URCM : Blocking is Permanent
JMS
For the avoidance of doubt - I have asked the moderators if my
blocking is permanent - or when it will be reviewed.
They have said that it is permanent and the decision is final and will
not be reviewed.
So - just let this be a warning to all those people sending really
nasty messages to URCM which are rejected - and then lead to a
totally miscalculated rejection ration giving more than 50% !!
You know - the ones such as
=====================================================
What is the point of him having the helmet on his handle bars?
Either he should wear it - or leave it at home - wouldn't you agree?
=====================================================
Outrageous
However - it certainly appears that it is the name "JMS" which they
are frightened of.
I have been posting there for some time now using a different name -
same sort of posts - and not a problem:-)
Just shows how sad they are.
Tosspot
You must be *so* desperate for attention, nym shifting to post to a group you so
vehemently object to, reminds me of, oh yes, this
Alan Braggins
>On 03/06/10 15:06, JMS wrote:
>>
>> For the avoidance of doubt - I have asked the moderators if my
>> blocking is permanent - or when it will be reviewed.
>>
>> They have said that it is permanent and the decision is final and will
>> not be reviewed.
>
>vehemently object to, reminds me of, oh yes, this
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8pR1rZZHEs
She's also lying about what we told her (or possibly she just can't read).
JMS
wrote:
<snip>
>You must be *so* desperate for attention, nym shifting to post to a group you so
>vehemently object to, reminds me of, oh yes, this
>
Nothing to do with attention sunshine.
I am a cyclist - I previously posted in URCM - I was stopped posting
there for no good reason. I quite liked posting there - I had
sensible questions regarding my bike and I got sensible answers.
I had taken the precaution of also posting there under a different
name - as I thought I may be blocked from posting.
After a few months I thought that I would try using JMS.
I did - I was blocked - purely because of my name.
Therefore - to me it seems my precaution was sensible
I was blocked not for the quality/quantity of my posts - but because
of perceived history - and my name.
(PS Why did you call yourself Tosspot - was it for attention - or were
you known as that school?)
Hope this helps - thanks for the attention.
bugbear
>
> I was blocked not for the quality/quantity of my posts - but because
> of perceived history - and my name.
I don't think your history is "perceived".
It's a matter of record - quite literally.
And it doesn't speak well of you.
BugBear
JMS
Braggins) wrote:
><snip>
>She's also lying about what we told her (or possibly she just can't read).
Talking of lying - you could perhaps tell me when you answered those
questions before. You did say you had answered them.
Had you answered them?
It seems pretty clear to me - have I misinterpreted it?
If you had just answered the three straight forward questions - that
would have been much too easy.
Please can you elucidate?
================My Email =================
Please can you advise regarding my blocking:
Am I blocked for ever?
When will you review your decision?
What information will you use to enable you to review the decision?
Regards
JMS
===========The response=============================
We have received your message. We have answered these questions
before. To repeat: the ban is indefinite, we do not have any plans
to review our decision, and we do not want or need any more
information.
Yours etc.
URCM moderators
==============================================================
JMS
Well it was either actual history in URC - or perceived history in
URCM.
Perhaps you could explain which it was as you seem to be in the know.
Or should I say : "know it all"
David Hansen
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote this:-
>I don't think your history is "perceived".
>
>It's a matter of record - quite literally.
>
>And it doesn't speak well of you.
That is correct.
However, if someone decides to change name and post to the moderated
group in a different fashion, as "Judith" claims, then that is fine
by me. Those posts should not be blocked. It is the behaviour which
is the issue. I hope the moderators will remain active in keeping
the group free from the sort of antisocial behaviour which caused
the group to be created in the first place.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54
JMS
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:38:04 +0100 someone who may be bugbear
><bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote this:-
>
>>I don't think your history is "perceived".
>>
>>It's a matter of record - quite literally.
>>
>>And it doesn't speak well of you.
>
>That is correct.
>
>However, if someone decides to change name and post to the moderated
>group in a different fashion, as "Judith" claims, then that is fine
>by me. Those posts should not be blocked. It is the behaviour which
>is the issue. I hope the moderators will remain active in keeping
>the group free from the sort of antisocial behaviour which caused
>the group to be created in the first place.
Just as a matter of interest - were there any of my posts to URCM
which you felt were "anti-social" - or was it perhaps just the name
tag on the messages.
I guess it is more about sheltering people from the JMS name tag in
case it riles any of the white-listers and they have to respond
inappropriately - as they have already done so.
ie not so much what is said - but who is saying it.
OG
"Alan Braggins" <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrni0fl6...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> She's also lying about what we told her (or possibly she just can't read).
Hard to tell*.
She says
"They have said that it is permanent"
Whereas the mods have said "the ban is indefinite"
NB not "permanent"
She says
"and the decision is final"
Whereas they have said " we do not have any plans to review our decision"
NB not "final"
*The 'hard to tell' is whether she lies or just has poor reading skills.
If JMS is complaining about what JMS has reaped, maybe JMS should have been
more careful about what JMS sowed.
Dr Zoidberg
"JMS" <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > wrote in message
news:jq5f06h7is6iiq3vu...@4ax.com...
>
>
> For the avoidance of doubt - I have asked the moderators if my
> blocking is permanent - or when it will be reviewed.
>
> They have said that it is permanent and the decision is final and will
> not be reviewed.
>
> So - just let this be a warning to all those people sending really
> nasty messages to URCM which are rejected - and then lead to a
> totally miscalculated rejection ration giving more than 50% !!
>
I don't dispute that the moderation system (people and technology) is pretty
flawed, but you've gone out of your way to wind them up for a very long time
and now you've got the result you've been after.
As you are well aware, there's nothing to stop you name shifting and posting
there to discuss cycling within their rules if you want to, so this isn't
even an inconvenience for you.
--
Alex
kat
OG <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> said
> "Alan Braggins" <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrni0fl6...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
>> She's also lying about what we told her (or possibly she just can't
>> read).
>
> Hard to tell*.
> She says
> "They have said that it is permanent"
> Whereas the mods have said "the ban is indefinite"
> NB not "permanent"
>
> She says
> "and the decision is final"
> Whereas they have said " we do not have any plans to review our
> decision" NB not "final"
>
> *The 'hard to tell' is whether she lies or just has poor reading
> skills.
Or it's about interpretation.
"indefinite" combined with "no plans to review" suggests "permanent as far
as we are concerned" to me. The opposite of permanent isn't indefinite,
it is temporary. Indefinite suggests a future review, but that isn't
planned. And much easier not to bother, isn't it. They have also refused
to consider any new information - is that "no appeal"?
The current panel of mods can't make it "forever" because there could,
indeed, will, be a change in the moderators at some point, be it through an
RFD or merely resignations over the years. A new panel may decide to start
again, unban anyone still banned, even apply new policies.
But as far as "JMS" is concerned, I wouldn't say calling it permanent was
lying, or about poor reading skills. To accuse her of lying does the mods
no favours. There are more diplomatic ways of answering her than that.
--
kat
>^..^<
JMS
wrote:
To be honest I am not complain about what *I* have reaped - as deep at
heart I do not give a stuff about it.
I continue to post - what I want - and when I want - to URCM.
I will however continue to complain about the quite pathetic attitudes
and actions of the URCM hand-picked team.
JMS
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"JMS" <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > wrote in message
>news:jq5f06h7is6iiq3vu...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> For the avoidance of doubt - I have asked the moderators if my
>> blocking is permanent - or when it will be reviewed.
>>
>> They have said that it is permanent and the decision is final and will
>> not be reviewed.
>>
>> So - just let this be a warning to all those people sending really
>> nasty messages to URCM which are rejected - and then lead to a
>> totally miscalculated rejection ration giving more than 50% !!
>>
>Are you really surprised?
If they had cancelled my messages which had already been accepted and
published - then no - I would not have been surprised at all
If the moderators of any other group had cancelled posts by anyone -
once they had been manually moderated and published - then I would
have been extremely surprised.
>I don't dispute that the moderation system (people and technology) is pretty
>flawed, but you've gone out of your way to wind them up for a very long time
>and now you've got the result you've been after.
No - I was not after being blocked.
>As you are well aware, there's nothing to stop you name shifting and posting
>there to discuss cycling within their rules if you want to, so this isn't
>even an inconvenience for you.
Indeed :-)
It certainly appears that it is the JMS which is the red-rag to the
hand-picked team rather than the content of the messages.
Tony
>To be honest I am not complain about what *I* have reaped - as deep at
>heart I do not give a stuff about it.
>
>I continue to post - what I want - and when I want - to URCM.
>
>I will however continue to complain about the quite pathetic attitudes
>and actions of the URCM hand-picked team.
