Is it possible to view anywhere the rejected messages and the reasons for 
them being rejected for the new moderated cycling newsgroup?

The reason I would like to see which articles have been rejected is to help 
me to be able to judge if the moderators are acting fairly.

Thanks to anyone who can point me in the right direction.

Mr Benn

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:32:20 +0000 (UTC), "Mr. Benn"
<%%@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Is it possible to view anywhere the rejected messages and the reasons for 
>them being rejected for the new moderated cycling newsgroup?

As previously discussed:
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/urcm.logs>

>The reason I would like to see which articles have been rejected is to help 
>me to be able to judge if the moderators are acting fairly.

It is extremely unlikely that you would be an impartial enough judge
of that for your opinion to be worth having.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:32:20 +0000 (UTC), "Mr. Benn"
> <%%@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >Is it possible to view anywhere the rejected messages and the reasons for
> >them being rejected for the new moderated cycling newsgroup?
> 
> As previously discussed:
> <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/urcm.logs>

Having looked myself, that log gives no clue to what has been
rejected/passed. Could someone tell us what it means?

> >The reason I would like to see which articles have been rejected is to help
> >me to be able to judge if the moderators are acting fairly.
> 
> It is extremely unlikely that you would be an impartial enough judge
> of that for your opinion to be worth having.

But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not the
full post, the reason for its rejection?

I think that is a fair request, and should be done automatically. The
Group is for All to use, not just a chosen few, so whoever runs the
moderation software should be seen to be impartial, not just tell people
that he/she is impartial, and make it clear, that a person is not
rejected each time, that just the content of their post has been
rejected. 
Of course, if someone is getting 90%+ of their posts rejected, then
maybe they should be blacklisted, but afair, there was no mention of
blacklisting in the RFD, so it must be shown that the moderation is fair
to all.

Alan.

-- 
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:19:43 +0100, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:

>But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not the
>full post, the reason for its rejection?

Here's one reason you might not want to do that: if a spiteful,
vindictive troll should happen along, a system like that of ulm gives
them endless potential to troll about their trolling being rejected,
including offering a free web host to publish the trolling.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote in
news:1j7s4hw.1llzb0d7qu36N%alan@darkroom.+.com: 

> Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:32:20 +0000 (UTC), "Mr. Benn"
>> <%%@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> >Is it possible to view anywhere the rejected messages and the
>> >reasons for them being rejected for the new moderated cycling
>> >newsgroup? 
>> 
>> As previously discussed:
>> <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/urcm.logs>
> 
> Having looked myself, that log gives no clue to what has been
> rejected/passed. Could someone tell us what it means?
> 
>> >The reason I would like to see which articles have been rejected is
>> >to help me to be able to judge if the moderators are acting fairly.
>> 
>> It is extremely unlikely that you would be an impartial enough judge
>> of that for your opinion to be worth having.
> 
> But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not
> the full post, the reason for its rejection?
> 
> I think that is a fair request, and should be done automatically. The
> Group is for All to use, not just a chosen few, so whoever runs the
> moderation software should be seen to be impartial, not just tell
> people that he/she is impartial, and make it clear, that a person is
> not rejected each time, that just the content of their post has been
> rejected. 
> Of course, if someone is getting 90%+ of their posts rejected, then
> maybe they should be blacklisted, but afair, there was no mention of
> blacklisting in the RFD, so it must be shown that the moderation is
> fair to all.

That is exactly what I want to ensure.  If the moderators are carrying 
out their job fairly and rejecting only off-topic/abusive etc postings, 
then they should not be afraid of showing the full moderation history.  
At present, it is too easy for them to exclude certain posters simply 
because they hold a grudge against them.  Knowing who some of the 
moderators are, this is exactly what I was expecting to happen which is 
why I voted against the creation of the moderated group.  I had strongly 
supected that the moderation would not be conducted fairly.  I want the 
moderators to prove me wrong.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:39:29 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:32:20 +0000 (UTC), "Mr. Benn"
><%%@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Is it possible to view anywhere the rejected messages and the reasons for 
>>them being rejected for the new moderated cycling newsgroup?
>
>As previously discussed:
><http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/urcm.logs>
>
>>The reason I would like to see which articles have been rejected is to help 
>>me to be able to judge if the moderators are acting fairly.
>
>It is extremely unlikely that you would be an impartial enough judge
>of that for your opinion to be worth having.
> 
>Guy


Ah so good to see you still playing the fuckwit.

