Modatorial Question

17 views
Skip to first unread message

John

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 8:50:08 AM1/4/20
to
I see that Jeff's posts are being automatically rejected because of a
severe breach of the charter. I understand that he has been placed on
manual but surely this should mean his posts have to be approved rather
than being rejected out of hand?

I would have classed the reason for his being placed on manual as a
flame rather than a *severe* breach of the charter so what did he
actually do, other than harangue Robert over his (Jeff's) interpretation
of a lie?

As an aside, how was Ken able to put someone on manual immediately yet
doesn't have the functionality to put someone on auto approval?


Mark Goodge

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 10:00:07 AM1/4/20
to
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 13:48:42 +0000, John <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I see that Jeff's posts are being automatically rejected because of a
>severe breach of the charter. I understand that he has been placed on
>manual but surely this should mean his posts have to be approved rather
>than being rejected out of hand?

Jeff posts with a large number of different variants of his identity.
I don't know whether that's deliberate, or simple ineptitude. The one
he was using at the time Ken imposed the sanction is currently set to
manual moderation ("untrusted", in moderbot parlance). Fifteen more of
his identities have been set to auto-reject ("expelled"). I'm not sure
why Ken did that, other than possibly to try to enforce a little
consistency.

Since then, Jeff has only tried to post with one of the expelled
identities, meaning nothing has come through for manual moderation.

What I've done is move the one that Jeff has most recently been trying
to post with back to untrusted. So he will now get posts coming for
manual moderation.

>
>I would have classed the reason for his being placed on manual as a
>flame rather than a *severe* breach of the charter so what did he
>actually do, other than harangue Robert over his (Jeff's) interpretation
>of a lie?
>
>As an aside, how was Ken able to put someone on manual immediately yet
>doesn't have the functionality to put someone on auto approval?

He does. All moderators can.

Mark


celia

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 10:30:07 AM1/4/20
to
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 1:50:08 PM UTC, John wrote:
> I see that Jeff's posts are being automatically rejected because of a
> severe breach of the charter. I understand that he has been placed on
> manual but surely this should mean his posts have to be approved rather
> than being rejected out of hand?
>
> I would have classed the reason for his being placed on manual as a
> flame rather than a *severe* breach of the charter so what did he
> actually do, other than harangue Robert over his (Jeff's) interpretation
> of a lie?
>
That was about it but it does get rather wearing.
If anyone is missing Jeff they can go to England.religion.Christian
to see his posts. That site should act as a warning to us as 99% of the
time Jeff is the only one posting there.

Celia


John

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 10:50:07 AM1/4/20
to
Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 13:48:42 +0000, John <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I see that Jeff's posts are being automatically rejected because of a
>> severe breach of the charter. I understand that he has been placed on
>> manual but surely this should mean his posts have to be approved rather
>> than being rejected out of hand?
>
> Jeff posts with a large number of different variants of his identity.
> I don't know whether that's deliberate, or simple ineptitude. The one
> he was using at the time Ken imposed the sanction is currently set to
> manual moderation ("untrusted", in moderbot parlance). Fifteen more of
> his identities have been set to auto-reject ("expelled"). I'm not sure
> why Ken did that, other than possibly to try to enforce a little
> consistency.

> Since then, Jeff has only tried to post with one of the expelled
> identities, meaning nothing has come through for manual moderation.

You may have an issue with your software then. Jeff primarily used 1CAT
and jnhickling@ as his email address throughout 2019, other than on 10
occasions where he used a gmail address (not recently though) The one he
was using when he was placed on moderation was jnhickling@ and that is
the one which is (was) auto rejecting

> What I've done is move the one that Jeff has most recently been trying
> to post with back to untrusted. So he will now get posts coming for
> manual moderation.

Thanks, although I did think to leave well alone, for obvious reasons.
But I also believe in fairness so unless you were to ban him then he
should be allowed to post as anyone else on manual, hence my post. My
apologies to those who may disagree with that view.

