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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Administrative note:

At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
and uk.net.news.config. People responding are asked to keep the
followups to both groups.

Note however that the official discussion is regarded only as that which
is seen in uk.net.news.config, readers from uk.rec.cycling are encouraged
to read both groups to ensure that they do not miss important parts of
the discussion through lack of cross-posting.

Newsgroup line:
uk.rec.cycling.moderated Cycling in the UK (Moderated)


*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from trolling,
nym-shifting and forgeries. Many of these posts are abusive and
hostile to cycling. There are even credible allegations of real-world
harassment such as abusive late night phone calls. Repetitive flamage
now constitutes 50-75% of the group by number of articles. This
ongoing and worsening problem has been making the group nearly
unuseable for ordinary discussion; many posters have already left.

I therefore propose that we should create:

uk.rec.cycling.moderated


CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
and the UK. Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
other forms of cycling are all on-topic.

Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil,
pleasant, and of interest to cyclists.

The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively
feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group.


Binaries and Formatting

Encoded binaries (eg pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a
pointer may be posted. Cryptographic signatures (eg PGP) may be used
where authentication is important and should be as short as possible.

Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly
formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make some common
news readers comply with this, read http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html

END CHARTER


INITIAL MODERATION POLICY

The following are on-topic and encouraged:
* Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
* Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
on cycling within the UK;
* General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
* Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.

The following are prohibited:
* Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
* Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
* Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
discussion.

Crossposting is at present generally not permitted.
Brief and constructive discussion of the moderation policy is
permitted in the newsgroup itself.


The moderators operate a passlist system, so that messages from
regular on-topic posters can be posted promptly and automatically.
Threads which have descended into repetition or abuse may be closed by
the moderators.

Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole
moderation panel.

This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit.

The moderators can be reached at

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/
A summary of approved and rejected posts is available on the website.

The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
advertising the moderated group and inviting posters to switch.

Moderators:

Alan Braggins
Andy Leighton
Danny Colyer
David Damerell
Ian Jackson
Martin Dann
Nigel Cliffe
Peter Clinch
Peter Fox
Roger Thorpe
Simon Brooke


SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION, AND CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS RFD:

There has been a full and healthy discussion so far. The consensus of
this discussion is that a 2nd RFD is needed.


The most controversial element of the proposal in the 1st RFD was that
the newsgroup would be clearly intended to be `sympathetic to cyclists
and cycling'. This met with opposition, and in general has given many
people the impression that the planned moderation would be draconian,
which was not our intent.

After consulting the proposed moderators, I have therefore removed
this phrase and replaced it with the substantially watered down `of
interest to cyclists'.


Many people expressed the view that the charter, and the moderation
policy, were too long, too complex, and/or specified matters in too
much detail. (Separately from the charter/modpolicy formatting
problem which I discuss below.)

Much of the length derives from comments during the pre-RFD in
uk.rec.cycling, and of course many of the detailed comments during the
1st RFD discussion raised questions that might be answered in the
moderation policy.

On the whole it seems clear that most people would prefer a much
simpler and shorter document, in more general terms. Many people
responded favourably to a proposal from Ian Smith, from which I have
therefore shamelessly cribbed (with his permission, and my thanks);
any errors or wrongheadednesses in the results are mine.

The result is a substantially shortened and simplified charter and
moderation policy.


It was suggested several times that the solution to the problem was
killfiles and/or willpower: that the troll problem would go away, if
we would only stop feeding them. In principle this is of course true
but we have tried this approach for quite some time (at least a year)
already.

It is necessary to distinguish those cyclist posters to urc who are
proposing the new newsgroup - and proposing to moderate it - from
those who are unable to restrain themselves from troll-feeding.
As we are unable to impose our will on either the trolls or the
troll-wrestlers in urc, it is sadly necessary, as a last resort, to
turn to moderation.


There was disagreement about precisely how strong, and how specific,
the prohibition against crossposting needs to be. Everyone agreed
that crossposting should be approached very cautiously, and that it
would have to be prohibited initially for technical reasons. However
some went further and asserted that crossposting a discussion between
a moderated and unmoderated group is never appropriate.

To try to sidestep this argument, I have consolidated the comments
about crossposting in the moderation policy (as opposed to the
charter), where the moderators can review the policy in the light of
circumstances, but also strengthened the wording discouraging
crossposting.


Various posters asked questions about the selection of the moderation
panel; worries were expressed that they might be a clique, or consist
entirely of like-minded people. The moderators were also asked about
their cycling background. I hope that our answers have been
satisfactory.

Very few people criticised specific individual proposed moderators.
One or two posters have objected to most of the moderators, and
objected also to people not proposed as moderators.
However, there were no objections which I consider justified.
I have therefore retained the panel from the 1st RFD.


Whether discussions of the moderation policy should be permitted in
the group itself, was a question that divided opinion. This question
is now answered in the moderation policy where the moderators can
update the rules in the light of experience.

My intent is that friendly discussions of the moderation policy should
be possible; this was discussed at some length in urc during the
pre-RFD and seemed to command a majority of support, although only a
very rough consensus if a consensus at all.

