Proposed Unofficial Call to Votes

I have put together the "press release" - please have a look and see
if there is anything missing or anything actually wrong.

I understand that Marc is going to give a hand with the posting - but
if any others have any ideas for the groups to post to - then please
shout soonest.

I want to get it out - over the weekend.

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


Someone recently made this post in uk.rec.cycling (urc):

"The call for votes for uk.rec.cycling.moderated is out, posted in
urc. As urc users of old and casualties of the recent spate of Nasty
you may be interested in this."

What this means is that there is a proposal to form a censored group
called uk.rec.cycling.moderated - and the person making the post was
soliciting for YES votes - ie supporting the formation of the group.

Anyone can vote on the formation of that group or not - this post is
to encourage people to vote on this matter - and to vote NO - we do
not need a censored group.

There have been on-going problems in the current group uk.rec.cycling
- which many of you may have found already if you wandered in there to
ask a question or express a point of view about cycling.

If you have, then I would suspect that you, like many others were not
welcomed there.

The group has a justified reputation of being run by a clique - for
the members of that clique - they have driven many previous regulars
away - and they do not welcome newcomers.

They have some very "odd" points of view - which they push at every
opportunity.

If they follow their current stance, you will not be allowed to
express certain points of view in the proposed group:

You must not suggest that cyclists should wear helmets.
You must not suggest that cyclists should wear high-viz clothing.
You must not suggest that cyclists obey the Highway Code.
You must not suggest that cyclists use the facilities provided for
them - cycle paths etc. Many of the posters there advocate ignoring
cycle paths and cycle lanes - as they say they have as much right as a
motorist to be on the road. (Tell that to people who pay car tax and
insurance!!)
You must not criticise cyclists for jumping red lights.
You must not criticise cyclists riding on pavements: If you are a
pedestrian - please jump out of the way of any cyclists riding on the
pavement.

A number of cyclists wear cameras on their heads to record motorists
and then publish videos of car drivers actions; you are encouraged to
report them to the police. (They even identify the number plate in
case you can't read it)

They have now decided to try and form their own censored group to keep
undesirables (ie ordinary road users - particularly motorists) out
and not allow them to express a "controversial" point of view.

There has already been a hand picked group of moderators chosen. There
have been objections to some of those proposed - and despite there
being calls for a vote on their selection - this has been ignored. A
number have demonstrated their lack of fitness to be a moderator of
anything.

eg:
One of them has altered posts to make out someone said something when
they didn't.
Another believes that ideally people should register their names and
address before they use a moderated group
Another has suggested that objectors may make malicious phone-calls to
the vote-counters.

(These are not the views of all moderators - but they demonstrate the
unsuitability of those already chosen, and the method by which it was
done).

There has been a vigorous discussion of the proposal in the groups
uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.rec.cycling.

Have a read - you will see many points of views and objections raised
- and ignored.

I urge you to voter NO against the formation of this censored group.

You may do this by sending a bare email:

To:
Subject: 1st CFV - Create moderated newsgroup
uk.rec.cycling.moderated

You will receive a request to vote.

Reply to the email - following instruction making sure that you vote
NO.

Get moving - votes must be in by: 23:59:59 BST, 7th August 2009.

(Of course this is all based on my personal view. You may wish to
vote YES once you have read the discussion)

--

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:57:34 -0400 someone who may be "Anthony R.
Gold" wrote this:-

and you were told directly by the votetaker for this vote that the answer
to you question was "No".

I think the activities of the usual suspects are going to test the
patience of the votetaker and the robustness of systems to weed out
the "vote early, vote often" merchants & their colleagues canvassing
for votes in unrelated groups.

Those trying to do this have my sympathy.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:37:34
uk.net.news.config David Hansen

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:57:34 -0400 someone who may be "Anthony R.
Gold" wrote this:-

and you were told directly by the votetaker for this vote that the answer
to you question was "No".

I think the activities of the usual suspects are going to test the
patience of the votetaker and the robustness of systems to weed out
the "vote early, vote often" merchants & their colleagues canvassing
for votes in unrelated groups.

Those trying to do this have my sympathy.

I am not sure, from wot you did wrote'd whom's yor simpathised is wif.

It could be either side.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

In jms writes:

I have put together the "press release" - please have a look and see
if there is anything missing or anything actually wrong.

I understand that Marc is going to give a hand with the posting - but
if any others have any ideas for the groups to post to - then please
shout soonest.

I want to get it out - over the weekend.

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


Someone recently made this post in uk.rec.cycling (urc):

It all depends on where you propose to post that message. If you post it
to URC, then I see no problem. Possibly you might get away with it in one
of the other transport related uk groups (but don't rely on that). But if
you post it ouside those limits, or if you circulate it via some other
medium, then I would expect one of two outcomes:

1) The votetaker mnight well suspend the whole vote, and start it again,
or if that did not happen

2) If the vote failed to approve the group, someone would almost
certainly appeal to the Committee, and it is, shall we say, "not unlikely"
that the Committee would uphold the appeal.

