I would like to complain about the undue delay to my postings to
uk.rec.cycling.moderated.  Sometimes my messages sit in the queue for
hours while other posters' messages are approved almost immediately.

Why, just now one of the moderators (to wit, me) has approved three
messages from other people, one of them borderline off-topic and
criticising me, while leaving my messages sat in limbo.

Most unfair!

-- 
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

In article <swe*CBbVs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
 Ian Jackson  wrote:

> I would like to complain about the undue delay to my postings to
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated.  Sometimes my messages sit in the queue for
> hours while other posters' messages are approved almost immediately.
> 
> Why, just now one of the moderators (to wit, me) has approved three
> messages from other people, one of them borderline off-topic and
> criticising me, 

That was me! Fame at last!

>while leaving my messages sat in limbo. 

> Most unfair!

Now, now.

-- 
Sara

Cuddler of rats, cats and husband

Ian Jackson  wrote:

> I would like to complain about the undue delay to my postings to
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated.  Sometimes my messages sit in the queue for
> hours while other posters' messages are approved almost immediately.

You think it's clever to bully individuals in this way Jackson?

Perhaps you should spend some time sorting out your fucked-up concepts
of moderation, and of course preparing that apology?

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:22:34 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Ian Jackson  wrote:
>
>> I would like to complain about the undue delay to my postings to
>> uk.rec.cycling.moderated.  Sometimes my messages sit in the queue for
>> hours while other posters' messages are approved almost immediately.
>
>You think it's clever to bully individuals in this way Jackson?
>
>Perhaps you should spend some time sorting out your fucked-up concepts
>of moderation, and of course preparing that apology?

Are they not using a robot moderator? A robot would normally be set up
so any post from a known and trusted user gets passed straight though.
Clearly the mods need to look at what's going on to decide if someone
has gained or lost that trusted status.

A common anti troll, spam, mad idiot filter on a robot moderator is no
X-posting to mod groups. So is he X-posting and getting caught as a
possible troll or spammer?
-- 
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

Peter Hill  wrote:

> 
> A common anti troll, spam, mad idiot filter on a robot moderator is no
> X-posting to mod groups. So is he X-posting and getting caught as a
> possible troll or spammer?

No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had their
cards marked as trouble makers. These individuals are experiencing long
delays for posting and they are also getting posts bounced for no good
reason. Jackson has also fucked up the issue of accepting mail - he
won't accept mail from Hotmail for example - and is currently stamping
his little foot elsewhere to get the whole of UK Usenet changed to match
his belief of How It Should Be Done.

In article ,
Peter Hill   wrote:
>Are they not using a robot moderator? A robot would normally be set up
>so any post from a known and trusted user gets passed straight though.
>Clearly the mods need to look at what's going on to decide if someone
>has gained or lost that trusted status.

Yes, we are using a robot.  I'm not on the passlist and neither is
Matt B.  In fact the passlist is rather short mainly because we've
been erring on the side of keeping people out of it, and because
putting people on it is more immediate effort than just moderating
them by hand for a few more messages.

>A common anti troll, spam, mad idiot filter on a robot moderator is no
>X-posting to mod groups. So is he X-posting and getting caught as a
>possible troll or spammer?

The robot at does the moment automatically reject all crosspostings.

-- 
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 ,
> Peter Hill   wrote:
>> Are they not using a robot moderator? A robot would normally be set up
>> so any post from a known and trusted user gets passed straight though.
>> Clearly the mods need to look at what's going on to decide if someone
>> has gained or lost that trusted status.
> 
> Yes, we are using a robot.  I'm not on the passlist and neither is
> Matt B.  In fact the passlist is rather short mainly because we've
> been erring on the side of keeping people out of it, and because
> putting people on it is more immediate effort than just moderating
> them by hand for a few more messages.

Why then is anyone on it?
Who is on it?

-- 
Matt B

On 4 Nov, 17:24, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:05:52 -0800 (PST), Simon Brooke
>
> >As a matter of policy, we are not going to discuss that. Nor will we
> >engage in guessing games. You may if you like guess that someone is on
> >or is not on any of the lists, but we will not confirm or deny.
>
> Resistance is futile.

Got it in one.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1j8nct0.npbdy65t0ry0N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...

> No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had their
> cards marked as trouble makers.

Same process as in uk.legal.moderated, you mean?

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:50:41 -0800 (PST), Simon Brooke
 wrote:

>On 4 Nov, 17:24, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:05:52 -0800 (PST), Simon Brooke
>>
>> >As a matter of policy, we are not going to discuss that. Nor will we
>> >engage in guessing games. You may if you like guess that someone is on
>> >or is not on any of the lists, but we will not confirm or deny.
>>
>> Resistance is futile.
>
>Got it in one.

Except that resistance wasn't futile, only believed to be futile by
the hive.
-- 
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:00:48 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had their
>cards marked as trouble makers. These individuals are experiencing long
>delays for posting and they are also getting posts bounced for no good
>reason. Jackson has also fucked up the issue of accepting mail - he
>won't accept mail from Hotmail for example - and is currently stamping
>his little foot elsewhere to get the whole of UK Usenet changed to match
>his belief of How It Should Be Done.

The only problem with this is that MattB /is/ a troublemaker and has
already made several (approved) posts which are accounted borderline
trolling by people who are not members of the cabal (TINC).  This is
entirely in line with his behaviour on urc, where he lives in a lot of
killfiles.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:52:28 -0000, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
>news:1j8nct0.npbdy65t0ry0N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
>> No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had their
>> cards marked as trouble makers.
>
>Same process as in uk.legal.moderated, you mean? 
>


The subtle difference is that the moderation policy and process in ulm
is very open and fair.

There is no stretch of the imagination which lead one to say that bout
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

Clive George  wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1j8nct0.npbdy65t0ry0N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> 
> > No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had their
> > cards marked as trouble makers.
> 
> Same process as in uk.legal.moderated, you mean? 

No. Not at all, not even close.

Please continue to tell some more lies, they seem to come easily to you.
Why is that?

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1j8qejy.1tpvf4u1n1i5q8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Clive George  wrote:
>
>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1j8nct0.npbdy65t0ry0N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>>
>> > No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had their
>> > cards marked as trouble makers.
>>
>> Same process as in uk.legal.moderated, you mean?
>
> No. Not at all, not even close.
>
> Please continue to tell some more lies, they seem to come easily to you.
> Why is that?

Um, I'm not lying. The Todal confirmed the presence of a watch list in 
uk.legal.moderated, same as in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.

Clive George  wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1j8qejy.1tpvf4u1n1i5q8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > Clive George  wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:1j8nct0.npbdy65t0ry0N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> >>
> >> > No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had their
> >> > cards marked as trouble makers.
> >>
> >> Same process as in uk.legal.moderated, you mean?
> >
> > No. Not at all, not even close.
> >
> > Please continue to tell some more lies, they seem to come easily to you.
> > Why is that?
> 
> Um, I'm not lying. 

Yes you are.

> The Todal confirmed the presence of a watch list in 
> uk.legal.moderated, same as in uk.rec.cycling.moderated. 

Umm hmm. And?

In article ,
Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>The only problem with this is that MattB /is/ a troublemaker and has
>already made several (approved) posts which are accounted borderline
>trolling by people who are not members of the cabal (TINC).

Yes, sadly so.  In general the rejected ones have been worse (modulo
of course the natural discrepancies and differencies between various
moderators).

This has not gone unnoticed and is why we're handling his postings
with extra care.  Sadly that extra care takes extra organisation and
extra time.

-- 
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

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1j8qhea.1sdhivqr2h3bbN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Clive George  wrote:
>
>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1j8qejy.1tpvf4u1n1i5q8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> > Clive George  wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> news:1j8nct0.npbdy65t0ry0N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> >>
>> >> > No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had 
>> >> > their
>> >> > cards marked as trouble makers.
>> >>
>> >> Same process as in uk.legal.moderated, you mean?
>> >
>> > No. Not at all, not even close.
>> >
>> > Please continue to tell some more lies, they seem to come easily to 
>> > you.
>> > Why is that?
>>
>> Um, I'm not lying.
>
> Yes you are.
>
>> The Todal confirmed the presence of a watch list in
>> uk.legal.moderated, same as in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
>
> Umm hmm. And?

