No answer from the URCM moderation team

[True Blue]

I posted a message to URCM which was rejected with the message: " two identical
posts in the queue".

I sent an email to the URCM moderators with the following question:


You have rejected one of my messages with the attached reason. I have only
sent one copy of it. Do you think that you have approved and posted the other:
I cannot see it - what is the message ID please. If not - please would you
post this one.
Also, I had to wait ever such a long time for my post to be rejected: I wonder
why that was please?


The moderators have not even replied to my email and I sent it a couple of days
ago on Monday.

I wonder - am I doing something incorrectly - or have I perhaps misunderstood
how the moderated group works.

(When I said "ever such a long time" - I was actually referring to it taking 60
hours before anything happened about my post. Is that a typical wait for a
moderated post these days?

[Tony]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:32:44 +0000, True Blue <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> I sent an email to the URCM moderators with the following question:

From what email address did you send your message to the moderators?

[True Blue]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:08:09 -0300, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

I sent no such message - and I have no idea why someone in this
newsgroup is pretending to be me.

[True Blue]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:08:09 -0300, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

I sent it from my normal email address: the.real.true.blue"at"outlook.com

I think it is not very good that not only do they ignore emails they cannot
also answer my public query. Is there a better place to ask these sorts of
things?

[Percy Picacity]

There's someone called Judtih who posts here a lot. It would be a good
idea to ask her as she knows all the answers.

--

Percy Picacity

[True Blue]

Someone is playing silly buggers - I have responded to Tony's question.

[True Blue]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:35:45 +0000, Percy Picacity
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> There's someone called Judtih who posts here a lot. It would be a
good
> idea to ask her as she knows all the answers.

I repeat, I have sent the moderators no such message about my posts,
and I would object in the strongest terms to their discussing any
private details of my submissions with any third party claiming to be
me.

[The Todal]

I am now not at all sure which posts come from you and which come from
the imposter. Are you saying that the first post in this thread is from
an imposter? Are there two posters both using the name True Blue, each
posting in good faith and not trying to impersonate the other?

[Iain]

Which all goes to show that UNNM is starting to become one of the more
interesting newsgroups on usenet. :)

--
Iain

[Percy Picacity]

According to Google you are only one of several 'True Blues', with the
same or similar email addresses, so I am not sure you are entitled to
any privacy for 'your' details.

--

Percy Picacity

[Jon Ribbens]

You can't object to that, because there is no way of telling if a
person sending an email is you or not - or indeed if any particular
Usenet post is by you or not. The problem is that you are posting with
an address that does not belong to you ("m...@privacy.net"). If you got
yourself a free email account (for example, at gmail.com) and posted
using that, then this would prevent other people posting with the same
name and address as you.

[Brian Morrison]

This poster is using Groundhog for Android and is posting via aioe, I'm
pretty sure that they also post as a different ID from the same account
in uk.r.a.

True Blue uses Agent, under Windows I think.

--

Brian Morrison

[Andy Leighton]

One of the True Blue's does. The new trial ware version of Agent
which I believe Judith has recently switched to using.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[The Todal]

On 22/3/13 16:16, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:42:39 +0000, Brian Morrison <b...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:25:39 -0300
>> True Blue wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:35:45 +0000, Percy Picacity
>>> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's someone called Judtih who posts here a lot. It would be a
>>> good
>>>> idea to ask her as she knows all the answers.
>>>
>>> I repeat, I have sent the moderators no such message about my posts,
>>> and I would object in the strongest terms to their discussing any
>>> private details of my submissions with any third party claiming to be
>>> me.
>>
>> This poster is using Groundhog for Android and is posting via aioe, I'm
>> pretty sure that they also post as a different ID from the same account
>> in uk.r.a.
>>
>> True Blue uses Agent, under Windows I think.
>
> One of the True Blue's does. The new trial ware version of Agent
> which I believe Judith has recently switched to using.
>

If Judith is posting as True Blue to ask why a post from him has been
held up in the queue, I don't think I have a strong opinion either way
as to whether the moderators ought to offer an answer.

But a lot of bother and a lot of noise in this group could be avoided if
each post was moderated purely on its content and the identity of the
poster was, as far as possible, ignored.

[David Damerell]

Quoting The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>:
>But a lot of bother and a lot of noise in this group could be avoided if
>each post was moderated purely on its content and the identity of the
>poster was, as far as possible, ignored.

While that may be true (although it seems rather optimistic; I assume that
a crazy person can be relied upon to find _something_ to write screeds of
green ink about), it's not our responsibility to minimise fallout in
unn.moderation, regrettable as it may be.

I also don't think it is appropriate to ignore the identity of a poster
when that identity is "obvious sockpuppet of banned user". Suppose I make
such an arse of myself in ulm you find it necessary to ban me, and the
next day a "James Michael Damerell" posting from chiark as
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> emerges grinding the same axe; will
you blithely assume that's a fresh-faced newcomer to Usenet?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Today is Second Leicesterday, March.
Tomorrow will be Second Brieday, March.

[The Todal]

On 22/3/13 17:20, David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>:
>> But a lot of bother and a lot of noise in this group could be avoided if
>> each post was moderated purely on its content and the identity of the
>> poster was, as far as possible, ignored.
>
> While that may be true (although it seems rather optimistic; I assume that
> a crazy person can be relied upon to find _something_ to write screeds of
> green ink about), it's not our responsibility to minimise fallout in
> unn.moderation, regrettable as it may be.
>
> I also don't think it is appropriate to ignore the identity of a poster
> when that identity is "obvious sockpuppet of banned user". Suppose I make
> such an arse of myself in ulm you find it necessary to ban me, and the
> next day a "James Michael Damerell" posting from chiark as
> <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> emerges grinding the same axe; will
> you blithely assume that's a fresh-faced newcomer to Usenet?
>

The best answer I can give is that I find it inconceivable that you'd
ever be banned from ULM. The worst that would ever happen is that some
posts from you would be rejected if they were (eg) abusive or defamatory
or kept repeating the same point.

