virtually automatically by another moderator,
>> who probably doesn't bother to consider them very much if at all.
>>
>> That's how all the endless tedious whingeing posts about Brexit get
>> through for example.  From anyone else they'd be rejected as being off
>> topic for this legal group (which of course they are) or, certainly, as
>> being 'not new'.  After all 'they merely reiterate the same stale
>> arguments that they have been putting forward for years', to paraphrase
>> the reason given here (wrongly as it happens) for a recent rejection
>> applied to one of my posts.
>
> I've just had a great example of that, which I somewhat set up. In the
> thread "Doing Britain down", there was a post by The Todal (on
> 21/10/2021 at 22.25) in reply to a post I'd made to a post of his
> criticising Brexit. The 22.25 post contained the paragraph:
>
> "Seemingly the Leavers don't mind being harmed by Brexit because they are
> so pleased that for once in their miserable little lives, they expressed
> an opinion and the government acted on it."
>
> My particular reply to that was one I expected would be rejected. It was:
>
> "Also, may I remind you:
>
> "Moderation Policy

snip

Your post was rightly rejected as you expected it would be, because you
ignored the moderation policy.

However, your point seems to be that my phrase "for once in their
miserable little lives" is somehow abusive towards you or towards other
contributors.

I don't agree. Many Leave voters throughout the country have miserable
little lives. Many Remain voters, many Labour voters, also have
miserable little lives. Poverty and a sense that government doesn't
care about one's life or one's problems must often motivate people's
voting behaviour and their support for a political cause. It's surely a
valid point.

Do you believe your life is a miserable little life? I hope it isn't.
The Leave voters whom I know from my social circle are actually quite
well off. But I don't see them as typical.

[Jeff Layman]

On 23/10/2021 22:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2021-10-23, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 23/10/2021 14:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-23, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 22/10/2021 17:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-22, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> That doesn't tie in with your statement above: "I said they "can"
>>>>>> approve their own posts,...". Non-moderators who post to ULM cannot
>>>>>> approve their own posts. Whether or not the moderator approves their own
>>>>>> post is irrelevant. The fact that it is available to them but not others
>>>>>> is the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, moderators can moderate posts. That's pretty obvious.
>>>>
>>>> That's a tad facetious, don't you think? I was being perfectly clear.
>>>> Your reply chose to generalise what I was referring to in a specific
>>>> way.
>>>
>>> Specifically generalised, eh? Do you think that possibly I had a purpose
>>> in doing that?
>>
>> Twisting words, maybe?
>
> If you're going to be pointlessly insulting and rude then I'll not
> bother to read or respond to your posts any more.

Well, you changed "Your reply chose to generalise what I was referring
to in a specific way" to "Specifically generalised, eh?" as though I had
written an oxymoron. Ok, I'll bite, what was the purpose you had in
doing that? Or perhaps you were referring to "Yes, moderators can
moderate posts. That's pretty obvious". If it isn't facetious, what was
your intention?

>> Nay, nay, and thrice nay (to continue a sort of Roman theme). Just
>> because something is free doesn't mean it is perfect and cannot be
>> improved. You see it as a complaint, but I see it as constructive
>> criticism. Up to a point, Owen Rees (who appears to know a fair amount
>> about moderated newsgroups) agrees with me: "On the whole I think it
>> would be better if moderators did not process posts of their own that
>> are sent for manual moderation but left them for other moderators to
>> process."
>
> Yes. Obviously it is a valid viewpoint. But I disagree with it.
> And nobody seems to have even attempted to make an argument as to
> why anyone who disagrees should change their mind.

Do you not find it strange that in a legal newsgroup you support the
process of being judge, jury, and executioner?

--

Jeff

[Jeff Layman]

On 23/10/2021 22:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2021-10-23, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> I've just had a great example of that, which I somewhat set up. In the
>> thread "Doing Britain down", there was a post by The Todal (on
>> 21/10/2021 at 22.25) in reply to a post I'd made to a post of his
>> criticising Brexit. The 22.25 post contained the paragraph:
>>
>> "Seemingly the Leavers don't mind being harmed by Brexit because they are
>> so pleased that for once in their miserable little lives, they expressed
>> an opinion and the government acted on it."
>>
>> My particular reply to that was one I expected would be rejected. It was:
>>
>> "Also, may I remind you:
>>
>> "Moderation Policy
>
> Ok so your post was entirely validly rejected. Not only that, you admit
> you knew it would be. So you were deliberately abusing the free service
> provided by the moderators.

