|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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----- |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated | jms | UK | 22 | June 25th 09 06:03 PM |
RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated | Ian Jackson | UK | 1102 | June 24th 09 06:56 PM |
uk.rec.cycling.moderated | jms | UK | 145 | June 10th 09 08:51 PM |
Pre-RFD: uk.rec.cycling.moderated | Ian Jackson | UK | 496 | June 3rd 09 02:42 PM |
RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated | RudiL | UK | 0 | June 2nd 09 03:25 PM |