[David Damerell]

Quoting The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>:
>The best answer I can give is that I find it inconceivable that you'd
>ever be banned from ULM.

http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm (policy section f) says that you
might do so. Indeed section j says that you will ban me if I evade
moderation (something which, as an occasional poster to the Monastery, I
know perfectly well how to do). So, while I have no intention of doing
that, I don't think it's inconcievable.

[The Todal]

On 22/3/13 17:40, David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>:
>> The best answer I can give is that I find it inconceivable that you'd
>> ever be banned from ULM.
>
> http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm (policy section f) says that you
> might do so. Indeed section j says that you will ban me if I evade
> moderation (something which, as an occasional poster to the Monastery, I
> know perfectly well how to do). So, while I have no intention of doing
> that, I don't think it's inconcievable.
>

It's not impossible. But I don't envisage we'll ever ban anyone since
we've managed since May 2004 without banning anyone except for a brief
moment at the very beginning when we were still novices and
experimenting and there was one particular loony who was always off
topic. And those who evade moderation can't actually be banned in any
meaningful way so all we would actually do is reject followups to posts
from such people if we managed to spot them. Which, candidly, we
probably wouldn't. Fortunately they wouldn't be stealing any money or
property and life would go on much the same.

[Judith]

On 22 Mar 2013 17:40:40 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell

<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Quoting The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>:
>>The best answer I can give is that I find it inconceivable that you'd
>>ever be banned from ULM.
>
>http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm (policy section f) says

The moderators will use their best endeavours to avoid banning anyone


Indeed it does.

[Tim Jackson]

On 22 Mar 2013 17:20:24 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell wrote...

>
> Quoting The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>:
> >But a lot of bother and a lot of noise in this group could be avoided if
> >each post was moderated purely on its content and the identity of the
> >poster was, as far as possible, ignored.
>
> While that may be true (although it seems rather optimistic; I assume that
> a crazy person can be relied upon to find _something_ to write screeds of
> green ink about), it's not our responsibility to minimise fallout in
> unn.moderation, regrettable as it may be.

Problem no. 1 with urcm moderation:
The moderators think that the only fallout caused by their heavy-handed
policies is in unn.*

Actually the biggest fallout is in urcm itself. Inevitably, because
heavy-handedness stifles legitimate discussions as well as stuff that's
not civil and pleasant. But naturally, stifled discussions don't appear
in the group itself, so they don't give rise to complaints there. So
that's all right then.

> I also don't think it is appropriate to ignore the identity of a poster
> when that identity is "obvious sockpuppet of banned user". Suppose I
> make such an arse of myself in ulm you find it necessary to ban me,

Problem no. 2 with urcm moderation:
The moderators think that their job is to keep out trolls and their
socks. But it's not. Their job to keep the group civil and pleasant.
It says so in the charter.

Problem no. 2A:
The moderators are so short-sighted that they think keeping out trolls
and keeping the group civil and pleasant are synonymous. That keeping
out trolls is the only possible way for them to do their job.

Problem no. 2B:
The moderators are so short of ideas that they feel the only way to keep
out trolls is to ban them. And to put possible socks on probation until
they can be sure it's OK to ban them too.

> and the
> next day a "James Michael Damerell" posting from chiark as
> <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> emerges grinding the same axe; will
> you blithely assume that's a fresh-faced newcomer to Usenet?

Problem no. 4 with urcm moderation:
The moderators fail to realise that the reason such socks keep popping
up is because that is all part of the troll, and it works.

The troll's target is the moderators themselves, and they keep falling
for it. So the troll is positively encouraged to create new socks and
grind the same axes. The crap moderation feeds the troll, and makes the
problem worse, not better.

One moderator calls his critics "troll-enablers". But the biggest
troll-enablers are the moderation team themselves. Exactly the opposite
of their aim.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Iain]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>:
>> But a lot of bother and a lot of noise in this group could be
>> avoided if each post was moderated purely on its content and the
>> identity of the poster was, as far as possible, ignored.
>
> While that may be true (although it seems rather optimistic; I assume
> that a crazy person can be relied upon to find _something_ to write
> screeds of green ink about), it's not our responsibility to minimise
> fallout in unn.moderation, regrettable as it may be.
>
> I also don't think it is appropriate to ignore the identity of a
> poster when that identity is "obvious sockpuppet of banned user".
> Suppose I make such an arse of myself in ulm you find it necessary to
> ban me, and the next day a "James Michael Damerell" posting from
> chiark as <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> emerges grinding the
> same axe; will you blithely assume that's a fresh-faced newcomer to
> Usenet?

If the post is on-topic and covers the other requirements, why does it
matter one iota who posted it.

URCM is a victim of its own moderation methods. To arbitrarily reject new
posters is telling them that they are not welcome - 'You don't fit into our
private club!'

To measure in days manual moderation times is completely unacceptable. That
is also telling people that they do not fit.

To reject a post because it might bring in controversial responses, I simply
do not understand. It is again allowing the few club members the freedom to
accept and discuss only their own opinion and disallow any potential
controversy.

I would say that URCM has now gone beyond the point of no return. Allowing
more standard moderation methods will probably simply open the floodgates to
those who have been trying to get in. The group will then become the thing
that you have been trying to avoid, and more.

A way forward would be to shut down URCM completely, and move those who
wanted to stay with that format to a private forum where the moderators can
moderate however they like. That unfortunately may leave a void. Should
the need arise, then maybe a new URCM could be started at a later date, but
on the more proven moderation format of ULM.

--
Iain

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:58:14 -0000, Tim Jackson wrote...

> Problem no. 4 with urcm moderation:

Er.. problem with my post: there is no problem no. 3. (It became 2B
during editing).