Now it's you who are changing the meaning from "I expected it to be" to
"you knew it would be". There's a considerable difference. This whole
thread is about how moderators use their interpretation of certain words
or phrases in posts to approve or reject the posts. I was expecting mine
to be rejected, but was not certain as I was hoping that the policy
wording "...Occasionally discussions about moderation policy may be

permitted to a limited extent and at the discretion of the moderators,
if it is felt that they would assist contributors in understanding how

to post within moderation guidelines" would have been sufficient to
allow the post through. Obviously not, but I'm not surprised

>> I doubt that anyone would disagree that the words "... because they are
>> so pleased that for once in their miserable little lives..." is an
>> offensive personal remark. So either a different moderator missed it or
>> allowed it, or more likely it was self-approved by the poster - moderator.
>
> Or it was auto-approved. But no matter how it was approved, that was
> a correct result, as the post was not against the moderation policy.
> The policy prohibits abuse against individuals in the newsgroup, not
> against groups.

Are you sure? Groups are made up of individuals. Insult a group, and
you're insulting all individuals in that group.

>> Seems to me it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black about making
>> an effort to comply with the moderation policy.
>
> Nope, you'll need to take back that retort and hold it in reserve for
> when and if it might actually be appropriate.

I'll deal with that in my reply to The Todal.

--

Jeff

[Jeff Layman]

No, there is part of the policy concerning comments about the moderation
policy which states "...Occasionally discussions about moderation policy

may be permitted to a limited extent and at the discretion of the
moderators, if it is felt that they would assist contributors in
understanding how to post within moderation guidelines."

I wonder how occasional it has to be? The wording you snipped (why? Do
you not want it obviously placed for others to consider whether or not
it applied?) was

"Contributors are permitted to express strong disagreement using
whatever language they wish, but if they post offensive personal remarks

about another contributor the post will normally be rejected. Posts ...

will normally be rejected if they imply that another contributor who is

likely to see the post is stupid or dishonest..."

> However, your point seems to be that my phrase "for once in their
> miserable little lives" is somehow abusive towards you or towards other
> contributors.

Why make it if you do not think it abusive? That was its intention no
matter how you try to get round the policy by suggesting it was
impersonal as nobody was specified by name.

> I don't agree. Many Leave voters throughout the country have miserable
> little lives. Many Remain voters, many Labour voters, also have
> miserable little lives. Poverty and a sense that government doesn't
> care about one's life or one's problems must often motivate people's
> voting behaviour and their support for a political cause. It's surely a
> valid point.

You've tried to change what you originally wrote by introducing the word
"Many":
"Many leave voters throughout the country have miserable little lives".
Your original comment was "Seemingly the Leavers don't mind being harmed

by Brexit because they are so pleased that for once in their miserable
little lives, they expressed an opinion and the government acted on it."

The way it is written can only be interpreted that it's inclusive and
applies to *all* Leavers, so that makes it personal to *every* Leaver.

> Do you believe your life is a miserable little life? I hope it isn't.
> The Leave voters whom I know from my social circle are actually quite
> well off. But I don't see them as typical.

I most certainly don't have a miserable little life. Do you think yours
is, now we've brexited?

--

Jeff

[Ian Jackson]

In message <itkrn9...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
<the_...@icloud.com> writes

>
>Do you believe your life is a miserable little life? I hope it isn't.
>The Leave voters whom I know from my social circle are actually quite
>well off. But I don't see them as typical.

My several Leaver friends have (and have had) far from miserable little
lives. My impression is that their decision to vote Leave was largely
because they didn't appreciate the importance of our relationship with
the EU (and I suspect that some still don't).
--
Ian

[Roland Perry]

In message <sl3no6$mrs$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:40:22 on Sun, 24 Oct
2021, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>Groups are made up of individuals. Insult a group, and you're insulting
>all individuals in that group.

However, the ulm charter rules allow the insulting of groups.

As a one-time lobbyist, who are an example of such groups who have been
regularly insulted, I'm not entirely chuffed about that, but we are
where we are.

Having said that, I know at least one lawyer here who gets their nose
out of joint when I refer to "ambulance chasing" (a well known
characteristic of a subset of lawyers); but again, that's allowed.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <sl3nnr$mlo$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:40:11 on Sun, 24 Oct

2021, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>Do you not find it strange that in a legal newsgroup you support the
>process of being judge, jury, and executioner?

Hold on while I get Mr Zuckerberg on the line...

(And I also know someone, a bit further down the pecking order, at
Twitter, who also appears to think their opinion alone is final).
--
Roland Perry