Then you need to consider how you're delivering your message, because
you're failing.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Alan Braggins
>But as far as "JMS" is concerned, I wouldn't say calling it permanent was
>lying, or about poor reading skills. To accuse her of lying does the mods
>no favours. There are more diplomatic ways of answering her than that.
I see no reason to be diplomatic about a troll with a consistent history
of dishonesty. It happens to be true, whether you would say it or not.
JMS
Braggins) wrote:
Good old Bilbo - always the voice of reasonableness.
Please could you inform the world of my consistent history of
dishonesty - otherwise they may think that it is you who is lying yet
again.
(Can you let Wacko know that URCM is a bit slow in accepting posts at
the moment - some of mine are taking ages - but go through in the
end)
JMS
wrote:
>In uk.net.news.moderation, JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > wrote:
>
>>To be honest I am not complain about what *I* have reaped - as deep at
>>heart I do not give a stuff about it.
>>
>>I continue to post - what I want - and when I want - to URCM.
>>
>>I will however continue to complain about the quite pathetic attitudes
>>and actions of the URCM hand-picked team.
>
>Then you need to consider how you're delivering your message, because
>you're failing.
Oh really?
Failing in what?
You managed to read the message and reply to it.
Tony
You either complain because you want to engender change.
Or you complain because you like complaining and don't care if anything
changes.
If the former is your goal, you're failing, if the latter is your goal,
you're succeeding. You get to pick I guess.
Despite the risk of The Todal now joining in and berating me, here's the
bit where I say 'this is traditionally where you tell me to fuck off'.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk
Just zis Guy, you know?
> "indefinite" combined with "no plans to review" suggests "permanent as far
> as we are concerned" to me.
We get this all the time on Wikipedia. Indefinite does not mean
forever, and no plans to review does not mean no review, what it means
is that the mods are sufficiently fed up with JMS that they are going
to completely ignore it for a while before even thinking about it
again.
Normally the precondition is that the person is able to demonstrate a
significant change in attitude.
--
Guy
Tony
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Jun 4, 11:23 am, "kat" <littlelio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "indefinite" combined with "no plans to review" suggests "permanent as far
>> as we are concerned" to me.
>
>We get this all the time on Wikipedia. Indefinite does not mean
>forever, and no plans to review does not mean no review, what it means
>is that the mods are sufficiently fed up with JMS that they are going
>to completely ignore it for a while before even thinking about it
>again.
If you're trying to tell someone something, and they constantly (honestly)
don't understand, and in fact, you 'get it all the time' such that many
people don't understand on a regular basis, it might actually be the way
you deliver the message.
Understanding your target audience and what *they* will understand and
interpret something to mean is half of the process of communicating with
people (rather than talking at them).
Now, if the mods are saying 'we're using indefinite and no plans so that
you don't mail us every 2 weeks saying have you changed your mind' that's
one thing, if they're saying 'indefinite and no plans means not permanent
but we're currently planning to review it' (as you suggest) then they could
say that more clearly at the level the intended target(s) would understand.
note: this is all moot, the moderators have proven they refuse to change
their behaviour based on any discussion that goes on in here, apparently
*because* it goes on in here. So I don't expect anything we say here to
have any impact. I was just mentioning it because I think people sometimes
think they're communicating when in fact they're not, they're just talking
and it's not the same thing.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
JMS
Well what a surprise - Chapman is able to interpret what the mods mean
- or is he just creating more shit just to keep things on the boil
=================================================================
He's making trouble.
He likes to wallow in shit, then raise an almighty protest that he's
covered in shit. It's terrible that all the shit sticks to him, when
all he does is lie down in it, roll around in it, throw it up in the
air and give it a good stir whenever an opportunity arises.
Ian Smith - On Guy Chapman - 19 October 2009
=================================================================
--
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Clive George
> In uk.net.news.moderation, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 4, 11:23 am, "kat"<littlelio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "indefinite" combined with "no plans to review" suggests "permanent as far
>>> as we are concerned" to me.
>>
>> We get this all the time on Wikipedia. Indefinite does not mean
>> forever, and no plans to review does not mean no review, what it means
>> is that the mods are sufficiently fed up with JMS that they are going
>> to completely ignore it for a while before even thinking about it
>> again.
>
> If you're trying to tell someone something, and they constantly (honestly)
> don't understand, and in fact, you 'get it all the time' such that many
> people don't understand on a regular basis, it might actually be the way
> you deliver the message.
Or perhaps it's because the target audience don't want to listen? People
don't get banned for being sane, reasonable people.
> Now, if the mods are saying 'we're using indefinite and no plans so that
> you don't mail us every 2 weeks saying have you changed your mind' that's
> one thing, if they're saying 'indefinite and no plans means not permanent
> but we're currently planning to review it' (as you suggest) then they could
> say that more clearly at the level the intended target(s) would understand.
That makes no sense. Did you mean to say "indefinite and no plans means
not permanent but we're not currently planning to review it"?
Tony
>On 04/06/2010 18:57, Tony wrote:
>> In uk.net.news.moderation, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 4, 11:23 am, "kat"<littlelio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "indefinite" combined with "no plans to review" suggests "permanent as far
>>>> as we are concerned" to me.
>>>
>>> We get this all the time on Wikipedia. Indefinite does not mean
>>> forever, and no plans to review does not mean no review, what it means
>>> is that the mods are sufficiently fed up with JMS that they are going
>>> to completely ignore it for a while before even thinking about it
>>> again.
>>
>> If you're trying to tell someone something, and they constantly (honestly)
>> don't understand, and in fact, you 'get it all the time' such that many
>> people don't understand on a regular basis, it might actually be the way
>> you deliver the message.
>
>Or perhaps it's because the target audience don't want to listen? People
>don't get banned for being sane, reasonable people.
That's always an option, assuming that's always the reason is also a
problem. At least one reasonable person has commented that they could
interpret the message to mean permanent. And Guy commented that this
happens 'all the time' on Wikipedia, suggesting it's not an isolated event.
I'm merely suggesting that it may be worth reviewing the choice of words if
that's the case, rather than assuming everyone is stupid or evil.
>> Now, if the mods are saying 'we're using indefinite and no plans so that
>> you don't mail us every 2 weeks saying have you changed your mind' that's
>> one thing, if they're saying 'indefinite and no plans means not permanent
>> but we're currently planning to review it' (as you suggest) then they could
>> say that more clearly at the level the intended target(s) would understand.
>
>That makes no sense. Did you mean to say "indefinite and no plans means
>not permanent but we're not currently planning to review it"?
Yes, I often forget the not. I type too quickly.
Ian Jackson
Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>Now, if the mods are saying 'we're using indefinite and no plans so that
>you don't mail us every 2 weeks saying have you changed your mind' that's
>one thing, if they're saying 'indefinite and no plans means not permanent
>but we're currently planning to review it' (as you suggest) then they could
>say that more clearly at the level the intended target(s) would understand.
What the moderators decided on was an indefinite ban. The difference
between that and a permanent one may be slightly subtle, until you
consider the possibility that JMS might become a reformed character.
Saying "permanent" would leave us open to the justified criticism that
we were closing our minds to any possible rehabilitation. Also
consider the howls here, pointing out the inconsistency, if she
reformed and we changed our mind: people would say "but you said the
ban was permanent and here you are rescinding it".
>note: this is all moot, the moderators have proven they refuse to change
>their behaviour based on any discussion that goes on in here, apparently
>*because* it goes on in here.
I don't think that's true at all. For example, we have mostly managed
to stop putting ascerbic comments in rejection notices. It certainly
seems to be settled opinion on the panel that we shouldn't, even if
sometimes some moderators overstep the mark and need to be reminded.
The voices criticising being rude in moderation comments included both
other moderators, and some very clear opposition here.
The clear consensus here that we ought to publish our rejections was
also helpful, and I think was a big factor in getting that policy
changed. (Mind you, on the other hand, the toxic atmosphere here made
it more difficult to persuade people that we weren't just going to
produce more flames.)
The fact that we don't accept much of the criticism here could as well
be explained by supposing that the criticisms we are not accepting are
simply unjustified. For example, the banning of JMS is very
controversial here, but amongst users of the group it seems to have
been a popular decision (insofar as we can tell these things), and
it's also something that was unopposed by any of the moderators.
We definitely aren't going to reverse a decision which the users of
the group agree with because people who ought to know better have
taken a mission poster's side in a moderation dispute.
My personal view, which it seems to me judging by the feedback we
receive is shared by many of the group's users, is that if anything we
have on occasion been too lax and too forgiving with the "problem
posters". But my colleages don't entirely agree, and when moderating
articles my job is to handle them in line with the panel consensus.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Steve Firth
> I see no reason to be diplomatic about a troll with a consistent history
> of dishonesty.
