On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:16:02 +0000, Peter Clinch
 wrote:

[newsgroup line changed to unnm]

>Deary me Tom, you seem to be suffering a bit from paranoia...

Paranoia?  No.  The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list is
enirely defensible.  Concealing its implementation, or attempting to
conceal its implementation, by censoring posts (if that was the
intent) is indefensible.

Openness is the key here.

A short admin post on Friday or Thursday to the group would have been
welcome, e.g.:
====================
From today we are starting to implement a pass-list system whereby
posters with a proven track record of topical conversation will have
their messages automatically approved.  Over time this will speed up
communication in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.  Any questions over its
implementation should be directed to uk.net.news.moderation or
uk.rec.cycling.
Thank you for your patience.
urcm moderation team
====================
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On 26/10/09 11:42, Andy Leighton wrote:

> I honestly don't understand why you are so het up about this.  The
> only possible ramifications are that some people get their posts
> auto-approved (so they hit the group more quickly*)

By the time a moderator considers a post from someone who is effectively 
on the greylist they may decide the post does not add value and reject 
it, because a similar point has already been made by someone on the 
whilelist who has jumped the queue. The effect it to make whitelisted 
posters appear to be more valuable contributors.

Andy Burns wrote:
> On 26/10/09 11:42, Andy Leighton wrote:
> 
>> I honestly don't understand why you are so het up about this.  The
>> only possible ramifications are that some people get their posts
>> auto-approved (so they hit the group more quickly*)
> 
> By the time a moderator considers a post from someone who is effectively
> on the greylist they may decide the post does not add value and reject
> it, because a similar point has already been made by someone on the
> whilelist who has jumped the queue. The effect it to make whitelisted
> posters appear to be more valuable contributors.

On the one hand, yes, but on the other the fact that you're on a
pass-list implies that in any case.  However, a place on a pass list is
earned, so is that such a bad thing?

Again we're looking at the difference between a "perfect" plan which is
practically impossible to implement and a pragmatic one which nobody is
pretendingh is perfect but does, in more cases than not, actually /work/.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>> On 26/10/09 11:42, Andy Leighton wrote:
>>
>>> I honestly don't understand why you are so het up about this.  The
>>> only possible ramifications are that some people get their posts
>>> auto-approved (so they hit the group more quickly*)
>> By the time a moderator considers a post from someone who is effectively
>> on the greylist they may decide the post does not add value and reject
>> it, because a similar point has already been made by someone on the
>> whilelist who has jumped the queue. The effect it to make whitelisted
>> posters appear to be more valuable contributors.
> 
> On the one hand, yes, but on the other the fact that you're on a
> pass-list implies that in any case.  

How does it imply that?

> However, a place on a pass list is
> earned, so is that such a bad thing?

What are the (actual) required qualifications?

-- 
Matt B

Tom Crispin wrote:

> Paranoia?  No.  The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list is
> enirely defensible.  Concealing its implementation, or attempting to
> conceal its implementation, by censoring posts (if that was the
> intent) is indefensible.
> 
> Openness is the key here.

Well, yeah, but who was ever trying to conceal anything, by censoring
posts or indeed by any other method?  Granted we didn't have the Queen
broadcasting it to the nation from the balcony at Buck House, but the
above implies to me that someone has been trying to sneak such a system
in.  I have seen no such attempt.  If posts have been stopped for
reasons which the relevant mod thought was out of line then that's one
thing, but to suggest that it's a deliberate attempt to conceal the
existence of a pass-list is, from where I'm sitting, so ridiculous I'm
not sure whether to laugh or cry.

> A short admin post on Friday or Thursday to the group would have been
> welcome, e.g.:
> ====================
> From today we are starting to implement a pass-list system whereby
> posters with a proven track record of topical conversation will have
> their messages automatically approved.  Over time this will speed up
> communication in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.  Any questions over its
> implementation should be directed to uk.net.news.moderation or
> uk.rec.cycling.
> Thank you for your patience.
> urcm moderation team
> ====================

I wouldn't have had any problem with that.  But to suggest that its
absence is deliberate concealment, as opposed to, say, just being very
busy and/or not actually thinking it should make much difference to what
people actually have to *say*, is, well, a bit odd IMHO.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:42:31 -0500, Andy Leighton
 wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:18:03 +0000, Tom Crispin  wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:16:02 +0000, Peter Clinch
>> wrote:
>>
>> [newsgroup line changed to unnm]
>>
>>>Deary me Tom, you seem to be suffering a bit from paranoia...
>>
>> Paranoia?  No.  The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list is
>> enirely defensible.  Concealing its implementation, or attempting to
>> conceal its implementation, by censoring posts (if that was the
>> intent) is indefensible.
>
>How you can conceal something when it has been made abundantly clear
>throughout the RFD process, and beyond, that this is how things will
>work is beyond me.  It was always clear, right from the outset that
>people would be moved on to the white-list once they had built up
>enough of a posting history for us to have some level of confidence.
>We as moderators do read the posts going through and sometimes people
>go from the whitelist back to the grey-list.

I have not intended to suggest that the use of a pass-list be
concealed, only that its implementation from Friday (or Thursday)
/might/ have been attempted to be deliberately concealed.  I do this
with the reason that the moderators did not want to enter into a
general discussion on urcm about who gets to be on the pass-list.

If this was the case, the moderation team had little to worry about.
The implementation of a pass-list is entirely defensible.

>I honestly don't understand why you are so het up about this.  The
>only possible ramifications are that some people get their posts
>auto-approved (so they hit the group more quickly*), and that it would
>be possible for a known good poster to smuggle a bad article in to
>the group (it would only be one because they would immediately be down-
>graded).  

The reason that I am "het up" about this is that I believe (perhaps
wrongly) that I had a post censored in an attempt to conceal the fact
that a pass-list had been implemented a day or two earlier, and this
post was censored specifically to avoid a debate over who gets to be
on the pass-list.

The various reasons given for the posts rejection fail to convince me
otherwise:

#1  Everyone knows we are operating a pass-list.  This is not news.
-Clearly the implemention of the pass-list on Friday was not widely
known.

#2  discussion of the moderation policy is supposed to be "brief and
constructive"
-My post was both brief and constructive as it gave new information in
24 words.

#3  The problem was that these posts, of which yours was the last, in
my opinion detracted from the pleasant atmosphere.
-Has some merit by the humorous Orwellian reference, but as that was a
parody of moderation pass-lists in general, not of urcm specifically,
it was not a sufficient reason to reject my post.

So this leaves a forth reason.  My post was rejected to prevent a
discussion of pass-list policy in urcm.

And that is a valid reason for the post's rejection.

Ian had sent me a private email an hour or two earlier, on another
matter, informing me that a pass-list was now in operation, and that
he wanted to "avoid arguments about who gets to be on the passlist!".

I will not enter into private email discussions about usenet, unless
in the most general terms, but I felt, perhaps wrongly, that people
had a right to know that a pass-list was implemented.  In that
circumstance, Ian may have seen my post as direct provocation and a
betrayal of trust for a group he has worked hard to create.  And that
is a legitimate reason for the rejection of my post.

However, I do believe it is right that people know that the pass-list
system has been implemented.  It is entirely defensible.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:09:05 +0000, Matt B
 wrote:

>> However, a place on a pass list is
>> earned, so is that such a bad thing?
>
>What are the (actual) required qualifications?

Never to answer questions with questions would be a good start, would
it not?  ;-)
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

Matt B wrote:

>> On the one hand, yes, but on the other the fact that you're on a
>> pass-list implies that in any case.  
> 
> How does it imply that?

If I say to someone "whatever you say is okay", and to another I say
"I'll need to check everything you say through", it gives a pretty clear
signal that A is held in some degree of higher regard than B.

> What are the (actual) required qualifications?

Being thought by the moderators, who are there to moderate what gets
passed as well as they can, the sort of person who is felt highly
unlikely to need moderating.  On urcm that currently does not include
either you or me, and I think in both cases with good reason.

That you need to ask either question suggests a concerted attempt not to
see the obvious by virtue of deliberately closing one's eyes (cue
nit-picking reply about how covering one's eyes is not the same as
closing them, etc. etc...)

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:11:55 -0500, Andy Leighton
 wrote:

>There currently isn't anyone on the 
>block-list does that mean as soon as we put someone on that it
>magically becomes "implemented" and we should tell everyone?

Yes.  If, for example, "Western Voice" managed to post his racist
diatribe to urcm it would be quite appropriate to post a reply stating
that the poster had been placed on the block-list.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On 26 Oct 2009 13:37:04 GMT, Simon Brooke
<stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:

>I am opposed to providing any details of who may be on the blacklist. If 
>we do that it will just provide the usual suspects with something more to 
>bicker about. The less we say, the better.

I see, a covert operation.  And will you complain of people's
questioning being conspiracy theories...?

Openness and transparancy is better.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

Tom Crispin wrote:

> I see, a covert operation. 

You see it as covert, I, and I suspect Simon, see it as pragmatic.

>  And will you complain of people's
> questioning being conspiracy theories...?