We can't have sensible suggestions like Mr Benn's can we; it would
spoil the control which the clique have on the group.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:19:43 +0100, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:32:20 +0000 (UTC), "Mr. Benn"
>> <%%@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> >Is it possible to view anywhere the rejected messages and the reasons for
>> >them being rejected for the new moderated cycling newsgroup?
>> 
>> As previously discussed:
>> <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/urcm.logs>
>
>Having looked myself, that log gives no clue to what has been
>rejected/passed. Could someone tell us what it means?
>
>> >The reason I would like to see which articles have been rejected is to help
>> >me to be able to judge if the moderators are acting fairly.
>> 
>> It is extremely unlikely that you would be an impartial enough judge
>> of that for your opinion to be worth having.
>
>But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not the
>full post, the reason for its rejection?
>
>I think that is a fair request, and should be done automatically. The
>Group is for All to use, not just a chosen few, so whoever runs the
>moderation software should be seen to be impartial, not just tell people
>that he/she is impartial, and make it clear, that a person is not
>rejected each time, that just the content of their post has been
>rejected. 
>Of course, if someone is getting 90%+ of their posts rejected, then
>maybe they should be blacklisted


..... or of course other people should be able to see whether the
blacklisting was justified.  However, that would require a degree of
openness and honesty.

Simon Brooke one of the moderators  has stated :

"It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and
every moderation decision is unexplained and final. "


Mind you  - he has also stated:
--        
I believe that if I am driving or cycling there is no chance 
of a child running out in front of me and causing an 
accident. (Simon Brooke.)

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:59:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:19:43 +0100, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
>
>>But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not the
>>full post, the reason for its rejection?
>
>Here's one reason you might not want to do that: if a spiteful,
>vindictive troll should happen along, a system like that of ulm gives
>them endless potential to troll about their trolling being rejected,
>including offering a free web host to publish the trolling.
> 
>Guy


Well we know that is what you did - but it went up your arse when your
posts were rejected.

What was it "snide comments"  "impolite"  - or such words as reasons
for rejections?

--          

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)

In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:59:09 +0100, "Just zis
Guy, you know?"  wrote:

}On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:19:43 +0100, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
}
}>But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not the
}>full post, the reason for its rejection?
}
}Here's one reason you might not want to do that: if a spiteful,
}vindictive troll should happen along, a system like that of ulm gives
}them endless potential to troll about their trolling being rejected,
}...

From a ulm point of view this is bullshit


{R}

"{R}"  wrote in message 
news:4btod51asf67sledsd2g0k5kn2n6qqlvic@4ax.com...
> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:59:09 +0100, "Just zis
> Guy, you know?"  wrote:
>
> }On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:19:43 +0100, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
> }
> }>But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not the
> }>full post, the reason for its rejection?
> }
> }Here's one reason you might not want to do that: if a spiteful,
> }vindictive troll should happen along, a system like that of ulm gives
> }them endless potential to troll about their trolling being rejected,
> }...
>
> From a ulm point of view this is bullshit

The modbot for ULM is indeed superb and I don't think we could cope without 
it. Couldn't the moderated cycling group avail itself of the same mobdot, if 
it asked you?

In message , at 15:32:38 on Mon, 19 
Oct 2009, The Todal  wibbled
>
>"{R}"  wrote in message
>news:4btod51asf67sledsd2g0k5kn2n6qqlvic@4ax.com...
>> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:59:09 +0100, "Just zis
>> Guy, you know?"  wrote:
>>
>> }On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:19:43 +0100, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
>> }
>> }>But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not the
>> }>full post, the reason for its rejection?
>> }
>> }Here's one reason you might not want to do that: if a spiteful,
>> }vindictive troll should happen along, a system like that of ulm gives
>> }them endless potential to troll about their trolling being rejected,
>> }...
>>
>> From a ulm point of view this is bullshit
>
>The modbot for ULM is indeed superb and I don't think we could cope without
>it. Couldn't the moderated cycling group avail itself of the same mobdot, if
>it asked you?