Which means in uk.legal.moderated, some individuals have their cards marked 
as people who need watching, same as in uk.rec.cycling.moderated. That's the 
point of the watch list.

Clive George  wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1j8qhea.1sdhivqr2h3bbN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > Clive George  wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:1j8qejy.1tpvf4u1n1i5q8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> >> > Clive George  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1j8nct0.npbdy65t0ry0N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> >> >>
> >> >> > No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had
> >> >> > their
> >> >> > cards marked as trouble makers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Same process as in uk.legal.moderated, you mean?
> >> >
> >> > No. Not at all, not even close.
> >> >
> >> > Please continue to tell some more lies, they seem to come easily to
> >> > you.
> >> > Why is that?
> >>
> >> Um, I'm not lying.
> >
> > Yes you are.
> >
> >> The Todal confirmed the presence of a watch list in
> >> uk.legal.moderated, same as in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
> >
> > Umm hmm. And?
> 
> Which means in uk.legal.moderated, some individuals have their cards marked
> as people who need watching, same as in uk.rec.cycling.moderated. That's the
> point of the watch list. 

Thinking isn't your strong point is it?

Ian Jackson  wrote:

> In article ,
> Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
> >The only problem with this is that MattB /is/ a troublemaker and has
> >already made several (approved) posts which are accounted borderline
> >trolling by people who are not members of the cabal (TINC).
> 
> Yes, sadly so.  In general the rejected ones have been worse (modulo
> of course the natural discrepancies and differencies between various
> moderators).
> 
> This has not gone unnoticed and is why we're handling his postings
> with extra care.  Sadly that extra care takes extra organisation and
> extra time.

<fx: hollow laughter>

That good old urc definitions of trolling. "Having an opinion different
to that of Jackson and Chapman and daring to express it."

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 00:21:53 -0000, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>Um, I'm not lying. The Todal confirmed the presence of a watch list in 
>uk.legal.moderated, same as in uk.rec.cycling.moderated. 

But is the 'watch-list' the same as urcm's?

I would guess that ulm has three lists:
pass-list
watch-list
block-list

Where posters on the watch-list have their posts approved or
disallowed by a moderator.

urcm has four lists:
pass-list
watch-list
delay-list
block-list

Where posters on the watch-list have their posts approved or
disallowed by a moderator.

Posters on the delay-list have their message read by a moderator then
either allowed, left in the queue or disallowed by a moderator.
Another moderator sees the post and either allows, leaves in the queue
or disallows.  This continues until eventually a moderator either
allows or disallows the post.  The delay in reasonable messages being
accepted can be considerable, and the poster is left uninformed about
the status of his or her message.

The moderators may call the lists by slightly different names, but I
think the names I have given them are accurate enough.  I hope a
moderator will correct this understanding of how the four lists
operate if it is incorrect.  The labels given to the four lists are
largely irrelevant.
-- 
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On 6 Nov, 07:42, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 00:21:53 -0000, "Clive George"
>
>  wrote:
> >Um, I'm not lying. The Todal confirmed the presence of a watch list in
> >uk.legal.moderated, same as in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
>
> But is the 'watch-list' the same as urcm's?
>
> I would guess that ulm has three lists:
> pass-list
> watch-list
> block-list
>
> Where posters on the watch-list have their posts approved or
> disallowed by a moderator.
>
> urcm has four lists:
> pass-list
> watch-list
> delay-list
> block-list

No, that is simply untrue. There is no delay list, never has been, and
no such thing is under consideration.

Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes:

> Where posters on the watch-list have their posts approved or
> disallowed by a moderator.
> 
> urcm has four lists:
> pass-list
> watch-list
> delay-list
> block-list

I think this is false; urcm has no delay-list. The only newsgroup in
uk.* with a delay-list that I'm aware of is uk.religion.christian (in
which case the delay is 24h, as a short-term punitive measure).