TBH I would say that's more your problem than mine.  I'm not really
complaining that you see things that way, I just find it a bit hard to
really understand.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
news:om4be5l6u6oj5bjpchqfgb59elv1a3kp12@4ax.com...

> #3  The problem was that these posts, of which yours was the last, in
> my opinion detracted from the pleasant atmosphere.
> -Has some merit by the humorous Orwellian reference, but as that was a
> parody of moderation pass-lists in general, not of urcm specifically,
> it was not a sufficient reason to reject my post.

The Orwellian reference may have had some humour, but it was also an insult. 
Are you really failing to understand that?

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:18:03 +0000, Tom Crispin 
wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:16:02 +0000, Peter Clinch
> wrote:
>
>[newsgroup line changed to unnm]
>
>>Deary me Tom, you seem to be suffering a bit from paranoia...
>
>Paranoia?  No.  The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list is
>enirely defensible.  Concealing its implementation, or attempting to
>conceal its implementation, by censoring posts (if that was the
>intent) is indefensible.
>
>Openness is the key here.
>
>A short admin post on Friday or Thursday to the group would have been
>welcome, e.g.:
>====================
>From today we are starting to implement a pass-list system whereby
>posters with a proven track record of topical conversation will have
>their messages automatically approved.  Over time this will speed up
>communication in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.  Any questions over its
>implementation should be directed to uk.net.news.moderation or
>uk.rec.cycling.
>Thank you for your patience.
>urcm moderation team
>====================


Much too open, honest, sensible, and informative.

You would never have made a moderator for URCM
--  

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 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:11:15 +0000, Peter Clinch
 wrote:

>Matt B wrote:
>
>>> On the one hand, yes, but on the other the fact that you're on a
>>> pass-list implies that in any case.  
>> 
>> How does it imply that?
>
>If I say to someone "whatever you say is okay", and to another I say
>"I'll need to check everything you say through", it gives a pretty clear
>signal that A is held in some degree of higher regard than B.
>
>> What are the (actual) required qualifications?
>
>Being thought by the moderators, who are there to moderate what gets
>passed as well as they can, the sort of person who is felt highly
>unlikely to need moderating.  On urcm that currently does not include
>either you or me, and I think in both cases with good reason.
>
>That you need to ask either question suggests a concerted attempt not to
>see the obvious by virtue of deliberately closing one's eyes (cue
>nit-picking reply about how covering one's eyes is not the same as
>closing them, etc. etc...)
>
>Pete.


"On URCM that currently does not include either you or me"

However - argue like this and it can soon be changed !!!

--  

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 26 Oct 2009 13:15:56 GMT, Simon Brooke
<stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:55:24 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> On 26/10/09 11:42, Andy Leighton wrote:
>> 
>>> I honestly don't understand why you are so het up about this.  The only
>>> possible ramifications are that some people get their posts
>>> auto-approved (so they hit the group more quickly*)
>> 
>> By the time a moderator considers a post from someone who is effectively
>> on the greylist they may decide the post does not add value and reject
>> it, because a similar point has already been made by someone on the
>> whilelist who has jumped the queue. The effect it to make whitelisted
>> posters appear to be more valuable contributors.
>
>Tough!
>
>That is not our problem. Our job is not to institute some abstract notion 
>of fairness between posters. We can't do that and we should not try.
>
>Our job description, in its entirety, is as follows:
>
>  "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."
>
>That's all. That's all we do, that's all we're authorised to do, that's 
>all we can do.
>
>So long as the group remains '...civil, pleasant, and of interest to 
>cyclists...' we have done our job. Take your notions of abstract justice 
>up with someone else - it is not our problem.


Says the man who has previously stated :

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

You're right - we can't be doing with any sort of fairness and
honesty.

Is it true that all  chiark/greenend users have been whitelisted as a
starting point?
--  

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 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:29:10 +0000, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:11:55 -0500, Andy Leighton
> wrote:
>
>>There currently isn't anyone on the 
>>block-list does that mean as soon as we put someone on that it
>>magically becomes "implemented" and we should tell everyone?
>
>Yes.  If, for example, "Western Voice" managed to post his racist
>diatribe to urcm it would be quite appropriate to post a reply stating
>that the poster had been placed on the block-list.


No, no no - No-one , including the black -listed person, will be told
that they have been blacklisted.

This was discussed at RFD time  - the clique could not see the
importance of this.

In my opinion, if someone has been black-listed  - then they need to
be told - and they need to be told why.

Of course that black-listed person may post such information here -
and it could be seen by everyone; that would never do.

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

On 26 Oct 2009 13:37:04 GMT, Simon Brooke
<stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:29:10 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:11:55 -0500, Andy Leighton 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>There currently isn't anyone on the
>>>block-list does that mean as soon as we put someone on that it magically
>>>becomes "implemented" and we should tell everyone?
>> 
>> Yes.  If, for example, "Western Voice" managed to post his racist
>> diatribe to urcm it would be quite appropriate to post a reply stating
>> that the poster had been placed on the block-list.
>
>I am opposed to providing any details of who may be on the blacklist. If 
>we do that it will just provide the usual suspects with something more to 
>bicker about. The less we say, the better.


Absolutely - you would not want a blacklisted  person to post the
reason in public would you - people may wonder what the real agenda
was?


It is part of your ethos, is it not:
--    
Simon Brooke:

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

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:40:41 +0000, Peter Clinch
 wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> I see, a covert operation. 
>
>You see it as covert, I, and I suspect Simon, see it as pragmatic.
>
>>  And will you complain of people's
>> questioning being conspiracy theories...?
>
>TBH I would say that's more your problem than mine.  I'm not really
>complaining that you see things that way, I just find it a bit hard to
>really understand.
>
>Pete.


It is appalling that a person can be black-listed and they are not
told why.

You could decide that you are fed up with someone criticising you in
this newsgroup and decide that it was not in the interests of URCM -
therefore that person will be black-listed.

No-one would be the wiser.

I knew that there were some shits on the moderation panel - but I
thought that there were also two people who would be reasonable.  I
was wrong.

Appalling.

--   

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

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:59:48 -0000, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
>news:om4be5l6u6oj5bjpchqfgb59elv1a3kp12@4ax.com...
>
>> #3  The problem was that these posts, of which yours was the last, in
>> my opinion detracted from the pleasant atmosphere.
>> -Has some merit by the humorous Orwellian reference, but as that was a
>> parody of moderation pass-lists in general, not of urcm specifically,
>> it was not a sufficient reason to reject my post.
>
>The Orwellian reference may have had some humour, but it was also an insult. 
>Are you really failing to understand that? 
>


It was humorous.

It was true.

It was not an insult; you could of course explain why it should be
considered so?


--
Simon Brooke.

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

Simon Brooke wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:09:05 +0000, Matt B wrote:
> 
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> However, a place on a pass list is
>>> earned, so is that such a bad thing?
>> What are the (actual) required qualifications?
> 
> The actual required qualification is that you don't troll, you don't get 
> into needless disputes, and you don't make extra work for the moderators.

Ah, I should be up there soon then.

Hang on though... who gets to suffer if the mods make extra work for 
themselves by picking on an individual who does neither of those things, 
but whose views are unwelcome?

-- 
Matt B

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
> 
>>> On the one hand, yes, but on the other the fact that you're on a
>>> pass-list implies that in any case.  
>> How does it imply that?
> 
> If I say to someone "whatever you say is okay", and to another I say
> "I'll need to check everything you say through", it gives a pretty clear
> signal that A is held in some degree of higher regard than B.
> 
>> What are the (actual) required qualifications?
> 
> Being thought by the moderators, who are there to moderate what gets
> passed as well as they can, the sort of person who is felt highly
> unlikely to need moderating.

In that they won't question the orthodox views possibly - or is it more 
obtuse than that?

> On urcm that currently does not include
> either you or me, and I think in both cases with good reason.

What do you think those reasons are for us?

> That you need to ask either question suggests a concerted attempt not to
> see the obvious by virtue of deliberately closing one's eyes (cue
> nit-picking reply about how covering one's eyes is not the same as
> closing them, etc. etc...)

I have views and opinions which seem to have triggered a certain 
reaction by certain moderators but I am blind to what the problem is. 
Can you enlighten me?

-- 
Matt B

jms wrote:
> It is appalling that a person can be black-listed and they are 
not
> told why.

If done properly, anyone finding themselves on a blacklist will 
already have ignored all previous explanations as to why their 
posts are frequently rejected.  Giving such people yet another 
explanation would be a complete waste of time and effort.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:03:49 +0000, Jim A 
wrote:

>jms wrote:
>> It is appalling that a person can be black-listed and they are 
>not
>> told why.
>
>If done properly, anyone finding themselves on a blacklist will 
>already have ignored all previous explanations as to why their 
>posts are frequently rejected.  Giving such people yet another 
>explanation would be a complete waste of time and effort.


Indeed - "if done properly"

You probably have more confidence of that than some would.

