Censorship in uk.rec.cycling.moderated

On Jul 8, 7:48*pm, Ian Jackson
wrote:


*We will not permit any crossposting between urcm and
motorist and motorcyclist groups.

Um.....are you sure?

AIUI, after much debate about whether no crossposting was actually a
feasible or necessary step, the decision was to allow crossposting.

But now you are saying that crossposting to certain groups will be
banned? Can you clarify which groups are on the blacklist (at least,
your current hypothetical blacklist)?

urc added back in, as I think even people who have stopped following
the residual trolling may be interested in this.

James

In article ,
James wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:48=A0pm, Ian Jackson
wrote:
We will not permit any crossposting between urcm and
motorist and motorcyclist groups.

Um.....are you sure?

Pretty sure, yes.

AIUI, after much debate about whether no crossposting was actually a
feasible or necessary step, the decision was to allow crossposting.

Yes, under restricted circumstances if the moderators agree.

It's not clear to me right now what the moderators as a whole think;
I'm at the pro-crossposting end of the spectrum so I imagine that the
policy will be at least as restrictive as the personal views I'm
putting forward here.

But now you are saying that crossposting to certain groups will be
banned? Can you clarify which groups are on the blacklist (at least,
your current hypothetical blacklist)?

The moderators collectively haven't had much discussion of the exact
status of particular groups. It's rather early for that anyway
because for technical reasons crossposting other than announcements
shouldn't be permitted at all until urcm has reasonably good
propagation.

But, my personal view: I would expect that rather than allowing
crossposting where not banned, we would consider taking a specific
decision to allow crossposting to each particular newsgroup where we
think it a good idea, when it comes up. (That might just happen the
first time someone submits a crossposted article.)

But if you want examples of groups I would oppose being added to the
allowed list: uk.rec.driving, uk.rec.motorcycles, uk.transport.
Precisely because such a crossposted thread would be in constant
danger of turning into a mutual hatefest.

In any case I think crossposting to uk.rec.cycling will be banned.
I don't think any of the moderators have said otherwise and although I
haven't counted them I think a strict majority have concurred.

urc added back in, as I think even people who have stopped following
the residual trolling may be interested in this.

Yes.

--
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

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
But if you want examples of groups I would oppose being added to the
allowed list: uk.rec.driving, uk.rec.motorcycles, uk.transport.
Precisely because such a crossposted thread would be in constant
danger of turning into a mutual hatefest.

That is ridiculous. There are many issues that concern both cyclists,
motorcyclists and drivers. Simply banning any discussion of these topics or
sharing the discussion among other groups, even though the topics may be
contentious, is one of the most stupid ideas I have heard.

In any case I think crossposting to uk.rec.cycling will be banned.

Why? I often crosspost between uk.legal and uk.legal.moderated because I
want to address the readership of both groups.

Are you sure you're the right person to be a moderator? Your ideas are
crazy. Can someone with some common sense volunteer to take Ian's place
please? I am rapidly losing confidence in him to do the job properly and
fairly.

Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:59:25
uk.net.news.config Mr Benn %%%@%.%%

Why? I often crosspost between uk.legal and uk.legal.moderated because I
want to address the readership of both groups.

Successfully? (whatever the emoticon for wry grin is should appear
here)

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

On Jul 9, 7:25*pm, Ian Jackson
wrote:
In article ,

But, my personal view: I would expect that rather than allowing
crossposting where not banned, we would consider taking a specific
decision to allow crossposting to each particular newsgroup where we
think it a good idea, when it comes up. *(That might just happen the
first time someone submits a crossposted article.)

Surely you should be deciding on the basis of each post. I agree that
x-posting to uk.rantsport usually means a flame-war but I don't agree
that this should make any such posting impossible.


But if you want examples of groups I would oppose being added to the
allowed list: uk.rec.driving, uk.rec.motorcycles, uk.transport.
Precisely because such a crossposted thread would be in constant
danger of turning into a mutual hatefest.

By all means bar posts that you think are designed to provoke such a
response. But I don't think it should the role of moderators to bar
posts just because they might be in danger of turning into a hatefest
- otherwise you will end up barring anything remotely controversial.

James

In article ,
Mr Benn %%%@%.%% wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
But if you want examples of groups I would oppose being added to the
allowed list: uk.rec.driving, uk.rec.motorcycles, uk.transport.
Precisely because such a crossposted thread would be in constant
danger of turning into a mutual hatefest.

That is ridiculous. There are many issues that concern both cyclists,
motorcyclists and drivers. Simply banning any discussion of these topics or
sharing the discussion among other groups, even though the topics may be
contentious, is one of the most stupid ideas I have heard.

If that's one of the most stupid ideas you have heard, I think you
have led a sheltered life.

It is clear that crossposting is a subject that people have varying
opinions about. A substantial number people have said that (almost)
all crossposting should be banned. A few people (myself included)
have argued that crossposting can be useful and constructive in
certain cases.

Views as far in favour of crossposting as yours seem very rare.

In any case I think crossposting to uk.rec.cycling will be banned.

Why? I often crosspost between uk.legal and uk.legal.moderated because I
want to address the readership of both groups.

I think you must be mistaken. Either that or you haven't noticed that
your messages are being rejected. The current policy of the
moderators of uk.legal.moderated is to have all crossposts rejected
automatically by the moderation machinery, without any human
intervention or review.

