Why has my latest post (ID: ) posted 
at 07:26 this morning been delayed and overtaken by at least 9 others 
posted since it today?

This has happened quite frequently (always?).  The average response to 
my posts is about 3 hours.  The 4 longest responses in the log are to 4 
of my posts, with nearly 16 hours taken for one, 15 hours for another 
and two taking over 12 hours.

Please explain the process that is in place wrt posts from me, and why 
it is like that.

-- 
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
> Why has my latest post (ID: ) posted 
> at 07:26 this morning been delayed and overtaken by at least 9 others 

18 others now (mine was the only one left on the queue at 12:23).

> posted since it today?
> 
> This has happened quite frequently (always?).  The average response to 
> my posts is about 3 hours.  The 4 longest responses in the log are to 4 
> of my posts, with nearly 16 hours taken for one, 15 hours for another 
> and two taking over 12 hours.
> 
> Please explain the process that is in place wrt posts from me, and why 
> it is like that.
> 


-- 
Matt B

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:45:05 +0000
Matt B  wrote:

> Matt B wrote:
> > Why has my latest post (ID: )
> > posted at 07:26 this morning been delayed and overtaken by at least
> > 9 others 
> 
> 18 others now (mine was the only one left on the queue at 12:23).
> 
> > posted since it today?
> > 
> > This has happened quite frequently (always?).  The average response
> > to my posts is about 3 hours.  The 4 longest responses in the log
> > are to 4 of my posts, with nearly 16 hours taken for one, 15 hours
> > for another and two taking over 12 hours.
> > 
> > Please explain the process that is in place wrt posts from me, and
> > why it is like that.
> > 
> 
> 
I'm sure someone commented on this before, something about wanting to
get the opinion of other mods before passing a post.  Or maybe they
think it's one of those "no significantly new material" posts, because
a great deal of what you post is just the same stuff warmed over (if
that) but they can't be bothered to wade through previous posts to find
which one it's a repeat of.

In article ,
Matt B   wrote:
>Why has my latest post (ID: ) posted 
>at 07:26 this morning been delayed and overtaken by at least 9 others 
>posted since it today?

As we've previously explained, we sometimes leave a post in the queue
while we think about it and/or discuss it with our co-moderators.

This is much more likely to happen to postings which are borderline or
destined to be rejected (because we don't like to reject things
lightly).

Also if a particular person often posts borderline material, we're
much more likely to be wary.  Likewise if a poster has had a habit of
submitting variations on the same message after getting a rejection.

>Please explain the process that is in place wrt posts from me, and why 
>it is like that.

I don't think more detailed discussion of the specific innards of our
processes is going to be helpful.  So I don't propose to go into this
in any more detail.

If you're unhappy with this, I suggest you email a complaint to the
moderators.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article ,
> Matt B   wrote:
>> Why has my latest post (ID: ) posted 
>> at 07:26 this morning been delayed and overtaken by at least 9 others 
>> posted since it today?
> 
> As we've previously explained, we sometimes leave a post in the queue
> while we think about it and/or discuss it with our co-moderators.

That /may/ be a valid reason if any of my posts so far to URCM had been 
even slightly controversial; let alone inflammatory, off-charter or 
repetitious.

> This is much more likely to happen to postings which are borderline or
> destined to be rejected (because we don't like to reject things
> lightly).

The question then that I want the answer to is why you always, 
regardless of content, assume that my posts are destined to be rejected?

> Also if a particular person often posts borderline material, we're
> much more likely to be wary.  

Nothing of mine fits that description.  If you disagree, post an example 
here for us all to see.

> Likewise if a poster has had a habit of
> submitting variations on the same message after getting a rejection.

If a fit post is rejected for a weak reason then why not try again? 
Please quote specific examples that show this phenomenon to make it 
clear - if it has /ever/ happened.

>> Please explain the process that is in place wrt posts from me, and why 
>> it is like that.
> 
> I don't think more detailed discussion of the specific innards of our
> processes is going to be helpful.  

It would help me understand why my posts are held up.  None of the 
reasons above fit.  Is there something you are trying to hide?

> So I don't propose to go into this
> in any more detail.

The process isn't transparent, so you need to respond to questions like 
this to give confidence to posters that nothing underhand (e.g. 
unofficial blacklists) is being used.

> If you're unhappy with this, I suggest you email a complaint to the
> moderators.

Why should I waste time throwing stuff into that black hole?  I still 
haven't had a reply to mine from last Monday yet.

The evidence that you aren't attempting to abuse your power over this 
new group to settle old scores or to gain redress for lost arguments of 
old isn't very convincing... yet.

-- 
Matt B

In article ,
Matt B   wrote:
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>> If you're unhappy with this, I suggest you email a complaint to the
>> moderators.
>
>Why should I waste time throwing stuff into that black hole?  I still 
>haven't had a reply to mine from last Monday yet.

You've sent many mails to the moderators and I think most of them have
been answered.  However I wouldn't be surprised if we had missed one.

Please email me (privately will do) specifically which message(s)
you're talking about (date, message id, or a copy of the
unresponded-to complaint) and I will make sure you get a reply.

>That /may/ be a valid reason if any of my posts so far to URCM had been 
>even slightly controversial; let alone inflammatory, off-charter or 
>repetitious.

The moderators evidently disagree as a number of your postings have
been rejected.

>> [Delays] are much more likely to happen to postings which are ...
>> destined to be rejected (because we don't like to reject things
>> lightly).
>
>The question then that I want the answer to is why you always, 
>regardless of content, assume that my posts are destined to be rejected?

You have misunderstood my comment.  What I mean is that a posting
which is rejected is likely to have been sat in the queue for a
longer-than-average period, compared to postings which are accepted.

>The process isn't transparent, so you need to respond to questions like 
>this to give confidence to posters that nothing underhand (e.g. 
>unofficial blacklists) is being used.

There is no unofficial blacklist.  Your postings are being moderated
according to their merits.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article ,
> Matt B   wrote:
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> If you're unhappy with this, I suggest you email a complaint to the
>>> moderators.
>> Why should I waste time throwing stuff into that black hole?  I still 
>> haven't had a reply to mine from last Monday yet.
> 
> You've sent many mails to the moderators and I think most of them have
> been answered.  However I wouldn't be surprised if we had missed one.

I've sent precisely 3 to urcm-moderators@... 1 on 2009-10-26 and 2 on 
2009-10-28.   None were answered, or even acknowledged until I mentioned 
that fact here in unnm on 2009-10-28 in message ID: 
.  Simon Brooke replied to that here 
on 2009-10-28 to acknowledge their receipt (ID: 
). 
You then responded by email to one of my emails.  The other 2 remain 
unanswered.

> Please email me (privately will do) specifically which message(s)
> you're talking about (date, message id, or a copy of the
> unresponded-to complaint) and I will make sure you get a reply.

"Fwd: 3feet2Pass - No. 10 petition" Mon, 26 Oct 2009  8:50:19 AM Eastern 
Daylight Time.

&

"Re: FPNs for cyclists in Oxford with no lights" Wed, 28 Oct 2009 
6:00:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time.

>> That /may/ be a valid reason if any of my posts so far to URCM had been 
>> even slightly controversial; let alone inflammatory, off-charter or 
>> repetitious.
> 
> The moderators evidently disagree as a number of your postings have
> been rejected.

My point precisely.  Was their content even read?

>>> [Delays] are much more likely to happen to postings which are ...
>>> destined to be rejected (because we don't like to reject things
>>> lightly).
>> The question then that I want the answer to is why you always, 
>> regardless of content, assume that my posts are destined to be rejected?
> 
> You have misunderstood my comment.  What I mean is that a posting
> which is rejected is likely to have been sat in the queue for a
> longer-than-average period, compared to postings which are accepted.

Yes, why is it assumed that my posts are destined to be rejected?

>> The process isn't transparent, so you need to respond to questions like 
>> this to give confidence to posters that nothing underhand (e.g. 
>> unofficial blacklists) is being used.
> 
> There is no unofficial blacklist.  Your postings are being moderated
> according to their merits.

I'm not convinced - at all.

"Put your money where your mouth is" and defend that statement by going 
to the post "Re: Do URCM moderators respond to emails?" put on here on 
2009-10-31 (ID: ) and reply to it, 
justifying the reasons given for the rejection of the four posts copied 
there and which were rejected as "needlessly inflammatory".

-- 
Matt B

On 03 Nov 2009 14:35:13 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

<snip>


>If you're unhappy with this, I suggest you email a complaint to the
>moderators.


Could you recommend an email address to be used in order to do so?

Matt B  wrote:

> Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > There is no unofficial blacklist.  Your postings are being moderated
> > according to their merits.
> 
> I'm not convinced - at all.

If you are not happy with your postings being rejected/delayed in the
Moderated group, then I'd suggest posting to the unmoderated group, and
you can write what you want, with it being 'there' pretty much
immediately.
Whinging on here just sounds like sour grapes, much like JMS continually
states the same thing over and over.
Alan.
-- 
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

In article ,
Matt B   wrote:
>I've sent precisely 3 to urcm-moderators@... 1 on 2009-10-26 and 2 on 
>2009-10-28.

You seem to be right.  My personal mailbox has more messages from you
than the moderators' list.  I'll talk to the other moderators and make
sure that you get a a formal reply to your complaints of
   Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:50:11 -0400
   Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:00:40 -0400
 
I warn you that you're not likely to get the positive response you
apparently think you deserve, but you do deserve at least a reply.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On 03 Nov 2009 14:35:13 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In article ,
>Matt B   wrote:
>>Why has my latest post (ID: ) posted 
>>at 07:26 this morning been delayed and overtaken by at least 9 others 
>>posted since it today?
>
>As we've previously explained, we sometimes leave a post in the queue
>while we think about it and/or discuss it with our co-moderators.

This appears to be the case a disproportionate amount of time with
Troll B.

>This is much more likely to happen to postings which are borderline or
>destined to be rejected (because we don't like to reject things
>lightly).

Perhaps a note to the poster to that effect, pointing out the
borderline aspect of the post, would be helpful.

>Also if a particular person often posts borderline material, we're
>much more likely to be wary.  Likewise if a poster has had a habit of
>submitting variations on the same message after getting a rejection.

Then explain the borderline aspect and allow the poster to modify with
the borderline aspect removed.

>>Please explain the process that is in place wrt posts from me, and why 
>>it is like that.
>
>I don't think more detailed discussion of the specific innards of our
>processes is going to be helpful.  So I don't propose to go into this
>in any more detail.

I disagree.  I am looking forward to the explaination.

>If you're unhappy with this, I suggest you email a complaint to the
>moderators.

I think this should be discussed in an open and transparent forum.  I
have a strong suspicion that Troll B is being victimised.  To dispel
my suspicion I would like you to share your criteria for the delay in
allowing Troll B's posts.  If you think that he is an annoying git,
decide what it is that annoys you and ban that aspect of his posts.
For example, I can't stand the way Troll B frequently answers points
with a question.  If you were to ban answering points with a question,
unless the point has been substantially answered, you would be able to
filter out many of Troll B's most annoying posts.
-- 
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:41:22 +0000, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:

>Matt B  wrote:
>
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> > There is no unofficial blacklist.  Your postings are being moderated
>> > according to their merits.
>> 
>> I'm not convinced - at all.
>
>If you are not happy with your postings being rejected/delayed in the
>Moderated group, then I'd suggest posting to the unmoderated group, and
>you can write what you want, with it being 'there' pretty much
>immediately.
>Whinging on here just sounds like sour grapes, much like JMS continually
>states the same thing over and over.
>Alan.

I believe  that I have said that you are a fuckwit only the once
before.


-- 
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 03 Nov 2009 17:54:39 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In article ,
>Matt B   wrote:
>>I've sent precisely 3 to urcm-moderators@... 1 on 2009-10-26 and 2 on 
>>2009-10-28.
>
>You seem to be right.  My personal mailbox has more messages from you
>than the moderators' list.  I'll talk to the other moderators and make
>sure that you get a a formal reply to your complaints of
>   Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:50:11 -0400
>   Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:00:40 -0400



You really do need to get this business of emailing moderators sorted
out.

Are you having problems  with your email system - is it broken in some
way?

Is there anything I can do to help?

--  

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

In article , Tom Crispin wrote:
>This appears to be the case a disproportionate amount of time with
>Troll B.

The very fact you call him "Troll B" suggests an obvious reason why his
posts might require a disproportionate amount of time to moderate.


>Perhaps a note to the poster to that effect, pointing out the
>borderline aspect of the post, would be helpful.

Or it might just provoke unhelpful complaints about how we're picking on him.
As in fact it has.

Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article ,
> Matt B   wrote:
>> I've sent precisely 3 to urcm-moderators@... 1 on 2009-10-26 and 2 on 
>> 2009-10-28.
> 
> You seem to be right.  

And that's not the only thing that I was right about in that post.

> [...]

> I warn you that you're not likely to get the positive response you
> apparently think you deserve, but you do deserve at least a reply.

Ah, you admit to prejudging it then.  That's not a good start really - 
is it.

I note too your snipping out of other important points from my posts on 
this matter.

-- 
Matt B

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On 03 Nov 2009 14:35:13 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
>  wrote:
> 
>> In article ,
>> Matt B   wrote:
>>> Why has my latest post (ID: ) posted 
>>> at 07:26 this morning been delayed and overtaken by at least 9 others 
>>> posted since it today?
>> As we've previously explained, we sometimes leave a post in the queue
>> while we think about it and/or discuss it with our co-moderators.
> 
> This appears to be the case a disproportionate amount of time with
> Troll B.

Tom, your continued support in this matter is appreciated.

There are certain evils which are worth transcending relatively trivial 
animosities to stand up against - and, to your credit, you obviously 
number bullying and victimisation amongst them.

> [...]

And not a question in sight. ;-)

-- 
Matt B

On 03 Nov 2009 20:04:51 +0000 (GMT), armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>In article , Tom Crispin wrote:
>>This appears to be the case a disproportionate amount of time with
>>Troll B.
>
>The very fact you call him "Troll B" suggests an obvious reason why his
>posts might require a disproportionate amount of time to moderate.

Not if you moderate according to policy.

>>Perhaps a note to the poster to that effect, pointing out the
>>borderline aspect of the post, would be helpful.
>
>Or it might just provoke unhelpful complaints about how we're picking on him.
>As in fact it has.

It sounds as if those complaints are justified.
-- 
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:33:32 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:

> I think this should be discussed in an open and transparent forum.  I
> have a strong suspicion that Troll B is being victimised.

He cannot be 'being victimised'. He has no rights here to be infringed, 
and the moderators have no power to infringe against any of his rights.
The moderators are required to keep the newsgroup 
uk.rec.cycling.moderated civil, pleasant and of interest to cyclists. 
That is all. We're not required to - nor could we if we were - operate 
some abstract system of justice. 

Anyone is perfectly at liberty to say or write anything they like. He's 
not at liberty to say or write it anywhere he likes. If the moderators 
deem a post would not be conducive to keeping the group 'civil, pleasant 
and of interest to cyclists' then it is our /duty/ - not our choice - to 
block it. That's all.

Yes, you could (if we permitted you) tie the job of moderation into such 
bureaucratic knots with reviews and appeals and counter appeals and what 
not that it became so onerous that no volunteers could be found to do it.

That would destroy the group as effectively as rmgrouping it. But we're 
not going down that route. The referee blows his whistle on the day and 
pulls that card out of his pocket, and you walk off the pitch without 
dissent - even if, on this occasion, the referee got it wrong.

Or else you don't play.

-- 
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.

On 03 Nov 2009 20:04:51 +0000 (GMT)
armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:

> In article , Tom Crispin
> wrote:
> >This appears to be the case a disproportionate amount of time with
> >Troll B.
> 
> The very fact you call him "Troll B" suggests an obvious reason why
> his posts might require a disproportionate amount of time to moderate.
> 
Just because he has history in another group doesn't give the mods
carte blanche to treat him as a second class citizen.  I'm not saying
that's what's happening, but I think Tom would like to be sure that
it's not.

Rob Morley wrote:
> On 03 Nov 2009 20:04:51 +0000 (GMT)
> armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> 
>> In article , Tom Crispin
>> wrote:
>>> This appears to be the case a disproportionate amount of time with
>>> Troll B.
>> The very fact you call him "Troll B" suggests an obvious reason why
>> his posts might require a disproportionate amount of time to moderate.
>>
> Just because he has history 

Ahem - "history".  And /alleged/ "history" at that.  And, actually only 
alleged my a minority.

> in another group doesn't give the mods
> carte blanche to treat him as a second class citizen.  

Thanks Rob.

> I'm not saying
> that's what's happening, but I think Tom would like to be sure that
> it's not.

-- 
Matt B

In article <20091104031100.25339997@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
>armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>> In article , Tom Crispin
>> wrote:
>> >This appears to be the case a disproportionate amount of time with
>> >Troll B.
>> 
>> The very fact you call him "Troll B" suggests an obvious reason why
>> his posts might require a disproportionate amount of time to moderate.
>> 
>Just because he has history in another group doesn't give the mods
>carte blanche to treat him as a second class citizen.

Which is exactly why we haven't just put him on a block list to save time.
Why Tom is complaining that we should spend time considering Matt's posts 
is unclear to me.