--  

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:

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:03:49 +0000, Jim A 

> wrote:
> 
>>jms wrote:
>>> It is appalling that a person can be black-listed and they 
are
>>not
>>> told why.
>>
>>If done properly, anyone finding themselves on a blacklist 
will
>>already have ignored all previous explanations as to why 
their
>>posts are frequently rejected.  Giving such people yet 
another
>>explanation would be a complete waste of time and effort.
> 
> 
> Indeed - "if done properly"
> 
> You probably have more confidence of that than some would.

And some are given to jumping to conclusions.  ISTM the knives 
were out even before the ink was dry on the cfv result.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:41:12 +0000, Chris French
 wrote:

>In message , Tom Crispin 
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes
>>On 26 Oct 2009 13:37:04 GMT, Simon Brooke
>><stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I am opposed to providing any details of who may be on the blacklist. If
>>>we do that it will just provide the usual suspects with something more to
>>>bicker about. The less we say, the better.
>>
>>I see, a covert operation.  And will you complain of people's
>>questioning being conspiracy theories...?
>>
>>Openness and transparancy is better.
>
>I think the person who  thinks they might be on a blacklist is the 
>perrson who should choose to make that information known if they so wish

But this needs that person to be told that they are - and what they
have actually done wrong.

They won't be.

--  

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

Chris French  wrote:

> I think the person who  thinks they might be on a blacklist is the perrson
> who should choose to make that information known if they so wish

Josef K.

Is there a Prozess by which an individual may become aware of the
existence of a blacklist or is that covered by C22?

On 26/10/09 13:15, Simon Brooke wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:55:24 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> The effect it to make whitelisted
>> posters appear to be more valuable contributors.
>
> Tough! That is not our problem.

At the moment it's not a problem for me either, I don't subscribe to 
non-moderated groups, and the only moderated lists I use are 
announce-only lists.

But I'm interested to see how well new created moderated groups are 
working, and what effect they are having on existing non-moderated 
groups - actual or perceived cliquism included.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:18:03 +0000, Tom Crispin 
wrote:

>Paranoia?  No.  The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list is
>enirely defensible.  Concealing its implementation, or attempting to
>conceal its implementation, by censoring posts (if that was the
>intent) is indefensible.

Er, Tom?  It was in the debate around the RFD.  It's a normal feature
of moderated newsgroups.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:21:06 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Josef K.

I think that counts as a Godwin post.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:40:38 -0500, Andy Leighton
 wrote:

>Fair enough but one should also factor in pre-existing biases when
>considering people's early reactions.  I think Tom would be the first
>to say he was an opponent of moderation in this case - which will 
>inevitably colour his perceptions of how the moderation process works.

I can think of several models for a moderated cycling group that I
would have supported.  I am myself a moderator for a cycling group.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:59:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:18:03 +0000, Tom Crispin 
>wrote:
>
>>Paranoia?  No.  The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list is
>>enirely defensible.  Concealing its implementation, or attempting to
>>conceal its implementation, by censoring posts (if that was the
>>intent) is indefensible.
>
>Er, Tom?  It was in the debate around the RFD.  It's a normal feature
>of moderated newsgroups.

That is why I said, "The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list
is enirely defensible."
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:59:40 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:21:06 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>wrote:
>
>>Josef K.
>
>I think that counts as a Godwin post.
> 
>Guy


fascinating 

It's incredible how this trivia keeps you alive isn't it?

--          

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)

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:32:39 +0000, Andy Burns
 wrote:

>On 26/10/09 13:15, Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:55:24 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> The effect it to make whitelisted
>>> posters appear to be more valuable contributors.
>>
>> Tough! That is not our problem.
>
>At the moment it's not a problem for me either, I don't subscribe to 
>non-moderated groups, and the only moderated lists I use are 
>announce-only lists.
>
>But I'm interested to see how well new created moderated groups are 
>working, and what effect they are having on existing non-moderated 
>groups - actual or perceived cliquism included.
>


"How well" may be a poor choice of words when considering URCM.

uk.legal.moderated is a much better place - nice people, sensible
moderation policies, openness,  fairness (in general :-) - and last
but not  least honesty.
--  

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:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:32:39 +0000, Andy Burns
>  wrote:
>
>> On 26/10/09 13:15, Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:55:24 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> The effect it to make whitelisted
>>>> posters appear to be more valuable contributors.
>>>
>>> Tough! That is not our problem.
>>
>> At the moment it's not a problem for me either, I don't subscribe to
>> non-moderated groups, and the only moderated lists I use are
>> announce-only lists.
>>
>> But I'm interested to see how well new created moderated groups are
>> working, and what effect they are having on existing non-moderated
>> groups - actual or perceived cliquism included.
>>
>
>
> "How well" may be a poor choice of words when considering URCM.
>
> uk.legal.moderated is a much better place - nice people, sensible
> moderation policies, openness,  fairness (in general :-) - and last
> but not  least honesty.

I hesitate to criticise the moderators of another group. But I suppose this 
is a forum where experience ought to be shared.

Some of the difficulties we have had to consider in ULM are:

a) how large should the team of moderators be.  If the group is popular it 
is a thankless task to plough through all the posts and action them. 
Initially there will be enthusiasm (unfortunately, this might be because 
certain moderators relish the power they have) but eventually the work will 
generally devolve upon a small minority. I think we have six moderators at 
the moment, and I think we are keeping up with the posts.

b) how uniform the decisions should be. I am strongly in favour of 
uniformity - whether your post is accepted ought never to depend on whether 
you get the strict moderator or the lax moderator. And in general the 
approach that works best is a permissive approach, which brings me to

c) whether posts should be rejected because the moderator strongly disagrees 
with the content. Surely they should not be rejected on those grounds, even 
if there are factual errors or mistakes about laws/regulations.  Moderators 
should not set themselves up as experts on any topic. If they did, the 
chances are that sometimes they would be wrong about the topic and the 
poster would be right.

d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than others. 
Surely they should not be. Troublesome is a very subjective concept anyway. 
I think you (jms) have been criticised by some for your robust debating 
style (eg rudeness, aggressive put-downs).  I, too, have posted some stuff 
to the unmoderated groups which is perhaps more aggressive and inflammatory 
than it really needed to be. Those who post to a moderated group should be 
judged on what they post, provided it doesn't appear to contain a coded 
message directed at an opponent. If we knew that a poster had threatened to 
sue another poster and we saw a post from him which, in guarded terms, asked 
for advice about his prospects of success in the courts, we'd probably 
reject it if we thought his opponent would feel threatened by it. I am not 
at all convinced that similar considerations apply in a cycling group. Maybe 
a post from someone criticising a cycle retailer for offering poor quality 
products, knowing that the retailer was also posting to the group, could 
fall into this category.
I should perhaps mention that one ULM moderator, a very good one, resigned 
on the grounds that moderators were apparently rejecting posts (rightly) 
from one provocative poster, but taunting him in postings in the unmoderated 
group.  This is a tricky area. Maybe moderators ought to be whiter than 
white.  I am not yet persuaded. I do think however that moderators would be 
wrong to pursue a feud against a poster (eg constantly following up that 
person's posts with a belittling comment) whether inside or outside the 
moderated group.

e) to what extent moderators should be ready and willing to explain their 
decisions and justify their actions. One of our moderators took the view 
that you should never apologise and never explain. I think that is the wrong 
approach. If someone has queried (here) why a post was accepted or rejected, 
a moderator ought to be ready to explain. And he shouldn't feel it is 
necessary to be blindly loyal to the team, to adopt a "cabinet 
responsibility" rule.

Still, others may disagree and sometimes I am persuaded to change my mind.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:59:43 +0000, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>>>Paranoia?  No.  The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list is
>>>enirely defensible.  Concealing its implementation, or attempting to
>>>conceal its implementation, by censoring posts (if that was the
>>>intent) is indefensible.
>>
>>Er, Tom?  It was in the debate around the RFD.  It's a normal feature
>>of moderated newsgroups.
>
>That is why I said, "The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list
>is enirely defensible."

And then you went off on one about secrecy and censorship.  It's not
secret, it was part of the discussion.  I can't imagine anybody was
expecting anything else.  It makes no sense not to use a pass list and
block list to keep the moderation load down, and the mods made it
quite clear beforehand that this would be done.  It is not a surprise,
not a secret and definitely not censorship.  It's moderation, working
as normal.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:59:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:18:03 +0000, Tom Crispin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Paranoia?  No.  The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list is
>>> enirely defensible.  Concealing its implementation, or attempting to
>>> conceal its implementation, by censoring posts (if that was the
>>> intent) is indefensible.
>>
>> Er, Tom?  It was in the debate around the RFD.  It's a normal feature
>> of moderated newsgroups.
>
> That is why I said, "The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list
> is enirely defensible."

On uk.legal.moderated we have a blacklist (currently empty), a watchlist 
(quite a few names, intended to remind the moderators that an apparently 
innocuous message might contain a coded insult directed at another poster) 
and a whitelist (huge, but the names can come off and go back on depending 
on how animated a discussion happens to be and whether there is a risk of it 
deteriorating into a slanging match).

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:56:39 -0000, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>Some of the difficulties we have had to consider in ULM are:
>
>a) how large [...]
>
>b) how uniform [...]
>
>c) whether posts [...]
>
>d) whether troublesome [...]
>
>e) to what extent [...]
>
>Still, others may disagree and sometimes I am persuaded to change my mind. 

I am in todal agreement with The Total's post.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

The Todal wrote:

> d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than others. 
> Surely they should not be. 

In an ideal world, they should not be.  But then in an ideal world you
wouldn't need moderation...  Troublesome posters won't be whitelisted
and thus are going to be treated more strictly than posters who have
been.  Whitelisting is there for reasons of pragmatism, not idealism.

So at least to some degree I can't see the above suggestion actually
happening, however desirable it may seem in theory.

> e) to what extent moderators should be ready and willing to explain their 
> decisions and justify their actions. One of our moderators took the view 
> that you should never apologise and never explain. I think that is the wrong 
> approach. If someone has queried (here) why a post was accepted or rejected, 
> a moderator ought to be ready to explain. And he shouldn't feel it is 
> necessary to be blindly loyal to the team, to adopt a "cabinet 
> responsibility" rule.

I would agree some explanation is not only polite but useful.  Some
posts that get binned are for reasons that folk are willing to accept
and re-word, and that can't happen with no explanation.

But of course if the underlying problem is that the complainer simply
cannot or will not accept that they're breaking the moderation policy
then no end of debate is going to change their mind (which is, of
course, part of why a mod group might exist in the first place), and
there comes a time to say to such people "end of conversation".

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:58:29 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:59:43 +0000, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>>>Paranoia?  No.  The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list is
>>>>enirely defensible.  Concealing its implementation, or attempting to
>>>>conceal its implementation, by censoring posts (if that was the
>>>>intent) is indefensible.
>>>
>>>Er, Tom?  It was in the debate around the RFD.  It's a normal feature
>>>of moderated newsgroups.
>>
>>That is why I said, "The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list
>>is enirely defensible."
>
>And then you went off on one about secrecy and censorship.  It's not
>secret, it was part of the discussion.  I can't imagine anybody was
>expecting anything else.  It makes no sense not to use a pass list and
>block list to keep the moderation load down, and the mods made it
>quite clear beforehand that this would be done.  It is not a surprise,
>not a secret and definitely not censorship.  It's moderation, working
>as normal.

No.  You completely misunderstand.

Several posters were confused why their posts were taking several
hours in some cases to appear, while other posters were saying how
excellent the system was as their posts appeared almost instantly. Two
moderators posted giving plausible reasons for this, neither mentioned
that the pass-list system had been /implemented/ a day earlier.  The
explainations given by the moderators are plausible explainations for
some delay, but are not the main reason for some posts arriving
instantly, and others taking several hours.

I posted giving the explaination that the pass-list had been
/implemented/.  My post was rejected on the grounds that, "Everyone
knows we are operating a pass-list.  This is not news."  Ian has since
had the grace to accept that not everyone knew that the pass-list had
been /impemented/, and that my post was in a "grey area", and that the
main reason for my post's rejection was a reference to Orwell's Animal
Farm, "All posters are created equal... but some are more equal than
others".  This was intended as a humourous parody of moderation
systems in general, not urcm specifically.  However, Ian did not see
it that way, perhaps with very good reason as I have already
explained.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:56:39 -0000, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than others. 
>Surely they should not be. Troublesome is a very subjective concept anyway. 

I think you're wrong there, in this specific: if somebody has a
lengthy history of posting offensive content, and virtually no history
of posting problem-free content, then it is reasonable to blacklist
them.  Exceptionally low signal to noise ratio is a valid basis on
which to do this.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

"Peter Clinch"  wrote in message 
news:7ko6c6F3baqenU1@mid.individual.net...
> The Todal wrote:
>
>> d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than 
>> others.
>> Surely they should not be.
>
> In an ideal world, they should not be.  But then in an ideal world you
> wouldn't need moderation...  Troublesome posters won't be whitelisted
> and thus are going to be treated more strictly than posters who have
> been.  Whitelisting is there for reasons of pragmatism, not idealism.
>
> So at least to some degree I can't see the above suggestion actually
> happening, however desirable it may seem in theory.
>
>> e) to what extent moderators should be ready and willing to explain their
>> decisions and justify their actions. One of our moderators took the view
>> that you should never apologise and never explain. I think that is the 
>> wrong
>> approach. If someone has queried (here) why a post was accepted or 
>> rejected,
>> a moderator ought to be ready to explain. And he shouldn't feel it is
>> necessary to be blindly loyal to the team, to adopt a "cabinet
>> responsibility" rule.
>
> I would agree some explanation is not only polite but useful.  Some
> posts that get binned are for reasons that folk are willing to accept
> and re-word, and that can't happen with no explanation.
>
> But of course if the underlying problem is that the complainer simply
> cannot or will not accept that they're breaking the moderation policy
> then no end of debate is going to change their mind (which is, of
> course, part of why a mod group might exist in the first place), and
> there comes a time to say to such people "end of conversation".
>

And if others here are posting messages that agree with the moderator's 
decision that reassures you that you are doing the right thing.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:30:51 +0000, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>Several posters were confused why their posts were taking several
>hours in some cases to appear, while other posters were saying how
>excellent the system was as their posts appeared almost instantly. Two
>moderators posted giving plausible reasons for this, neither mentioned
>that the pass-list system had been /implemented/ a day earlier.  The
>explainations given by the moderators are plausible explainations for
>some delay, but are not the main reason for some posts arriving
>instantly, and others taking several hours.

This is moderation acting as normal.  It's normal for mods to discuss
internally whether some posts should pass.  I suspect this will reduce
over time as a cohesive policy emerges, and as the mods begin to
understand what the internal consensus position is on certain types of
post.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:7ko5kdF39ovovU1@mid.individual.net...

> On uk.legal.moderated we have a blacklist (currently empty), a watchlist 
> (quite a few names, intended to remind the moderators that an apparently 
> innocuous message might contain a coded insult directed at another poster) 
> and a whitelist (huge, but the names can come off and go back on depending 
> on how animated a discussion happens to be and whether there is a risk of 
> it deteriorating into a slanging match).

Doesn't the watchlist part of that directly contradict what you wrote here:

> d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than 
> others. Surely they should not be.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:59:48 -0500, Andy Leighton
 wrote:

>> I think you're wrong there, in this specific: if somebody has a
>> lengthy history of posting offensive content, and virtually no history
>> of posting problem-free content, then it is reasonable to blacklist
>> them.  
>
>I think Todal is talking about the awkward squad - those that do have
>reasonable signal but also generate, or lead to the generation of, noise.

Yes, that's fair.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:05:56 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:59:48 -0500, Andy Leighton
> wrote:
>
>>> I think you're wrong there, in this specific: if somebody has a
>>> lengthy history of posting offensive content, and virtually no history
>>> of posting problem-free content, then it is reasonable to blacklist
>>> them.  
>>
>>I think Todal is talking about the awkward squad - those that do have
>>reasonable signal but also generate, or lead to the generation of, noise.
>
>Yes, that's fair.

I think that you and I are both in the "awkward squad", Guy, as we
both sometimes post provocatively.  However, I have made it to the
pass-list now.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

"Andy Leighton"  wrote in message 
news:slrnhedrm5.a2g.andyl@azaal.plus.com...
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:48:17 +0000,
>          Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:56:39 -0000, "The Todal" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than 
>>>others.
>>>Surely they should not be. Troublesome is a very subjective concept 
>>>anyway.
>>
>> I think you're wrong there, in this specific: if somebody has a
>> lengthy history of posting offensive content, and virtually no history
>> of posting problem-free content, then it is reasonable to blacklist
>> them.
>
> I think Todal is talking about the awkward squad - those that do have
> reasonable signal but also generate, or lead to the generation of, noise.
>
> From his explanation of how ulm works he has no problems with
> blacklisting and whitelisting of posters.  There is obviously those
> who are neither black or whitelisted which must be reviewed.  He also
> mentions a watch-list - which I assume highlights posts from certain
> people (the troublesome posters) in the third group.  If he believes
> that the troublesome posters should be treated no differently - then
> surely he must think the watch-list is a bad thing.

The blacklist would (as I understand it) automatically reject posts from 
specific posters.  That would signify that we have no expectation that such 
posters would ever have anything interesting or relevant to say. It goes 
against my principles to make such a judgment about a person. My experience 
of ULM is that just about everyone who has a history of posting 
provocatively in the unmoderated groups, found it fairly easy to post within 
moderation guidelines in the moderated group  and had something of interest 
to say.

I don't think the watch-list is a bad thing. If a moderator is in a hurry 
(which generally they will be) it tells the moderator not to be too hasty 
and to check that this poster, who has an unfortunate posting history, is 
not using the thread to score points or make veiled threats. In fact, those 
who are on the watchlist are usually people who post regularly to both 
moderated and unmoderated groups, and when they see a post they disagree 
with, they sometimes forget they are in a moderated group and reply with 
something such as "total crap, like everything else you've said" when they 
would never have done so if someone had reminded them that they are in a 
moderated group. Obviously the moderator ought to see and reject such a post 
whether or not it is from a watchlisted person, but sometimes the insults 
are much more subtle.