In any case anyone who has a serious grievance and/or feels that they
may be censored in urcm can of course use unnm.


People asked whether the following would or should be permitted, and
the moderators have indicated that the intent is to allow them:
* Swearing, for example `I just came back from a bloody fast ride'
(as opposed to insults, which are not permitted);
* Discussions on the merits or otherwise of helmets, even
vigorous ones;
* Postings by UK cyclists about things outside the UK. (I have
updated the proposed charter and moderation policy to make this
clearer.)


There was a detailed discussion of the exact status of .sigs. The
consensus was that signatures should be regarded as part of the
posting and fully subject to rules of the group, except that - as is
customary - rules about relevance, repetition and advertising are
relaxed for signatures which are properly formatted and within the
usual size limits. I felt that the dominant view, with which I agree,
was that this did not need to be spelled out in the RFD.

Some people held that postings should always be accepted or rejected
solely based on the body content of a message - ie that the history of
an individual poster should be entirely disregarded. However the
rough consensus appeared to be that the moderators should be entitled
to take account of a person's posting history when making moderation
decisions.

There was a structural problem in the 1st RFD as posted, introduced
during editing, where the moderation policy appeared to be included as
part of the charter. Since the charter requires another RFD process
to change, this is not appropriate.

This was discussed at some length and with some confusion.
I trust this is now fixed.


Some other specific detailed points were raised, which I have
accepted: the charter should not mention any other newsgroups; the
formatting of the newsgroups file line was not correct for automatic
parsing; there is no place for euphemism in the charter; it is
marginally better to use the words `passlist' (and `blocklist') to
avoid distracting questions about whether this is somehow related to
skin colour.


PROCEDU

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until July 3rd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.cycling

Proponent:
Ian Jackson

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.9-(Cygwin)
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBSj/f1mOfGXkh8vHZAQJbvAP/ZYQUQ6UtlnPQ3aJJu28yHRVSBZ+ns/L2
kEni2xCTUinK0/cKSbYLA1UXfR4Znj/UmKqkAN+Zi5hXBPpDsUPKLmKiS0vrfEjE
9zcFDO7Q5evwxK/WOSLq97n6vBLDPlGh5P4s1yrFt1xgSfj/6RkI+6+OVMJFunKT
Bg7DTCIdHZo=
=XMd8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:




I object to:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The following are on-topic and encouraged:

.... general discussion amongst UK cyclists".


So anyone in the clique (who no one doubts are cyclists) can have a
general discussion on whatever they like.

It has previously been suggested that the group is not needed - but is
intended for a small number of people who constitute a clique.

This confirms that intention - and should not be allowed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*All* adverts should be banned unless they are for events open to
all-comers.

Once again - you are potentially catering for the clique and business
friends

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I strongly object to Alan Braggins as a moderator.

The only reason he has been chosen as a potential moderator is that
he is a personal friend of yours with whom you share your computing
faclities. It would be of interest to know if any of the other
proposed moderators have similar access - please can you comment.

In the previous discussion Braggins forged a post such that it
incorrectly attributed words to people they and the previous poster
had not said or quoted.

This is just one of many false accusation he has made over the months
to people.

He cannot be trusted as a moderator - he lacks integrity.

Given that similar objections to other proposed moderators have been
made : I propose that there is an election of the moderators.

If you want to retain the concept of the clique - continue with your
proposed clique list.

This will allay the fears of the many people that a clique is forming
a newsgroup for their own exclusive use.

The fact that you chose people who you knew, but who had made little
contribution to urc over the last few years, as moderators supports
that view.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the idea of a block-list.

The way it is to be used must be fair and reasonable. Some of the
things previously said indicate that this may not be the intention -
and that things will happen behind closed doors.

This will be unacceptable

I understand that some of your proposed moderators have suggested that
the block list is set up immediately before the group gets off the
ground.

This stinks - and is another indication of the group being a clique
group.

Posts must not be censored based on what a poster has said in the
past - or has said elsewhere.

If people are to be put on a block list, then the process and result
should be totally transparent and published.

ie - if warning are made to an individual over their action, then
these should be in public. It will then be public knowledge of the
criteria being used to censor posts of an individual.

If people are added to a block list - then the precise reason, and the
duration of the block should be made public.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other moderated groups provide statistics on delays to posts held in
the moderation process (eg uk.legal.moderated) - this requirement
should be a formal requirement of the proposed group.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:28:23 +0100, jms
wrote:

Other moderated groups provide statistics on delays to posts held in
the moderation process (eg uk.legal.moderated) - this requirement
should be a formal requirement of the proposed group.

There are no SLAs for a voluntary function. No such statistics are
necessary.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:42:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:28:23 +0100, jms
wrote:

Other moderated groups provide statistics on delays to posts held in
the moderation process (eg uk.legal.moderated) - this requirement
should be a formal requirement of the proposed group.

There are no SLAs for a voluntary function. No such statistics are
necessary.

Guy

No one mentioned an SLA - that is not what is needed

It is fully understood that the moderators will be doing it in their
own time and will be doing their best to turn things round as
reasonably possible; and that is all that they should do.

