Moderators being rather picky?
 

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:18:15 -0300, Ian Jackson wrote:

snip


When we had our malcontent-moderrator, once we realised that was the situation,
we dealt with her as speedily as possible; it may have seemed messy at the time,
but it was still the best course. Macbeth was right, t'were well it were done
quickly.


"Dealt with her as speedily as possible"?


And there were me and other people thinking that Sara Merriman resigned herself
as once she became a moderator she realised the truth of moderation in
uk.rec.cycling.moderated it was against her own principles.

I think rather than referring to Sara as "malcontent" the moderators should
raise their own standards to those which Sara demonstrated.

Moderators being rather picky?
 

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:22:16 +0100, Judith in England
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:18:15 -0300, Ian Jackson wrote:

snip


When we had our malcontent-moderrator, once we realised that was the situation,
we dealt with her as speedily as possible; it may have seemed messy at the time,
but it was still the best course. Macbeth was right, t'were well it were done
quickly.


"Dealt with her as speedily as possible"?


And there were me and other people thinking that Sara Merriman resigned herself
as once she became a moderator she realised the truth of moderation in
uk.rec.cycling.moderated it was against her own principles.

I think rather than referring to Sara as "malcontent" the moderators should
raise their own standards to those which Sara demonstrated.


Why are you cross-posting this crap in an an un-related group?

Moderators being rather picky?
 

In article , Judith
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:18:15 -0300, Ian Jackson wrote:

snip


When we had our malcontent-moderrator, once we realised that was the
situation,
we dealt with her as speedily as possible; it may have seemed messy at the
time,
but it was still the best course. Macbeth was right, t'were well it were
done
quickly.


"Dealt with her as speedily as possible"?


And there were me and other people thinking that Sara Merriman resigned
herself
as once she became a moderator she realised the truth of moderation in
uk.rec.cycling.moderated it was against her own principles.

I think rather than referring to Sara as "malcontent" the moderators should
raise their own standards to those which Sara demonstrated.

Ian didn't write the post you're replying to, it was another forgery.
But thanks for the vote of confidence anyway!

Moderators being rather picky?
 

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:00:10 +0100, Sara Merriman
wrote:

In article , Judith
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:18:15 -0300, Ian Jackson wrote:

snip


When we had our malcontent-moderrator, once we realised that was the
situation,
we dealt with her as speedily as possible; it may have seemed messy at the
time,
but it was still the best course. Macbeth was right, t'were well it were
done
quickly.


"Dealt with her as speedily as possible"?


And there were me and other people thinking that Sara Merriman resigned
herself
as once she became a moderator she realised the truth of moderation in
uk.rec.cycling.moderated it was against her own principles.

I think rather than referring to Sara as "malcontent" the moderators should
raise their own standards to those which Sara demonstrated.

Ian didn't write the post you're replying to, it was another forgery.
But thanks for the vote of confidence anyway!

It might be useful to remind readers what this issue was about.

For some time a regular urc, and later urcm, poster called Matt B was
finding his posts took a long time to be either accepted or rejected.
There was much speculation that the urcm moderators were running a
"delay list" whereby a regular poster was being bullied by having his
posts delayed. The moderators flatly denied this charge. However, the
delays continued.

Sara was selected to join the moderation team, and what she discovered
about the moderation techniques employed disgusted her so much that
she felt compelled to resign soon after her selection.

Matt B was being systematically bullied by all moderators except one
refusing to approve or reject his posts, and this was the reason for
the delays he faced in his messages appearing.

The denial by the moderators of running a delay list was disingenuous.
They were operating a single moderator list, the effect of which was
to delay Matt B's posts.

Matt B has stopped posting to urcm, the moderators have been allowed
to successfully bully him away from the group. Moderation techniques
in urcm remain largely unreformed, and the group is not fit for
purpose.

The primary tool used to decide if a post to urcm will be allowed or
rejected is who the poster is, and not the content of the post.

Moderators being rather picky?
 

In article , Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:00:10 +0100, Sara Merriman
wrote:

In article , Judith
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:18:15 -0300, Ian Jackson wrote:

snip


When we had our malcontent-moderrator, once we realised that was the
situation,
we dealt with her as speedily as possible; it may have seemed messy at the
time,
but it was still the best course. Macbeth was right, t'were well it were
done
quickly.


"Dealt with her as speedily as possible"?


And there were me and other people thinking that Sara Merriman resigned
herself
as once she became a moderator she realised the truth of moderation in
uk.rec.cycling.moderated it was against her own principles.

I think rather than referring to Sara as "malcontent" the moderators should
raise their own standards to those which Sara demonstrated.

Ian didn't write the post you're replying to, it was another forgery.
But thanks for the vote of confidence anyway!

It might be useful to remind readers what this issue was about.

[snip]

Please don't use me to promote your own agenda.

I had no doubt that Ian didn't write the above post - whatever
disagreements we may have had, I don't he's enough of an idiot to post
that kind of rubbish. Other kinds of rubbish, maybe... ;-)

Moderators being rather picky?
 