I had a little difficulty finding the group's homepage with the
current moderation policy but I think this is it:
http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm

It says:

In the interests of making the moderators task simpler, articles that
fail some simple technical requirements may be rejected automatically
without direct human intervention. The moderators *MAY* return the
following kinds of articles to their senders, without posting them:
[...]
articles cross-posted to other groups (currently rejected
automatically),
[...]

--
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

In article ,
James wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:25=A0pm, Ian Jackson
wrote:
In article =
.com,
But, my personal view: I would expect that rather than allowing
crossposting where not banned, we would consider taking a specific
decision to allow crossposting to each particular newsgroup where we
think it a good idea, when it comes up. =A0(That might just happen the
first time someone submits a crossposted article.)

Surely you should be deciding on the basis of each post. I agree that
x-posting to uk.rantsport usually means a flame-war but I don't agree
that this should make any such posting impossible.

Here are a few reasons why crossposting is difficult and needs to be
done with ca


Crossposting between a moderated and an unmoderated group is
inherently quite intrusive. Not all readers of the unmoderated group
may be aware of the arrangements[1], and they may easily become upset
at what they will with some justification see as moderation of their
newsgroup.

Crossposting brings different newsgroups together; that is, it brings
different communities together who may have different cultural norms.
If those cultural norms differ too much it will be impossible to for
posters or moderators to act in a way consistent with both sets - ie,
someone will be justifiably annoyed.

The moderators may not be familiar with the unmoderated group and may
inadvertantly transgress, violating the expectations of the
unmoderated group's readers.

If there is a history of animosity between the the groups' readerships
(or the societal groups with which they may identify), crossposted
threads will have to be watched like a hawk by the moderators - ie the
result is that moderation must necessarily be heavy-handed.
Heavy-handed moderation of discussion involving disagreement easily
causes rancour and unpleasantness.

In cases of disagreement between (by and large) the two readerships,
readers of the unmoderated group may regard the moderators as biased
against them (justifiably or not); conversely the moderators may find
that they are in a position of difficult conflict of interest.


I think all of these problems are manageable _if_ by and large the
readerships of the two groups are mutually sympathetic and respectful,
can be tolerant of each others' errors or misunderstandings, and so
on. The moderators have to be especially careful and have an
especially light touch towards readers of the unmoderated group; the
unmoderated group's readers need to be tolerant of the inevitable
downsides to moderation (delays and occasional rejection, perhaps even
the odd wrongful rejection as moderators are inevitably imperfect).

In summary, if there is goodwill amongst the vast majority of
parcipants on both sides. In particular, the general consent of the
readers of the unmoderated group is important. If there is not enough
goodwill, the results will be unpleasant.

For this reason, almost all moderated groups have some kind of fairly
stringent restrictions on crossposting - which usually includes
applying higher standards to crossposted articles, as well as ensuring
that the other newsgroups involved are suitable as a quite separate
matter from the content of the article.


How entertaining it is that on the one hand I have to explain to some
people why I think crossposting isn't undoubtedly a horrific evil, and
to others why I think it needs any extra restrictions at all.

[1] Crossposted articles do not appear even in the unmoderated group
until they have been reviewed by the moderators of the moderated
group. If the moderators reject the article, it doesn't appear in
either group (and if the poster did not supply a valid email address
or there is some kind of technical email problem, the poster may not
even be told of the rejection). This mechanism, which is part of the
design of the usenet machinery, is necessary to avoid fragmentation of
the thread; but it is intrusive.

--
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

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mr Benn %%%@%.%% wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
But if you want examples of groups I would oppose being added to the
allowed list: uk.rec.driving, uk.rec.motorcycles, uk.transport.
Precisely because such a crossposted thread would be in constant
danger of turning into a mutual hatefest.

That is ridiculous. There are many issues that concern both cyclists,
motorcyclists and drivers. Simply banning any discussion of these topics
or
sharing the discussion among other groups, even though the topics may be
contentious, is one of the most stupid ideas I have heard.

If that's one of the most stupid ideas you have heard, I think you
have led a sheltered life.

I meant one of the most stupid ideas in relation to the current discussion.
I had assumed you would interpret it that way and address my concerns rather
than patronise me.

"Wm..." wrote in message
]...
Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:59:25
uk.net.news.config Mr Benn %%%@%.%%

Why? I often crosspost between uk.legal and uk.legal.moderated because I
want to address the readership of both groups.

Successfully? (whatever the emoticon for wry grin is should appear here)

Ok, fair enough. I hadn't realised that it wasn't possible to crosspost
between the groups. My previous attempts have obviously failed but I hadn't
noticed.

Mr Benn %%%@%.%% wrote:
That is ridiculous. *There are many issues that concern both cyclists,
motorcyclists and drivers. *Simply banning any discussion of these topics or
sharing the discussion among other groups, even though the topics may be
contentious, is one of the most stupid ideas I have heard.

On Jul 9, 2:15 pm, Ian Jackson
wrote:
If that's one of the most stupid ideas you have heard, I think you
have led a sheltered life.

Well, yes, but more importantly if people want to share a discussion
with the unmoderated groups for motorcyclists, drivers, perambulator
users or pogo-stick commuters then they can do so via the medium of
the unmoderated uk.rec.cycling.
--
Guy