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 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).  

* Generally the more marginal the post is (in our eyes), the more meta-
or off-topic or irrelevant the post is the longer we will want to think 
about it.  We may even have to discuss it between ourselves. 

-- 
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:29:24 +0000, Peter Clinch
 wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> However, I have made it to the pass-list now.
>
>Errrr, you sure about that?

I seemed likely:
Received notification: 26 Oct: 11:58:33
Approval notification: 26 Oct: 11:59:37

Received notification: 26 Oct: 14:41:38
Approval notification: 26 Oct: 14:45:26

Received notification: 26 Oct: 22:30:02
Approval notification: 26 Oct: 22:30:02 

However, I have since noted that my last two posts weren't approved
quite as expediently as the one at ten-thirty last night.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:15:17 -0000, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
>"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. 

I love it!  It is all there...  An Orwellian reference and an
invitation to me to leave and trot down the pub.

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

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:43:43 +0000, jms 
wrote:

>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 ?

It seemed I erred.  Nevertheles, it certainly was not intended as a
gloat.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:13:42 -0000, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>"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.


Rubbish  - I was certainly not just told "NO" - feel free to re-read
the thread  - you may even learn something - the URCM moderators
certainly will.
--  

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 19:14:38 -0000, "Clive George"
 wrote:

<snip>


What an excellent post Mr George - you have yourself in this post
demonstrated *exactly* a number of the problems of uk.rec.cycling -
caused by the residents rather than by "trolls".

Let's  have a look at your points

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

I suspect the "nuttiness" is in the eye of the beholder.  I don't
think I have been "nutty" - perhaps you could expand.


>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.


Feel free to totally disregard the views of other people who have
already said in this group, that one of the problems in urc was that I
and others was saying things which were true - but which disagreed
with the official line in urc.

A good example is Anchor Lee stating that 3,000 pedestrians were
killed by tripping or slipping every year.

(The official urc view is that cycling is safer than walking)

That  figure was wrong - and it was obvious it was wrong.

I, and I alone, commented on this.

No one - your self included,  could bring yourself to agree with me -
but you certainly could not prove the figures.

I therefore concluded that you thought I was wrong - and I felt  more
than justified in bringing it to your attention (on many occasions).

You may call that trolling.

I call it educating people who have their head in the sand.


> She said her  mission was to turn the group to ratshit


Now I am sorry  sunshine - but this is the sort of thing that actually
turned the group to rat-shit.

Just provide a reference to where I said that my mission was to turn
the group to rat-shit.

I certainly predicted it would turn to rat-shit if things continued as
they were - as that was oh so obvious.  Such things as : Continue  as
you are and it will turn to rat-shit.  Do you really want it to turn
to rat-shit?

This is an excellent example of behaviour in urc.

Someone would come out with an outrageous lie like this - and no-one
(but me)  would actually say that it was wrong.  I asked people to
prove their quote - and they just ignored it - because I was a troll.

But of course - using this example - others would repeat it :  "JMS
promised to turn the group to rat-shit"  and it is then set in stone.

So please show us where I stated this "mission"

Finally of course there was the way that the "regulars" treated  the
new comers to the group. 

For example: my own experience:  I made my first post (I think) to urc
to start a discussion on cycle lanes.  It started:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone called Ian Jackson has posted in uk.legal.moderated regarding
a Judicial Review against the IPCC - and he rightly does not want that
thread diverted on to other matters.

<snip>

A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick
and chose when they use cycle lanes;  indeed, to me the accident which
is discussed in that article is a clear example of why cyclists
*should* use facilities provided for them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


One of the regulars immediately replies with:
===================


Oh dear.

Mostly my view is you're extremely badly informed.

etc
==================


The typical  welcome to the new comer.

That regular was of course a certain Clive George.

You could say that I took that first response by *you* as a
"challenge".

--    

Members of the medical profession refer to cyclists as "donors".
(Daily Mail)

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:43:12 +0000, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:26:09  
>uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 
>
>
>>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.
>
>If 3 people had died of natural causes urcm wouldn't have been 
>necessary.

Now then Worm...

If you would die of natural causes I would declare that I *do* believe
in God and the power of prayer after all.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:08:48  
uk.net.news.moderation jms 

>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:43:12 +0000, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:26:09 
>>uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>If 3 people had died of natural causes urcm wouldn't have been
>>necessary.
>
>Now then Worm...
>
>If you would die of natural causes I would declare that I *do* believe
>in God and the power of prayer after all.

You must be doing it wrong.

No offence intended to people that actually believe in a deity.  Just 
not my idea of fun.

If the religious bunch want the jms entity they can have it because 
no-one else wants it.

This may be a pick up for Mark though I doubt he wants the jms in his 
church either.

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