[Clive George]

On 22/03/2013 19:09, Iain wrote:

> URCM is a victim of its own moderation methods. To arbitrarily reject new
> posters is telling them that they are not welcome - 'You don't fit into our
> private club!'

Have any new posters been rejected like that?

[Judith]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:19:59 +0000, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:

True Blue?

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:09:12 -0000, Iain wrote...

> I would say that URCM has now gone beyond the point of no return. Allowing
> more standard moderation methods will probably simply open the floodgates to
> those who have been trying to get in. The group will then become the thing
> that you have been trying to avoid, and more.

I fear you may be right. Many people have advocated more sensible
moderation policies, but instead of trying them the moderators have just
dug themselves deeper and deeper into the mire. It's possible that the
sensible policies would no longer work.

There's the story of the English tourist who got lost driving round the
country roads in rural Ireland. He stopped to ask a local for
directions. The local responded "Well, if I were you, I wouldn't start
from here."

One suggestion would be that when you find yourself in a hole, it's
usually best to stop digging. But I doubt they'll do that either. What
comes next when banning doesn't work? Probation. What comes next when
probation doesn't work....?

[Clive George]

Is True Blue genuinely a new poster or is it a sock of somebody rather
more experienced?

[Periander]

On 22-Mar-2013, David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> when that identity is "obvious sockpuppet of banned user". Suppose I make
> such an arse of myself in ulm you find it necessary to ban me

You're kidding yourself and without wishing to be over complimentary re the
moderators of ulm they wouldn't be draft enough to try to ban someone from
posting to a pubic forum. Granted a certain moderator once threatened me
with banning but wiser heads took matters in hand ... needless to say that
particular moderator has gone now and of course ulm continues to flourish
...

--

All the best,

Periander

[True Blue]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:36:39 +0000, Percy Picacity
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> According to Google you are only one of several 'True Blues', with
the
> same or similar email addresses, so I am not sure you are entitled
to
> any privacy for 'your' details.

You posit a situation worth of Heller; only those who desire privacy
are denied it.

[Tony]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:32:14 +0000, True Blue <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> >From what email address did you send your message to the
moderators?

> I sent it from my normal email address:
the.real.true.blue"at"outlook.com

From what address did you send your usenet post?

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-22, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Is True Blue genuinely a new poster or is it a sock of somebody rather
> more experienced?

I haven't really been paying attention, but I think it's someone who
is an existing poster who has been using a posting address they don't
own (m...@privacy.net) so someone else has recently decided they can
also post with the exact same name and email address with impunity.

[Steve Walker]

"David Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Gve*Mx...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> Quoting The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>:
>>The best answer I can give is that I find it inconceivable that you'd
>>ever be banned from ULM.
>
> http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm (policy section f) says that you
> might do so.

It is exceedingly unlikely that we would ever ban anyone from UKLM. If we
encountered some terrible troublemaker then we might reject a large
proportion of their posts, but the useful ones would still probably be
accepted.

Even if someone set out to attack the group, our users would route around
the damage and carry on. The strength of UKLM is the diverse, welcoming
and unpretentious user group, our trivial moderation tinkering is very
nearly irrelevant at this stage. We receive thousands of posts each month,
and accept about 98% of them (most of the rejects are spam, btw).

Compare this to the doctrinaire, suspicious and authoritarian culture next
door, where extensive use of control, censorship and punishment is leading
to a tiny, paranoid user group of Chiark cronies. They have always been at
war with cycle helmets, and all their hardships are caused by the evil
saboteur Judith Goldstein. They cry out for more loyalty oaths and
probationary policies, 30 hour moderation delays and chocolate rationing.

tl;dr - West Germany v East Germany

[Tim Jackson]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 02:49:05 -0000, Steve Walker wrote...

> It is exceedingly unlikely that we would ever ban anyone from UKLM. If we
> encountered some terrible troublemaker then we might reject a large
> proportion of their posts, but the useful ones would still probably be
> accepted.

Which would make it impossible for a troll to mount the sort of attack
that is experienced at urcm. That is, where the troll deliberately
challenges the moderation policy by making posts that are useful (civil,
pleasant and on-topic), knowing that they are nevertheless likely to be
rejected because of who made them.

Such challenges don't work if the moderators are so unsporting that they
accept the posts instead.

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:kij53o$vj7$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> They have always been at war with cycle helmets, and all their hardships
> are caused by the evil saboteur Judith Goldstein.

<grin>

--
Alex

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-03-23 03:38:25 +0000, Tim Jackson said:

> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 02:49:05 -0000, Steve Walker wrote...
>
>> It is exceedingly unlikely that we would ever ban anyone from UKLM. If we
>> encountered some terrible troublemaker then we might reject a large
>> proportion of their posts, but the useful ones would still probably be
>> accepted.
>
> Which would make it impossible for a troll to mount the sort of attack
> that is experienced at urcm. That is, where the troll deliberately
> challenges the moderation policy by making posts that are useful (civil,
> pleasant and on-topic), knowing that they are nevertheless likely to be
> rejected because of who made them.
>
> Such challenges don't work if the moderators are so unsporting that they
> accept the posts instead.

While I do absolutely agree with you, I do think we should not
underestimate the extent to which these 'civil, pleasant and on-topic'
posts are almost invariably whiny and negative about either cycling
safety or cyclists, or a previous poster. I can see why the moderators
fear the effect of allowing all of them, even though I agree with you
that this is what they *must* do to make progress.

--

Percy Picacity

[Ophelia]

"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:kij53o$vj7$1...@dont-email.me...
>

*applause*

O, donning helmet
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Tim Jackson]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 08:36:03 +0000, Percy Picacity wrote...

> While I do absolutely agree with you, I do think we should not
> underestimate the extent to which these 'civil, pleasant and on-topic'
> posts are almost invariably whiny and negative about either cycling
> safety or cyclists, or a previous poster. I can see why the moderators
> fear the effect of allowing all of them, even though I agree with you
> that this is what they *must* do to make progress.

Yes, you're right. But actually, they don't have to allow all of them.
If their moderation policy was more transparent and detailed about their
policies on repetition of well-worn topics, attacks on other cyclists
etc, then they could use it to justify rejecting quite a few posts on
those grounds. While still allowing posts which were OK, as Steve says
would happen in ulm.

But because they haven't got a half-way decent moderation policy
document, they have to rely on more nebulous, subjective grounds like
"needlessly inflammatory". Perhaps with a highly opinionated comment
from the individual moderator.

That falls straight into the trap the troll is setting for them. They
are rejecting posts without good grounds that people can understand.

[Iain]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.ku.invalid> considered Sat, 23 Mar 2013

> 09:10:45 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>>
>> "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>> news:kij53o$vj7$1...@dont-email.me...
>

> <snip warped description of urcm>
>
>> *applause*
>>
> Having spent the last couple of years promoting such a twisted and
> perverse viewpoint, it comes as no surprise that you applaud it's
> acceptance.
>
> Of course, some of us find it unacceptable that a member of the uk
> usenet committee supports trolls against properly appointed
> moderators.

But can you not accept from the chat here that there might be something
slightly not right in the moderation of URCM?

We could of course say that the labour government were 'properly appointed'.
But look at what _they_ did to the country ...

--
Iain

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-03-23 22:40:21 +0000, Iain said:

> Phil W Lee wrote:

>
>
> We could of course say that the labour government were 'properly
> appointed'. But look at what _they_ did to the country ...

Isn't that largely a fabrication by the present government? They
seemed to have steered us reasonably well through a global crisis that
was really not of their making, and which the conservatives certainly
didn't predict. No worse crooks than the present lot as far as I can
see.

--

Percy Picacity

[Nick]

Lol. The global financial crisis was caused by excess credit enabled by
bank deregulation. The banking capital of the world at the time was
London. Its not so much that the world presented the uk with a crisis as
London (along with partner in crime NY) presented the world with a crisis.

The reason that the uk has fared so badly since is for two reasons
firstly its economy was disproportionately dependent upon the banking
industry, which was the most heavily hit and secondly because uk private
debt levels were extremely high due to the housing boom.

Gordon Brown was a disastrous imbecile. He had 9 years to see the
problems coming but was too happy with the massive tax receipts, which
he pissed away rather than invested, to do anything. The current Tories
took over an unbelievably crap situation. Even after the cuts the uk
deficit is still huge compared to other countries. The uk's only hope of
recovery is for a period of high inflation to wipe the debts away and a
resurgence in the banking industry (rebalancing the economy properly
will take a long time).

[Fritz Wuehler]

In article <kij53o$vj7$1...@dont-email.me>

Are you sure Judith is Jewish?

[Alex]

Maybe the evil saboteur Judith Goldstein will feature in the BBC's
next series of "Who Do You Think You Are?" - that will be exciting!

--
Alexis

[Ophelia]

"Nick" <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:514e5390$0$44275$c3e8da3$b372...@news.astraweb.com...

Exactly!

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Percy Picacity]

Maybe Brown was stupid, but all the opposition pressure was in favour
of yet more deregulation, so I see no evidence they would have done
better.

--

Percy Picacity

[Judith]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:04:34 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

Well said Percy.

Why not ask him what is the UK Net debt as % of GDP and is it currently going
up or down. (Ask him not to take the Royal Mail pension in to account).

[Judith]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:25:06 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

>Maybe Brown was stupid, but all the opposition pressure was in favour
>of yet more deregulation, so I see no evidence they would have done
>better.

I've found the figures:

YEAR Net debt as % of GDP Party in power

2009 51.6 Lab
2010 65.7 CON/LD
2011 71.3 CON/LD
2012 75.1 CON/LD

Good job Osborne seems to be on top of things.

[M Wicks]

On Mar 23, 2:49 am, "Steve Walker" <spamt...@beeb.net> wrote:
> "David Damerell" <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:Gve*Mx...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

>
> > Quoting  The Todal  <deadmail...@beeb.net>:
> >>The best answer I can give is that I find it inconceivable that you'd
> >>ever be banned from ULM.
>

> >http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm(policy section f) says that you

> > might do so.
>
> It is exceedingly unlikely that we would ever ban anyone from UKLM.  If we
> encountered some terrible troublemaker then we might reject a large
> proportion of their posts, but the useful ones would still probably be
> accepted.
>
> Even if someone set out to attack the group, our users would route around
> the damage and carry on.   The strength of UKLM is the diverse, welcoming
> and unpretentious user group, our trivial moderation tinkering is very
> nearly irrelevant at this stage.   We receive thousands of posts each month,
> and accept about 98% of them (most of the rejects are spam, btw).
>
> Compare this to the doctrinaire, suspicious and authoritarian culture next
> door, where extensive use of control, censorship and punishment is leading
> to a tiny, paranoid user group of Chiark cronies.   They have always been at
> war with cycle helmets, and all their hardships are caused by the evil
> saboteur Judith Goldstein.  They cry out for more loyalty oaths and
> probationary policies, 30 hour moderation delays and chocolate rationing.
>
> tl;dr - West Germany v East Germany

:))))))))

That is just glorious.

[M Wicks]

On Mar 24, 1:56 am, Fritz Wuehler

<fr...@spamexpire-201303.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>
> Are you sure Judith is Jewish?

What a surprise that that makes such a difference to you, Wm. Just
like whether Judith is "really" a woman. Is it common for white people
who lived under Apartheid to harbour prejudice towards absolutely
every minority (plus women)?