Oh indeed, I agree with you. Chapman is a deluded, lying tosser. He's
also a complete cunt.
Simon Brooke
>
> If you're trying to tell someone something, and they constantly
> (honestly) don't understand, and in fact, you 'get it all the time' such
> that many people don't understand on a regular basis, it might actually
> be the way you deliver the message.
I can't speak for Guy or Wikipedia. We've only ever banned one person
once, so clearly we don't get this all the time.
> Now, if the mods are saying 'we're using indefinite and no plans so that
> you don't mail us every 2 weeks saying have you changed your mind'
> that's one thing, if they're saying 'indefinite and no plans means not
> permanent but we're currently planning to review it' (as you suggest)
> then they could say that more clearly at the level the intended
> target(s) would understand.
No current plans means no current plans. We've no current plans to ban
anyone else; that doesn't mean we never will. However, continually
pestering us about it is unlikely to expedite a review.
> note: this is all moot, the moderators have proven they refuse to change
> their behaviour based on any discussion that goes on in here, apparently
> *because* it goes on in here.
This is nonsense. We've made a number of significant changes largely as a
result of discussion here; as an example, rejected messages are now
available on the web.
--
;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat
JMS
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <hubeq8$uuu$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
>Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>>Now, if the mods are saying 'we're using indefinite and no plans so that
>>you don't mail us every 2 weeks saying have you changed your mind' that's
>>one thing, if they're saying 'indefinite and no plans means not permanent
>>but we're currently planning to review it' (as you suggest) then they could
>>say that more clearly at the level the intended target(s) would understand.
>What the moderators decided on was an indefinite ban. The difference
>between that and a permanent one may be slightly subtle, until you
>consider the possibility that JMS might become a reformed character.
You will of course be judging my behaviour elsewhere to see if I am a
"reformed character" - I wonder what that means.
I better try and demonstrate that I am now reformed and hence my
posts will conform to the charter of URCM.
Most odd - behaviour outside the group influencing how the group is
run.
> For example, the banning of JMS is very
>controversial here, but amongst users of the group it seems to have
>been a popular decision (insofar as we can tell these things)
Indeed - "insofar as you can tell" - more weasel words - perhaps you
can tell us "inasfar as you can"
I also see that ban was "unopposed by any of the moderators" -
another odd choice of words. Why not say how many were in favour of
the ban. What was it four?
Why do you refuse to give the "voting" figures. I am assuming that
there was a vote - was there?
Well then perhaps you can tell the world - how many people emailed you
prior to my blocking and suggested that you blocked me.
And then perhaps you can say how many people emailed you after the
blocking and said it was the right thing to do.
You know - inasfar as you can tell.
Given that there are only about 20 people post to URCM - ( once you
forget the moderators) more than every couple of days - they are not
going to be large numbers.
Come on Jackson - you know that you want to be fair, honest and open -
go for it.
(OK - I have made that last bit up)
JMS
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:57:29 +0100, Tony wrote:
>>
>> If you're trying to tell someone something, and they constantly
>> (honestly) don't understand, and in fact, you 'get it all the time' such
>> that many people don't understand on a regular basis, it might actually
>> be the way you deliver the message.
>
>I can't speak for Guy or Wikipedia. We've only ever banned one person
>once, so clearly we don't get this all the time.
>
>> Now, if the mods are saying 'we're using indefinite and no plans so that
>> you don't mail us every 2 weeks saying have you changed your mind'
>> that's one thing, if they're saying 'indefinite and no plans means not
>> permanent but we're currently planning to review it' (as you suggest)
>> then they could say that more clearly at the level the intended
>> target(s) would understand.
>
>No current plans means no current plans. We've no current plans to ban
>anyone else; that doesn't mean we never will. However, continually
>pestering us about it is unlikely to expedite a review.
Now I wonder what would be the basis of that review.
Are you really judging someone's behaviour in some way in order to
ascertain whether they can post to URCM?
How very, very odd.
Percy Picacity
news:86t1c5...@mid.individual.net:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:57:29 +0100, Tony wrote:
>>
>> Now, if the mods are saying 'we're using indefinite and no plans
>> so that you don't mail us every 2 weeks saying have you changed
>> your mind' that's one thing, if they're saying 'indefinite and no
>> plans means not permanent but we're currently planning to review
>> it' (as you suggest) then they could say that more clearly at the
>> level the intended target(s) would understand.
>
> No current plans means no current plans. We've no current plans to
> ban anyone else; that doesn't mean we never will. However,
> continually pestering us about it is unlikely to expedite a
> review.
>
That comes over as the sort of absurdly arrogant self-importance
usually seen in the the hereditary leaders of very small, one party,
northern town councils. Perhaps you didn't mean it quite like that,
but it shows little respect for democracy (which should apply here even
if no actual voting is proposed).
--
Percy Picacity
kat
Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> said
I see every reason. A polite response doesn't provide the same fuel.
--
kat
>^..^<
kat
Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.c...@spamcop.net> said
> On Jun 4, 11:23 am, "kat" <littlelio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "indefinite" combined with "no plans to review" suggests "permanent
>> as far as we are concerned" to me.
>
> We get this all the time on Wikipedia. Indefinite does not mean
> forever, and no plans to review does not mean no review, what it means
> is that the mods are sufficiently fed up with JMS that they are going
> to completely ignore it for a while before even thinking about it
> again.
Oh yes, wikipedia is always right, isn't it.
>
> Normally the precondition is that the person is able to demonstrate a
> significant change in attitude.
And they do that while unable to post in just what way?
--
kat
>^..^<
Clive George
JMS is not unable to post to usenet, merely to one very small corner of it.
That ought to answer your question.
Tony
wrote:
>In article <hubeq8$uuu$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
>Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>>Now, if the mods are saying 'we're using indefinite and no plans so that
>>you don't mail us every 2 weeks saying have you changed your mind' that's
>>one thing, if they're saying 'indefinite and no plans means not permanent
>>but we're currently planning to review it' (as you suggest) then they could
>>say that more clearly at the level the intended target(s) would understand.
>
>What the moderators decided on was an indefinite ban. The difference
>between that and a permanent one may be slightly subtle, until you
>consider the possibility that JMS might become a reformed character.
>Saying "permanent" would leave us open to the justified criticism that
>we were closing our minds to any possible rehabilitation. Also
>consider the howls here, pointing out the inconsistency, if she
>reformed and we changed our mind: people would say "but you said the
>ban was permanent and here you are rescinding it".
And I think that explanation makes sense. I think that kind of text
explains the issue. I think that's what you should have said. I think it
would have generated less interest from the rest of us (minor as the
interest was in general).
I think the words you guys choose, the delivery, the style, all work
against you.
>The fact that we don't accept much of the criticism here could as well
>be explained by supposing that the criticisms we are not accepting are
>simply unjustified.
In your view.
>For example, the banning of JMS is very controversial here
Actually, I don't think it is. It generated a lot less interest than the
crazy moderation scheme you invented for Matt. It generated a lot less
interest than the rude response to Tom.
>We definitely aren't going to reverse a decision which the users of
>the group agree with because people who ought to know better have
>taken a mission poster's side in a moderation dispute.
And there's one issue - just because someone here presents a criticism,
which happens to support someone you consider a mission poster it doesn't
mean the criticism is automatically invalid. But you appear to treat it
like that - a refusal to accept any chance that you're wrong on something
you've already decided.
>My personal view, which it seems to me judging by the feedback we
>receive is shared by many of the group's users, is that if anything we
>have on occasion been too lax and too forgiving with the "problem
>posters". But my colleages don't entirely agree, and when moderating
>articles my job is to handle them in line with the panel consensus.
I think you should moderate a post based on the post, not on the likely
response to it from some imagined injured party. And I think you should
moderate every post in 5 minutes or less.
However, I don't have to moderate the group, so you can take those opinions
with as much salt as you like.
kat
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> said
Nope, not at all. After all behaviour in other groups should be irrelevant.
--
kat
>^..^<
BrianW
> For the avoidance of doubt - I have asked the moderators if my
> blocking is permanent - or when it will be reviewed.
>
> They have said that it is permanent and the decision is final and will
> not be reviewed.
Good.
Tony
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:57:29 +0100, Tony wrote:
>>
>> If you're trying to tell someone something, and they constantly
>> (honestly) don't understand, and in fact, you 'get it all the time' such
>> that many people don't understand on a regular basis, it might actually
>> be the way you deliver the message.
>
>I can't speak for Guy or Wikipedia. We've only ever banned one person
>once, so clearly we don't get this all the time.