>> As an aside, how was Ken able to put someone on manual immediately yet
>> doesn't have the functionality to put someone on auto approval?
>
> He does. All moderators can.

Can you let him know that he's allowed to auto approve then. I had an
issue in the summer where I changed my email address, which then
switched me to manual (I understood that would happen). I was on manual
for weeks after and when the issue was raised (by Robert I think) Ken
said that it was down to you to do that. You hadn't posted for a while
but when you started posting again I was still left on manual so I
simply switched back to the old email, in order to join back in the flow.


Timreason

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 11:10:06 AM1/4/20
to
e.r.c was effectively destroyed by trolls quite a while ago now, forcing
my migration to u.k.r.c.

Last time I looked there, I found only posts from Jeff. Seems he just
carried on regardless of the trolls, but I can't imagine anyone reads
that group now.

I hope the moderation (as seems to be the case here) is about preventing
bad behaviour, rather than censoring content the moderators either don't
like, or disagree with.

Tim.




celia

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 11:30:07 AM1/4/20
to
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 4:10:06 PM UTC, Tim C (aka Tim R) wrote:

> I hope the moderation (as seems to be the case here) is about preventing
> bad behaviour, rather than censoring content the moderators either don't
> like, or disagree with.
>
I agree. Much as Jeff's repetitious posts are an irritant I worry about
him.

Celia



John

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 12:20:06 PM1/4/20
to
Timreason wrote:

> I hope the moderation (as seems to be the case here) is about preventing
> bad behaviour, rather than censoring content the moderators either don't
> like, or disagree with.

I have no issue with the moderation decision, it was a flame against
Robert which needed nipping in the bud.

I'm sure Jeff will have seen it as a blatant lie, but sometimes you have
to let go and move on.



Robert Marshall

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 12:30:07 PM1/4/20
to
On Sat, Jan 04 2020, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 13:48:42 +0000, John <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I see that Jeff's posts are being automatically rejected because of a
>>severe breach of the charter. I understand that he has been placed on
>>manual but surely this should mean his posts have to be approved rather
>>than being rejected out of hand?
>
> Jeff posts with a large number of different variants of his identity.
> I don't know whether that's deliberate, or simple ineptitude. The one
> he was using at the time Ken imposed the sanction is currently set to
> manual moderation ("untrusted", in moderbot parlance). Fifteen more of
> his identities have been set to auto-reject ("expelled"). I'm not sure
> why Ken did that, other than possibly to try to enforce a little
> consistency.
>
> Since then, Jeff has only tried to post with one of the expelled
> identities, meaning nothing has come through for manual moderation.
>

Probably wasn't helped by Jeff posting in that thread ('Good for
him....') that his correct email address was the gmail one.

Robert
--
"To believe in the God who justifies the ungodly is to be evangelical."
– F.F. Bruce
Robert Marshall twitter: @rajm


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 5:10:08 PM1/4/20
to
On 04/01/2020 13:48, John wrote:

> I see that Jeff's posts are being automatically rejected because of a
> severe breach of the charter.  I understand that he has been placed on
> manual but surely this should mean his posts have to be approved rather
> than being rejected out of hand?

So far as I know, Jeff's posts are on manual approval. When I looked at
it, there were a large number of e-mail addresses that were attributed
to Jeff. I marked them all off apart from the one he used to post most
recently.

> I would have classed the reason for his being placed on manual as a
> flame rather than a *severe* breach of the charter so what did he
> actually do, other than harangue Robert over his (Jeff's) interpretation
> of a lie?

I draw your attention to the way in which our friend nobody immediately
apologised when a breach of the charter was drawn to his attention, and
contrast that with Jeff's response.

> As an aside, how was Ken able to put someone on manual immediately yet
> doesn't have the functionality to put someone on auto approval?