Anyway, this has reminded me to prune down the list of names on the 
watchlist.

Tom Crispin wrote:

> However, I have made it to the pass-list now.

Errrr, you sure about that?
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:14:13 +0000, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>I think that you and I are both in the "awkward squad", Guy, as we
>both sometimes post provocatively.  However, I have made it to the
>pass-list now.

As I said during the RFD, I'd be faintly surprised if I ever did, and
don't care overmuch.  I'm well aware of my own tendency to soapboxing
and going off at tangents.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:50:32 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:30:51 +0000, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>Several posters were confused why their posts were taking several
>>hours in some cases to appear, while other posters were saying how
>>excellent the system was as their posts appeared almost instantly. Two
>>moderators posted giving plausible reasons for this, neither mentioned
>>that the pass-list system had been /implemented/ a day earlier.  The
>>explainations given by the moderators are plausible explainations for
>>some delay, but are not the main reason for some posts arriving
>>instantly, and others taking several hours.
>
>This is moderation acting as normal.  It's normal for mods to discuss
>internally whether some posts should pass.  I suspect this will reduce
>over time as a cohesive policy emerges, and as the mods begin to
>understand what the internal consensus position is on certain types of
>post.

I do not disagree with that either.

My reason for my "Animal Farm" post was what I perceived to be a
deliberate attempt by moderators to conceal the fact, from baffled
posters, that the pass-list had recently been implemented.

I have no problem with the pass-list being implemented, or the gradual
adding of names to the pass-list, or even if I am on or off the
pass-list.

I had a particularly strong objection to my post reminding people of
the pass-list being rejected.  To me, banning the mention of a
pass-list is censorship, not moderation.  I am delighted that the
moderation team had the grace to step back from that position and that
they allowed a re-worded post through with the Orwellian reference
removed.

Overall I am very satisfied (one down from delighted but three up from
disgusted) with the job the moderation team are doing; there have been
a few posts that have been posted that I would not have allowed
(including one of yours) but if people are placed on the pass-list
that is inevitable.  I am delighted (that is one up from very
satisfied) that they are taking a dim view of Matt B's relentless and
tedious questioning of people's opinions.

However, there is room for improvement.  I think that they could be
more open in their decisions.  For exapmle, if they feel that a topic
has dragged on long enough and the argument is drifting too far off
topic, e.g. your post:
Message-ID: 
A simple post explaining that the discussion is being closed before
moderating any replies would save a lot of grief.  In time I am sure
this will come, it is a learning curve for all.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:42:26 +0000, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>My reason for my "Animal Farm" post was what I perceived to be a
>deliberate attempt by moderators to conceal the fact, from baffled
>posters, that the pass-list had recently been implemented.

Hence the confusion: I was expecting it to be in place from day 1,
albeit initially blank.  I was also expecting people like Helen and
Dave Larrington to be added pretty much immediately.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

Tom Crispin wrote:

> My reason for my "Animal Farm" post was what I perceived to be a
> deliberate attempt by moderators to conceal the fact, from baffled
> posters, that the pass-list had recently been implemented.

Speaking for myself, I didn't go out of my way to mention the whitelist
because it simply didn't occur to me.  Most of the discussion people
were on about, ISTM, had happened before there was anybody on it, so I
explained why there were differences in mod speed over the time I'd
assumed people were on about.  I thought I'd answered the question, but
as it transpires I was concealing a dread conspiracy!

> I had a particularly strong objection to my post reminding people of
> the pass-list being rejected.  To me, banning the mention of a
> pass-list is censorship, not moderation.  

To me, moderating out such a post (not sure who actually did, btw) is
canning something for being irrelevant, since there really wasn't any
secret and it wasn't bringing anything new, useful or positive.  In
other words, perspectives vary, and I think your perspective that this
amounts to a serious breach of honesty/rights/whatever is frankly a bit odd.

> I am delighted that the
> moderation team had the grace to step back from that position and that
> they allowed a re-worded post through with the Orwellian reference
> removed.

You should perhaps be more careful with "Orwellian".  The original
commandment is "All animals are equal", not "are created equal".  I
think it rather alters the sense of it as it was put down as it suggests
that some posters magically are "more equal" at creation, as opposed to
through their subsequent conduct.

> However, there is room for improvement.

Of course.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
[whitelist on urcm]
> Hence the confusion: I was expecting it to be in place from day 1,
> albeit initially blank. 

As was, I think, the case.

But a whitelist that's enabled but doesn't do anything can reasonably be
talked about as "not implemented", I would say.  Or at least, arguing
the toss over the semantics will get us here: nowhere.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 27 Oct 2009 13:32:07 GMT, Simon Brooke
<stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:

>The first group don't need an explanation and the second won't accept one 
>(or believe one if given) so explanations just erode the signal to noise 
>ratio and have no benefit.

Nonsense.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:7koaljF3b5subU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Andy Leighton"  wrote in message 
> news:slrnhedrm5.a2g.andyl@azaal.plus.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:48:17 +0000,
>>          Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:56:39 -0000, "The Todal" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than 
>>>>others.
>>>>Surely they should not be. Troublesome is a very subjective concept 
>>>>anyway.
>>>
>>> I think you're wrong there, in this specific: if somebody has a
>>> lengthy history of posting offensive content, and virtually no history
>>> of posting problem-free content, then it is reasonable to blacklist
>>> them.
>>
>> I think Todal is talking about the awkward squad - those that do have
>> reasonable signal but also generate, or lead to the generation of, noise.
>>
>> From his explanation of how ulm works he has no problems with
>> blacklisting and whitelisting of posters.  There is obviously those
>> who are neither black or whitelisted which must be reviewed.  He also
>> mentions a watch-list - which I assume highlights posts from certain
>> people (the troublesome posters) in the third group.  If he believes
>> that the troublesome posters should be treated no differently - then
>> surely he must think the watch-list is a bad thing.
>
> The blacklist would (as I understand it) automatically reject posts from 
> specific posters.  That would signify that we have no expectation that 
> such posters would ever have anything interesting or relevant to say. It 
> goes against my principles to make such a judgment about a person. My 
> experience of ULM is that just about everyone who has a history of posting 
> provocatively in the unmoderated groups, found it fairly easy to post 
> within moderation guidelines in the moderated group  and had something of 
> interest to say.

Just to clarify my earlier post - I can imagine that the blacklist might be 
necessary in certain rare and unusual circumstances.  For instance, if we 
kept receiving posts that were generated by a computer, not a person. Or if 
a malicious poster was trying to harrass the team of moderators by 
generating a constant stream of nonsensical posts.  That, fortunately, 
hasn't yet happened.

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
news:oisde5hc4o8iir7con6qf9a6tp8nbfom9t@4ax.com...

> My reason for my "Animal Farm" post was what I perceived to be a
> deliberate attempt by moderators to conceal the fact, from baffled
> posters, that the pass-list had recently been implemented.
.
> I have no problem with the pass-list being implemented, or the gradual
> adding of names to the pass-list, or even if I am on or off the
> pass-list.
>
> I had a particularly strong objection to my post reminding people of
> the pass-list being rejected.  To me, banning the mention of a
> pass-list is censorship, not moderation.  I am delighted that the
> moderation team had the grace to step back from that position and that
> they allowed a re-worded post through with the Orwellian reference
> removed.

You're rewriting history a bit there.

I don't believe it was the mention of the pass-list which caused the 
rejection, and claiming that it was is misrepresentation.

Your post wasn't just reminding people about the pass-list, was it? It was 
reminding them, and complaining about its existence in terms which have a 
fairly strong history.

That Animal Farm reference was uncalled for, and got duly rejected. Remove 
it, and the tone of the post changes dramatically.

It's as if I wrote a post saying

"Rebuilt my wheel with new spokes. Ride was stiffer yet more vertically 
compliant, and they are easier to clean too.

Fred bloggs is an irritating numpty"

then complained that the moderators rejected my post about my new wheel, 
whereas in fact they would have rejected the post for the second comment.

We discussed the idea of moderators editing posts at the RFD stage, and 
nobody agreed that that would be a good idea. Which is why the entire post 
has to be rejected if part of it is going to be.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:18:47 -0000, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>You're rewriting history a bit there.
>
>I don't believe it was the mention of the pass-list which caused the 
>rejection, and claiming that it was is misrepresentation.

How many times...

==========Quote==========
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

 Everyone knows we are operating a pass-list.  This is not news.
Please take your complaints to unnm or private email, or urc if you
must.



Thank you for your submission to uk.rec.cycling.moderated.

However, we regret to inform you that your message has been rejected
because it is a posting about moderation decisions, and we feel it is
overly specific, not constructive, or is part of a meta-discussion
which has got out of hand.

If you feel your posting had merit, please repost it to
uk.net.news.moderation instead.  We will read it there and respond as
appropriate.

Please refer to the group charter and moderation policy at
  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/
and direct your queries to
  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk

If you have difficulty reaching the moderators (eg due to
spamfiltering) please tell postmaster@chiark.greenend.org.uk.