I was alluding to the fact that the messages you guys present both here and
to your moderated users are sometimes obtuse and unhelpful rather than
being simple, clear and helpful.
>> note: this is all moot, the moderators have proven they refuse to change
>> their behaviour based on any discussion that goes on in here, apparently
>> *because* it goes on in here.
>This is nonsense.
It's my personal view and hence isn't nonsense. You're free to think it's
incorrect though.
>We've made a number of significant changes largely as a
>result of discussion here; as an example, rejected messages are now
>available on the web.
That's the one significant change I can think of - but no others. Being
polite in moderation rejection messages shouldn't take a bunch of rabid
posters in unnm to take effect.
You've basically refused, declined and ignored any other criticism,
dismissing it as 'siding with the mission posters'.
The moderation team are half of the cause of the heat in here. You could
easily get this place down to gas mark 1 by being more honest, more open,
and less defensive.
Tosspot
And a corner she vehemently objected to the creation of.
Matt B
Except that we were promised that the URCM moderation decisions would
not be influenced by posts to groups other than URCM - weren't we?
--
Matt B
JMS
Oh - so what I have to say here will influence a decision on whether I
should be unblocked on URCM?
Knowing that URCM was to be moderated on how people had previously
posted in URC, I should not be surprised by that.
Are you speaking on behalf of the moderators?
Clive George
For the purposes of posting into URCM, maybe. But for the purpose of
determining if somebody has changed character, it would seem entirely
appropriate.
Clive George
a) I don't think that applies in this case. Clearly letting a banned
poster post doesn't work - they wouldn't be banned. So other sources of
information have to be used.
b) Were we promised that, or were we merely promised a "clean sheet"
policy? The latter allows postings to other groups to be taken into
consideration.
JMS
Hello it's Zit - someone's lifted up the stone again.
Why not fuck-off and stalk Doug again - is that still your prime
reason for using newgroups?
JMS
wrote:
I was not in favour of the group being created - it was not necessary
and was obviously going to be a private members club for a small
number of people; and indeed, that is what it has turned out to be.
That does not mean that I should not use it - or be stopped from using
it by others.
I am not the only one in that position.
Alex Potter
> The moderation team are half of the cause of the heat in here. You
> could easily get this place down to gas mark 1 by being more honest,
> more open, and less defensive.
+1
--
Alex
kat
Not in the least. They might have to obey your rules in your group - they
do not have to obey them elsewhere. They should not be expected to obey
them elsewhere just to show they can in your group.
--
kat
>^..^<
Clive George
("my group"?)
And in that vein, the mods should not be expected to believe that
somebody can behave better without evidence. The end result of your
theory is a permanent ban - at least the URCM mods have allowed for the
possibility of redemption.
Tony
Why not just implement a 1 month ban, and on a second infraction, a 2 month
ban, and on a third, a 3 month ban, and on a fourth a permanent ban?
Why have a more obscure, obtuse, unhelpful approach?
Why does everything have to appear to be obscure, obtuse and unhelpful?
If the moderation team decide your posts are out of phase with the purpose
of the group, then you may be banned for a period of one month. If on your
return you continue to demonstrate the same behaviour, then another ban can
be imposed of 2 months. This is repeated for 3 times, to encourage you to
change your posting behaviour so that it more consistently fits within the
posting guidelines. If after the third successive ban you still don't
change, then you will be banned permanently.
I posted a review of the information on bans for other moderated groups in
the UK hierarchy. I think you said it was rubbish. Simon seemed to think
it was interesting.
Having no defined policy *invites* debate. Having no clear guideline
*invites* continuous discussion.
Having a clear, explained policy which is followed impartially defeats a
lot of the shit the moderation team seem to be overly tired of.
Clive George
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Clive George<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/2010 23:17, kat wrote:
>
>>> Not in the least. They might have to obey your rules in your group - they
>>> do not have to obey them elsewhere. They should not be expected to obey
>>> them elsewhere just to show they can in your group.
>>
>> ("my group"?)
>>
>> And in that vein, the mods should not be expected to believe that
>> somebody can behave better without evidence. The end result of your
>> theory is a permanent ban - at least the URCM mods have allowed for the
>> possibility of redemption.
>
> Why not just implement a 1 month ban, and on a second infraction, a 2 month
> ban, and on a third, a 3 month ban, and on a fourth a permanent ban?
>
> Why have a more obscure, obtuse, unhelpful approach?
It doesn't seem to be obscure, obtuse and unhelpful. It seems remarkably
plain : JMS is barred. People may pretend they don't know why, but
that's just needless worrying.
If it turns out that barring is going to be used more often, then yes,
maybe a more formal approach, as you propose and as is used in
uk.rec.christian (name not checked), may be appropriate. But let's see
if that is the case before building ourself a needless mound of red tape.
> I posted a review of the information on bans for other moderated groups in
> the UK hierarchy. I think you said it was rubbish. Simon seemed to think
> it was interesting.
Remind me. I can't find a record of me saying anything like that in
reply to you. When did you make the post?
However looking for that has reminded me of a conversation we had back
in March, where you said "Why do you do this Clive? Please. Why? " in
reply to me briefly engaging with JMS. You've accused me of enabling
trolls before that too.
You do realise that you're encouraging her even more than me, don't you?
Molly Mockford
<huc0tg$96u$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>:
>In uk.net.news.moderation, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>("my group"?)
Don't be silly. The "your" was clearly plural in its usage.
>>And in that vein, the mods should not be expected to believe that
>>somebody can behave better without evidence. The end result of your
>>theory is a permanent ban - at least the URCM mods have allowed for the
>>possibility of redemption.
>
>Why not just implement a 1 month ban, and on a second infraction, a 2
>month ban, and on a third, a 3 month ban, and on a fourth a permanent
>ban?
>
>Why have a more obscure, obtuse, unhelpful approach?
I sometimes tend to hope that the real moderation team may read Clive's
posts which pretend to speak for them, and think "Good heavens, if
that's how our approaches and policies appear to one of our main
apologists, it is most certainly time that we re-thought them."
(But I'm only a cock-eyed octopus...)
>Having a clear, explained policy which is followed impartially defeats a
>lot of the shit the moderation team seem to be overly tired of.
I have this kind of doomy feeling that the application of a modicum of
common sense may, by this advanced stage, appear as a defeat in the eyes
the Crack Mod Team.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Geoff Berrow
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Why have a more obscure, obtuse, unhelpful approach?
>
>It doesn't seem to be obscure, obtuse and unhelpful. It seems remarkably
>plain : JMS is barred. People may pretend they don't know why, but
>that's just needless worrying.
People now know exactly why. The group was formed with the express
purpose of excluding the likes of Judith.
You probably think that's OK but it has to be obscure because to
openly admit it would have probably prevented its formation.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
Clive George
> At 00:06:25 on Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in
> <huc0tg$96u$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>:
>
>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> ("my group"?)
>
> Don't be silly. The "your" was clearly plural in its usage.
Not my point. It's "our" group - Kat wants to play a part in its
management, it becomes hers as much as it is anybody elses.
> I sometimes tend to hope that the real moderation team may read Clive's
> posts which pretend to speak for them, and think "Good heavens, if
> that's how our approaches and policies appear to one of our main
> apologists, it is most certainly time that we re-thought them."
My posts do not pretend to speak for them. It's perfectly clear where
they come from - me. That's what the "from" bit means - it says "Clive
George", not "URCM moderation team". I write what I believe, and I don't
mess about with politics. It happens that I'm broadly supportive of the
mods, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. Do you really think I
should suppress my personal opinions just because they disagree with
what a few people on this NG say? I don't, and I'd hope you don't either.
You often write posts arguing against the mods, I often write posts in
favour of them. This is perfectly normal - it's not sycophancy, it's not
being an apologist, it's just expressing views. To attempt to dismiss
mine in the way you are doing does your argument no favours.
Clive George
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:23:38 +0100, Clive George
> <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Why have a more obscure, obtuse, unhelpful approach?
>>
>> It doesn't seem to be obscure, obtuse and unhelpful. It seems remarkably
>> plain : JMS is barred. People may pretend they don't know why, but
>> that's just needless worrying.
>
> People now know exactly why. The group was formed with the express
> purpose of excluding the likes of Judith.
I don't think so. More accurate would be that it was formed with the
express purpose of excluding the bad behaviour Judith/JMS exhibited
before and after the group's creation.
The fact that JMS has continued with that behaviour means the mods can
take steps to prevent that behaviour causing them grief. That was
mentioned at creation stage too.