{R} publicly offered during the RFD.

-- 
Pedt

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:57:35 
 uk.net.news.moderation 
Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk>

>In message , at 15:32:38 on Mon, 19 
>Oct 2009, The Todal  wibbled
>>
>>"{R}"  wrote in message
>>news:4btod51asf67sledsd2g0k5kn2n6qqlvic@4ax.com...
>>> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:59:09 +0100, "Just zis
>>> Guy, you know?"  wrote:
>>>
>>> }On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:19:43 +0100, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
>>> }
>>> }>But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not the
>>> }>full post, the reason for its rejection?
>>> }
>>> }Here's one reason you might not want to do that: if a spiteful,
>>> }vindictive troll should happen along, a system like that of ulm gives
>>> }them endless potential to troll about their trolling being rejected,
>>> }...
>>>
>>> From a ulm point of view this is bullshit
>>
>>The modbot for ULM is indeed superb and I don't think we could cope without
>>it. Couldn't the moderated cycling group avail itself of the same mobdot, if
>>it asked you?
>
>{R} publicly offered during the RFD.
>

... and some people publicly suggested it would be a good way forward.

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

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:7k3bipF36hutiU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "{R}"  wrote in message 
> news:4btod51asf67sledsd2g0k5kn2n6qqlvic@4ax.com...
>> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:59:09 +0100, "Just zis
>> Guy, you know?"  wrote:
>>
>> }On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:19:43 +0100, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
>> }
>> }>But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not 
>> the
>> }>full post, the reason for its rejection?
>> }
>> }Here's one reason you might not want to do that: if a spiteful,
>> }vindictive troll should happen along, a system like that of ulm gives
>> }them endless potential to troll about their trolling being rejected,
>> }...
>>
>> From a ulm point of view this is bullshit
>
> The modbot for ULM is indeed superb and I don't think we could cope 
> without it. Couldn't the moderated cycling group avail itself of the same 
> mobdot, if it asked you?

I think the urcm software can probably do the same if asked to. Guy's 
worries have a little theoretical basis, as can be seen in the recent spate 
of postings to this NG, but in practice any moderator worth their salt will 
simply ignore them, as can be seen here as well.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:32:38 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
>"{R}"  wrote in message 
>news:4btod51asf67sledsd2g0k5kn2n6qqlvic@4ax.com...
>> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:59:09 +0100, "Just zis
>> Guy, you know?"  wrote:
>>
>> }On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:19:43 +0100, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
>> }
>> }>But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not the
>> }>full post, the reason for its rejection?
>> }
>> }Here's one reason you might not want to do that: if a spiteful,
>> }vindictive troll should happen along, a system like that of ulm gives
>> }them endless potential to troll about their trolling being rejected,
>> }...
>>
>> From a ulm point of view this is bullshit
>
>The modbot for ULM is indeed superb and I don't think we could cope without 
>it. Couldn't the moderated cycling group avail itself of the same mobdot, if 
>it asked you? 
>


Indeed - that was discussed at RFD time.

I understand that Mr Jackson has a penchant for doing things in his
own inimitable way and hence rejected the suggestion.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:54:05 +0100, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>"The Todal"  wrote in message 
>news:7k3bipF36hutiU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "{R}"  wrote in message 
>> news:4btod51asf67sledsd2g0k5kn2n6qqlvic@4ax.com...
>>> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:59:09 +0100, "Just zis
>>> Guy, you know?"  wrote:
>>>
>>> }On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:19:43 +0100, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
>>> }
>>> }>But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not 
>>> the
>>> }>full post, the reason for its rejection?
>>> }
>>> }Here's one reason you might not want to do that: if a spiteful,
>>> }vindictive troll should happen along, a system like that of ulm gives
>>> }them endless potential to troll about their trolling being rejected,
>>> }...
>>>
>>> From a ulm point of view this is bullshit
>>
>> The modbot for ULM is indeed superb and I don't think we could cope 
>> without it. Couldn't the moderated cycling group avail itself of the same 
>> mobdot, if it asked you?
>
>I think the urcm software can probably do the same if asked to. Guy's 
>worries have a little theoretical basis, as can be seen in the recent spate 
>of postings to this NG, but in practice any moderator worth their salt will 
>simply ignore them, as can be seen here as well.
>

But what happened here was surely "healthy" in terms of seeing what
was being rejected - what was acceptable and then having a proper
discussion about it here.  It certainly clarified things for me.

