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.

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?

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!

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.

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... ;-)

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.