You'll notice that the more noxious nuxxy is still allowed to post. That
poster is definitely one many would count as "the likes of Judith", but
has taken a little more care about what they write - both in terms of
volume and staying on the right side of acceptability.
That illustrates quite nicely how your accusation is wrong.
Rob Morley
Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >This is nonsense.
>
> It's my personal view and hence isn't nonsense.
That's one of Brooke's favourite phrases - I think it says a lot about
how receptive he is to even considering opinions that differ from his
own.
Tony
>On 05/06/2010 00:06, Tony wrote:
>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Clive George<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/06/2010 23:17, kat wrote:
>>
>>>> Not in the least. They might have to obey your rules in your group - they
>>>> do not have to obey them elsewhere. They should not be expected to obey
>>>> them elsewhere just to show they can in your group.
>>>
>>> ("my group"?)
>>>
>>> And in that vein, the mods should not be expected to believe that
>>> somebody can behave better without evidence. The end result of your
>>> theory is a permanent ban - at least the URCM mods have allowed for the
>>> possibility of redemption.
>>
>> Why not just implement a 1 month ban, and on a second infraction, a 2 month
>> ban, and on a third, a 3 month ban, and on a fourth a permanent ban?
>>
>> Why have a more obscure, obtuse, unhelpful approach?
>
>It doesn't seem to be obscure, obtuse and unhelpful. It seems remarkably
>plain : JMS is barred. People may pretend they don't know why, but
>that's just needless worrying.
JMS is barred, but for how long and if there's any chance of a review is
obscure, obtuse and unhelpful. It gives her meat to grind. She can ask
and ask and ask and ask and push and poke and ask and push. It invites the
agony, not defend from it. In my view, the best way to prevent that kind
of response is with an open, honest and clear policy. Even if it's only
used once.
>If it turns out that barring is going to be used more often, then yes,
>maybe a more formal approach, as you propose and as is used in
>uk.rec.christian (name not checked), may be appropriate. But let's see
>if that is the case before building ourself a needless mound of red tape.
It's not a mound, it's a single policy which I wrote in a longwinded way,
it could be a single line in the charter. "We will ban people for
continued infractions, the first ban will be 1 month, the second 2 months
and after that you're banned for good".
>However looking for that has reminded me of a conversation we had back
>in March, where you said "Why do you do this Clive? Please. Why? " in
>reply to me briefly engaging with JMS. You've accused me of enabling
>trolls before that too.
>
>You do realise that you're encouraging her even more than me, don't you?
I answer some of her posts, which I consider to be reasonable questions
about the nature of usenet or the hierarchy.
And like everyone, sometimes I respond when I shouldn't.
Peter Clinch
> b) Were we promised that, or were we merely promised a "clean sheet"
> policy? The latter allows postings to other groups to be taken into
> consideration.
Whatver was promised to who and when, JMS was banned from urcm
because of her posting behaviour to urcm.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
kat
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> said
> On 04/06/2010 23:17, kat wrote:
>> Not in the least. They might have to obey your rules in your group
>> - they do not have to obey them elsewhere. They should not be
>> expected to obey them elsewhere just to show they can in your group.
>
> ("my group"?)
>
> And in that vein, the mods should not be expected to believe that
> somebody can behave better without evidence. The end result of your
> theory is a permanent ban - at least the URCM mods have allowed for
> the possibility of redemption.
Have they?
The problem with certain posters is that they seem to have a mission. They
have been told to take the mission to the unmoderated group, or to other
places, I have seen the posts suggesting it.
So while they might get banned for repeatedly mission posting, you say
they must not do that if they want to have the ban repealed.
Wonderful.
--
kat
>^..^<
kat
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> said
> On 05/06/2010 00:25, Molly Mockford wrote:
>> At 00:06:25 on Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote
>> in <huc0tg$96u$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>:
>>
>>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> ("my group"?)
>>
>> Don't be silly. The "your" was clearly plural in its usage.
>
> Not my point. It's "our" group - Kat wants to play a part in its
> management, it becomes hers as much as it is anybody elses.
I play my part in the management of the hierarchy, thus all groups in the
hierarchy are "mine". You play yours in ( mainly )one.
>
>> I sometimes tend to hope that the real moderation team may read
>> Clive's posts which pretend to speak for them, and think "Good
>> heavens, if that's how our approaches and policies appear to one of
>> our main apologists, it is most certainly time that we re-thought
>> them."
>
> My posts do not pretend to speak for them. It's perfectly clear where
> they come from - me. That's what the "from" bit means - it says "Clive
> George", not "URCM moderation team". I write what I believe, and I
> don't mess about with politics. It happens that I'm broadly
> supportive of the mods, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
> Do you really think I should suppress my personal opinions just
> because they disagree with what a few people on this NG say? I don't,
> and I'd hope you don't either.
> You often write posts arguing against the mods, I often write posts in
> favour of them. This is perfectly normal - it's not sycophancy, it's
> not being an apologist, it's just expressing views. To attempt to
> dismiss mine in the way you are doing does your argument no favours.
And you are entitled to do so. But like Molly I feel you are not helping
the cause at all.
Just IMHO of course.
--
kat
>^..^<
Geoff Berrow
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> People now know exactly why. The group was formed with the express
>> purpose of excluding the likes of Judith.
>
>I don't think so. More accurate would be that it was formed with the
>express purpose of excluding the bad behaviour Judith/JMS exhibited
>before and after the group's creation.
My regret is that I did not take urc for long enough to see the extent
of this bad behaviour. It's clear to me now that the case for this
group was overstated.
Some hypersensitive cyclists seem to have a much lower threshold for
what constitutes bad behaviour than me.
Here are some examples of what /I/ would consider to be bad behaviour:
Spamming
Flooding
Excessive and/or gratuitous swearing and profanity
Threats of physical violence
Ad hominem attacks
I have no problem with posts being blocked for any of these criteria
but I did NOT expect bad behaviour to mean being (amongst other minor
transgressions) boring and repetitive.
By the way some people have been mentioning net-abuse and it's worth
reminding people of what this really is. From
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#1.3
'...as Neil Pawson says, "it's for abuse *of* the net, NOT abuse *on*
the net." Just because somebody does something vile doesn't mean we
can do anything about it on n.a.n-a. To qualify as true
panic-inspiring net-abuse, an act must interfere with the net-use of a
large number of people. Examples of this: newsgroup flooding,
widespread or organized forgery campaigns, widespread or organized
account hackery, widespread or organized censorship attempts,
etcetera.'
Organised censorship... hmmm.
>
>The fact that JMS has continued with that behaviour means the mods can
>take steps to prevent that behaviour causing them grief. That was
>mentioned at creation stage too.
Judith has posted all her rejected messages. None of them meet MY
criteria for bad behaviour. They are at the very worst, mildly
irritating. Furthermore she has posted evidence (which has not been
disputed) that her rejected post ratio was misrepresented (oh there's
a bloody surprise, who would have thought Ian Jackson would ever do
/that/?).
Yes I'm fully aware that Judith is a wind up merchant but I'd support
a dozen wind up merchants rather than see Usenet brought into
disrepute by such vindictive, cliquish, self-serving and unfair
behaviour.
Tony
>On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:55:21 +0100, Clive George
><cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> People now know exactly why. The group was formed with the express
>>> purpose of excluding the likes of Judith.
>>
>>I don't think so. More accurate would be that it was formed with the
>>express purpose of excluding the bad behaviour Judith/JMS exhibited
>>before and after the group's creation.
>
>My regret is that I did not take urc for long enough to see the extent
>of this bad behaviour. It's clear to me now that the case for this
>group was overstated.
<snip> a lot of stuff I may or may not agree with.
We are however, to use a phrase I hate, where we are. Which is the group
exists, has a moderation team and is busy (by any measure of busy in the
uk.* hierarchy).
So, the question is what should we do.
In my view, we should encourage the moderation team to take a more open,
honest and clear approach to the running of urcm.
We should move away from the only statement of control in the charter being
we will do whatever we need to do, and towards a more explicit control
structure.
I'm loathe to raise an RFD (and I'm not suggesting anyone should,
threatening anyone with doing so, or saying it's the only route) because
I'm not a direct user of the group. I want the uk.* hierarchy to be well
managed, transparent, honest and inclusive, and I think the best way of
achieving that in the case of urcm is for the moderators to publish a
moderation policy which clearly outlines their intent.
The concern about it being gamed is a red herring, as pointed out by
someone else, since the current system is both easier to game and harder
for regular users to understand.
Toom Tabard
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:23:38 +0100, Clive George
>
> <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Why have a more obscure, obtuse, unhelpful approach?
>
> >It doesn't seem to be obscure, obtuse and unhelpful. It seems remarkably
> >plain : JMS is barred. People may pretend they don't know why, but
> >that's just needless worrying.
