2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

On 30 June, 13:13, jms wrote:
Are people told that they have been block-listed?

Probably, if they have posted with a valid email address. Otherwise
not.

Are people told? : "probably".

How do you propose we tell people who do not provide a valid email
address?

On 30 June, 13:17, jms wrote:

It is to be run on a "private" *server - so why not indeed?

What 'server' do you imagine a Usenet group 'runs' on?

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:07:06 uk.net.news.config
Alistair Gunn

In uk.rec.cycling Wm... twisted the electrons to say:
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:25:23
uk.net.news.config
Danny Colyer
If posting regularly were to be the primary criterion for selection as
a moderator then perhaps we should be looking to Judith and Nuxx Bar to
head up the moderation panel.
I thought that was what Marc was heading towards. --- teasing

I thought he was heading towards a moderated group where the moderators
passed *all* posts?

NoNoNoNoNo. Marc won't be satisfied with the sight of the food going in
*and* the faeces coming out. Marc wants to observe the actual digestive
process. He wants to see everything that is passed.

Why? I've no idea.

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

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:14:39
uk.net.news.config jms

Wm:
Is jms *really* this dumb?

Please try not to be personal

why not? you *are* a **** in every obnoxious meaning of the word rather
than any lovely meaning.

- or are you practicing for the new
group where personal attacks will be permitted by some posters.

We may joke about you, so what? You don't want to play and we don't
want you to play. Bye.

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

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:11:14 +0100, jms
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:18:29 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

jms wrote:
This gets better - so "fairness" is not required?

There is no rational policy that will allow you or Nuxx to behave as you
have done for the last year. That is not, as far as I can see, considered
to be a problem, rather the opposite, in fact.

The moderators will be fair, I have absolutely no doubt. They will be fair
to the majority of urc members past and present who have absolutely no wish
to see the kind of abuse you and Nuxx have poured on the group, and they
have no wish to see anybody else responding to such abuse.

I happen to think that this is also fair to you: I think you have painted
yourself into a corner and have no alternative but to play the part of a
strident malicious ignorant trolling harridan. The fresh start offered by
the new group should allow you either to adopt a less toxic persona or give
you a graceful exit in the terms of the persona you currently portray:
forced out by Teh Cabal [TINC], censorship, suppression, blah, blah, cont.
P.94.


There is no need to make this issue personal - please try and keep to
the issue of how the proposed group will work.

Indeed so - although Guy *says* he doesn't want the "trolls" here, he
can often (maybe *always*) be found baiting those he disagrees with
and slinging some mud about. One has to wonder whether he thinks such
behaviour would be acceptable in a mod group, or perhaps he thinks
that only trolling AGAINST bikes is bad and thus it'll be perfectly
fine?

Oh hang on, silly me. I remember now his response yesterday in another
thread which excused a troll post from a urc reg, apparently because
he was *normally* good and thus could be excused for being provoked
into trolling, or something like that which appeared convincing in
Guy's mind (conveniently ignoring that the troll post was the OPENING
post in a thread...)

The fact that you insisted on doing so previously is one of the main
reasons that urc deteriorated.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:26:54 +0100, "Wm..."
wrote:

I know this because Doug has declared many times that the photographs
are not of him and that the property in question is not and never has
been his home and that he's a completely different Doug to the one in
question.

There is no dog

Ahem.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:56:53 +0100
Mark wrote:

On 29 Jun 2009 18:49:08 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

I am of the view that if someone cannot present their case without
resorting to obscenity, the case is probably not worth presenting.

YES!

NO! This is a newsgroup we're talking about, not a debating society or
newspaper editorial.

Wm... wrote:
Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:14:39
uk.net.news.config jms

Wm:
Is jms *really* this dumb?

Please try not to be personal

why not? you *are* a **** in every obnoxious meaning of the word rather
than any lovely meaning.

- or are you practicing for the new
group where personal attacks will be permitted by some posters.

We may joke about you, so what? You don't want to play and we don't
want you to play. Bye.

well that's well and truly broken my test moderation engine.
There's elastic bands, toothpicks, cotton reels and sticky-back plastic
all over the floor.

--
Roger Thorpe

....you had the whole damn thing all wrong/
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:53:05
uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin

People have died protecting the freedom of speech.

In my case almost. Let us have a sense of perspective here.

It is a basic right - even for the Judith's of this world.

Judith has the right to post to the proposed group a few times. If she
messes about she won't be allowed to continue. Simple. I'm not happy
with Mugabe. He has freedom of speech.

I have always suggested that "care in the community" is what is
required - not a closed debating chamber.

Tom! Judith can stay in urc, no one is taking it away from it. If it
behaves well in the proposed group it can say whatever it wants.

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

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:03:02
uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:26:54 +0100, "Wm..."
wrote:

I know this because Doug has declared many times that the photographs
are not of him and that the property in question is not and never has
been his home and that he's a completely different Doug to the one in
question.

There is no dog

Ahem.

Sorry, I meant god

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