[Please leave urc in the newsgroup line in any reply as I do no
subscribe to unnm]

Background:

There was a discussion in urcm about why some posts were approved in
seconds and others took several hours to be passed.

Peter Clinch replied giving two possible explainations:

Message-ID: 

But he failed to give the real explaination, something of which the
confused posters were clearly unaware: that a pass-list is in
operation.

I posted to clarify this:

====================
You left out the probable explanation:

All posters are created equal, but some are more equal than others:
you are operating a pass-list.
====================


I think this post should be allowed because:

- it clarifies to those who are clearly unaware that a pass-list is in
operation, and;
- is a reasonable explaination of the length of time for some posts to
appear.

My reply, and the censorship of my reply, clearly demonstates that the
operation of a pass-list is being hidden from posters not on the
pass-list by some moderators: several moderators replied to the
questions over the length of time for posts to appear, but none
mentioned the operation of a pass-list as the obvious explaination.

My reply might be considered infamatory by the use of the 'Animal
Farm' misquote, but:

- it is not aimed at any specific person, and;
- it is a reasonable representation of the facts, and;
- is not cited as a reason for the rejection which is incorrectly
given as "Everyone knows we are operating a pass-list.  This is not
news."

I, for one, had not considered the possibility of a pass-list being
the reason for some posts taking hours to show up until a different
moderator sent me a personal email informing me of this fact.  Others
are unaware of the pass-list being the reason for seemingly instant
approval of their posts, or the prolonged delay in getting their posts
approved.

On 2009-10-25, Tom Crispin wrote:

> [Please leave urc in the newsgroup line in any reply as I do no
> subscribe to unnm]

(OK.  I no longer subscribe to urc because I see no reason to wade
through it.)


> I posted to clarify this:
>
>====================
> You left out the probable explanation:
>
> All posters are created equal, but some are more equal than others:
> you are operating a pass-list.
>====================

So what if there is a pass-list?  I don't know whether there is or
not, and I don't object either way, but it's a standard practice, and
getting on it is a privilege, not a right.

> I think this post should be allowed because:

It's appropriate in unnm, which exists to discuss moderation itself,
so the urcm moderators are perfectly entitled to treat the post as
off-topic in urcm (or to allow it there -- but it's up to them).

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:22:11 +0000, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

<snip>


>I, for one, had not considered the possibility of a pass-list being
>the reason for some posts taking hours to show up until a different
>moderator sent me a personal email informing me of this fact.  Others
>are unaware of the pass-list being the reason for seemingly instant
>approval of their posts, or the prolonged delay in getting their posts
>approved.


I hope you are wrong - this sort of deception would be one step too
far - even  for the current well-balanced team of moderators who are
very  apt to  plumb  the depths.


I would hope that Mr Jackson would give a formal response to your
query.


(PS Don't say you told us so  - and I won't either)




 
--  

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

jms  wrote in
news:ed79e5dc21d715aid025nbmooa4j8trkq7@4ax.com: 

> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:22:11 +0000, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> 
><snip>
> 
> 
>>I, for one, had not considered the possibility of a pass-list
>>being the reason for some posts taking hours to show up until a
>>different moderator sent me a personal email informing me of this
>>fact.  Others are unaware of the pass-list being the reason for
>>seemingly instant approval of their posts, or the prolonged delay
>>in getting their posts approved.
> 
> 
> I hope you are wrong - this sort of deception would be one step
> too far - even  for the current well-balanced team of moderators
> who are very  apt to  plumb  the depths.
> 

Surely you remember the "white" and "black" lists forming such a large 
part of the discussions following the RFDs? Or is this remark a 
disingenuous attempt to cause trouble:  surely not?

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:43:57 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>jms  wrote in
>news:ed79e5dc21d715aid025nbmooa4j8trkq7@4ax.com: 
>
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:22:11 +0000, Tom Crispin
>><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>> 
>><snip>
>> 
>> 
>>>I, for one, had not considered the possibility of a pass-list
>>>being the reason for some posts taking hours to show up until a
>>>different moderator sent me a personal email informing me of this
>>>fact.  Others are unaware of the pass-list being the reason for
>>>seemingly instant approval of their posts, or the prolonged delay
>>>in getting their posts approved.
>> 
>> 
>> I hope you are wrong - this sort of deception would be one step
>> too far - even  for the current well-balanced team of moderators
>> who are very  apt to  plumb  the depths.
>> 
>
>Surely you remember the "white" and "black" lists forming such a large 
>part of the discussions following the RFDs? Or is this remark a 
>disingenuous attempt to cause trouble:  surely not?


Indeed - I do remember it.  Including the discussion as to whether it
would be a good idea for individuals to be told whether or not they
were on the pass list.  I think I favoured that approach.

What we have here is a discussion about some people's posts taking
much longer than those of others.

Those people who had posts delayed were NOT told that they were NOT on
the pass list - and that this was the reason for the delay.

Instead we had a dishonest explanation from Clinch.


Unless of course he was genuinely telling the truth - and even he, did
not know that a pass list system was in operation. - in which case I
apologise to him.



Having seen that Jackson does not trust all of the moderators -
perhaps Clinch is in that category - hence perhaps he did not know
what was going on.

Could you remind me - can you recall - did I ever say that openness
and honesty would never be the watch words of the moderated 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