Matthew

-- 
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1j8qwcy.1yooj1x1a8r8xN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Clive George  wrote:
>
>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1j8qhea.1sdhivqr2h3bbN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> > Clive George  wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> news:1j8qejy.1tpvf4u1n1i5q8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> >> > Clive George  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1j8nct0.npbdy65t0ry0N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had
>> >> >> > their
>> >> >> > cards marked as trouble makers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Same process as in uk.legal.moderated, you mean?
>> >> >
>> >> > No. Not at all, not even close.
>> >> >
>> >> > Please continue to tell some more lies, they seem to come easily to
>> >> > you.
>> >> > Why is that?
>> >>
>> >> Um, I'm not lying.
>> >
>> > Yes you are.
>> >
>> >> The Todal confirmed the presence of a watch list in
>> >> uk.legal.moderated, same as in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
>> >
>> > Umm hmm. And?
>>
>> Which means in uk.legal.moderated, some individuals have their cards 
>> marked
>> as people who need watching, same as in uk.rec.cycling.moderated. That's 
>> the
>> point of the watch list.
>
> Thinking isn't your strong point is it?

You're just being dull now. Again.

In article ,
Tom Crispin  <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>urcm has four lists:
>pass-list
>watch-list
>delay-list
>block-list

No.  Firstly, there is no delay list.  There are three lists of
posters, but a poster can be on none of them (and most people are).
It doesn't make much sense for a poster to be on more than one (that
is, the results are substantially identical to the poster being on
only one of the lists).  So a poster may be in one of these four
categories:

 passlist:
    Postings (in general) automatically approved immediately.

 not on any list:
    Postings (in general) held for human moderation.

 watchlist:
    Postings (in general) held for human moderation but with a note in
    the moderation UI, informing that the human moderator that the
    poster is on the watchlist.

 blocklist:
    Postings automatically rejected immediately.

The software has no functionality for automatically delaying posts.
Any delays (barring malfunction, which I don't think is an issue here)
occur while the post sits in the moderation queue awaiting a decision
by a moderator, and any moderator who sees it has the ability to
approve or reject it.

I say `(in general)' above, because the moderation software has a
number of other features which can cause posts to be automatically
dealt with.  For example, at the moment, all crossposts are
automatically rejected without human review.  There are also
pass/watch/blocklists for threads which have similar behaviours and
obviously interact with the poster's status.

-- 
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
I'm standing for the UK Usenet committee; see uk.net.news.announce for info.

Clive George  wrote:

> > Thinking isn't your strong point is it?
> 
> You're just being dull now. Again. 

You're simply confirming that either you have your head in the sand or
that everything needs to be explained to you as if you were a very
small, and very stupid, child.

You have ranted on about the various policy lists used for moderation.
At no point have I made an observation about any of these lists. You
are, as fuckwits do, talking about one irrelevant sbject and closing
your mind to that which is relevant.

HTH. HAND. FOAD.

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:42:36 +0000
Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

> Posters on the delay-list have their message read by a moderator then
> either allowed, left in the queue or disallowed by a moderator.
> Another moderator sees the post and either allows, leaves in the queue
> or disallows.  This continues until eventually a moderator either
> allows or disallows the post.  The delay in reasonable messages being
> accepted can be considerable, and the poster is left uninformed about
> the status of his or her message.
> 
But surely that's just the normal moderation process - if a mod isn't
sure whether to allow or disallow a post he just leaves it in the queue
for the next mod to take a look?

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:00:48 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
> 
>> No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had their
>> cards marked as trouble makers. These individuals are experiencing long
>> delays for posting and they are also getting posts bounced for no good
>> reason. Jackson has also fucked up the issue of accepting mail - he
>> won't accept mail from Hotmail for example - and is currently stamping
>> his little foot elsewhere to get the whole of UK Usenet changed to match
>> his belief of How It Should Be Done.
> 
> The only problem with this is that MattB /is/ a troublemaker 

I don't /make/ trouble, those attempting to stifle my views and posts 
are the ones who are making all the trouble.

> and has
> already made several (approved) posts which are accounted borderline
> trolling by people who are not members of the cabal (TINC).  

Can you provide, with rationale for that assertion, one in particular (I 
won't hold my breath)?

> This is
> entirely in line with his behaviour on urc, 

So /you/ say, but so what - this is urcm that we are talking about.

> where he lives in a lot of
> killfiles.

Possibly _some_, but that isn't a valid metric to justify the assertions 
you seem intent on making.