[Nick]

>> Gordon Brown was a disastrous imbecile. He had 9 years to see the
>> problems coming but was too happy with the massive tax receipts, which
>> he pissed away rather than invested, to do anything. The current Tories
>> took over an unbelievably crap situation. Even after the cuts the uk
>> deficit is still huge compared to other countries. The uk's only hope of
>> recovery is for a period of high inflation to wipe the debts away and a
>> resurgence in the banking industry (rebalancing the economy properly
>> will take a long time).
>
> Maybe Brown was stupid, but all the opposition pressure was in favour of
> yet more deregulation, so I see no evidence they would have done better.
>

I'm not sure there was pressure with respect to banking, but I might be
wrong. There was pressure for deregulation of employment laws etc, but
that is different. The Tories were certainly responsible for introducing
much of the banking deregulation when they were in power. This was a
bit like starting a fire. Ok if someone watched it and tended it but
very dangerous if not properly checked.

[Nick]

Clearly he isn't. But a government has only a limited power to initiate
immediate changes in the economy. An analogy would be like a huge oil
tanker it has a huge inertia, it takes time to change direction.

What your figures show is that the amount of the deficit, the amount
government overspends (expenditure-income) each year is huge. As I
pointed out in my PP, which leaves little room for manoeuvre.

Miliband has been criticising the Tories for cutting expenditure he has
given no indication how he would increase income. This would make the
rate of growth even bigger. It isn't an answer it is playing to the mob.

[Percy Picacity]

Not to express a definite opinion as to who is right, but it is not as
simple as that. If you carry on spending (like the Americans) and your
economy grows the deficit may be smaller than if both spending and
growth decrease. Comparing a national budget with a domestic one, a
favourite politicians trick, is quite invalid, because the government's
income goes up with growth, so deficit spending is not necessarily
worse than if you cut spending. This is the effect Mlliband is aiming
for, so he is giving an indication as to how he would increase income.
He is more obviously an opportunist liar than many of them, so I don't
necessarily think he is right.

--

Percy Picacity

[Dave U. Random]

In article <3d427b1f-4a9b-49fd...@g4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 24, 1:56=A0am, Fritz Wuehler

I did not write the message you are replying to.

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:19:37 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks wrote...

I think he just missed the point of the literary "Goldstein" reference.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>Not to express a definite opinion as to who is right, but it is not as
>simple as that. If you carry on spending (like the Americans) and your
>economy grows the deficit may be smaller than if both spending and
>growth decrease. Comparing a national budget with a domestic one, a
>favourite politicians trick, is quite invalid, because the government's
>income goes up with growth, so deficit spending is not necessarily
>worse than if you cut spending. This is the effect Mlliband is aiming
>for, so he is giving an indication as to how he would increase income.
>He is more obviously an opportunist liar than many of them, so I don't
>necessarily think he is right.

Thus proving my point about people on Usenet wanting to talk, and doing it
where-ever a topic they're interested comes up.

I'm sure there's a better group for this somewhere in the hierarchy.
--
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 ]

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Dave U. Random

But since we don't know who 'you' are, that's a pointless statement to
make. Anonymity of the kind you're employing results in nothing you say
carrying any weight.

[Brian]

On 22 Mar 2013 17:20:24 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Quoting The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>:
>>But a lot of bother and a lot of noise in this group could be avoided if
>>each post was moderated purely on its content and the identity of the
>>poster was, as far as possible, ignored.
>
>While that may be true (although it seems rather optimistic; I assume that
>a crazy person can be relied upon to find _something_ to write screeds of
>green ink about), it's not our responsibility to minimise fallout in
>unn.moderation, regrettable as it may be.

The "fallout" in u.n.n.mod is, as I shall seek to show, the direct
result of the application in u.r.c.m of a defective moderation policy.
The moderators in the group apply that policy in the knowledge that
fallout in u.n.n.mod is one of the by-products. This assertion does
not depend on the acceptance of the proposition that the policy is
defective: even if one considers the mod policies in u.r.c.m to be
models of excellence, the fact that the mods' actions knowingly
contribute to the noise in u.n.n.mod would, I suggest, be grounds
enough for criticism.

The moderators' ultimate objective is to control postings in u.r.c.m
so as to make the contents of the group civil, pleasant, and of
interest to cyclists (I paraphrase, but that is the intent).

In passing, though this is not central to the point I am trying to
make, even this introduces a subjective element to the mod policy:
what is one person's idea of civil, pleasant and interesting may not
be shared by another, but all users get the mods' version of these
concepts. This is but one reason why moderated groups are not always
conducive to stimulating discussions.

>I also don't think it is appropriate to ignore the identity of a poster
>when that identity is "obvious sockpuppet of banned user". Suppose I make
>such an arse of myself in ulm you find it necessary to ban me, and the
>next day a "James Michael Damerell" posting from chiark as
><dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> emerges grinding the same axe; will
>you blithely assume that's a fresh-faced newcomer to Usenet?

No, because I ought not to need to make any assumptions at all about
James Michael Damerell's real-life identity.

If David Damerell persistently submits posts which fall foul of the
moderation policy, the moderators will blacklist/ban him. James
Michael Damerell then appears, and may have a similar email address to
his banned brother, may post using the same newsreader and even from
the same injection IP address. This is no more than circumstantial
evidence (strong perhaps, but circumstantial nonetheless) that DD and
JMD are the same physical person.

What seems to happen at the moment is that a moderator will decide
that DD and JMD actually are the same person and will ban JMD on that
basis, regardless of the content of JMD's post(s).