>
> People now know exactly why. The group was formed with the express
> purpose of excluding the likes of Judith.
>
> You probably think that's OK but it has to be obscure because to
> openly admit it would have probably prevented its formation.
JMS submits many reasonably stated and informed posts on certain
issues, particularly in reference to road safety..
Some of these issues are debatable and on URC there was a coterie on
one side of the debate who denigrated, belittled and insulted any
newbie with a different perspective. I was certainly subjected to
that, but persisted in a different fashion.
JMS largely persisted and fought back against selected individuals in
a somewhat direct fashion. What should not be overlooked is that her
persistence in this is directed at certain individuals and her
application to the task lies somewhere between the the admirable and
the worrying. What should also not be overlooked is that the targets
seemed to deserve it, and in some cases their personal reactions seem
to have involved alternative tactics which she has also persistently
pursued them on.
The targets seemed generally in favour of creating urcm and some seem
to be in the moderation team.
It should not, however, be forgotten that JMS contributes reasonably
stated and informative comment on many road safety issues, and it
should not be difficult to differentiate between those which fall into
that category, and any which are too direct, if indeed she is actually
submitting the latter to urcm. Otherwise, any ban would seem to be
because of her knowledge and opinions, rather than behaviour on urcm.
As someone with similar and informed views on several of the issues,
but who can't be faulted on behaviour issues, I was prepared to give
the moderation team the benefit of the doubt on the question of
fairness. Recent experience, on issues of h-viz and helmets, however,
gave me the impression that moderation is totally over-fussy, or my
messages are being rejected on any pretence because of my known views.
I can only by now reasonably conclude it is the latter. In any event,
the moderation delays and rejections ensured that reasoned discourse
on the issues was very difficult.
Also, that I don't seem to be on the passlist long before now, must,
in the absence of any other explanation, most likely be because of my
knowledge and views being contrary to certain beliefs.
The difference between 'permanent' and 'indefinite with no plans for
review' is something similar to 'sexing up the dossier' being seem as
an accusation, and 'giving the facts more weight than they could bear'
being seen as a vindication.
Interestingly, now that those with certain views have largely decamped
to behind the barricades of urcm, recent discussion of helmets on urc
has been free, open, immediate and spirited. That tells us something
about where the problems previously were, and who may directly or
indirectly mainly have caused them.
And, no, I'm not 'related' to JMS, merely someone with dispassionate
and informed views: and that seems to worry some on URCM.
Toom
JMS
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Clive George wrote:
>
>> b) Were we promised that, or were we merely promised a "clean sheet"
>> policy? The latter allows postings to other groups to be taken into
>> consideration.
>
>Whatver was promised to who and when, JMS was banned from urcm
>because of her posting behaviour to urcm.
And yet there has been no clear explanation of what behaviour you
found so objectionable.
As has been stated by someone else : I posted my rejected messages -
they were not exactly outrageous - indeed many of them were less
objectionable than those posted by one moderator and approved by
others.
The other point of course was that Jackson made a small error in the
ration of my posts which were rejected.
He said more than 50% - which was of course totally incorrect.
Feel free to actually explain for the benefit of me - and others -
what was it about my postings in URCM which actually warranted an
indefinite ban.
JMS
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>You do realise that you're encouraging her even more than me, don't you?
Encouraged?
Oh dear - it was in fact *you* who encouraged me to become a regular
in URC - in response to my very first post there - you responded
with a very warm welcome:
"Oh dear.
Mostly my view is you're extremely badly informed."
I thought - this is an unusual response to a new poster in a newsgroup
- I wonder what it's all about?
It very quickly became apparent.
Newcomers - people who do not toe the party line - not welcome here -
we are a nice little clique.
--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.
The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
Percy Picacity
news:965k069dp9csakbg6...@4ax.com:
FWIW I entirely agree. The banning of Judith was inexplicable on
any grounds related to abuse. Having a generally tedious, abrasive,
humourless and repetitive style can be kept tolerable by moderation,
and indeed the moderation of urcm had settled down to being rather
fussy and excessively partial but reasonably tolerable in my view
until this inexplicable ban.
However, I think the exceedingly narrow-minded and cliquish
moderation criteria will still be bad for the long term development
of the group, so I also think they need to moderate less!
At the moment I am sure there is insufficient justification for an
RFD to force change, but there is little chance of the moderators
being respected or liked outside their small clique.
--
Percy Picacity
Alistair Gunn
> Yes I'm fully aware that Judith is a wind up merchant but I'd support
> a dozen wind up merchants rather than see Usenet brought into
> disrepute by such vindictive, cliquish, self-serving and unfair
> behaviour.
So when's your RFD to change things appearing then?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Tom Crispin
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:23:38 +0100, Clive George
><cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Why have a more obscure, obtuse, unhelpful approach?
>>
>>It doesn't seem to be obscure, obtuse and unhelpful. It seems remarkably
>>plain : JMS is barred. People may pretend they don't know why, but
>>that's just needless worrying.
>
>People now know exactly why. The group was formed with the express
>purpose of excluding the likes of Judith.
That is not entirely true.
It was also created to prevent the group being hijacked by cycle
helmet arguments.
There's a good thread on the boil in uk.rec.cycling as we speak.
Moderator Clinch is a key player in the debate, which Judith started.
Alan Braggins
>On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:34:41 +0100, Geoff Berrow
><blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>People now know exactly why. The group was formed with the express
>>purpose of excluding the likes of Judith.
(As already pointed out, with the correction that she was welcome
if she changed her behaviour. Those in favour of an immediate ban
on her didn't get what they wanted. And "now" is a bit misleading,
since many people had actually followed the RFD and CFV in the first
place.)
>That is not entirely true.
>
>It was also created to prevent the group being hijacked by cycle
>helmet arguments.
Since the problem with the helmet arguments was that they were
dominated by trolls like JMS rather than anyone actually interested in
constructive discussion, that's not a very useful distinction.
(Though it is true that the rules apply just as much to the troll-wrestlers
just as much as the trolls. They don't, of course, ban all discussion of
helmets, but I assume you wouldn't count that as hijacking.)
Mr. Benn
news:slrni0kgv...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Since the problem with the helmet arguments was that they were
> dominated by trolls like JMS
What is a troll? How do define a troll?
BrianW
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:19:46 -0700 (PDT), BrianW
>
> <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 3, 3:06�pm, JMS <jmsmith2...@live.co.uk > wrote:
> >> For the �avoidance of doubt - I have asked the moderators if my
> >> blocking is permanent �- or when it will be reviewed.
>
> >> They have said that it is permanent and the decision is final and will
> >> not be reviewed.
>
> >Good.
>
> Hello it's Zit - someone's �lifted up the stone again.
>
> Why not fuck-off and stalk Doug again - is that still your prime
> reason for using newgroups?
Oh, I'm still hassling Duhg. I thought I would also respond to your
drivel as well, though. It's not much of a surprise that you should
be permanently blocked, is it? After all, you are nothing more than a
skidmark on the Y-Front of life.
Señor Chris
>
> And you are entitled to do so. But like Molly I feel you are not helping
> the cause at all.
>
Please explain why expressing your opinion can be regarded as 'not
helping the cause'. It sounds like you are one of the many people here
who appear to think that this group is only for criticising the mods and
that support for the mods should be suppressed.
Tosspot
Harsh, I'm not sure I'd like Judith up my arse. Or anyone elses for that matter.
Señor Chris
>
> JMS is barred, but for how long and if there's any chance of a review is
> obscure, obtuse and unhelpful. It gives her meat to grind. She can ask
> and ask and ask and ask and push and poke and ask and push.
Whereas before she trolled and trolled and trolled and trolled, so it is
somewhat more bearable. There's also the added bonus that it takes
place here while genuine discussion can continue in peace elsewhere.
BrianW
On reflection, I was a bit unfair. I daresay skiddy Y-Fronts still
have their uses. I therefore apologise to all soiled underwear.
JMS
wrote:
<snip>
>Harsh, I'm not sure I'd like Judith up my arse. Or anyone elses for that matter.
Well you would have to remove your head before anything else went up
it.
And most of your arguments seem to go up your arse as well - so it
must be pretty full up there.
Tosspot
Judith! You're beginning to like me! I'm flattered you should answer my posts,
please continue.
thirty-six
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:03:57 +0100, Peter Clinch
>
Whatever was in the postings was accepted by the moderators, it is
what was in the rejected submissions for which you should be directing
concern. Perhaps it would be easier all around if you referred to
your submissions as 'accepted' or 'rejected'.