What do you want?  Summary exclusion from urcm, purely because /you/ 
cannot stomach*, and cannot disprove or provide a satisfactory or valid 
argument against**, my views and opinions?

Live and let live.

* Because of your sheer arrogance, prejudice and bigotry possibly?
** Your speciality unsupported assertions and ad hominem _don't_ count 
as valid arguments.

-- 
Matt B

Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article ,
> Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>> The only problem with this is that MattB /is/ a troublemaker and has
>> already made several (approved) posts which are accounted borderline
>> trolling by people who are not members of the cabal (TINC).
> 
> Yes, sadly so.

What!!!  Are you saying the mods have been overly lenient on any of my 
posts?  Bring one to the table - and describe for us all what is 
"borderline" about it*.

It's a disgrace to your role to make such statements without backing it 
up with reasoned examples.

> In general the rejected ones have been worse (modulo
> of course the natural discrepancies and differencies between various
> moderators).

Worse?  In what way?  Bring an example and (attempt to) support your 
case*.  Surely you /can/ find an example to support such a rash claim?

> This has not gone unnoticed and is why we're handling his postings
> with extra care.  

Sounds very sinister to me.

> Sadly that extra care takes extra organisation and
> extra time.

You come across as paranoid - and all, apparently, because I have an 
open mind about the causes of road casualties, the measures that would 
best reduce them, and about the the equal treatment of road users of all 
modes.  Don't be so pathetic.

* We won't laugh, I promise.

-- 
Matt B

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1j8rcoz.gzifjn9o5rjqN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Clive George  wrote:
>
>> > Thinking isn't your strong point is it?
>>
>> You're just being dull now. Again.
>
> You're simply confirming that either you have your head in the sand or
> that everything needs to be explained to you as if you were a very
> small, and very stupid, child.
>
> You have ranted on about the various policy lists used for moderation.
> At no point have I made an observation about any of these lists. You
> are, as fuckwits do, talking about one irrelevant sbject and closing
> your mind to that which is relevant.

I have not "ranted on", I have stated what there is, in a concise fashion. I 
have also refrained from personal attack while doing so.

It is you who are ranting, and in a dull fashion.

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:10:17 +0000, Matt B
 wrote:

>I don't /make/ trouble, those attempting to stifle my views and posts 
>are the ones who are making all the trouble.

And thus you prove, once again, that you simply don't get it. Doorstep
evangelist indeed.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:10:17 +0000, Matt B
>  wrote:
> 
>> I don't /make/ trouble, those attempting to stifle my views and posts 
>> are the ones who are making all the trouble.
> 
> And thus you prove, once again, that you simply don't get it. Doorstep
> evangelist indeed.

What causes the puncture: the tyre or the nail on the road?

-- 
Matt B

On 06 Nov 2009 11:52:08 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In article ,
>Tom Crispin  <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>urcm has four lists:
>>pass-list
>>watch-list
>>delay-list
>>block-list
>
>No.  Firstly, there is no delay list.  There are three lists of
>posters, but a poster can be on none of them (and most people are).
>It doesn't make much sense for a poster to be on more than one (that
>is, the results are substantially identical to the poster being on
>only one of the lists).  So a poster may be in one of these four
>categories:
>
> passlist:
>    Postings (in general) automatically approved immediately.
>
> not on any list:
>    Postings (in general) held for human moderation.
>
> watchlist:
>    Postings (in general) held for human moderation but with a note in
>    the moderation UI, informing that the human moderator that the
>    poster is on the watchlist.
>
> blocklist:
>    Postings automatically rejected immediately.
>
>The software has no functionality for automatically delaying posts.
>Any delays (barring malfunction, which I don't think is an issue here)
>occur while the post sits in the moderation queue awaiting a decision
>by a moderator, and any moderator who sees it has the ability to
>approve or reject it.
>
>I say `(in general)' above, because the moderation software has a
>number of other features which can cause posts to be automatically
>dealt with.  For example, at the moment, all crossposts are
>automatically rejected without human review.  There are also
>pass/watch/blocklists for threads which have similar behaviours and
>obviously interact with the poster's status.

I note that you deleted my descriptions of the watch-list and
delay-list.

My description of a watch-list closely correlates with your
description of the "not on any list", and my description of the
delay-list closely correlates with your description of the
"watchlist".

The effect to Matt of the delay-list (which you call a watchlist) has
been to delay the posting of a considerable number of Matt's posts.

"Freedom fighter" or "insurgent"?  It all depends on which way you
look at it.
-- 
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

On 06 Nov 2009 11:04:34 +0000, Matthew Vernon 
wrote:

>Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes:
>
>> Where posters on the watch-list have their posts approved or
>> disallowed by a moderator.
>> 
>> urcm has four lists:
>> pass-list
>> watch-list
>> delay-list
>> block-list
>
>I think this is false; urcm has no delay-list. The only newsgroup in
>uk.* with a delay-list that I'm aware of is uk.religion.christian (in
>which case the delay is 24h, as a short-term punitive measure).
>
>Matthew


Then why not have a look at the "turn-round" times for the posters and
see the incredible differences.

I like the  way that Jackson says he is moderated - he must have
moderators on standby to explain the couple of minutes of turnround he
often experiences.


--  

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

Matt B  wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:00:48 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had their
> >> cards marked as trouble makers. These individuals are experiencing long
> >> delays for posting and they are also getting posts bounced for no good
> >> reason. Jackson has also fucked up the issue of accepting mail - he
> >> won't accept mail from Hotmail for example - and is currently stamping
> >> his little foot elsewhere to get the whole of UK Usenet changed to match
> >> his belief of How It Should Be Done.
> > 
> > The only problem with this is that MattB /is/ a troublemaker 
> 
> I don't /make/ trouble, those attempting to stifle my views and posts
> are the ones who are making all the trouble.
> 
snips

have you thought of posting about bikes? rather than reheated naked
streets and so on?

I'll admit that thus far the mods have lacked a light touch but it is
early days. time will tell.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:56:00 +0000, Matt B
 wrote:

>What causes the puncture: the tyre or the nail on the road?

It depends whether you're riding on tied and soldered wheels and
whether your hub hangs from or stands on the spokes.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

In article <20091106123138.6df75cb8@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
>Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>> Posters on the delay-list have their message read by a moderator then
>> either allowed, left in the queue or disallowed by a moderator.
>> Another moderator sees the post and either allows, leaves in the queue
>> or disallows.  This continues until eventually a moderator either
>> allows or disallows the post.  The delay in reasonable messages being
>> accepted can be considerable, and the poster is left uninformed about
>> the status of his or her message.
>> 
>But surely that's just the normal moderation process - if a mod isn't
>sure whether to allow or disallow a post he just leaves it in the queue
>for the next mod to take a look?

Yes. Tom has been consistently opposed to moderation.

On 06 Nov 2009 22:57:26 +0000 (GMT), armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>Tom has been consistently opposed to moderation.

I think the lack of a democratic process for electing moderators
changed his mind. Before that I don't recall him being
anti-moderation.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

Roger Merriman wrote:
> Matt B  wrote:
> 
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:00:48 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had their
>>>> cards marked as trouble makers. These individuals are experiencing long
>>>> delays for posting and they are also getting posts bounced for no good
>>>> reason. Jackson has also fucked up the issue of accepting mail - he
>>>> won't accept mail from Hotmail for example - and is currently stamping
>>>> his little foot elsewhere to get the whole of UK Usenet changed to match
>>>> his belief of How It Should Be Done.
>>> The only problem with this is that MattB /is/ a troublemaker 
>> I don't /make/ trouble, those attempting to stifle my views and posts
>> are the ones who are making all the trouble.
>>
> snips
> 
> have you thought of posting about bikes? 

I have written about them, and probably will again - there's a fair 
chance it will be blocked though.

> rather than reheated naked
> streets and so on?

Please point to /any/ mention I've made of them in urcm.  However, given 
the advantages that they give, in terms of road safety and road user 
equality, why do you think it might be a problem?

> I'll admit that thus far the mods have lacked a light touch but it is
> early days. time will tell.

That was so obviously a ruse.