(Even if some people - myself included - may have pushed the bounds a
little we were suitably chastised)

"Clive George"  wrote in message 
news:0OmdndCwpc_fEUHXnZ2dnUVZ8kCdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> "The Todal"  wrote in message 
> news:7k3bipF36hutiU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "{R}"  wrote in message 
>> news:4btod51asf67sledsd2g0k5kn2n6qqlvic@4ax.com...
>>> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:59:09 +0100, "Just zis
>>> Guy, you know?"  wrote:
>>>
>>> }On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:19:43 +0100, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
>>> }
>>> }>But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not 
>>> the
>>> }>full post, the reason for its rejection?
>>> }
>>> }Here's one reason you might not want to do that: if a spiteful,
>>> }vindictive troll should happen along, a system like that of ulm gives
>>> }them endless potential to troll about their trolling being rejected,
>>> }...
>>>
>>> From a ulm point of view this is bullshit
>>
>> The modbot for ULM is indeed superb and I don't think we could cope 
>> without it. Couldn't the moderated cycling group avail itself of the same 
>> mobdot, if it asked you?
>
> I think the urcm software can probably do the same if asked to. Guy's 
> worries have a little theoretical basis, as can be seen in the recent 
> spate of postings to this NG, but in practice any moderator worth their 
> salt will simply ignore them, as can be seen here as well.

Any moderator who chooses to ignore complaints rather than address them, is 
not worth his salt. He isn't worth tuppence.

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:7k5i2mF38assgU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Clive George"  wrote in message 
> news:0OmdndCwpc_fEUHXnZ2dnUVZ8kCdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>> "The Todal"  wrote in message 
>> news:7k3bipF36hutiU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "{R}"  wrote in message 
>>> news:4btod51asf67sledsd2g0k5kn2n6qqlvic@4ax.com...
>>>> In uk.net.news.moderation on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:59:09 +0100, "Just zis
>>>> Guy, you know?"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> }On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:19:43 +0100, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
>>>> }
>>>> }>But, he has a point. Why cannot anyone see rejected posts, or if not 
>>>> the
>>>> }>full post, the reason for its rejection?
>>>> }
>>>> }Here's one reason you might not want to do that: if a spiteful,
>>>> }vindictive troll should happen along, a system like that of ulm gives
>>>> }them endless potential to troll about their trolling being rejected,
>>>> }...
>>>>
>>>> From a ulm point of view this is bullshit
>>>
>>> The modbot for ULM is indeed superb and I don't think we could cope 
>>> without it. Couldn't the moderated cycling group avail itself of the 
>>> same mobdot, if it asked you?
>>
>> I think the urcm software can probably do the same if asked to. Guy's 
>> worries have a little theoretical basis, as can be seen in the recent 
>> spate of postings to this NG, but in practice any moderator worth their 
>> salt will simply ignore them, as can be seen here as well.
>
> Any moderator who chooses to ignore complaints rather than address them, 
> is not worth his salt. He isn't worth tuppence.

Is this merely a semantical problem? If you get a complaint "waah waah my 
post wasn't accepted just because it was purely commercial", what's the 
appropriate course of action? How do you address it? The answer is maybe for 
the first time say "Here's the rules", but are you really going to do 
anything other than ignore it the fifth time? Ignoring it is addressing the 
complaint appropriately.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:35:47 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>Any moderator who chooses to ignore complaints rather than address them, is 
>not worth his salt. He isn't worth tuppence. 

Depends on the complaints.  There is such a thing as a vexatious
complainant.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
news:4hfrd5tqdlhbn0qlq2qp9c1obbbi6fmabe@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:35:47 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>Any moderator who chooses to ignore complaints rather than address them, 
>>is
>>not worth his salt. He isn't worth tuppence.
>
> Depends on the complaints.  There is such a thing as a vexatious
> complainant.
>

Komm zu mir und setze dich nieder. Wir kosen Hand in Hand.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:28:49 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>Komm zu mir und setze dich nieder. Wir kosen Hand in Hand. 

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