Simon Brooke
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>On 04/06/2010 23:17, kat wrote:
>
>>> Not in the least. They might have to obey your rules in your group -
>>> they do not have to obey them elsewhere. They should not be expected
>>> to obey them elsewhere just to show they can in your group.
>>
>>("my group"?)
>>
>>And in that vein, the mods should not be expected to believe that
>>somebody can behave better without evidence. The end result of your
>>theory is a permanent ban - at least the URCM mods have allowed for the
>>possibility of redemption.
>
> Why not just implement a 1 month ban, and on a second infraction, a 2
> month ban, and on a third, a 3 month ban, and on a fourth a permanent
> ban?
Because we are doing a voluntary task in spare time from busy lives. I'm
sure we'd be prepared to consider endless appeals and processes if
someone was paying us for our time, but they're not. This is a free
service, which you are not obliged to use if you don't like it; the
unmoderated group is still available to all, and as Wm... has just
helpfully pointed out, Judith seems to be making very extensive use of it.
If you think a moe complex and bureaucratic system would be better, by
all means draft the RFC which Wm... and Tom have been promising all this
time, and propose yourselves as the new moderation panel.
> If the moderation team decide your posts are out of phase with the
> purpose of the group, then you may be banned for a period of one month.
> If on your return you continue to demonstrate the same behaviour, then
> another ban can be imposed of 2 months. This is repeated for 3 times,
> to encourage you to change your posting behaviour so that it more
> consistently fits within the posting guidelines. If after the third
> successive ban you still don't change, then you will be banned
> permanently.
>
> I posted a review of the information on bans for other moderated groups
> in the UK hierarchy. I think you said it was rubbish. Simon seemed to
> think it was interesting.
It was interesting, and helpful. But I stand by what I said before the
group was formed: "It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and
arbitrary, and every moderation decision is unexplained and final." That
way there's nothing to argue about, and people either just get on with it
or vote with their virtual feet.
Fundamentally the only people who can be trusted to moderate are those
who do not want to do it. The more onerous you make the task of
moderation, the less likely it is you will find such people willing to do
it. Democracy, openness and due process are all good things, but they're
also all expensive things - expensive in time and commitment, if not
money. Where my life, liberty or employment are on the line I would
expect no less. But a Usenet post? To quote the esteemed John McEnroe,
'you can NOT be serious'.
> Having no defined policy *invites* debate. Having no clear guideline
> *invites* continuous discussion.
But it's a discussion which, if the rule was 'no justifications,
explanations or appeals, ever', we could simply ignore.
> Having a clear, explained policy which is followed impartially defeats a
> lot of the shit the moderation team seem to be overly tired of.
That is an assertion I simply do not believe. I think the barrack-room
lawyers (with whom Usenet is sadly oversupplied) would tie us in knots in
no time.
--
;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat
Simon Brooke
> Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in
> news:965k069dp9csakbg6...@4ax.com:
>> Yes I'm fully aware that Judith is a wind up merchant but I'd support a
>> dozen wind up merchants rather than see Usenet brought into disrepute
>> by such vindictive, cliquish, self-serving and unfair behaviour.
>>
> FWIW I entirely agree. The banning of Judith was inexplicable on any
> grounds related to abuse. Having a generally tedious, abrasive,
> humourless and repetitive style can be kept tolerable by moderation,
If you have moderators with the time and inclination to do the work, yes.
I take it you're putting your name forward?
Simon Brooke
If it walks like a troll and it quacks like a troll, it's a troll.
Simon Brooke
> You've basically refused, declined and ignored any other criticism,
> dismissing it as 'siding with the mission posters'.
Feel free to cite any post in which you feel I've done any of those
things.
One thing I particularly object to is the unthinking assumption many
people here seem to make (and I'm including you, explicitly, Tony) that
the moderation panel represent a borgian have mind. Each of us speaks for
himself. We have very different views of the moderation process, as you
would know if you'd paid any attention to what we write here. Debates on
whether a particular post should be passed or not are often vigorous -
which is precisely why some posts remain in the queue for some period.
Percy Picacity
news:86vmk1...@mid.individual.net:
I don't see it as much harder to reject obviously unacceptable posts
than to accept obviously acceptable posts - only onerous if you worry
about it too much! And, crucially, you can't accuse her of making huge
numbers of posts in urcm.
--
Percy Picacity
Tony
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:20:33 +0100, Tony wrote:
>
>> You've basically refused, declined and ignored any other criticism,
>> dismissing it as 'siding with the mission posters'.
>
>Feel free to cite any post in which you feel I've done any of those
>things.
You don't post here in an official capacity do you?
>One thing I particularly object to is the unthinking assumption many
>people here seem to make (and I'm including you, explicitly, Tony) that
>the moderation panel represent a borgian have mind. Each of us speaks for
>himself. We have very different views of the moderation process, as you
>would know if you'd paid any attention to what we write here. Debates on
>whether a particular post should be passed or not are often vigorous -
>which is precisely why some posts remain in the queue for some period.
See above. I understand that as a person you're not speaking for the
moderation team and vice versa, so I'm forced to go on official
announcements from the moderators.
And you'll find I do pay attention to what you write here, as a person,
speaking as yourself, not for or on behalf of the moderators.
kat
Señor Chris <M8R-d...@mailinator.com> said
I am sure you have heard the saying "with friends like these, who need
enemies".
Or how about "it's not what you do, it's the way that you do it"?
And as far as Mr George is concerned, he might like to consider "less is
more".
( Of course that last could apply to many people.:-) )
--
kat
>^..^<
Tony
But why buy half a meal, when a full meal is the same price.
Tony
wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:06:25 +0100, Tony wrote:
>
>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 04/06/2010 23:17, kat wrote:
>>
>>>> Not in the least. They might have to obey your rules in your group -
>>>> they do not have to obey them elsewhere. They should not be expected
>>>> to obey them elsewhere just to show they can in your group.
>>>
>>>("my group"?)
>>>
>>>And in that vein, the mods should not be expected to believe that
>>>somebody can behave better without evidence. The end result of your
>>>theory is a permanent ban - at least the URCM mods have allowed for the
>>>possibility of redemption.
>>
>> Why not just implement a 1 month ban, and on a second infraction, a 2
>> month ban, and on a third, a 3 month ban, and on a fourth a permanent
>> ban?
>
>Because we are doing a voluntary task in spare time from busy lives. I'm
>sure we'd be prepared to consider endless appeals and processes if
>someone was paying us for our time, but they're not.
Let's play your game. Please cite where I said endless appeals. In fact,
cite where I even mentioned an appeal process.
>This is a free service
Which you (as a group) created to fit a need you (as a group) thought
existed. You can't be all sad and 'oh no it's so hard' afterwards.
>which you are not obliged to use if you don't like it; the
>unmoderated group is still available to all, and as Wm... has just
>helpfully pointed out, Judith seems to be making very extensive use of it.
Yes, the unmoderated group still exists, however, it's the moderation of
urcm that I'm interested in.
>If you think a moe complex and bureaucratic system would be better, by
>all means draft the RFC which Wm... and Tom have been promising all this
>time, and propose yourselves as the new moderation panel.
I already said, quite clearly in another post that wasn't my intent (the
RFD, nor the threat of RFD), I'm hoping that by reasonable discussion I can
encourage the moderation team to change their approach.
Now, you've insisted that you don't immediately discount constructive
advice in here. Can you perhaps engage in a debate on the specific issue
rather than using hyperbole.
You feel that a vague charter, with only a single statement about
moderation is the best choice (we'll do whatever we need to).
I think that a more clear and open approach will result in a better
situation.
Could we discuss that. I'm not suggesting endless appeals (or any
appeals), I'm not suggesting a significant quantity of additional work. I'm
suggesting a process much like other busy moderated uk.* newsgroups follow
of a more transparent process.
>> If the moderation team decide your posts are out of phase with the
>> purpose of the group, then you may be banned for a period of one month.
>> If on your return you continue to demonstrate the same behaviour, then
>> another ban can be imposed of 2 months. This is repeated for 3 times,
>> to encourage you to change your posting behaviour so that it more
>> consistently fits within the posting guidelines. If after the third
>> successive ban you still don't change, then you will be banned
>> permanently.
>>
>> I posted a review of the information on bans for other moderated groups
>> in the UK hierarchy. I think you said it was rubbish. Simon seemed to
>> think it was interesting.
>
>It was interesting, and helpful. But I stand by what I said before the
>group was formed: "It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and
>arbitrary, and every moderation decision is unexplained and final." That
>way there's nothing to argue about, and people either just get on with it
>or vote with their virtual feet.