Thank you,
	- Moderator.
==========/quote==========
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
news:uu0ee55shqkfr2bc7hok24ac8bicfipfb2@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:18:47 -0000, "Clive George"
>  wrote:
>
>>You're rewriting history a bit there.
>>
>>I don't believe it was the mention of the pass-list which caused the
>>rejection, and claiming that it was is misrepresentation.
>
> How many times...
>
> ==========Quote==========
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Everyone knows we are operating a pass-list.  This is not news.
> Please take your complaints to unnm or private email, or urc if you
> must.

Ok. But do you honestly think your Orwellian reference helped you? We can't 
test this, but I think without it your post may have been allowed.

"Simon Brooke" <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote in message 
news:7kob2nF38gn2fU4@mid.individual.net...
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:56:39 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>
>> I hesitate to criticise the moderators of another group. But I suppose
>> this is a forum where experience ought to be shared.

snipped

>
>> d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than
>> others. Surely they should not be. Troublesome is a very subjective
>> concept anyway.
>
> Strongly disagree, on both counts. Our remit is specifically and
> explicitly to '...ensure that the group remains civil, pleasant, and of
> interest to cyclists.' I take that to mean that we are /required/ to
> exclude disruptive and confrontational contributors.

That's where we disagree, then. I'd say the task is to exclude disruptive 
and confrontational posts. Not exclude the contributors.

>
> I should say clearly that I take a harder line than many of my fellow
> moderators here; after all, all men have their faults, and mine is being
> wicked.

Yet consistency is important.  It would be as well to discuss policy amongst 
yourselves and reach a consensus.

>  But I see no reason not to blacklist certain troublemakers now -
> initially for short periods - to pull them up sharp and let them know
> that if they can't amend their ways they will be permanently excluded.

Again, that's where we disagree. You imply that you might reject posts from 
certain people regardless of the merits of the post. That is likely to 
result in resentment and a belief that there is favouritism.


>
> Furthermore, there is nothing subjective about counting the ratio of
> passed to rejected posts a contributor has clocked up, nor counting the
> number of 'appeals' made here of elsewhere.

From a legalistic point of view it would be absolutely deplorable if there 
was prejudice against a person merely because he had appealed a previous 
decision.  And it makes the moderators look very dictatorial. My house, my 
rules. When in fact you are not the owners of the house, but the caretakers.


snip

>
> Judith has taken to posting in her signature the following quote which
> she attributes to me:
>
> "It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and
> every moderation decision is unexplained and final."
>
> When she first used it it was a very slight misquote; but since I
> entirely agree with the sentiment I have adopted it.

That's a pity.

> People whose posts
> are rejected fall into two groups: those who appreciate that this is only
> Usenet after all, and that no single post is of such deathless prose as
> to be worth making a song and dance about; and those who will never be
> satisfied with any explanation but will continue a tendentious argument
> ad nauseam.

There's your problem. There are two sorts of people: first, the ones who 
believe that there are just two sorts of people and second, those who 
acknowledge that there are in fact many sorts of people.

If someone has taken the time and trouble to post a message to usenet, 
believing that they are contributing constructively to the debate, it is 
perfectly understandable that they will feel resentful if their contribution 
has been rejected. If their post consists of "you're talking shite" and 
that's rejected, then obviously they will understand and accept it.  If it 
is a post that has taken a while to compose, they may justifiably ask why it 
is thought to be off topic or in some way hurtful.

An analogy would be sitting in a pub and having what you think is a 
perfectly courteous but rather excited discussion with those sitting near 
you. The publican suddenly comes up to you and says "any more of that, and 
you're barred". You wonder why you are being picked on and what exactly has 
upset him. He says "if you don't understand, then you're even stupider than 
you look".  It doesn't make you or anyone else in the room want to go back 
to that pub. There are more constructive ways of dealing with a problem.

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:7koho4F3bdfb1U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Simon Brooke" <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote in message 
> news:7kob2nF38gn2fU4@mid.individual.net...
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:56:39 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> I hesitate to criticise the moderators of another group. But I suppose
>>> this is a forum where experience ought to be shared.
>
> snipped
>
>>
>>> d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than
>>> others. Surely they should not be. Troublesome is a very subjective
>>> concept anyway.
>>
>> Strongly disagree, on both counts. Our remit is specifically and
>> explicitly to '...ensure that the group remains civil, pleasant, and of
>> interest to cyclists.' I take that to mean that we are /required/ to
>> exclude disruptive and confrontational contributors.
>
> That's where we disagree, then. I'd say the task is to exclude disruptive 
> and confrontational posts. Not exclude the contributors.

I think all agree the task is to exclude the disruptive and confrontational 
posts, but there is a question as to what level of disruption requires 
blocking of the poster? I'm not actually sure we'll ever find that out, 
because without the feedback even the most dedicated troll (eg jms) will 
probably give up before manual moderation of their posts becomes onerous.

If somebody posted 100 messages a day, one of which contained content, would 
you consider that a sufficient proportion to not warrant inclusion on a 
black list?

I'd expect urcm to be like ulm - nobody on the black list. AIUI that's the 
case now.

On 27 Oct 2009 15:00:24 GMT, Simon Brooke
<stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:08:18 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On 27 Oct 2009 13:32:07 GMT, Simon Brooke <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>The first group don't need an explanation and the second won't accept
>>>one (or believe one if given) so explanations just erode the signal to
>>>noise ratio and have no benefit.
>> 
>> Nonsense.
>
>Quod erat demonstrandum

Your use of Latin in another post is equally dubious.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:56:37 -0000, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
>news:uu0ee55shqkfr2bc7hok24ac8bicfipfb2@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:18:47 -0000, "Clive George"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>You're rewriting history a bit there.
>>>
>>>I don't believe it was the mention of the pass-list which caused the
>>>rejection, and claiming that it was is misrepresentation.
>>
>> How many times...
>>
>> ==========Quote==========
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Everyone knows we are operating a pass-list.  This is not news.
>> Please take your complaints to unnm or private email, or urc if you
>> must.
>
>Ok. But do you honestly think your Orwellian reference helped you? We can't 
>test this, but I think without it your post may have been allowed. 

Yes - I agree there might have been a valid reason to reject the post
on the grounds that it could be judged as inflamatory.  I have already
said as much.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

"Simon Brooke" <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote in message 
news:7kolmjF38gn2fU7@mid.individual.net...
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:40:26 +0000, Clive George wrote:
>
>> I think all agree the task is to exclude the disruptive and
>> confrontational posts, but there is a question as to what level of
>> disruption requires blocking of the poster? I'm not actually sure we'll
>> ever find that out, because without the feedback even the most dedicated
>> troll will probably give up before manual moderation of their
>> posts becomes onerous.
>
> If a persistent troll were to be permitted to argue each moderation
> decision, they would get even more feedback, and hence even more reward
> for their abusive behaviour, than they do now. Which is precisely why no
> we should not discuss appeals.

They are allowed to argue as much as they like here, in unnm. That's what 
this NG is for. They're not allowed to argue in urcm, thus it stays 
unpolluted by the discussion.

Yes, it is up to you as moderators to not get dragged into their arguments. 
They have the right to complain, and in many cases you ought to answer, but 
an answer could well be just one post. See how jms has been handled here - 
she's just been told "No", and not engaged, thus she doesn't get the 
feedback she craves.

If it's a truly persistent troll, nobody will expect their complaints to be 
addressed at all. There will be none of the feedback they need.

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
news:kj7ee5dv1ulmsd938hsnpgam8122sv4vto@4ax.com...
> On 27 Oct 2009 15:00:24 GMT, Simon Brooke
> <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:08:18 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 Oct 2009 13:32:07 GMT, Simon Brooke <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The first group don't need an explanation and the second won't accept
>>>>one (or believe one if given) so explanations just erode the signal to
>>>>noise ratio and have no benefit.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>>Quod erat demonstrandum
>
> Your use of Latin in another post is equally dubious.

Ten years ago Lord Woolf decided that the judges and the courts should 
abandon Latin and speak in plain English. But how do we ensure that this 
enlightened approach is imported into Usenet, where Latin remains the means 
by which the intelligentsia can be distinguished from the proles? Aut disce, 
aut discede. Sic vivitur, eh.

"Clive George"  wrote in message 
news:zc-dnZLBo8uIi3rXnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> "The Todal"  wrote in message 
> news:7koho4F3bdfb1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Simon Brooke" <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:7kob2nF38gn2fU4@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:56:39 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> I hesitate to criticise the moderators of another group. But I suppose
>>>> this is a forum where experience ought to be shared.
>>
>> snipped
>>
>>>
>>>> d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than
>>>> others. Surely they should not be. Troublesome is a very subjective
>>>> concept anyway.
>>>
>>> Strongly disagree, on both counts. Our remit is specifically and
>>> explicitly to '...ensure that the group remains civil, pleasant, and of
>>> interest to cyclists.' I take that to mean that we are /required/ to
>>> exclude disruptive and confrontational contributors.
>>
>> That's where we disagree, then. I'd say the task is to exclude disruptive 
>> and confrontational posts. Not exclude the contributors.
>
> I think all agree the task is to exclude the disruptive and 
> confrontational posts, but there is a question as to what level of 
> disruption requires blocking of the poster? I'm not actually sure we'll 
> ever find that out, because without the feedback even the most dedicated 
> troll (eg jms)

I don't think it is reasonable to characterise jms as a "dedicated troll". 
I'm not actually clear why the cycling moderated group was set up. Was it 
mainly to exclude jms? Do you meet in a tree house and share cookies and 
candy?