But consider: if DD has been banned for persistently submitting posts
which are antithetical to "pleasant, civil and of interest to
cyclists", and JMD appears and submits similar material ("emerges
grinding the same axe"), then JMD's posts are rightly blocked, and
ultimately he will be rightly banned, not because he might be the same
person as DD, but because his posts are antithetical to "pleasant,
civil and of interest to cyclists". If JMD's submission passes the
"pleasant civil etc" test, then why does it matter whether JMD is the
same physical person as DD or not? Sure, it deprives a moderator of
the opportunity to think "yah boo sucks, caught you at it again", but
moderators ought to be above that kind of thing. If the content of the
post is acceptable, then the reviewing mod should pass it regardless
of who s/he supposes the RL identity of the author to be. This, for
the love of God, is content-based moderation. It is moderation based
on content. The clue is in the name.

What is actually happening in u.r.c.m. at the moment appears to be a
mixture of content-based and person-based moderation, and it seems to
be the person-based side which causes all the problems in u.n.n.mod.
The justification for the person-based element appears to me to be
(and I apologise if I have misunderstood) that DD has been banned for
persistently posting objectionable (to the mods) material. JMD is
assumed to be the same physical person as DD and therefore, even
though his instant submission may be benign, his intention must
ultimately be to submit more objectionable material, so he will be
switched off now, thereby depriving him of the chance to do so. This
strategy contains the assumptions that the mods are correct as to
identity, and that past behaviour is an infallible guide to future
behaviour; and it is the mods' forming of these assumptions against
which the trolls have optimised their mode of attack.

This is what allows the trolls to fill u.n.n.mod with faux-naif
enquiries about "nasty u.r.c.m. mods who have blocked a perfectly
innocuous post and banned a perfectly innocuous poster" (I paraphrase
again), and which attract all the consequential debate. The trolls
have succeeded in trapping the mods into a game which the mods cannot
win on their current strategy. The trolls are not gaming the group any
more, they are clearly gaming the mods and succeeding.

The desired outcome, as it seems to me, is one where u.r.c.m. is a
pleasant and civil place for cyclists to hold discussions of interest
to them, without hesitation, repetition or more than the usual usenet
standards of deviation, and which also does not fill other group(s) up
with the collateral damage from achieving this aim. At the moment,
the means used to generate the first half of this outcome seem to
cause, or at the very least, greatly contribute to, the failure to
achieve the second. This suggests, at least to me, that the means
used to achieve the first half are not well-optimised, and therefore
that further development work is needed.

In a textbook on, of all things, the strength of engineering
materials, which I cannot find at the moment, there is a cartoon of a
little girl holding a cat's tail. The cat, not unsurprisingly, is
trying to pull away. The cartoon is captioned:
"Don't pull pussy's tail, darling."
"I'm not pulling, Mummy, pussy's pulling."
We might have a lively debate about whether the u.r.c.m. mods are
better cast in the role of the little girl or the cat.

(Why I should succeed in causing the u.r.c.m mods to understand the
concern to which their actions give rise when such uk.* luminaries as
kat and Molly Mockford have not is perhaps a little beyond me, but it
is Sunday, two below outside and I cannot see the garden for snow).

Brian

Remove 2001. to reply by email.

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:37:07 +0000, Brian wrote...

> What is actually happening in u.r.c.m. at the moment appears to be a
> mixture of content-based and person-based moderation, and it seems to
> be the person-based side which causes all the problems in u.n.n.mod.
> The justification for the person-based element appears to me to be
> (and I apologise if I have misunderstood) that DD has been banned for
> persistently posting objectionable (to the mods) material. JMD is
> assumed to be the same physical person as DD and therefore, even
> though his instant submission may be benign, his intention must
> ultimately be to submit more objectionable material, so he will be
> switched off now, thereby depriving him of the chance to do so. This
> strategy contains the assumptions that the mods are correct as to
> identity, and that past behaviour is an infallible guide to future
> behaviour; and it is the mods' forming of these assumptions against
> which the trolls have optimised their mode of attack.

A further complication is the possibility that DD and JMD might not in
fact be the same person. That JMD is a different troll, intent on
impersonating DD.

I think I was not the only person to suspect that James Michael Schmidt
was not Judith Mary Smith. It's not clear to me whether the moderators
understood that. David's prior post here suggests they didn't, but
perhaps they did.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of that, it does pose an even greater
difficulty for identity-based moderation. The solution is not to
attempt to discern the poster's identity. Just rise above it.

And since banning people depends on determining their identity, bans are
unworkable. Don't even bother trying.

>
> This is what allows the trolls to fill u.n.n.mod with faux-naif
> enquiries about "nasty u.r.c.m. mods who have blocked a perfectly
> innocuous post and banned a perfectly innocuous poster" (I paraphrase
> again), and which attract all the consequential debate. The trolls
> have succeeded in trapping the mods into a game which the mods cannot
> win on their current strategy. The trolls are not gaming the group any
> more, they are clearly gaming the mods and succeeding

Exactly. Only the mods can't see it. They still think they are dealing
with someone who just wants to post abuse in the group. And they think
they are winning that battle. They can't see that the troll has moved
on and adapted, which means that the moderation policy also needs to
move on and adapt.

The snag with the moderation is that instead of adapting the policy to
the new situation, they are just applying ever more clumsy and heavy-
handed techniques to bolster the old policy. Bans, probationary
periods, etc etc. It doesn't work. And the heavy-handedness stifles
legitimate discussion as well as keeping out the trolls.

[Steve Walker]

"Fritz Wuehler" <fr...@spamexpire-201303.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote
in message
news:fab9bd16cc5074c9...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...

> Are you sure Judith is Jewish?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Goldstein

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.moderation, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

>And the heavy-handedness stifles
>legitimate discussion as well as keeping out the trolls.

Until you can demonstrate the legitimate discussion which has been stifled,
the moderation team will never believe this point.

[Iain]

Tony wrote:
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> And the heavy-handedness stifles
>> legitimate discussion as well as keeping out the trolls.
>
> Until you can demonstrate the legitimate discussion which has been
> stifled, the moderation team will never believe this point.

