A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group

On 13 May, 17:39, RudiL wrote:
On 13 May, 16:48, Judith Smith wrote:



On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:03:31 -0700 (PDT), RudiL
wrote:

snip

So you would *ban some people from the moderated group would you?

Of course. That is usually the point of moderation. Sometimes it will
be a complete ban on certain people, sometimes it will just be on
certain posts. Sometimes a thread (e.g. yet another one on helmets,
none of which ever contribute anything new since that topic has been
done to death) will be terminated by the moderator with a "see earlier
discussion" type message.

Rudi

Interesting.

It is not the point of "moderation" at all - it is however the point
of "censorship"

I think that you may be thinking of "censored" groups. I must admit I
have never heard of them (other than urc)

Perhaps you can point out the charter of any moderated usenet group
which has a policy of banning named people.

-- * * * * * * * *

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. *To take the "primary position" : *to ride a bike *in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

So yes i was inaccurate when I said there may be a complete ban on
some people. Just that some people are likely to have most of their
posts stopped for being off-topic (as defined by the charter and the
moderators interpretation of the charter - that is the power of the
moderator), and if earlier threads that were on-topic degenerate into
off-topic threads they too can be stopped.

Rudi

In any case I am coming round to thinking (like an earlier poster on
possibly a different thread) that chat forums are actually better than
unmoderated newsgroups as they are essentially moderated (read
censored if you prefer) and as a result are lively and on-topic.
Witness Cycle Chat with certainly hundreds of posters, and thousands
of messages as opposed to the (at most) tens of posters on urc.

Rudi

On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:36:21 -0700 (PDT), RudiL wrote:

Sorry Rudi, but Judith is just factually wrong again, and I'm
hijacking your post. I doubt facts which actually help, but here
goes:

On 13 May, 16:48, Judith Smith wrote:

Perhaps you can point out the charter of any moderated usenet
group which has a policy of banning named people.

Since it has already been referenced, try googling
"uk.religion.christian charter". You might find
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.christian.html
(be careful with your cut-and-pasting of that, btw).

"In the following cases only, the moderator may impose a total ban
of unspecified duration:

" 1. following persistent violations even after the implementation
of (2) above,

" 2. in the event of serious abuse directed against the moderator,

" 3. if a poster forges newsgroup headers or gives a fake id."

No doubt you will now assure us that you knew that, that actually
you're chairman of the uk usenet committee and that you have a letter
from God himself saying that he doesn't endorse Cyclecraft.

You will also find that a poster has been banned by name from the
group (though the current moderator has allowed him back after a ban
of a few years duration). The current moderator is Mark Goodge.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:36:21 -0700 (PDT), RudiL
wrote:

snip


If there were a moderated group in which someone were not allowed to
post they would not be censored as they can post in the unmoderated
one. However a blanket ban is probably unlikely - more likely is that
posts by what I will call "troublesome" individuals would individually
be passed to a human moderator who could pass them if they were on
topic and not boringly repetitious. It is up to the moderator to make
such decisions. If someone didn't like this they can go to the
unmoderated group, form their own group, or whatever. similarly if
other people don't like the moderator's policy they too can just stop
reading/posting on the moderated group and it would die.

Rudi

Thank you - these are serious questions.


So when you said that you would ban some people from the moderated
group - you didn't mean that at all.

What you meant was that the moderator would ban messages which were
abusive, repetitive or of a similar nature - irrespective as to who
they were from.

And that all people would be treated equally and fairly?

This of course is quite different. - and I would be more than happy
for a moderated group along those lines - and I would think that all
reasonable people would be.

So for example, if I, using the name judith was to post a message
which said:

"There is a news article in the paper today where a judge found that a
cyclists not wearing a helmet was partly to blame for his injuries -
then that would be allowed?"


What if a "new" poster - say Fido- was to show up and post a message
which was passed by the moderator. If someone then posted a message
and it said "Look out I think that Fido is judith, please do not
respond to her" - then should the moderator allow that post?


It is also quite interesting that there are many posts made here by
"regulars" which a fair moderator would not allow through. Usually
containing something derogatory about one of the people you like to
call "trolls". Hopefully, a moderated group would stop those.

--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On 13 May 2009 20:42:29 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:36:21 -0700 (PDT), RudiL wrote:

Sorry Rudi, but Judith is just factually wrong again, and I'm
hijacking your post. I doubt facts which actually help, but here
goes:

On 13 May, 16:48, Judith Smith wrote:

Perhaps you can point out the charter of any moderated usenet
group which has a policy of banning named people.

