Re: Happ Burtday, Burt! was Re: 2nd RFD: uk.radio.amateur.moderated

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Poor Old Burt. WAFI.


Bernie <bernie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Happy Burtday to you
>
> Happy Burtday to you
>
> Happy Burtday dear Spukey
>
> H A P P Y B U R T D A Y T O Y O U!
>
>
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:15:07 -0500, Burton Bradstock wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:26:06 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>
>>> In article <avpbea...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
>>>> policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
>>>> tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.
>>>
>>> Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
>>> of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
>>> escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
>>> by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
>>> hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
>>> invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
>>> in the first instance to discuss it.
>>
>> All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
>> Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
>> properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.
>>
>>>> But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
>>>> itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
>>>> oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
>>>> restriction as being RSGB-influenced.
>>>
>>> The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
>>> intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
>>> Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
>>> discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.
>>
>> For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
>> has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
>> they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the
>> term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
>> One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
>> why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
>> sink or swim without your help.
>>
>>> Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
>>> the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
>>> remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
>>> with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
>>> voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.
>>
>> I don't need to be patronised.
>>
>>>> This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
>>>> a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
>>>> There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
>>>> interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
>>>> has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
>>>> Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
>>>> and is to be rejected without proof.
>>>
>>> The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
>>> the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
>>> multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.
>>
>> Again, you fail to address the points I raised.
>>
>> You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
>> that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
>> crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
>> have been.
>> Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
>> rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
>> than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
>> believe one person,
>> with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
>> found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
>> you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
>> general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
>> about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or
>> personal opinions.
>>
>>>> Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
>>>> have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from
>>>> the Southgate club and some topics of more general interest:
>>
>> <snipped for brevity>
>>
>>>> Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
>>>> 'drifted'.
>>>>
>>>> This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
>>>> group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
>>>> '... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.
>>>
>>> A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.
>>
>> Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.
>>
>>> The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
>>> not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
>>> I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
>>> with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
>>> not suggest any great recovery of the group.
>>
>> You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
>> proposed charter or moderation policy.
>>
>>>> Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
>>>> last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
>>>> heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>>>>
>>>> This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
>>>> been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
>>>> posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
>>>> other reasons.
>>>> Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
>>>> is unfounded.
>>>
>>> Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
>>> I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
>>> know that they will likely attract bother.
>>
>> So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there,
>> perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the
>> wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
>> an objectionable person to deal with.
>>
>>> Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
>>> accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
>>> attractive.
>>
>> Simply dealt with.
>>
>>>>> All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
>>>>> considered on-topic and will be authorised.
>>>>
>>>> This is not true. A list of banned topics follows:
>>>
>>> A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
>>> insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
>>> think that it is obvious.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
>>>>> liable to be rejected are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
>>>>> communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
>>>>> references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
>>>>> qualifications.
>>>>
>>>> Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
>>>> enjoys,
>>>> some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
>>>> a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
>>>> 'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
>>>> others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
>>>> eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
>>>> and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
>>>> over-sensitive.
>>>
>>> Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
>>> licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
>>> is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
>>> person, would be.
>>
>> Then you need to reword the paragraph.
>>
>>>> One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
>>>> mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
>>>> argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.
>>>
>>> That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.
>>
>> And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
>> your proposal, and your claim is not true.
>>
>>>> What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?
>>>
>>> Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
>>> insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
>>> could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
>>> message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
>>> asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
>>> craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
>>> moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
>>> black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
>>> must be yes/no, black/white?
>>
>> Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more
>> suitable.
>>
>>>> Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
>>>> that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
>>>> moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
>>>> for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.
>>>>
>>> The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
>>> with the contributors.
>>
>> It didn't come across as that.
>>
>>>>> Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
>>>>> posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.
>>>>
>>>> In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.
>>>
>>> I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
>>> It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.
>>>
>>>>> This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
>>>>> in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
>>>>> of the group.
>>>>
>>>> A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a
>>> requirement.
>>>
>>> I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
>>> amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
>>> running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.
>>
>> Pious hopes.
>>
>> You have more work to do.
>
>



--
STC / M0TEY / People’s Champion 2018
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur