On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:14:38 +0000, Clive George wrote:

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

We have a very clear notion of why the group was set up. It was set up to 
provide a civil forum in which people who enjoy cycling can talk civilly 
about cycling. And so we can have a clear and sensible moderation 
strategy, which is to exclude posts which - and if necessary posters who 
- are excessively uncivil, or seek to provoke incivility in others.

I'm naming no names and looking at no-one in particular. While it's true 
that some people with no obvious interest in cycling have deliberately 
set out to disrupt the unmoderated group over the past couple of years, 
they could not have succeeded so spectacularly without a great deal of 
help from other people who should have known better.

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and 
every moderation decision is unexplained and final.