-- 
Matt B

In article , Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>On 06 Nov 2009 22:57:26 +0000 (GMT), armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
>Braggins) wrote:
>
>>Tom has been consistently opposed to moderation.
>
>I think the lack of a democratic process for electing moderators
>changed his mind. Before that I don't recall him being
>anti-moderation.

Fair enough. Tom has been consistently opposed to moderation ever since
a moderated group was first proposed. Arguing for an impractical setup
process involving moderator elections was part of that opposition, but
maybe he would have changed his mind if it could have been arranged.

(His opposition would be more credible if he wasn't now claiming to have
"uncovered" the fact that, in a moderated group, some moderation happens!)

Matt B wrote:
> Roger Merriman wrote:

>> have you thought of posting about bikes? 
> 
> I have written about them, and probably will again - there's a fair 
> chance it will be blocked though.

If you stick to bikes then there's an excellent chance it won't be.

If you open up a line to e.g. compare divergent parallels between 
bikes and motor traffic that repeat what you've been banging on 
about for years with little agreement and no end in sight then, 
according to charter, there is indeed a fair chance it'll be blocked.

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 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:31:38 +0000, Rob Morley wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:42:36 +0000
> Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> 
>> Posters on the delay-list have their message read by a moderator then
>> either allowed, left in the queue or disallowed by a moderator. Another
>> moderator sees the post and either allows, leaves in the queue or
>> disallows.  This continues until eventually a moderator either allows
>> or disallows the post.  The delay in reasonable messages being accepted
>> can be considerable, and the poster is left uninformed about the status
>> of his or her message.
>> 
> But surely that's just the normal moderation process - if a mod isn't
> sure whether to allow or disallow a post he just leaves it in the queue
> for the next mod to take a look?

Well, exactly.

Tom is being wilfully disingenuous. My opinion of him is undergoing rapid 
modification.

-- 
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.

Matt B  wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> > Matt B  wrote:
> > 
> >> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:00:48 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> No, in TheWonderfulWorldOfJackson(tm) some individuals have had their
> >>>> cards marked as trouble makers. These individuals are experiencing long
> >>>> delays for posting and they are also getting posts bounced for no good
> >>>> reason. Jackson has also fucked up the issue of accepting mail - he
> >>>> won't accept mail from Hotmail for example - and is currently stamping
> >>>> his little foot elsewhere to get the whole of UK Usenet changed to match
> >>>> his belief of How It Should Be Done.
> >>> The only problem with this is that MattB /is/ a troublemaker 
> >> I don't /make/ trouble, those attempting to stifle my views and posts
> >> are the ones who are making all the trouble.
> >>
> > snips
> > 
> > have you thought of posting about bikes? 
> 
> I have written about them, and probably will again - there's a fair 
> chance it will be blocked though.

can't say I can find any. but do feel free to show me any.
> 
> > rather than reheated naked
> > streets and so on?
> 
> Please point to /any/ mention I've made of them in urcm.  However, given
> the advantages that they give, in terms of road safety and road user 
> equality, why do you think it might be a problem?
> 
the problem as such with almost all of your posts is that it has only
the slightest intrest regarding cycling, ie is mostly off topic or very
close to.
> > I'll admit that thus far the mods have lacked a light touch but it is
> > early days. time will tell.
> 
> That was so obviously a ruse.

no light touch is what I requested when this group as a idea was
mentioned. now it is early days and this is just usenet. so i'm not
wildy worried.

but do I think you might have a case maybe maybe.. I've never understood
your "trollB" as at worse your posts might be yawn inducing but I don't
recall them ever being anything but civil.

I'd say that while I do agree that mods can't get tied up in sorting out
complaints from refused posts they also need to balance to be seen to be
fair.

not a easy and rather thankless task I'd say!

roger 
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

In MsgID on 06 Nov 2009 11:04:34
+0000, in uk.net.news.moderation, 'Matthew Vernon' wrote:

>I think this is false; urcm has no delay-list. The only newsgroup in
>uk.* with a delay-list that I'm aware of is uk.religion.christian (in
>which case the delay is 24h, as a short-term punitive measure).

I didn't know about that facet of that group. 
I'd have guessed a general fascination with punishment in all its various
forms but that's a neat way to include a toytown version in a newsgroup :)

Dave J.