What utter hypocrisy!

[Norman Wells]

Just had the following post rejected in ulm in 'The legal presumption'
thread which has gone completely feral and off topic:

"Just wondering, for a friend of course, how well the whitelist is
functioning today in trusting certain contributors not to post
off-topic, irrelevant matter with no legal content or interest whatsoever."

The obvious answer of course is not at all.

What then is its point?

[Jeff Gaines]

On 16/02/2024 in message <l38vhi...@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:

Discussing moderation is off topic for ulm so the decision was correct.

You have now found the right place so I'm sure you will now be inundated
with good advice and help.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The true meaning of life is to plant trees under whose shade you do not
expect to sit.

[Simon Parker]

I refer you to part (n) of the moderation policy.

Your post was discussing moderation and I therefore rejected it.

As to your question above, it has been pointed out to you in the past,
that part (b) of the moderation policy permits humorous, frivolous and /
or off-topic posts at the discretion of the moderators.

And, no, I'm not prepared to discuss the meaning of the word "sometimes"
with you as we've been down that particular rabbit hole previously and
nothing has changed since the last discussion.

You're welcome.

Regards

S.P.

[Norman Wells]

On 16/02/2024 11:50, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 16/02/2024 in message <l38vhi...@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
> wrote:
>
>> Just had the following post rejected in ulm in 'The legal presumption'
>> thread which has gone completely feral and off topic:
>>
>> "Just wondering, for a friend of course, how well the whitelist is
>> functioning today in trusting certain contributors not to post
>> off-topic, irrelevant matter with no legal content or interest
>> whatsoever."
>>
>> The obvious answer of course is not at all.
>>
>> What then is its point?
>
> Discussing moderation is off topic for ulm so the decision was correct.

Avoiding the point, as usual. Too difficult for you?

[Norman Wells]

On 16/02/2024 12:10, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 16/02/2024 11:34, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Just had the following post rejected in ulm in 'The legal presumption'
>> thread which has gone completely feral and off topic:
>>
>> "Just wondering, for a friend of course, how well the whitelist is
>> functioning today in trusting certain contributors not to post
>> off-topic, irrelevant matter with no legal content or interest
>> whatsoever."
>>
>> The obvious answer of course is not at all.
>>
>> What then is its point?
>
> I refer you to part (n) of the moderation policy.
>
> Your post was discussing moderation and I therefore rejected it.

Good for you. Waking up to the existence of the moderation policy at last.

> As to your question above, it has been pointed out to you in the past,
> that part (b) of the moderation policy permits humorous, frivolous and /
> or off-topic posts at the discretion of the moderators.
>
> And, no, I'm not prepared to discuss the meaning of the word "sometimes"
> with you as we've been down that particular rabbit hole previously and
> nothing has changed since the last discussion.

There is nothing humorous or frivolous in any of the posts today in the
discussion referred to, so those considerations don't apply.

And it's not only 'sometimes', which is relevant however much you'd like
to ignore it, and clearly means 'not regularly', but 'if they are
followups to an on-topic discussion'. The discussion ceased to be
on-topic days ago, and the posts today are blatant off-topic blatherings
and points-scoring that would be rejected under any reasonable
application of the moderation policy.

As Mr Bookcase pointed out this morning:

"it might be worth bearing in
mind that what's being talked about here is an exchange between two
contributors to a single thread on this NewsGroup; where one of
the participants appears to be getting rather upset".

> You're welcome.

Now would you like to address the point I actually raised, namely what
is the point of the whitelist if the moderators take no action to rein
either themselves or other whitelisters in as regards off-topic posts,
yet apply totally different standards to others? It's two-faced utter
hypocrisy.

[Simon Parker]

On 16/02/2024 12:35, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 16/02/2024 12:10, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 16/02/2024 11:34, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> Just had the following post rejected in ulm in 'The legal
>>> presumption' thread which has gone completely feral and off topic:
>>>
>>> "Just wondering, for a friend of course, how well the whitelist is
>>> functioning today in trusting certain contributors not to post
>>> off-topic, irrelevant matter with no legal content or interest
>>> whatsoever."
>>>
>>> The obvious answer of course is not at all.
>>>
>>> What then is its point?
>>
>> I refer you to part (n) of the moderation policy.
>>
>> Your post was discussing moderation and I therefore rejected it.
>
> Good for you.  Waking up to the existence of the moderation policy at last.

You're welcome.

>> As to your question above, it has been pointed out to you in the past,
>> that part (b) of the moderation policy permits humorous, frivolous and
>> / or off-topic posts at the discretion of the moderators.
>>
>> And, no, I'm not prepared to discuss the meaning of the word
>> "sometimes" with you as we've been down that particular rabbit hole
>> previously and nothing has changed since the last discussion.
>
> There is nothing humorous or frivolous in any of the posts today in the
> discussion referred to, so those considerations don't apply.

"Humorous, frivolous and / or off-topic".

Any one from three will do.

> And it's not only 'sometimes', which is relevant however much you'd like
> to ignore it, and clearly means 'not regularly', but 'if they are
> followups to an on-topic discussion'.  The discussion ceased to be
> on-topic days ago, and the posts today are blatant off-topic blatherings
> and points-scoring that would be rejected under any reasonable
> application of the moderation policy.

You are welcome to take your custom elsewhere if you are dissatisfied
with the service provided.

I actively invite you to do so.

> As Mr Bookcase pointed out this morning:
>
> "it might be worth bearing in
> mind that what's being talked about here is an exchange between two
> contributors to a single thread on this NewsGroup; where one of
> the participants appears to be getting rather upset".

I am sorry that Mr. Bookcase "appears to be getting rather upset" at the
exchanges. If he finds them so upsetting, he might be better served by
withdrawing from them.

>> You're welcome.
>
> Now would you like to address the point I actually raised, namely what
> is the point of the whitelist if the moderators take no action to rein
> either themselves or other whitelisters in as regards off-topic posts,
> yet apply totally different standards to others?  It's two-faced utter
> hypocrisy.

Asked and answered. If you have any further questions, you know where
to find me.

Regards

S.P.

[Roger Hayter]

The point is this is the right place for your complaint about the moderation.
Whether anyone cares about your opinion, or wishes to agree or disagree with
it is another point. I don't.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

On 16 Feb 2024 at 12:35:57 GMT, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

snip

>
>
> Now would you like to address the point I actually raised, namely what
> is the point of the whitelist if the moderators take no action to rein
> either themselves or other whitelisters in as regards off-topic posts,
> yet apply totally different standards to others? It's two-faced utter
> hypocrisy.

It does work to the extent of stopping people constantly complaining in ulm
about moderation practice, as none of the whitelisted posters do that much.

--
Roger Hayter

[Simon Parker]

It also stops the sex spam and the loons. Don't forget about the sex
spam and the loons.

If anyone is curious as to what ULM would look like without moderation,
I invite them to hop over to uk.legal and view the landscape without
moderation.

The vociferous minority that are perpetually dissatisfied with the
moderation in ULM are welcome, nay invited, to take their custom to the
unmoderated newsgroup where they may post whatever they like to their
heart's content, free of moderation of any kind.

Regards

S.P.

[Roger Hayter]

On 16 Feb 2024 at 13:16:25 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I was talking specifically about whitelisting the purpose of which is to save
the moderators time (and secondarily to enable improved flow of conversation)
while still achieving the purposes of moderation.

--
Roger Hayter

[Norman Wells]

On 16/02/2024 13:07, Roger Hayter wrote:

Of course they don't, stupid. They're whitelisted. Their posts don't
get moderated out, so they don't have anything to complain about, do they?

What I'm objecting to is blatant double standards.

Of course, you don't care about that because it only applies to others.

That's nice.

[Norman Wells]

On 16/02/2024 13:16, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 16/02/2024 13:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2024 at 12:35:57 GMT, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>>
>>>
>>> Now would you like to address the point I actually raised, namely what
>>> is the point of the whitelist if the moderators take no action to rein
>>> either themselves or other whitelisters in as regards off-topic posts,
>>> yet apply totally different standards to others?  It's two-faced utter
>>> hypocrisy.
>>
>> It does work to the extent of stopping people constantly complaining
>> in ulm
>> about moderation practice, as none of the whitelisted posters do that
>> much.
>
> It also stops the sex spam and the loons.  Don't forget about the sex
> spam and the loons.
>
> If anyone is curious as to what ULM would look like without moderation,
> I invite them to hop over to uk.legal and view the landscape without
> moderation.

They could also look here, where the landscape is unsullied by moderator
duplicity.

> The vociferous minority that are perpetually dissatisfied with the
> moderation in ULM are welcome, nay invited, to take their custom to the
> unmoderated newsgroup where they may post whatever they like to their
> heart's content, free of moderation of any kind.

You are charm personified.

[Norman Wells]

The purpose of moderation is surely to ensure that posts to the group
meet the moderation policy criteria. Those criteria, as has been amply
demonstrated today in the thread I identified, are not being met and are
in fact being blatantly flouted by whitelisters and, shamefully,
moderators who just can't control themselves, because they know the
cronyism in the group means they can do and get away with whatever they
like.

As I said, it's two-faced utter hypocrisy.

Which I suspect will make them proud.

[Norman Wells]

You agree then they're off-topic.

>> And it's not only 'sometimes', which is relevant however much you'd
>> like to ignore it, and clearly means 'not regularly', but 'if they are
>> followups to an on-topic discussion'.  The discussion ceased to be
>> on-topic days ago, and the posts today are blatant off-topic
>> blatherings and points-scoring that would be rejected under any
>> reasonable application of the moderation policy.
>
> You are welcome to take your custom elsewhere if you are dissatisfied
> with the service provided.
>
> I actively invite you to do so.

Charming and impervious as ever.

>> As Mr Bookcase pointed out this morning:
>>
>> "it might be worth bearing in
>> mind that what's being talked about here is an exchange between two
>> contributors to a single thread on this NewsGroup; where one of
>> the participants appears to be getting rather upset".
>
> I am sorry that Mr. Bookcase "appears to be getting rather upset" at the
> exchanges.  If he finds them so upsetting, he might be better served by
> withdrawing from them.

You have no self-awareness at all, have you?

>>> You're welcome.
>>
>> Now would you like to address the point I actually raised, namely what
>> is the point of the whitelist if the moderators take no action to rein
>> either themselves or other whitelisters in as regards off-topic posts,
>> yet apply totally different standards to others?  It's two-faced utter
>> hypocrisy.
>
> Asked and answered.  If you have any further questions, you know where
> to find me.

Parker Stock Reply No 7.

A lie.