That is my personal view, irrespective of the fact that I sit on the
Committee.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:52:59 +0100,
Wm... wrote:
Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:37:34
uk.net.news.config David Hansen

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:57:34 -0400 someone who may be "Anthony R.
Gold" wrote this:-

and you were told directly by the votetaker for this vote that the answer
to you question was "No".

I think the activities of the usual suspects are going to test the
patience of the votetaker and the robustness of systems to weed out
the "vote early, vote often" merchants & their colleagues canvassing
for votes in unrelated groups.

Those trying to do this have my sympathy.

I am not sure, from wot you did wrote'd whom's yor simpathised is wif.

It could be either side.

Or both sides.

There are some people who are incapable of functioning in society and
need protecting. There are some people who are incapable of functioning
in society and society needs protecting from them.

You can feel sorry for them, and, indeed, blame "the authorities" if and
when that protection fails.

From watching the antics in unnc[1], I'm now convinced that jms et al are
sick in the head. Even an ounce of common sense would have told them
that vandalism and vituperative certainty of how usenet works in the
face of greater knowledge and experience in unnc is unlikely to win them
any friends or votes. As simple an action as refraining from posting to
unnc would probably have been worth a dozen or more no votes - people
whom I suspect are opposed to moderation unless and until it is proved
to them that there is no other option.

Tim.

[1] Second hand - I've not had a single jms post get through my killfile
although a few shills have managed one or two posts. The breadth and
depth of my killfile does mean that there is some colateral damage - one
of the proposed moderators needed a special rule before I could see
their posts at all.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:57:34 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:39:18 +0100, jms wrote:

I have put together the "press release" - please have a look and see
if there is anything missing or anything actually wrong.

Doing what is not permitted is something that is actually wrong.

You previously asked:

Probably time for a "press-release" around a large number of groups;

I assume that that is permitted?

and you were told directly by the votetaker for this vote that the answer
to you question was "No".

Tony


I have asked where this "rule" is stated. As far as I can see there
is no such rule - it is wishful thinking.

Where does it say it is not permitted? It doesn't.

If canvassing for votes is not allowed, and anyone doing so will have
their vote cancelled - then this needs to be clearly stated.

It isn't.

--

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

jms said:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:57:34 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:39:18 +0100, jms
wrote:

I have put together the "press release" - please have a look and see
if there is anything missing or anything actually wrong.

Doing what is not permitted is something that is actually wrong.

You previously asked:

Probably time for a "press-release" around a large number of groups;

I assume that that is permitted?

and you were told directly by the votetaker for this vote that the
answer to you question was "No".

Tony


I have asked where this "rule" is stated. As far as I can see there
is no such rule - it is wishful thinking.

Where does it say it is not permitted? It doesn't.

If canvassing for votes is not allowed, and anyone doing so will have
their vote cancelled - then this needs to be clearly stated.

It isn't.

You have been shown. It doesn't matter if you dispute the wording, now,
because you have also been told that it has been in use for years and has
been interpreted in a certain way for just as long. You are, therefore,
aware that certain actions break the accepted rules. If you wish to act
outside of those rules, having been told, you cannot appeal successfully
against any action taken, later.


--
kat
^..^

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:43:52 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
wrote:

snip



From watching the antics in unnc[1], I'm now convinced that jms et al are
sick in the head.

Do you still ride round with a camera on your head?

Do you ride a recumbent?

Do you post your antics on web-pages?






--

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

Tim Woodall wrote:

There are some people who are incapable of functioning
in society and society needs protecting from them.

Those are called cycle-paths.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:36:38 +0100, "kat"
wrote:


jms said:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:57:34 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:39:18 +0100, jms
wrote:

I have put together the "press release" - please have a look and see
if there is anything missing or anything actually wrong.

Doing what is not permitted is something that is actually wrong.

You previously asked:

Probably time for a "press-release" around a large number of groups;

I assume that that is permitted?

and you were told directly by the votetaker for this vote that the
answer to you question was "No".

Tony


I have asked where this "rule" is stated. As far as I can see there
is no such rule - it is wishful thinking.

Where does it say it is not permitted? It doesn't.

If canvassing for votes is not allowed, and anyone doing so will have
their vote cancelled - then this needs to be clearly stated.

It isn't.

You have been shown. It doesn't matter if you dispute the wording, now,
because you have also been told that it has been in use for years and has
been interpreted in a certain way for just as long.

So when was the wording last queried?

and when was it ever interpreted in *that* way?

It's quite neat this isn't it:

The committee can interpret the "rules" to say what the committee want
them to say - disregarding the actual words if necessary.

If that fails - and some nasty people ask for others to vote in the
democratic process, then the committee can declare the vote null and
void, and they decide what the result should be.

Perfect.


--

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored