A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CFV Changes to URCM Charter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 8th 12, 07:03 PM posted to uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
Judith[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,000
Default CFV Changes to URCM Charter



Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators.

I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the
cycling newsgroup.




================================================== =================================
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER
Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated


Statement from the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated:

Summary:

We oppose this hostile CFV. It will
- Forbid reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it would
prevent the use of a passlist, slowing much discussion.
- Violate the privacy of transgressive posters;
- Lead to more rather than fewer complaints and arguments.

We recommend a NO vote.


Our full reasons are as follows:

1. The proposed charter change would forbid a variety of moderation
techniques which the urcm moderators and moderators of other moderated
groups find useful.

Examples of moderation techniques which the charter change would
forbid include:

- The passlist, which arranges to automatically approve articles by
posters we consider unlikely to breach the moderation
guidelines. This would mean that the principal effect of this
change would be to slow down activity in the group.

- Poster-specific limits on number of articles posted per day. We
have in the past considered this, as a useful approach employed
with new users of some other discussion mediums as a counter to
sock puppetry.

It is likely that if lesser tools are not available, we will find that
we need to make more use of bans.


2. Transgressive posters, whom we find it necessary to ban, should not
have their identities revealed. We do not think it appropriate that
such disciplinary matters should be aired in public. To do so would
be a breach of the poster's privacy.


3. The proposal is likely to lead to many more rejected posters
claiming that their posts were rejected because of the poster's
identity rather than the content. The result will be an increase in
noise in the uk.* management groups.


4. We observe that urcm has already been the subject of three previous
hostile RFDs, one intending to replace the moderators.

In other usenet hierarchies, this level of interference with a
moderation team would not be tolerated. For example in the Big 8
(rec.* etc., the B8MB say):

It is highly unlikely that the board would publish proposals for:
...
- removal of an active moderator or removal of a moderated group
without the consent of the moderator.
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is Oneiros, December.
Tomorrow will be Mania, December.
Ads
  #2  
Old December 8th 12, 07:12 PM posted to uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
John Benn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 865
Default CFV Changes to URCM Charter

"Judith" wrote in message
...

Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators.

I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the
cycling newsgroup.




================================================== =================================
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER
Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated


Statement from the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated:

Summary:

We oppose this hostile CFV. It will
- Forbid reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it would
prevent the use of a passlist, slowing much discussion.
- Violate the privacy of transgressive posters;
- Lead to more rather than fewer complaints and arguments.

We recommend a NO vote.


Our full reasons are as follows:

1. The proposed charter change would forbid a variety of moderation
techniques which the urcm moderators and moderators of other moderated
groups find useful.

Examples of moderation techniques which the charter change would
forbid include:

- The passlist, which arranges to automatically approve articles by
posters we consider unlikely to breach the moderation
guidelines. This would mean that the principal effect of this
change would be to slow down activity in the group.

- Poster-specific limits on number of articles posted per day. We
have in the past considered this, as a useful approach employed
with new users of some other discussion mediums as a counter to
sock puppetry.

It is likely that if lesser tools are not available, we will find that
we need to make more use of bans.


2. Transgressive posters, whom we find it necessary to ban, should not
have their identities revealed. We do not think it appropriate that
such disciplinary matters should be aired in public. To do so would
be a breach of the poster's privacy.


3. The proposal is likely to lead to many more rejected posters
claiming that their posts were rejected because of the poster's
identity rather than the content. The result will be an increase in
noise in the uk.* management groups.


4. We observe that urcm has already been the subject of three previous
hostile RFDs, one intending to replace the moderators.

In other usenet hierarchies, this level of interference with a
moderation team would not be tolerated. For example in the Big 8
(rec.* etc., the B8MB say):

It is highly unlikely that the board would publish proposals for:
...
- removal of an active moderator or removal of a moderated group
without the consent of the moderator.
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is Oneiros, December.
Tomorrow will be Mania, December.
=========================================

Can anyone else recommend a YES vote in URCM or will those posts be rejected
for being "meta" (off-topic)?

  #3  
Old December 8th 12, 10:09 PM posted to uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
Bertie Wooster[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,958
Default CFV Changes to URCM Charter

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:28:12 +0000, Luke Moore
wrote:

John Benn wrote:

"Judith" wrote in message
. ..

Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators.

I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the
cycling newsgroup.




================================================ ===================================
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER
Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated


Statement from the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated:

Summary:

We oppose this hostile CFV. It will
- Forbid reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it would
prevent the use of a passlist, slowing much discussion.
- Violate the privacy of transgressive posters;
- Lead to more rather than fewer complaints and arguments.

We recommend a NO vote.
[...]
=========================================

Can anyone else recommend a YES vote in URCM or will those posts be rejected
for being "meta" (off-topic)?


Who'd be stupid enough to try? Unless, of course, somebody fancies
being fast-tracked to a ban of indeterminate length.


Let's try to work it into a response from posters to urc - and see who
is brave enough to post it.


===========

FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER
Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated


Statement from posters of uk.rec.cycling:

Summary:

We support this sensible CFV. It will
- Allow reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it won't
prevent the use of a passlist, speeding much discussion.
- Facilitate the privacy of transgressive posters;
- Lead to fewer rather than more complaints and arguments.

We recommend a YES vote.


Our full reasons are as follows:

===========

Sorry, there's something on TV I want to watch. Can someone please
pick up the baton?
  #4  
Old December 9th 12, 12:04 AM posted to uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
Squashme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,146
Default CFV Changes to URCM Charter

On Dec 8, 9:09*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:28:12 +0000, Luke Moore









wrote:
John Benn wrote:


"Judith" *wrote in message
. ..


Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators.


I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the
cycling newsgroup.




================================================ ===================================
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER
Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated


Statement from the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated:


Summary:


We oppose this hostile CFV. *It will
*- Forbid reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it would
* *prevent the use of a passlist, slowing much discussion.
*- Violate the privacy of transgressive posters;
*- Lead to more rather than fewer complaints and arguments.


We recommend a NO vote.
[...]
=========================================


Can anyone else recommend a YES vote in URCM or will those posts be rejected
for being "meta" (off-topic)?


Who'd be stupid enough to try? Unless, of course, somebody fancies
being fast-tracked to a ban of indeterminate length.


Let's try to work it into a response from posters to urc - and see who
is brave enough to post it.

===========

FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER
Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated


Statement from posters of uk.rec.cycling:

Summary:

We support this sensible CFV. *It will
* - Allow reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it won't
* * prevent the use of a passlist, speeding much discussion.
* - Facilitate the privacy of transgressive posters;
* - Lead to fewer rather than more complaints and arguments.

We recommend a YES vote.

Our full reasons are as follows:

===========

Sorry, there's something on TV I want to watch. Can someone please
pick up the baton?


Have you wondered why Jon Ribbens did not post his call for votes in
urc and you had to forward it?
  #5  
Old December 9th 12, 12:33 PM posted to uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
Nick[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,323
Default CFV Changes to URCM Charter

On 08/12/2012 18:03, Judith wrote:


Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators.

I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the
cycling newsgroup.


Classic post from the moderators. My take would be that it is
astonishing for the following reasons:

Firstly the characterisation of RFDs and CFVs as hostile. I thought the
concept of the uk hierarchy was that of a cooperative hierarchy
ultimately governed democratically by the users. Describing RFDs by Mark
Goodge and Daniele (et al) as hostile seems to be odds with the very
concepts of the democratic uk hierarchy.

The principal reason for rejecting the CFV given is that it would ban
the use of white listing. However it is not mentioned that this was not
bought up at the RFD stage, the proposer does not make this
interpretation, members of the moderation team appear to be opposed to
modifying the CFV to explicitly allow white listing and no one at all
has called for white listing to be banned.

This message is published in urcm but responses to it are blocked and
urcm posters are not even given a reference to a forum where they can
read and discuss alternative view points.

I hope that the committee do allow the CFV to be modified/resubmitted so
that we can have a fair vote that genuinely reflects people's views of
Mark's proposal. As I understand it there hasn't been any vote on the
way moderation is being performed since the group was formed. I for one
would be very interested to see the result of a sensible vote untainted
by the spectre of trickery.

  #6  
Old December 9th 12, 01:03 PM posted to uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
Squashme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,146
Default CFV Changes to URCM Charter

On Dec 9, 11:33*am, Nick wrote:
On 08/12/2012 18:03, Judith wrote:



Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators.


I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the
cycling newsgroup.


Classic post from the moderators. My take would be that it is
astonishing for the following reasons:

Firstly the characterisation of RFDs and CFVs as hostile. I thought the
concept of the uk hierarchy was that of a cooperative hierarchy
ultimately governed democratically by the users. Describing RFDs by Mark
Goodge and Daniele (et al) as hostile seems to be odds with the very
concepts of the democratic uk hierarchy.

The principal reason for rejecting the CFV given is that it would ban
the use of white listing. However it is not mentioned that this was not
bought up at the RFD stage, the proposer does not make this
interpretation, members of the moderation team appear to be opposed to
modifying the CFV to explicitly allow white listing and no one at all
has called for white listing to be banned.

This message is published in urcm but responses to it are blocked and
urcm posters are not even given a reference to a forum where they can
read and discuss alternative view points.

I hope that the committee do allow the CFV to be modified/resubmitted so
that we can have a fair vote that genuinely reflects people's views of
Mark's proposal. As I understand it there hasn't been any vote on the
way moderation is being performed since the group was formed. I for one
would be very interested to see the result of a sensible vote untainted
by the spectre of trickery.


A vote based on what electoral roll?
  #7  
Old December 9th 12, 05:12 PM posted to uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
Owen Rees
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default CFV Changes to URCM Charter

On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 11:33:11 +0000, Nick wrote
in om:

Classic post from the moderators. My take would be that it is
astonishing for the following reasons:

Firstly the characterisation of RFDs and CFVs as hostile. I thought the
concept of the uk hierarchy was that of a cooperative hierarchy
ultimately governed democratically by the users. Describing RFDs by Mark
Goodge and Daniele (et al) as hostile seems to be odds with the very
concepts of the democratic uk hierarchy.


My search of uk.net.news.announce found only the current RFD+CFV and one
previous RFD (proposed by 'sun flower') that did not proceed to a CFV.
Is there a gap in the history I have or are the urcm moderators
confusing the endless tedious informal proposals (and complaints) with
RFDs?

I still hold the opinion that both the warring factions are their own
worst enemy in attracting my support and vote. The post from the urcm
moderators almost persuaded me to vote FOR the proposal. Unfortunately
it does seem to me to be fatally flawed. It would impose inappropriate
restrictions on reasonable moderators so I cannot support it merely
because of the behaviour of the current moderators.

  #8  
Old December 9th 12, 09:04 PM posted to uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
Steve Walker[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default CFV Changes to URCM Charter


"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
Bertie Wooster considered Sat, 08 Dec 2012


We support this sensible CFV. It will
- Allow reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it won't
prevent the use of a passlist, speeding much discussion.


An outright lie, and anyone reading the text of the CFV will easily
see. The ONLY exception which it allows to the ban on poster identity
being taken into consideration is the ban list.


The CFV clearly uses "moderation" as a polite euphemism for "rejection". If
you feel there's a risk of confusion, you could ask Mark to rephrase the CFV
to "Rejection of posts will be carried out solely according to their
content, and not the identity of the author".

UKLM successfully operates moderation-by-content *and* a whitelist, so
there's no fundamental problem with that combination. If URCM moderators
were to adopt a similar approach, they would solve 90% of their problems at
a stroke.

  #9  
Old December 9th 12, 09:20 PM posted to uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
Clive George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,394
Default CFV Changes to URCM Charter

On 09/12/2012 20:04, Steve Walker wrote:

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
Bertie Wooster considered Sat, 08 Dec 2012


We support this sensible CFV. It will
- Allow reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it won't
prevent the use of a passlist, speeding much discussion.


An outright lie, and anyone reading the text of the CFV will easily
see. The ONLY exception which it allows to the ban on poster identity
being taken into consideration is the ban list.


The CFV clearly uses "moderation" as a polite euphemism for
"rejection".


That's far from clear - I reckon it's not actually true. Hence the
discussion we're having. The charter isn't a place for polite euphemism
- the language chosen should be clear and unambiguous.

If you feel there's a risk of confusion, you could ask
Mark to rephrase the CFV to "Rejection of posts will be carried out
solely according to their content, and not the identity of the author".


That would help. AIUI Mark is working with people to see what can be
done about making changes to solve this little problem.

  #10  
Old December 12th 12, 09:18 PM posted to uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
Dave - Cyclists VOR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,703
Default CFV Changes to URCM Charter

On 08/12/2012 21:09, Bertie Wooster wrote:


Sorry, there's something on TV I want to watch.


Peppa Pig? 64 Zoo Lane? Dora the Explorer?


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RFD: Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated Judith[_4_] UK 0 November 26th 12 02:31 PM
3rd RFD: Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated Judith[_4_] UK 3 September 24th 12 11:36 AM
rec.sport.unicycling charter Unisykolist Unicycling 4 April 22nd 08 06:17 AM
revised aus.bicycle charter hippy Australia 14 January 12th 06 06:48 PM
charter flight from Waterloo Claudius Vitalis Racing 30 July 13th 05 04:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.