I do have the functionality, I have just chosen not to use it, leaving
it up to Mark as a nod to his position as moderator.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down



Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 5:10:09 PM1/4/20
to
On 04/01/2020 14:50, Mark Goodge wrote:

> Jeff posts with a large number of different variants of his identity.
> I don't know whether that's deliberate, or simple ineptitude. The one
> he was using at the time Ken imposed the sanction is currently set to
> manual moderation ("untrusted", in moderbot parlance). Fifteen more of
> his identities have been set to auto-reject ("expelled"). I'm not sure
> why Ken did that, other than possibly to try to enforce a little
> consistency.

My aim was to make life easier for myself, nothing else.

> Since then, Jeff has only tried to post with one of the expelled
> identities, meaning nothing has come through for manual moderation.

I suspected that he might try to evade moderation by using a different
address.

> What I've done is move the one that Jeff has most recently been trying
> to post with back to untrusted. So he will now get posts coming for
> manual moderation.

Thanks.

Mark, you have the right to over-ride any decision I take, so I won't be
offended if you do so, but it is my intention to reject any post by Jeff
which attacks the rights of women or which calls into question another
person's baptism. I may also reject any post in which he fails to
respond to questions asked of him and merely reiterates the same old
thread-bare rubbish.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 5:20:08 PM1/4/20
to
On 04/01/2020 15:43, John wrote:

> Can you let him know that he's allowed to auto approve then.

If Mark tells me that he wants me to auto approve, I will do so. As an
assistant mod, however, I do not wish to appropriate more of his
responsibilities than he is comfortable with.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 5:20:09 PM1/4/20
to
On 04/01/2020 16:00, Timreason wrote:

> I hope the moderation (as seems to be the case here) is about preventing
> bad behaviour, rather than censoring content the moderators either don't
> like, or disagree with.

I have always made it plain that as far as Jeff is concerned, I *will*
censor his nastiness on his pet subjects. That is why I have until now
left him to Mark.

Of course, if he chooses to apologise to Robert, he will go back on
auto-approval.

Probably.

Robert Marshall

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 6:10:07 PM1/4/20
to
On Sat, Jan 04 2020, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> Since then, Jeff has only tried to post with one of the expelled
> identities, meaning nothing has come through for manual moderation.
>
> What I've done is move the one that Jeff has most recently been trying
> to post with back to untrusted. So he will now get posts coming for
> manual moderation.
>
Though I can see a post from jeff with his ntlworld address - the one he
uses most often going by the annual stats - being auto rejected at
2020-01-04 20:54:13

celia

unread,
Jan 4, 2020, 10:50:07 PM1/4/20
to
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 10:10:09 PM UTC, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> Mark, you have the right to over-ride any decision I take, so I won't be
> offended if you do so, but it is my intention to reject any post by Jeff
> which attacks the rights of women or which calls into question another
> person's baptism. I may also reject any post in which he fails to
> respond to questions asked of him and merely reiterates the same old
> thread-bare rubbish.
>
That will greatly improve the quality of the group and I think we all now
know Jeff's views on such subjects.

Celia



Timreason

unread,
Jan 5, 2020, 2:50:08 AM1/5/20
to
Yes, it became tedious. But Jeff's belief system, which most of us agree
is excessively literalist in some ways, leads him to believe he is
right, since (technically) Robert did 'lie'. So from his perspective
there is absolutely no reason why he should apologise.

I realised Robert's comment was tongue-in-cheek, and I'm surprised that
Kendall appears to have been taken in, initially. Did that perhaps mean
Kendall over-reacted, by introducing permanent 'manual' unless there's
an apology from Jeff? More usually, infringements have resulted in
manual moderation for a time, such as a week or a month.

I suppose I would have expected the sanction to be a period of 'manual'
or a ban even, for a week or so, with continued reinstatement after that
being dependent on the subject being no longer mentioned. Jeff has in
the past hounded others unreasonably (including me), but it's just
something he does from time to time and I don't remember if he has been
sanctioned for it before.

Tim.




Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jan 5, 2020, 3:00:07 AM1/5/20
to
On 04/01/2020 22:47, Robert Marshall wrote:

> Though I can see a post from jeff with his ntlworld address - the one he
> uses most often going by the annual stats - being auto rejected at
> 2020-01-04 20:54:13

Can anyone tell me how to view such information? I do not find it on the
control panel to which I log-on for approving or rejecting posts. (A
private e-mail is fine if you think the information sensitive.)

celia

unread,
Jan 5, 2020, 3:10:07 AM1/5/20
to
On Sunday, January 5, 2020 at 7:50:08 AM UTC, Tim C (aka Tim R) wrote:

> I suppose I would have expected the sanction to be a period of 'manual'
> or a ban even, for a week or so, with continued reinstatement after that
> being dependent on the subject being no longer mentioned. Jeff has in
> the past hounded others unreasonably (including me), but it's just
> something he does from time to time and I don't remember if he has been
> sanctioned for it before.
>
Personally I think there should be some sanction for 'hounding others'
To occasionally make a point is fair but to constantly bring it up is
not good for either Jeff's reputation or the free flow of discussion .
Jeff's excessively literal take on anything means that he stays within
the letter of the charter, and in all probability also did this time,
but the spirit is broken when attacks people but words that attack in
such a way that it cannot be seen as something he should be sanctioned
for. An example is when he uses a bible verse on lying when he clearly
thinks that someone has lied but doesn't want to directly call them a liar.

Celia



Robert Marshall

unread,
Jan 5, 2020, 3:50:07 AM1/5/20
to
I see it in the log here

http://www.ukrc.info/moderation/

Robert Marshall

unread,
Jan 5, 2020, 7:10:07 AM1/5/20
to
On Sun, Jan 05 2020, Robert Marshall <sp...@capuchin.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 05 2020, "Kendall K. Down" <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2020 22:47, Robert Marshall wrote:
>>
>>> Though I can see a post from jeff with his ntlworld address - the one he
>>> uses most often going by the annual stats - being auto rejected at
>>> 2020-01-04 20:54:13
>>
>> Can anyone tell me how to view such information? I do not find it on
>> the control panel to which I log-on for approving or rejecting
>> posts. (A private e-mail is fine if you think the information
>> sensitive.)
>>
>
> I see it in the log here
>
> http://www.ukrc.info/moderation/
>

Though if his rejected posts are the same as what he's posting to
england.religion,christian (under this subject) I'm not sure that you
need bother reviewing them!

Robert
--
"To believe in the God who justifies the ungodly is to be evangelical."
- F.F. Bruce
Robert Marshall twitter: @rajm


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jan 6, 2020, 12:20:06 AM1/6/20
to
On 05/01/2020 08:25, Robert Marshall wrote:

> I see it in the log here
> http://www.ukrc.info/moderation/

Thanks. That's curious, because jnhic...@ntlworld.com is set to
"untrusted" - I've just checked - and so posts from that address should
come up for moderation and they haven't.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jan 6, 2020, 12:20:06 AM1/6/20
to
On 05/01/2020 11:45, Robert Marshall wrote:

> Though if his rejected posts are the same as what he's posting to
> england.religion,christian (under this subject) I'm not sure that you
> need bother reviewing them!

Yes, I fear that I shan't be shedding any tears if the moderbot is
misbehaving - it's probably showing signs of AI at last.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jan 6, 2020, 12:30:07 AM1/6/20
to
On 05/01/2020 07:49, Timreason wrote:

> I realised Robert's comment was tongue-in-cheek, and I'm surprised that
> Kendall appears to have been taken in, initially. Did that perhaps mean
> Kendall over-reacted, by introducing permanent 'manual' unless there's
> an apology from Jeff? More usually, infringements have resulted in
> manual moderation for a time, such as a week or a month.

Being on manual doesn't mean that you cannot post, merely that posts
will be reviewed and, if they don't meet the charter, rejected. (Quite
why Jeff's posts are not coming through I don't know, but I can live
with it.)

Numerous people have pointed out to Jeff that Robert was making a joke
but Jeff continued to malign him by making a coram regis case out of it,
which is why I felt that enough was enough.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages