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

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:20:51 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

snip


A thread started by someone who wanted to clear all cyclists off the
road and onto cycle paths would need to be watched, and could
legitimately be viewed as one calculated to provoke a row.

Is that what you meant?


ffs

Why should it be calculated to start a *row*?

This really is a major problem with people here - they see anyone who
argues against anything they disagree with is trying to start a row.

Look back through urc and see how many innocuous posts and questions
degenerated in to a row - because it was pushed that way by one of
the regulars.

Is there not just a chance that they believe as strongly in their
point of view as you do, and wish to debate it.

--

Vote NO to the proposed censored group uk.rec.cycling.moderated

In on 07 Jul 2009 14:51:29
+0100 (BST), in uk.net.news.config, 'David Damerell' wrote:

Quoting Dave J. :
I've re-read that a dozen times, and despite the hour of the day there's
no mistaking the fact that you're actually advocating barring posts if you
don't like the SIG.

Consider the alternative - to give the green-inkers a direct incentive to
post as many tenously-relevant posts as possible?

No.

(Sorry for delayed replies here despite the otherwise quick exchanges,
just been to close family funeral but care enough about this to maintain)

The point is that it's already been underlined that the moderators will be
all powerful and almost unaccountable, so rather than excercising this
responsibility by going against something I see as a core usenet
ingredient they can excercise it by spotting the 'sig excuse' postings and
rejecting them.

If it's a spot-on interesting post with content that genuinely adds to the
group then IMO there is no justification *whatsoever* for rejecting it
because someone doesn't like a perfectly legitimate signature.

Would a few of the prospective moderators please repeat (or modify) their
described positions on this subject?

It really really matters to me as I don't like to see childish tantrums
being allowed to interfere with long standing conventions that do far more
good than harm (by allowing expression of a poster's personality/POV to be
tagged onto each posting).

The childish tantrum is *not* the polite signature that says something
that some people find annoying, the childish tantrum is rejecting an
interesting posting because of this.

The freedom to apply subjective variables to the permit/deny choice is
perfect for filtering out stuff that doesn't add /much/ and which may well
just be an excuse for repeating the same crap sig, I see no problem there.
The problem comes when there is a posting which absolutely is relevant to
a current discussion and absolutely does add to the general content, and
some childish moderator decides to reject it for no other reason than
their personal objection to a polite, well delimited, and correctly sized
signature.

The maturity or otherwise of the probable moderators is in this instance
the deciding factor. Not just over this one question, more over the fact
that the answer will indicate the likely general behaviour once the group
is running and therefore the likely viability of the group.

My apologies if this post is 'out of sync' and the above cock-up has
already been ruled out, but I'm trying to make up for a 3-day gap and am
replying as I come across the points.

Dave Johnson.

jms wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:20:51 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

snip


A thread started by someone who wanted to clear all cyclists off the
road and onto cycle paths would need to be watched, and could
legitimately be viewed as one calculated to provoke a row.

Is that what you meant?


ffs

Why should it be calculated to start a *row*?

You do know what 'trolling' is, don't you?

This really is a major problem with people here - they see anyone who
argues against anything they disagree with is trying to start a row.

No, we're not afraid of any contrarian opinions, but there are some
topics that a troll will raise in order to start an unedifying exchange
of opinions that escalates into insults (some people aid this by
throwing the word '****wit' around) and and intemperate debate.

Look back through urc and see how many innocuous posts and questions
degenerated in to a row - because it was pushed that way by one of
the regulars.

Yes, possibly the one who is the most regular poster at the moment.

Is there not just a chance that they believe as strongly in their
point of view as you do, and wish to debate it.

There is a chance, and that is why I wrote that the thread should be
watched.
Once someone has ridden their hobby horse around for a while though, and
the life has been wrung out of it then flogging it ought to be moderated.


--
Roger Thorpe

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

In . com on Mon, 06 Jul
2009 15:42:32 GMT, in uk.net.news.config, 'The Happy Hippy' wrote:

I am sympathetic towards the creation of the group but not convinced by the
mechanics of operation which does rest on having good faith. I'm personally
not happy with any system which relies on unelected people one has to have
faith in, working to rules which they decide, can be changed at whim, with
no accountability or oversight, no matter how sincere they may appear to be.
I've never been convinced by, "just trust us".

Oh, it can work. They can actually be trustworthy and the overall result
can be a huge step in the right direction. But the initial choice of
preferably-benign 'dictators' is another instance where subjective
judgement has to be applied. There is no other means to evaluate. In this
instance (and it's the spat over signatures that has swayed me) I really
do think that the 'paranoias' of the 'trolls' are quite possibly correct.

It's a shame because with proper moderation the scenario I jokingly
depicted at the start would have probably come to pass, the existence of
the mod group would have been enough to persuade the contributors to start
focussing on the positive aspects of textual communication rather than the
limitations and it would have worked as a lesson in such. The original
group would have been rescued and all would have been well.

However the attitudes being revealed by the way they want to bar *some*
repetition (in SIGNATURES!) and to use this as a reason to block postings
cause me to suspect that if the group is passed:

The mod group would split the contributors.

The original group would continue to be difficult to use because the
childish rubbish would be even less diluted.

Meanwhile, the moderated group would be so strangled by the (equally)
childish approach to moderation that it too would comprise a drop in
quality.

Not of benefit to the hierarchy.

Dave J.

In article , Dave J. wrote:
In on 07 Jul 2009 14:51:29
+0100 (BST), in uk.net.news.config, 'David Damerell' wrote:

Consider the alternative - to give the green-inkers a direct incentive to
post as many tenously-relevant posts as possible?

No.
[...]
If it's a spot-on interesting post with content that genuinely adds to the
group then IMO there is no justification *whatsoever* for rejecting it
because someone doesn't like a perfectly legitimate signature.

And no reason to think that any of the moderators would do such a thing.

On Jul 9, 4:08*pm, jms wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:37:09 +0100, Roger Thorpe
You do know what 'trolling' is, don't you?

Yes for urc:

To post views which are against the views of the regulars:

If you propose *that cycle helmets are worth while wearing - then you
are trolling.

If you comment that cycling is more dangerous than walking as a means
of transport and post figures to prove it - then you are trolling.

If you show that cyclehelmets.org is not the fair and balanced site
some would have it is : then you are trolling.

If you propose that mandatory cycle lanes should be what the name
implies - then you are trolling.

There are many more I can give you *- but I think it shows I
understand the term

Couldn't agree more. Roger Thorpe and all the other "regulars" know
damn well that that's the case. Why deny it? Can they provide any
examples of people that have said the above things and haven't been
accused of "trolling"? Of course not. We all know exactly what the
deal is, so why do we keep hearing lies about it?

I do not think that I have called *you* a ****wit - or indeed many of
the *people in urc.

*I reserve the term for those who a

Chapman is a ****wit
Anchor Lee is a ****wit.
Bilbo Braggins is a ****wit

Don't forget the ****wit Taylor. Spindrift as well, and probably
Jackson, and Clinch (remember him?) Maybe one or two others, but
that's all the main ones, and it's no accident that Chapman's first on
the list (and doesn't he just love being there? There's no way he'd
behave like he did unless he loved to be despised, and/or was
seriously mentally ill.)

On Jul 9, 5:40*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Whereas all you do is make yourself look stupid.

All you do is make yourself look very, very bitter.

On Jul 9, 4:10*pm, "Wm..." wrote:
Sorry, DaveJ, I condemn it.

You're not sorry.

You really, really should understand the background.

Oh look, more patronising rubbish.

On Jul 9, 3:18*pm, RudiL wrote:
everyone who would like to see the end of Judith/Nuxx

At least you're honest about your real intentions, and why you and the
others want uk.rec.cycling.censored.

And I don't understand what this censorship thing is about

You've just said you want to censor us (whatever we say)! And you've
previously made it quite clear that you don't think people should be
allowed to post certain opinions (e.g. that "primary position" is a
load of car-hating crap). You can't suddenly start lying and saying
you're not pro-censorship when you've said the opposite before (even
in the same post).

No wonder you're a lecturer; if you had a proper job in the real
working world you wouldn't get away with such ducking and weaving.
People would soon have your number.

And I wish you'd stop saying that you're going to leave URC whatever
happens, as if that's a huge incentive to create the censored group
because otherwise we'll lose you for good. You've only been here 5
minutes, and you hardly make a positive contribution, you're just
another cloned car-hater who's too much of a wimp to admit it.

On Jul 9, 5:12*pm, jms wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:43:46 -0700 (PDT), RudiL
wrote:

On 9 July, 16:22, jms wrote:

No-one is arguing to be able to put
"racist/sexist/homophobic/offensive rant" *in their sig

Yes but some are arguing sigs should not be subject to moderation.

Who - where?

Besides, even if they weren't subject to moderation, they'd still be
unacceptable, in the same way that racism/sexism/homophobia would be
unacceptable on here, and probably complained about to providers (and
rightly so, unlike the frivolous and pathetic complaints made to
providers by idiots who don't want to read certain people's opinions
and are desperately trying to censor them). So as usual, RudeBoi is
well wide of the mark.