I know why the legal moderated group was set up. It was (the main reason 
anyway) because some law related questions from newbies have resulted in 
extremely offensive and insulting replies, from ordinary posters who don't 
know much law but want to make moral judgments. Plus some posters in the 
unmoderated group were regularly threatening defamations actions and a few 
were actually suing each other, but that side of things seems to have died 
down, coinciding with the death of one of the litigants.

Presumably there was a pressing need for a cycling moderated group otherwise 
it wouldn't have been created. Presumably it simply wasn't a sufficient 
solution to killfile certain posters. I think only by having a very clear 
notion of why the group was set up, can you reach a sensible moderation 
policy.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:48:17 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:56:39 -0000, "The Todal" 
>wrote:
>
>>d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than others. 
>>Surely they should not be. Troublesome is a very subjective concept anyway. 
>
>I think you're wrong there, in this specific: if somebody has a
>lengthy history of posting offensive content, and virtually no history
>of posting problem-free content, then it is reasonable to blacklist
>them.  Exceptionally low signal to noise ratio is a valid basis on
>which to do this.
> 
>Gu

In which case Guy - would *you * have been happy to have been
blacklisted from day one?

You certainly fit the criteria.

Would you not rather the decision was taken on your action in the
moderated group?

I guess it depends on *your*  reason, and wish, for carrying out
"moderation" on someone.

Perhaps as some sort of punishment ?


-- 
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:  Pedal Cyclists : 527    Pedestrians 371
All casualties:  Pedal Cyclists : 3494    Pedestrians : 1631

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:14:13 +0000, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:05:56 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:59:48 -0500, Andy Leighton
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I think you're wrong there, in this specific: if somebody has a
>>>> lengthy history of posting offensive content, and virtually no history
>>>> of posting problem-free content, then it is reasonable to blacklist
>>>> them.  
>>>
>>>I think Todal is talking about the awkward squad - those that do have
>>>reasonable signal but also generate, or lead to the generation of, noise.
>>
>>Yes, that's fair.
>
>I think that you and I are both in the "awkward squad", Guy, as we
>both sometimes post provocatively.  However, I have made it to the
>pass-list now.


Was that gloat I spotted ?

--  

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 27 Oct 2009 13:32:07 GMT, Simon Brooke put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>
>I should say clearly that I take a harder line than many of my fellow 
>moderators here; after all, all men have their faults, and mine is being 
>wicked. But I see no reason not to blacklist certain troublemakers now - 
>initially for short periods - to pull them up sharp and let them know 
>that if they can't amend their ways they will be permanently excluded.

Unless the charter permits you to blacklist people then you cannot do
so. 

The role of the moderators is to ensure, to the best of their ability,
that the charter is adhered to by contributors to the group. It is not
to make decisions about who may or may not be a contributor to the
group. Even if someone only posts an approvable post once in every
twnty attempts, you still have to read all twenty and approve or
reject them on their merits. The role of the moderator is to moderate
on content, not to moderate on contributor.

The only exception to the above is if the charter gives the moderators
the power to impose a temporary or permanent ban on a contributor, eg
as the result of severe or continual breaches of the charter. Even so,
such a power should be used sparingly and as a last resort. To
routinely use it to exclude those perceived as "troublemakers" is an
abuse of process.

>Judith has taken to posting in her signature the following quote which 
>she attributes to me:
>
>"It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and 
>every moderation decision is unexplained and final."
>
>When she first used it it was a very slight misquote; but since I 
>entirely agree with the sentiment I have adopted it. People whose posts 
>are rejected fall into two groups: those who appreciate that this is only 
>Usenet after all, and that no single post is of such deathless prose as 
>to be worth making a song and dance about; and those who will never be 
>satisfied with any explanation but will continue a tendentious argument 
>ad nauseam.

I agree with you as far as decisions to accept or reject are
concerned, with the proviso that the reason for rejecting any
individual post should be logged and, where possible, communicated to
the poster either by email or by posting the decision and reason on a
publicly viewable website (as is the case with, for example, ulm,
ukglb and ukrc). However, if the charter does give moderators the
power to ban contributors, then if this power is ever exercised then
the reason for doing so should, IMO, be explained in full, preferably
by means of an administrative post by the moderators to the group.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:51:47 -0000, Clive George put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>"The Todal"  wrote in message 
>news:7ko5kdF39ovovU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> On uk.legal.moderated we have a blacklist (currently empty), a watchlist 
>> (quite a few names, intended to remind the moderators that an apparently 
>> innocuous message might contain a coded insult directed at another poster) 
>> and a whitelist (huge, but the names can come off and go back on depending 
>> on how animated a discussion happens to be and whether there is a risk of 
>> it deteriorating into a slanging match).
>
>Doesn't the watchlist part of that directly contradict what you wrote here:
>
>> d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than 
>> others. Surely they should not be.

They're not treated more strictly as far as their actual content is
concerned. It's just that their content is more likely to be checked
before being posted.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:26:09 -0000, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>Was it 
>mainly to exclude jms?

Yes.  Nuxxy too and Matt B.  But mainly jms.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On 27 Oct 2009 13:32:07 GMT, Simon Brooke
<stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:

<snip>


>I should say clearly that I take a harder line than many of my fellow 
>moderators here; after all, all men have their faults, and mine is being 
>wicked.

Just so there is no misunderstanding - I would not react kindly to
someone  if I felt that that someone was being "wicked" to me.


>Judith has taken to posting in her signature the following quote which 
>she attributes to me:

I trust that you are NOT using the word attribute in the context of:

 "to consider as made by the one indicated, esp. with strong evidence
but in the absence of conclusive proof:"

If you are -  the conclusive proof you are looking for can be found in
the post: 

d0c2b694-e0b2-4cbc-a5eb-657e39a7db37@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com


where you clearly stated that that was your view - together with your
reason for adopting that approach:

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

That way, there's no continuous flame war about this or that
moderation decision."


I think that that point of view admirably shows that you are not *fit*
to be a moderator.

A moderator should take no decision they were not willing to stand by.

Why not just toss a coin - is that not arbitrary enough for you?







--  

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

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:7kos8iF38vdh1U1@mid.individual.net...

> I don't think it is reasonable to characterise jms as a "dedicated troll".

My first reaction is to laugh loudly at your sheer naivete. But I'll 
suppress that one, and address it more politely.

She generally behaves herself in groups you frequent, but you've seen a 
certain amount of her nuttier activity recently.

Check her posting stats in urc for the past year. Anyone who doesn't 
recognise her voluminous, repetitive posting as dedicated trolling has not 
merely rose-tinted spectacles, but actual roses completely covering their 
eyes to avoid seeing what's going on.

> I'm not actually clear why the cycling moderated group was set up. Was it 
> mainly to exclude jms? Do you meet in a tree house and share cookies and 
> candy?

If it wasn't for jms, it probably wouldn't have been set up. She said her 
mission was to turn the group to ratshit, and in that she partially 
succeeded. It took hundreds of posts to do it, over a period of many months, 
which shows dedication if nothing else. Fortunately from the ashes we've got 
a new shiny moderated group, which has the happy side effect IMO of also not 
being frequented by at least two other loonies.

> Presumably there was a pressing need for a cycling moderated group 
> otherwise it wouldn't have been created. Presumably it simply wasn't a 
> sufficient solution to killfile certain posters.

It would have been, had it been possible to enforce killfiles. But that's 
clearly impossible, and far too many people were unable to resist the 
trolling. The moderator's task is to not merely prevent the trolls, but to 
prevent the people responding to them.

> I think only by having a very clear notion of why the group was set up, 
> can you reach a sensible moderation policy.

Unfortunately "Because the existing group has descended into a troll-fest" 
doesn't lend itself to that.

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
news:oigee593ccvddhv154h55u107qrp10g090@news.markshouse.net...
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:51:47 -0000, Clive George put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>"The Todal"  wrote in message
>>news:7ko5kdF39ovovU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> On uk.legal.moderated we have a blacklist (currently empty), a watchlist
>>> (quite a few names, intended to remind the moderators that an apparently
>>> innocuous message might contain a coded insult directed at another 
>>> poster)
>>> and a whitelist (huge, but the names can come off and go back on 
>>> depending
>>> on how animated a discussion happens to be and whether there is a risk 
>>> of
>>> it deteriorating into a slanging match).
>>
>>Doesn't the watchlist part of that directly contradict what you wrote 
>>here:
>>
>>> d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than
>>> others. Surely they should not be.
>
> They're not treated more strictly as far as their actual content is
> concerned. It's just that their content is more likely to be checked
> before being posted.