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:13:32 +0100, Sara Merriman
wrote:

In article , Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:00:10 +0100, Sara Merriman
wrote:

In article , Judith
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:18:15 -0300, Ian Jackson wrote:

snip


When we had our malcontent-moderrator, once we realised that was the
situation,
we dealt with her as speedily as possible; it may have seemed messy at the
time,
but it was still the best course. Macbeth was right, t'were well it were
done
quickly.


"Dealt with her as speedily as possible"?


And there were me and other people thinking that Sara Merriman resigned
herself
as once she became a moderator she realised the truth of moderation in
uk.rec.cycling.moderated it was against her own principles.

I think rather than referring to Sara as "malcontent" the moderators should
raise their own standards to those which Sara demonstrated.

Ian didn't write the post you're replying to, it was another forgery.
But thanks for the vote of confidence anyway!

It might be useful to remind readers what this issue was about.

[snip]

Please don't use me to promote your own agenda.

This is an uncensored group.

I am free to post my own recollections of the incident.

I had no doubt that Ian didn't write the above post - whatever
disagreements we may have had, I don't he's enough of an idiot to post
that kind of rubbish. Other kinds of rubbish, maybe... ;-)

I do not disagree with you.

Moderators being rather picky?
 

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:31:11 -0300, Phil W Lee wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:09:37 -0300, Ian Jackson wrote:


Tom has a long history of criticism of the formation, existance, and running of
the moderated group, and his flogging the mummified remains of a long-dead
quadruped does him no credit; though I am sure he does not see that as an
impediment.

It's not criticism, it's sabotage.


Is that a legal opinion M'Lud?

More milk in the coffee please.

Moderators being rather picky?
 

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:09:37 -0300, Ian Jackson wrote:


snip


As usual, Tom is being somewhat economical with the truth.


No he isn't : you are.

Tom said - quite correctly:

"Matt B was being systematically bullied by all moderators except one
refusing to approve or reject his posts, and this was the reason for
the delays he faced in his messages appearing."


Matt B was bullied by moderators in particular - and also other white listed
posters. It was admitted by one person that the object of the exercise was to
take the **** out of Matt.

Here are one or two posts from that time:

The first one is made by someone called Ian Jackson - one of the moderators:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article ,
Matt B wrote:
Perhaps they are both measures of how ill-conceived the road laws and
regulations are in that they attract such little respect, being flouted
so much.

Please can you stop banging that drum over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and again!

--
Ian Jackson

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:18:35 +0000, Matt B
wrote:

Marc wrote:
Andy Leighton wrote:

I wonder if Matt has cycled many of the facilities he thinks are OK
on a regular basis?

Far to many words, "I wonder if Matt has cycled ?" would have done.

I didn't think that such unnecessarily inflammatory posts were allowed
here.

Inflammatory? bwaahaaha.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I suspect you were deliberately missing the point and I think
it's a shame the moderators haven't stopped what seems to me to be
grinding of some well-worn axes, I hope this has helped clarify things
for you.

--
Ian Jackson

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FFS, Matt! We as a group are *not* agreeing. I, for one, am taking the
**** out of you and I know others are too. The fact that you can't see
that is scary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Leighton wrote:


I wonder if Matt has cycled many of the facilities he thinks are OK
on a regular basis?

Far to many words, "I wonder if Matt has cycled ?" would have done.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troll B considered Mon, 15 Mar 2010
13:37:11 +0000 the perfect time to write:

Some rubbish that should never have got through moderation.

None of what he put brought anything useful to the debate, as it's all
been well covered before, and is nothing but trolling anyway.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:24:25
uk.rec.cycling.moderated Matt B

LOL. You must be able to see then that the problems your photos
highlight are relatively minor and solvable relatively easily.

By and for whom?

"All children must wear mudguards if there is mud about"

"Daddy, I see no mud"

"Wear your mudguards, dear, Uncle Matt insists they are for your
protection"

"From who?"

"Whom, dear, and I don't really know, Uncle Matt is just like that"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moderators being rather picky?
 

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:19:21 +0100, Judith wrote...

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:09:37 -0300, someone claiming to be Ian Jackson
wrote:

As usual, Tom is being somewhat economical with the truth.

No he isn't : you are.

That's what forgers do.

--
Tim Jackson
lid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

Moderators being rather picky?
 

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:58:39 -0300, Sara Marriman
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:19:23 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

It might be useful to remind readers what this issue was about.

[snip]

Please don't use me to promote your own agenda.

This is an uncensored group.

I am free to post my own recollections of the incident.


Seen through the red mist of hate you have for urcm?

Which is so thick it changes what I did into something you wish I had done? No
thank you; you're as bad as the others.

Please feel free to repost your reasons for leaving the moderation
team. I apologise if I am mistaken.

(I've removed uk.rec.cycling as, well, this doesn't belong there.)