However, the evidence suggests that people do continue to argue about every
decision you make that they don't like. And since you have nothing other
than 'because we'll do anything we like' as a response, it generates more
heat. If you said 'because the charter clearly forbids your behaviour'
then it's easier and generates less heat.
I understand you as an individual don't agree with me, but I think we
should be allowed to have the discussion. If, as both you and Ian insist,
discussion here can encourage change within the moderation team, then I'd
like to continue to discuss it.
>Fundamentally the only people who can be trusted to moderate are those
>who do not want to do it.
I totally disagree with that statement. Moderation is not power and hence
doesn't corrupt those who seek it like power does. It's a service, and
providing a service is something many consider a suitable activity for
those who feel the service is in demand.
>The more onerous you make the task of
>moderation, the less likely it is you will find such people willing to do
>it.
I agree. We disagree about what onerous means in the context of
moderation. If every time I read a post I had to decide if it fit a list
of particular criteria to be accepted, then that's easier than having a
vague statement. That's my view, and in the view of at least one other
person. Having a good framework makes decision making easier, quicker and
more reliable. Having a vague framework makes it slower, harder and less
reliable.
>Democracy, openness and due process are all good things, but they're
>also all expensive things - expensive in time and commitment, if not
>money.
Yes, there's a cost associated. There's also a cost associated with having
to constantly defend your decision making because it appears inexplicable
to those outside the group.
>Where my life, liberty or employment are on the line I would
>expect no less. But a Usenet post? To quote the esteemed John McEnroe,
>'you can NOT be serious'.
I can be serious, and it works in other moderated groups without anywhere
near as much heat as you seem to be generating about it.
>> Having no defined policy *invites* debate. Having no clear guideline
>> *invites* continuous discussion.
>
>But it's a discussion which, if the rule was 'no justifications,
>explanations or appeals, ever', we could simply ignore.
Then put that in the charter or the moderation policy, and be clear, open
and honest about it. Did I say you had to be less restrictive than you
currently are? No, I didn't say you had to. I said you should be more
open, honest and clear. If you decide your policy is 'no justifications,
explanations or appeals, ever' then say so.
>> Having a clear, explained policy which is followed impartially defeats a
>> lot of the shit the moderation team seem to be overly tired of.
>
>That is an assertion I simply do not believe. I think the barrack-room
>lawyers (with whom Usenet is sadly oversupplied) would tie us in knots in
>no time.
And yet, the moderated legal newsgroup, which you might find has some real
lawyers in it, doesn't suffer like urcm does. I doubt it has any fewer
trolls and troublemakers involved in it.
Mike Tomlinson
<ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>She's also lying about what we told her (or possibly she just can't read).
Usenet is a write-only medium for dickheads like JMS.
--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny's thinking about giving Windows 7
(")_(") a go despite what he's said about it...
Mike Tomlinson
<k...@under.the.invalid> writes
>However, I think the exceedingly narrow-minded and cliquish
>moderation criteria will still be bad for the long term development
>of the group,
There is no prospect of 'long-term development'. Usenet is dying on its
arse, in part because of the disruptive activities of selfish twats like
Mike Tomlinson
<Frank...@gmail.com> writes
>
>And a corner she vehemently objected to the creation of.
Yes, /one/ demented troll vs. the majority of people who make a useful
and valid contribution to urcm.
Wm...
uk.net.news.moderation Mike Tomlinson <mi...@jasper.org.uk>
>In article <slrni0fl6...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Alan Braggins
><ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>
>>She's also lying about what we told her (or possibly she just can't read).
>
>Usenet is a write-only medium for dickheads like JMS.
At the risk of upsetting kat and molly I'd suggest cunt head would be
more appropriate. JMS insists her entity is female.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Guy Cuthbertson
blth...@ckdog.co.uk says...
>
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:55:21 +0100, Clive George
> <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> People now know exactly why. The group was formed with the express
> >> purpose of excluding the likes of Judith.
> >
> >express purpose of excluding the bad behaviour Judith/JMS exhibited
> >before and after the group's creation.
>
> My regret is that I did not take urc for long enough to see the extent
> of this bad behaviour. It's clear to me now that the case for this
> group was overstated.
I'd just like to say that that post and your previous one were
absolutely excellent. No doubt me simply saying that will lower your
reputation in the eyes of certain people...that's the kind of
irrationality we're dealing with here, as I'm sure you've picked up on.
Thank goodness there are those in UNNM who were undoubtedly impartial
and open-minded to start off with, but who now see URCM for what it is,
and are prepared to say so.
Guy Cuthbertson
cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk says...
>
> You'll notice that the more noxious nuxxy is still allowed to post.
But you'd prefer that not to be the case, wouldn't you?
Guy Cuthbertson
stilly...@googlemail.com says...
>
> If you have moderators with the time and inclination to do the work, yes.
> I take it you're putting your name forward?
I don't think he is, but someone else who has posted to this thread
is...have you noticed?
Guy Cuthbertson
@mailinator.com says...
...where "genuine discussion" = "sanitised exchanges where certain nasty
facts, opinions and those who the clique personally dislike are
removed".
Why would it bother you so much to see certain opinions being stated
unless it was because you knew they were correct, but you desperately
didn't want them to be? Why else would you be *so* averse to actual
genuine discussion?
Guy Cuthbertson
cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk says...
>
> My posts do not pretend to speak for them. It's perfectly clear where
> they come from - me. That's what the "from" bit means - it says "Clive
> George", not "URCM moderation team". I write what I believe, and I don't
> mess about with politics. It happens that I'm broadly supportive of the
> mods, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
So why not simply make a statement that you are not attempting to become
a URCM moderator? Clearly a *lot* of people from all "sides" have made
the "mistake" of thinking that you are, so why not quickly clarify?
Unless....
> Do you really think I
> should suppress my personal opinions just because they disagree with
> what a few people on this NG say? I don't, and I'd hope you don't either.
My goodness, the hypocrisy is astounding. You continually support a
newsgroup which has been set up with the undeniable purpose of
suppressing particular opinions, then you whinge about people supposedly
trying to do the same thing with your opinions when they're doing
nothing of the kind!
It just gets worse and worse with you. Are you having some kind of
breakdown because you haven't yet had that "red letter" email offering
you that coveted place on the URCM moderation panel? Is it fair for you
to take that out on UNNM posters?
Simon Brooke
> Sun, 6 Jun 2010 06:39:10 <KXnBhCJ+...@jasper.org.uk>
> uk.net.news.moderation Mike Tomlinson <mi...@jasper.org.uk>
>
>>In article <slrni0fl6...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Alan Braggins
>><ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>>
>>>She's also lying about what we told her (or possibly she just can't
>>>read).
>>
>>Usenet is a write-only medium for dickheads like JMS.
>
> At the risk of upsetting kat and molly I'd suggest cunt head would be
> more appropriate. JMS insists her entity is female.
Is this sort of language necessary at all? You find Judith an unpleasant
person, as, I have to say, do I; but in what way does lowering yourself
to her level improve things? This name calling - particularly the use of
'it' - is puerile.
Guy Cuthbertson
stilly...@googlemail.com says...
>
> Fundamentally the only people who can be trusted to moderate are those
> who do not want to do it.
Oh dear oh dear. Someone who's posted to this thread is going to be
very disappointed to hear that. Now their chances are even slimmer.
And they've gone to such a lot of trouble.
Guy Cuthbertson
Frank...@gmail.com says...
>
> I'm flattered you should answer my posts, please continue.
Presumably you secretly admire Judith, and that's why you're trying to
sound like her.
Mr. Benn
news:86vmml...@mid.individual.net...
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:33:54 +0100, Mr. Benn wrote:
>
>> "Alan Braggins" <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:slrni0kgv...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>
>>> Since the problem with the helmet arguments was that they were
>>> dominated by trolls like JMS
>>
>> What is a troll? How do define a troll?
>
> If it walks like a troll and it quacks like a troll, it's a troll.
So you're not prepared to define what a troll is. It can be anything you
decide.
Simon Brooke
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:20:33 +0100, Tony wrote:
>>
>>> You've basically refused, declined and ignored any other criticism,
>>> dismissing it as 'siding with the mission posters'.
[snip]
> See above. I understand that as a person you're not speaking for the
> moderation team and vice versa, so I'm forced to go on official
> announcements from the moderators.
Of which there have been, if I recall correctly, precisely two, one made
by myself <7koforF...@mid.individual.net> on policy on
controversial signatures and one made by Danny
<GMWdnSjerrQJLjbW...@brightview.co.uk> apologising to Tom.
Neither of these posts 'refuse, decline or ignore' any criticism.
You're reading an awful lot between the lines, there.
Simon Brooke
I haven't seen the RFD. Has it been posted yet?