Do you really think that people maintain an enthusiasm to continue in a
discussion while waiting many, many hours, or days even, for their post and
point to be included?
It has also been shown here that posts have been rejected, not on their own
content, but on the expectation that it might elicit a more controversial or
even aggressive response.
Those, of course, who are white-listed, have been shown to be able to get
away with calling people trolls or similar.

There is clearly a bias towards those favoured (white-listed) and those that
are not. And imagine those poor people whose name happens spark some sort
of link with 'Judith'. That's it for them. They can forget ever trying to
get a post passed. It does not matter one bit what the content of the post
is.

If you do not let a post in in the first place, you cannot even state
whether that discussion has been stifled or not - it's not been given a
chance.

What was it you were saying, 'demonstrate ... '?

--
Iain

[M Wicks]

On Mar 24, 6:14 pm, Tony <t...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

> In uk.net.news.moderation, Tim Jackson <n...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>
> >And the heavy-handedness stifles
> >legitimate discussion as well as keeping out the trolls.
>
> Until you can demonstrate the legitimate discussion which has been stifled,
> the moderation team will never believe this point.

Tony, do you think the threads mentioned here (or any parts of them)
are legitimate discussion?

<3a0db401-339b-4f7c...@p5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.net.news.moderation/browse_frm/thread/643f5880f5fe3ead#

The moderators have indicated that those threads would now not be
allowed because of "probation". So if you agree that *any* posts in
those threads constitute legitimate discussion, then surely that
demonstrates the above.

Although of course your statement above implies that the moderators
actually care if legitimate discussion is being stifled, and would be
prepared to change their policies if they believed it was happening.
Again you have comically overestimated their willingness to behave
reasonably. They only care about "beating the trolls" at all costs,
and don't care what collateral damage there is to legitimate
discussion, uk.* or anything else.

They would rather have a month with 100 "favoured" posts and 0 "troll"
posts getting through than a month with 1000 "favoured" posts and 10
"troll" posts. Why else do they want to stop >100-post threads with
95% good-natured "favoured" posts just because a "troll" started them?
Mmm?

[Judith]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:39:32 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>They would rather have a month with 100 "favoured" posts and 0 "troll"
>posts getting through than a month with 1000 "favoured" posts and 10
>"troll" posts. Why else do they want to stop >100-post threads with
>95% good-natured "favoured" posts just because a "troll" started them?
>Mmm?

Just look at the number of posts made by regulars which were made to threads
which were started by new-comers to the group:

Freddy Nobbs 12
John Benn 122
John Benn 92
Mr Lamb 28
CatheringMargaretLinton 5
wetherspoon 17
wetherspoon 19

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-03-24 14:57:15 +0000, Tim Jackson said:

> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:19:37 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks wrote...
>>
>> On Mar 24, 1:56�am, Fritz Wuehler
>> <fr...@spamexpire-201303.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you sure Judith is Jewish?
>>
>> What a surprise that that makes such a difference to you, Wm. Just
>> like whether Judith is "really" a woman. Is it common for white people
>> who lived under Apartheid to harbour prejudice towards absolutely
>> every minority (plus women)?
>
> I think he just missed the point of the literary "Goldstein" reference.

Which, it has to be said, is typical of Wm's thought processes: so,if
a forgery, it is quite a convincing one.
--

Percy Picacity

[Percy Picacity]

This satire is all very well, but Trotsky *was* a traitor!

--

Percy Picacity

[Steve Walker]

"Percy Picacity" <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
news:6ek95d....@news.alt.net...

That's arguable, but it might equally be said that Stalin marginalised and
deported Trotsky because he raised his voice against the developing
totalitarian state. Most of Trotsky's allies in the USSR were then
exterminated by Stalin, and Trotsky himself was murdered by agents sent
thousands of miles to silence the heretic.

I hope Judith has a good burglar alarm, and is alert to the sinister rattle
of a derailleur during the night.

[Iain]

Tony wrote:
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> And the heavy-handedness stifles
>> legitimate discussion as well as keeping out the trolls.
>
> Until you can demonstrate the legitimate discussion which has been
> stifled, the moderation team will never believe this point.

Thinking further about the absurdity of the comment, it can only itself be a
troll.

--
Iain

[Ian Jackson]

In article <kinfm4$cb6$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,

Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>In uk.net.news.moderation, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>>And the heavy-handedness stifles
>>legitimate discussion as well as keeping out the trolls.
>
>Until you can demonstrate the legitimate discussion which has been stifled,
>the moderation team will never believe this point.

Precisely.

--
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

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:13:01 -0000, Steve Walker wrote...

> I hope Judith has a good burglar alarm, and is alert to the sinister rattle
> of a derailleur during the night.

But have you considered the possibility that she doesn't exist and all
her socks are fabricated by Minitrue in order to focus support for the
Party?

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:17:59 -0000, Iain wrote...

I don't believe it's a troll, just an accurate statement of the
moderation team's likely reaction.

The reason you might think it absurd is because of the difficulty of
pointing to a discussion which is non-existent because it has been
stifled.

However, both you and 'M Wicks' have given good answers. In his case,
discussions which weren't stifled, but would be under the new probation
policy.

[Tim Jackson]

On 24 Mar 2013 23:24:41 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson wrote...

>
> In article <kinfm4$cb6$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
> Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Until you can demonstrate the legitimate discussion which has been stifled,
> >the moderation team will never believe this point.
>
> Precisely.

So, now that two separate such demonstrations have been made, your
answer is....?

[Bookie]

In article <9jE*ol...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:

> In article <kinfm4$cb6$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
> Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
> >In uk.net.news.moderation, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> >>And the heavy-handedness stifles
> >>legitimate discussion as well as keeping out the trolls.
> >
> >Until you can demonstrate the legitimate discussion which has been stifled,
> >the moderation team will never believe this point.
>
> Precisely.