Since it has already been referenced, try googling
"uk.religion.christian charter". You might find
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.christian.html
(be careful with your cut-and-pasting of that, btw).

"In the following cases only, the moderator may impose a total ban
of unspecified duration:

" 1. following persistent violations even after the implementation
of (2) above,

" 2. in the event of serious abuse directed against the moderator,

" 3. if a poster forges newsgroup headers or gives a fake id."

No doubt you will now assure us that you knew that, that actually
you're chairman of the uk usenet committee and that you have a letter
from God himself saying that he doesn't endorse Cyclecraft.

You will also find that a poster has been banned by name from the
group (though the current moderator has allowed him back after a ban
of a few years duration). The current moderator is Mark Goodge.

regards, Ian SMith


Fine - I have no object with that as a moderation policy - it is quite
in line with others I have seen

You would of course agree that your post above would NOT be allowed
in a moderated group. - "Insults of a personal nature"

You could not resist throwing in the para starting "No doubt ....".

or the

"(be careful with your cut-and-pasting of that, btw)."


It's odd isn't it - one person says something like that, and they
are a troll.
Someone else (ie you) says it and there is nothing wrong with it.

It's a funny old world.

Would you ban specific sigs?












--

There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury.

The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should wear one.

Mr Justice Griffith Williams

On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:43:56 -0700 (PDT), RudiL
wrote:

snip


In any case I am coming round to thinking (like an earlier poster on
possibly a different thread) that chat forums are actually better than
unmoderated newsgroups as they are essentially moderated (read
censored if you prefer) and as a result are lively and on-topic.
Witness Cycle Chat with certainly hundreds of posters, and thousands
of messages as opposed to the (at most) tens of posters on urc.

Rudi


I'll pay it a visit.

I may of course be incognito - so I will not say hello.


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On 2009-05-13, RudiL wrote:

If there were a moderated group in which someone were not allowed to
post they would not be censored as they can post in the unmoderated
one. However a blanket ban is probably unlikely - more likely is that
posts by what I will call "troublesome" individuals would individually
be passed to a human moderator who could pass them if they were on
topic and not boringly repetitious.

Right. Relevant, non-abusive posts from someone with a history of
trouble could still be moderated through manually.

It is up to the moderator to make such decisions. If someone didn't
like this they can go to the unmoderated group, form their own
group, or whatever. similarly if other people don't like the
moderator's policy they too can just stop reading/posting on the
moderated group and it would die.

There's only one way to find out, and I think it's worth a try.

Doug wrote:

So there can be no simple solution to your problem.

You're part of it. You're as much a part of it as Judith or Nuxx. You're
a real nuisance.

The only significant difference between you is that you're just a
nuisance and a detriment, whereas there's something genuinely unpleasant
and creepy about them. You're just as bad for the group though.

When was the last time you had anything to say about bikes or cycling?
All you ever do seem to do is talk about cars and motorists. In case you
hadn't noticed, motorists and cyclists are not mutually exclusive sets;
most people here have (and rely on) cars as well as bikes.

Daniele
--
Wanted: TEAC A-2300SX, Akai GX-4000D

On Thu, 14 May 2009 22:38:47 +0100,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

Doug wrote:

So there can be no simple solution to your problem.

You're part of it. You're as much a part of it as Judith or Nuxx. You're
a real nuisance.

The only significant difference between you is that you're just a
nuisance and a detriment, whereas there's something genuinely unpleasant
and creepy about them. You're just as bad for the group though.

When was the last time you had anything to say about bikes or cycling?
All you ever do seem to do is talk about cars and motorists. In case you
hadn't noticed, motorists and cyclists are not mutually exclusive sets;
most people here have (and rely on) cars as well as bikes.

Daniele


I say old bean - what is it about me that makes you think I am
unpleasant and creepy?

That's rather a personal dig isn't it?


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

Quoting D.M. Procida :
Doug wrote:
So there can be no simple solution to your problem.
When was the last time you had anything to say about bikes or cycling?

Well, I seem to remember Doug defending Critical Mass just the other day.

.... apropos of which, it's not surprising that Doug is a bit of a
conspiracy theorist, given the little coterie of halfwits like Brimstone
who seem to stalk him all over uk.*.
--
David Damerell Kill the tomato!
Today is Gouday, May.

David Damerell wrote:
Well, I seem to remember Doug defending Critical Mass just the other
day.

I think it's about the only thing he's achieved on uk.rec.cycling:
persuading some of us that however much fun a summer CM ride might look,
your mere presence will be used as propaganda for all kinds of wingnut
causes, so it's better to go for a nice ride in the park instead.

--
Guy