To me, being more likely to be checked means they are being treated more 
strictly. I don't have an objection to doing this happening though.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:40:26 -0000, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>"The Todal"  wrote in message 
>news:7koho4F3bdfb1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Simon Brooke" <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:7kob2nF38gn2fU4@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:56:39 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> I hesitate to criticise the moderators of another group. But I suppose
>>>> this is a forum where experience ought to be shared.
>>
>> snipped
>>
>>>
>>>> d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than
>>>> others. Surely they should not be. Troublesome is a very subjective
>>>> concept anyway.
>>>
>>> Strongly disagree, on both counts. Our remit is specifically and
>>> explicitly to '...ensure that the group remains civil, pleasant, and of
>>> interest to cyclists.' I take that to mean that we are /required/ to
>>> exclude disruptive and confrontational contributors.
>>
>> That's where we disagree, then. I'd say the task is to exclude disruptive 
>> and confrontational posts. Not exclude the contributors.
>
>I think all agree the task is to exclude the disruptive and confrontational 
>posts, but there is a question as to what level of disruption requires 
>blocking of the poster? I'm not actually sure we'll ever find that out, 
>because without the feedback even the most dedicated troll (eg jms) will 
>probably give up before manual moderation of their posts becomes onerous.


I post to uk.legal.moderated  because  I find it quite a pleasant
atmosphere  - with varied level of advice - and discussion of varied
points of view.  You will not be shouted down - just because others
(particularly the moderators) disagree with you.  You are not judged
on something you said in uk.legal last week.  Moderation is carried
out in a sensible and fair fashion - there *will* be disagreements -
but your posts are moderated on what you say - not who you are.

I have yet to see good reasons for posting to URCM.

--  

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 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:59:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:18:03 +0000, Tom Crispin 
>wrote:
>
>>Paranoia?  No.  The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list is
>>enirely defensible.  Concealing its implementation, or attempting to
>>conceal its implementation, by censoring posts (if that was the
>>intent) is indefensible.
>
>Er, Tom?  It was in the debate around the RFD.  It's a normal feature
>of moderated newsgroups.
> 
>Guy


OH dear,oh dear  - the inability to read rises yet again - or perhaps
early on the sauce today:

"The implementation of a pass-list and watch-list is
entirely defensible".


He is NOT saying that there should not be one - he has made that quite
clear.

Also - the RFD did not say that the implementation of the pass-list
would be concealed.
--          

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)

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:50:32 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:30:51 +0000, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>Several posters were confused why their posts were taking several
>>hours in some cases to appear, while other posters were saying how
>>excellent the system was as their posts appeared almost instantly. Two
>>moderators posted giving plausible reasons for this, neither mentioned
>>that the pass-list system had been /implemented/ a day earlier.  The
>>explainations given by the moderators are plausible explainations for
>>some delay, but are not the main reason for some posts arriving
>>instantly, and others taking several hours.
>
>This is moderation acting as normal.  It's normal for mods to discuss
>internally whether some posts should pass.  I suspect this will reduce
>over time as a cohesive policy emerges, and as the mods begin to
>understand what the internal consensus position is on certain types of
>post.
> 
>Guy


ffs - are you deliberately obtuse?

It was the fact that implementation of  it was hidden - AND - people
were actually asking why posts were being delayed.

Simple?

Yep - just like you.



--          

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)

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:55:13 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:42:26 +0000, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>My reason for my "Animal Farm" post was what I perceived to be a
>>deliberate attempt by moderators to conceal the fact, from baffled
>>posters, that the pass-list had recently been implemented.
>
>Hence the confusion: I was expecting it to be in place from day 1,
>albeit initially blank.  I was also expecting people like Helen and
>Dave Larrington to be added pretty much immediately.
> 
>Guy


The white list is supposed to be based on a history of posting in the
moderated group.

Not just on a  gut feeling  - or if it is someone the moderator may
know.

ffs - we would have had all users of chiark on the white list from day
one.  Oh - hang on a minute ......

--          

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)

jms wrote:

> ffs - we would have had all users of chiark on the white 
list from day
> one.  Oh - hang on a minute ......

no ... really ... you're not seriously saying you're still 
unaware of the /platinum/ list?  I thought it was common 
knowledge by now!






;-)

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:35:09 +0000, Jim A 
wrote:

>you're not seriously saying you're still 
>unaware of the /platinum/ list?

ITYM the titanium list.  Or is it the arborium list?
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

The Todal wrote:

> Presumably there was a pressing need for a cycling moderated group otherwise 
> it wouldn't have been created. Presumably it simply wasn't a sufficient 
> solution to killfile certain posters. I think only by having a very clear 
> notion of why the group was set up, can you reach a sensible moderation 
> policy. 
>


The problem seems to have been that a number of core posters to u.r.c
had certain beliefs that were not robust under close examination. The
"trolls", Judith in particular, could not just be killfiled because they
did actually make sense. These core posters who felt their beliefs
attacked then became rude and aggressive to anyone who they felt might
be a "troll". The situation was very similar to the problems that
religious groups face.

It is amusing to see moderators of the new group talk of a civility when
they were amongst the foremost in incivility. Civility it appears is
only possible if there is no challenge to their dogma. Unlike u.l.m
there is a need to hide what is actually being moderated or it would
become apparent that what they are actually trying to stop is not the
same as what they claim they are trying to stop.






>

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:39:36 +0000, "Wm..the lying fuckwit."
 wrote:

<snip>

>
>That would be post analysis.


Hello Worm...

Gathered any good personal data on anyone today.

Talking of "post analysis" - anything to report yet?

Any chance of sticking to the agreement we had?

Why are you so dishonest and dishonourable?

--  

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

dan@telent.net wrote:
> Matt B  writes:
> 
>> I have views and opinions which ...
> 
> in many cases and in some situations would be shared by a substantial
> number of urc (and, I expect, urcm) posters, 

Ah, but they are reluctant to admit that.

> but your pointless  pedantry,

But surely a valuable use of pedantry is to correct misrepresented 
(possibly misunderstood or misquoted) assertions of what is, and what is 
not, legal or allowed under the laws of our land.

> your continual attempts to work every thread around to
> discussion of them 

Do I /really/ do that?

> and your tedious second-rate-Socratic dialectical  style

I need to chill a bit then? 8-)

> make conversation with you only marginally more interesting than
> trying to debate with Doug.

Which is, of course, optional.

>> I am blind to what the problem is. Can you enlighten me?
> 
> I hope that helps.  

Thanks, yes, but why do you even bother to read my posts if you find it 
such an ordeal?

-- 
Matt B

wrote:

> in many cases and in some situations would be shared by a substantial
> number of urc (and, I expect, urcm) posters, but your pointless
> pedantry, your continual attempts to work every thread around to
> discussion of them and your tedious second-rate-Socratic dialectical
> style make conversation with you only marginally more interesting than
> trying to debate with Doug.

None of the above is a fit reason to block posts to a newsgroup.

wrote:

> it doesn't need
> someone to pop up and make the same bloody point every single bloody
> time the issue is mentioned, and on past performance Matt is unable to
> restrain himself.

Well... there are regulars who are similarly unable to restrain
themselves from mounting their hobby horse. The difference being, I
suppose, that the moderators agree with their particular views.

It was for this reason that I suggested that the moderators should adopt
the principles of ULM. Sadly they thought they could do better and are
sinking into personalised decisions.

dan@telent.net wrote:
> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes:
> 
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> in many cases and in some situations would be shared by a substantial
>>> number of urc (and, I expect, urcm) posters, but your pointless
>>> pedantry, your continual attempts to work every thread around to
>>> discussion of them and your tedious second-rate-Socratic dialectical
>>> style make conversation with you only marginally more interesting than
>>> trying to debate with Doug.
>> None of the above is a fit reason to block posts to a newsgroup.
> 
> I agree, but I wasn't talking about blocking posts, I was talking about
> reasons that Matt B might not find himself on the auto-approval list.

OK.

> urcm needs at most *one* rehearsal of the reasons that (for example)
> cars might legally be stopped in a cycle reservoir, 

AFAICR we haven't covered that yet in urcm ;-)

But, one *per* assertion that cars cannot legally stop in them should 
surely be permitted.

> it doesn't need
> someone to pop up and make the same bloody point every single bloody
> time the issue is mentioned, and on past performance Matt is unable to
> restrain himself.

But the false information would then remain uncorrected - that surely 
isn't how it should work.

/If/ the moderators do their job properly they will block subsequent 
posts which restate the widely held, but mistaken view that cars cannot 
stop there.  If they miss one, then they should allow the correction again.

-- 
Matt B

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:45:04 +0000, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>I don't think I am being censored if a post of mine to that group gets 
>refused.
>
>Sure, I might moan post the event as you and other people are doing but 
>is it really a big deal?  If your (or my) words are so important we 
>should rephrase and try again rather than moan although the initial 
>rejection can be baffling.

It was not the binning of my post that annoyed me so much as an
invalid reason given for the binning.  That has long since been
rectified.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

jms  wrote:

> You are actually a fool.  You have got an IP address "just in case".
> 
> Do you collect them - how many do you want?

Ummm well... I'm not he but I've got access to several million IP
addresses.

If you're going to pick arguments with people, as is your right, try to
pick subjects that you can speak on without making yourself look like a
drivelling idiot.