A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group

On Thu, 21 May 2009 10:33:49 +0100, Keith T wrote:

Judith Smith wrote:

I am all in favour of fair/moderated news groups; they cut out a hell
of a lot of crap.




?????? from someone who appears to have hijacked several threads by just
copy and paste you would have to blacklist yurself.


Sorry - "just copy and paste" - I do not understand; can you expand.


--

The BMA view of helmets:

The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries. This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On 21 May 2009 15:33:56 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
wrote:

In article ,
Adam Funk wrote:
Would someone who is familiar with the process like to start it up?

Yes. I'm in discussions with Control and the Committee. I should be
able to post either a draft of an RFD (just here), or a full formal
RFD (to uk.net.news.config and .announce), very shortly.

We need to think about who we should have as moderators. My
preference would be to have a large moderation panel, say at least six
people.



I would like to volunteer.

You must have plenty of balance and fairness in the moderation team.
--
British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:
Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries, as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On 21 May, 15:33, Ian Jackson wrote:
In article ,
Adam Funk wrote:

Would someone who is familiar with the process like to start it up?

Yes. *I'm in discussions with Control and the Committee. *I should be
able to post either a draft of an RFD (just here), or a full formal
RFD (to uk.net.news.config and .announce), very shortly.

We need to think about who we should have as moderators. *My
preference would be to have a large moderation panel, say at least six
people.

Also we should organise a hosting setup. *If no-one has a better plan,
I would be happy to run an installation of Stump[1] on my server.
[1]http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/

--
Ian Jackson * * * * * * * * *personal email:
These opinions are my own. * * * *http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, * * fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Excellent!

Rudi

On Thu, 21 May 2009 08:12:30 -0700 (PDT), RudiL
wrote:

snip


Ian Jackson * * * * * * * * *personal email:
These opinions are my own. * * * *http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, * * fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Excellent!

Rudi


And of course that post would be moderated out:

"Added nothing of substance to the debate"


(obviously dependent on moderation rules though)

--

Posts from IP Address: 80.254.146.36

to URC over 6 years = 7

Guy Chapman : 5
Lou Knee: 2

Coincidence or nym shift?

Judith Smith wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 10:33:49 +0100, Keith T wrote:

Judith Smith wrote:

I am all in favour of fair/moderated news groups; they cut out a hell
of a lot of crap.



?????? from someone who appears to have hijacked several threads by just
copy and paste you would have to blacklist yurself.


Sorry - "just copy and paste" - I do not understand; can you expand.



cnrtl c and cnrtl v - HTH

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Keith T wrote:


cnrtl c and cnrtl v - HTH

Dnam this dyslexai

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Ian Jackson twisted the electrons to say:
We need to think about who we should have as moderators. My
preference would be to have a large moderation panel, say at least six
people.

Is it possible to have a system whereby there's more than one moderator,
and approval is required from more than one but less than all of the
panel?

Electing the panel (and any future replacements for it) is likely to be a
"fun" experience too! :-(
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On 21 May, 17:28, Alistair Gunn wrote:
Ian Jackson twisted the electrons to say:

We need to think about who we should have as moderators. *My
preference would be to have a large moderation panel, say at least six
people.

Is it possible to have a system whereby there's more than one moderator,
and approval is required from more than one but less than all of the
panel?

Electing the panel (and any future replacements for it) is likely to be a
"fun" experience too! *:-(
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

I vote for letting Ian be one moderator, and he gets to choose/invite
a second. Then the two of them by mutual agreement choose and invite
the third, and so on until there are a suitable number (the moderators
themselves to decide how many that is). I don't know what the normal
procedure for a moderated group is

Regards,
Rudi

On 2009-05-21, Ian Jackson wrote:

Would someone who is familiar with the process like to start it up?

Yes. I'm in discussions with Control and the Committee. I should be
able to post either a draft of an RFD (just here), or a full formal
RFD (to uk.net.news.config and .announce), very shortly.

Looking forward to it; thanks.

"Adam Funk" wrote in message
news
On 2009-05-21, Ian Jackson wrote:

Would someone who is familiar with the process like to start it up?

Yes. I'm in discussions with Control and the Committee. I should be
able to post either a draft of an RFD (just here), or a full formal
RFD (to uk.net.news.config and .announce), very shortly.

Looking forward to it; thanks.

Yay! So am I.

But I betcha there are those who are not :-)