However - people need to be able to see whether posts by certain
individuals are being "delayed".

It would of course immediately dispel any accusations of such
impropriety; I am amazed that you are against it knowing your own
personal crusade for honesty and truthfulness.

Your disagreement of course supports the view that the moderated group
is for the benefit of the clique - some people will be unwelcome - and
some would do whatever they could to deter them posting.

Full transparency in the moderation policy and the group is needed -
do you not agree?

In message , jms
writes
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

I object to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
"The following are on-topic and encouraged:

... general discussion amongst UK cyclists".


So anyone in the clique (who no one doubts are cyclists) can have a
general discussion on whatever they like.


I don't think that is the intention (I think you need to read it in
context of the charter), but I think that yes the line could be
construed as such I suppose.

How about "general discussion related to cycling among UK cyclists"

It has previously been suggested that the group is not needed - but is
intended for a small number of people who constitute a clique.


However, I do not agree with the reason for your objection

I agree with the idea of a block-list.

The way it is to be used must be fair and reasonable.
snip

I understand that some of your proposed moderators have suggested that
the block list is set up immediately before the group gets off the
ground.

This was discussed as a possibility by various posters in the first RFD
discussions. My impression was that this would not be the approach
taken, but we can see what discussion ensues here.




Other moderated groups provide statistics on delays to posts held in
the moderation process (eg uk.legal.moderated) - this requirement
should be a formal requirement of the proposed group.

Whilst I'm all for providing such information if practicable, I do not
think that making it a requirement is appropriate.
--
Chris French

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:30:39 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:22 +0100, chris French
wrote:

I'm not sure there is a need for the bit about abusive phone calls. I've
no idea if the allegation is true, or how credible it might be, but I
suspect it will just be another area to argue about. I don't think it
really adds anything to the argument for the creation of urcm, I think
the posting behaviour of some posters to urc is sufficient reason.

As the recipient of said calls I can state that they bloody well did
happen, contact me via email if you want more evidence


Ah yes - the old ones are the best.

I have plenty of evidence - which I can't post or discuss here - but
I will if *you* e-mail me.

(Oh - Hi Chris - I don't actually have any evidence but I think it
happened, and I think I know *who* did it - I pretend that I have
evidence in order to frighten him. Please keep this to yourself)

Whilst not wanting to post the evidence here - any chance of a pointer
as to what sort of "evidence" it may be?

You have actually previously accused someone of making the calls - so
I assume the evidence also shows who it was.

What did the police say when you contacted them?

There is a real danger that some people do not believe that you are
quite truthful - and there is just a very teeny, tiny, incy, wincey,
slim possibility that you have made this all up.


(I agree that this is not for the moderation issue - so I will set
follow- ups to urc)











--
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a ****.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

Control wrote:
At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
and uk.net.news.config. People responding are asked to keep the
followups to both groups.

In fact, a technical hitch seems to mean that this didn't happen with
this 2nd RFD.

Note however that the official discussion is regarded only as that which
is seen in uk.net.news.config, readers from uk.rec.cycling are encouraged
to read both groups to ensure that they do not miss important parts of
the discussion through lack of cross-posting.

So this paragraph is even more important.

(I have crossposted this article to both urc and unnc and left the
followups going to both groups, so if you want to post to both and
find it difficult to override your newsreader, you can follow up to
this message from me. Apologies for the inconvenience.)

--
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

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:32:24 +0100, chris French
wrote:

snip


Whilst I'm all for providing such information if practicable, I do not
think that making it a requirement is appropriate.


I for one think that there must be as much transparency in the
moderation policy as possible.

Some people have genuine misgivings on how things will be done - so
anything which shows fairness is to be recommended.

If things are not done openly and fairly and there seems to be some
sort of censorship the group may attract all sorts of disruptive
people.

In message , jms
writes
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:30:39 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:22 +0100, chris French
wrote:

I'm not sure there is a need for the bit about abusive phone calls. I've
no idea if the allegation is true, or how credible it might be, but I
suspect it will just be another area to argue about. I don't think it
really adds anything to the argument for the creation of urcm, I think
the posting behaviour of some posters to urc is sufficient reason.

As the recipient of said calls I can state that they bloody well did
happen, contact me via email if you want more evidence


Ah yes - the old ones are the best.

I have plenty of evidence - which I can't post or discuss here - but
I will if *you* e-mail me.

Seems reasonable enough, the details of the issue are not relevant to
the RFD

snip attempts to drag the issue up again


(I agree that this is not for the moderation issue - so I will set
follow- ups to urc)

I disagree, I'm not interested in discussing the specifics of this issue
here, but it pertains to the inclusion or otherwise of reference to it
in the RFD, so followups to unnc reinstated

Like I said, it'll likely just be a distraction
--
Chris French

On Jun 23, 9:09*am, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:
Ian Jackson considered Mon, 22 Jun
2009 20:45:43 +0100 the perfect time to write:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

* * * * * * * * * *2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

* * * * * create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Excellent work.
I can't see anything in this which is significantly problematic (i.e.
worth delaying creation over).

How soon can we get this thing off the ground?

Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.

James