"Judith" wrote in message
...

Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators.

I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the
cycling newsgroup.




================================================== =================================
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER
Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Statement from the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated:

Summary:

We oppose this hostile CFV. It will
- Forbid reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it would
prevent the use of a passlist, slowing much discussion.
- Violate the privacy of transgressive posters;
- Lead to more rather than fewer complaints and arguments.

We recommend a NO vote.


Our full reasons are as follows:

1. The proposed charter change would forbid a variety of moderation
techniques which the urcm moderators and moderators of other moderated
groups find useful.

Examples of moderation techniques which the charter change would
forbid include:

- The passlist, which arranges to automatically approve articles by
posters we consider unlikely to breach the moderation
guidelines. This would mean that the principal effect of this
change would be to slow down activity in the group.

- Poster-specific limits on number of articles posted per day. We
have in the past considered this, as a useful approach employed
with new users of some other discussion mediums as a counter to
sock puppetry.

It is likely that if lesser tools are not available, we will find that
we need to make more use of bans.


2. Transgressive posters, whom we find it necessary to ban, should not
have their identities revealed. We do not think it appropriate that
such disciplinary matters should be aired in public. To do so would
be a breach of the poster's privacy.


3. The proposal is likely to lead to many more rejected posters
claiming that their posts were rejected because of the poster's
identity rather than the content. The result will be an increase in
noise in the uk.* management groups.


4. We observe that urcm has already been the subject of three previous
hostile RFDs, one intending to replace the moderators.

In other usenet hierarchies, this level of interference with a
moderation team would not be tolerated. For example in the Big 8
(rec.* etc., the B8MB say):

It is highly unlikely that the board would publish proposals for:
...
- removal of an active moderator or removal of a moderated group
without the consent of the moderator.
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is Oneiros, December.
Tomorrow will be Mania, December.
=========================================

Can anyone else recommend a YES vote in URCM or will those posts be rejected
for being "meta" (off-topic)?