Well, they finally chased me away from the group. I didn't post often
but I'm pretty sure anything I discussed was legitimate.

[Sara]

In article <bookie-6064E5....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Bookie is me by the way - I was norfing around with some settings in MT
Newswatcher and left the wrong ones active.

--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.

[Nick]

The question is bizarre. Obviously posters will be deterred from posting
to a moderated group by delay, rejection and fear of rejection. This
would happen even in a well run moderated group. The sensible question
should be how to optimize moderation to maximise the advantages whilst
minimising this disadvantage.

Given both the banal quality and low number of posts to urcm it is hard
to see how anyone could judge current urcm moderation a success. Unless
it were judged purely upon effectiveness excluding judith.

I recently had a problem with a broken shifter on a newish bike and
subsequent problems getting it fixed which I wouldn't have hesitated to
post to urc in the old days but now I couldn't be bothered to post to
either urc or urcm. The interest is clearly there but many posters will
not post to urcm because of the moderators.

[Toom Tabard]

On Sunday, 24 March 2013 23:24:41 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <kinfm4$cb6$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
>
> Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In uk.net.news.moderation, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> >>And the heavy-handedness stifles
> >>legitimate discussion as well as keeping out the trolls.
> >
> >Until you can demonstrate the legitimate discussion which has been stifled,
> >the moderation team will never believe this point.
>
> Precisely.
>

> Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>

And, given the inordinate time and effort some members of the moderation
team have given to stifling legitimate discussion, such faux innocent responses
'precisely' illustrate the problem. It is however, of benefit to all that
they continue to spend their lives safely nurturing and policing their now
totally neutered and useless pretendy 'discussion' forum, whilst those who
have something legitimate and worthwhile to say simply move on to discuss
issues in forums where expertise, knowledge, reason, logic and informed debate
are welcome and useful and a much more rewarding use of their time.

Otherwise, if you are about to say a tearful goodbye to an old and
trusty bike, please write and let the three remaining readers of URCM know.
Don't bother if you are saying a tearful goodbye to and trusty bike helmet.
Your message won't get past moderation. It really is that pathetic, but has a
fascination value to those of us with an interest in the human psyche.
Long may they continue.

Toom

[Ian Jackson]

In article <bookie-6064E5....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bookie <boo...@invalid.com> wrote:

It is indeed sad that you felt the need to leave but your postings
were not stifled by the moderators. (I haven't checked the complete
rejection logs but I would be very surprised if you had any
significant number of messages rejected.)

[Iain]

Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <bookie-6064E5....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Bookie <boo...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> In article <9jE*ol...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>> ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>> In article <kinfm4$cb6$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
>>> Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Until you can demonstrate the legitimate discussion which has been
>>>> stifled, the moderation team will never believe this point.
>>>
>>> Precisely.
>>
>> Well, they finally chased me away from the group. I didn't post often
>> but I'm pretty sure anything I discussed was legitimate.
>
> It is indeed sad that you felt the need to leave but your postings
> were not stifled by the moderators. (I haven't checked the complete
> rejection logs but I would be very surprised if you had any
> significant number of messages rejected.)

But can you really not see the effect it has on an individual when their
post is rejected; is kept for hours (some for many, many hours) in a queue
waiting to be moderated; is rejected, not because of what they wrote, but
because of a possible adverse response that someone may give to it; is
rejected because it challenges someone else's irresponsible comments; etc.

The last example is precisely what happened three years ago to me, and which
I challenged here then. A month later I had stopped posting to URCM. You
simply do not seem to know the effect that the current moderation techniques
has on people. You certainly cannot tell how many people do not bother to
post again because of their experiences. It might only be the occasional
poster, like Sara and myself, that might want to post a reaction, or may
even know that the means here exists to do so.

If you tried to instil that sort of control in a face-to-face discussion in
a pub you would probably be punched on the nose!

What people are advocating, quite reasonably, is that you judge each post to
be moderated on the content of that individual post. You might also need to
take into account what a white-listed poster might have said previously,
because it is clear that those white-listed posters are getting away with
significantly more than that which you are rejecting in manually moderated
posts.

Allow challenge where challenge is due. Two things that seem to be coming
out again and again in this group regarding URCM;
- judge a post on its content, not the poster, nor the type of response that
is anticipated;
- act more fairly and without bias; that is on both white-listed and non
white-listed posters.

As so many people have been saying, if someone does not want to read a
particular post, or one from a particular poster, they can ignore it. That
is so, so simple. The moderators seem to have difficulty in acknowledging
that there IS bias in the current methods of moderation. Simple solution -
treat everyone the same.

--
Iain

[Tim Jackson]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:59:00 +0000, Nick wrote...

> Given both the banal quality and low number of posts to urcm it is hard
> to see how anyone could judge current urcm moderation a success. Unless
> it were judged purely upon effectiveness excluding judith.

Effectiveness in excluding Judith is exactly how they measure success.

Even on that measure, they are not successful.

[Nick]

On 25/03/2013 17:51, Ian Jackson wrote:

>> Well, they finally chased me away from the group. I didn't post often
>> but I'm pretty sure anything I discussed was legitimate.
>
> It is indeed sad that you felt the need to leave but your postings
> were not stifled by the moderators. (I haven't checked the complete
> rejection logs but I would be very surprised if you had any
> significant number of messages rejected.)
>

There's none so blind As those that will not see.

[Wm]

uk.net.news.moderation <6ek8qj....@news.alt.net>

Not me PP.

--
Wm

[Wm]

uk.net.news.moderation <kinml3$u9b$1...@dont-email.me>

I am confused as to why anyone thinks I am a part of this.

I have no idea whether Judith is jewish or not.

I do believe she is a piece of shit but don't think her religion should
be an issue.

--
Wm

[Percy Picacity]

If I were you I would allow this whole sub-thread to waft gently over
your head by about 10,000m.

--

Percy Picacity