-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

           create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Administrative note:

At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
and uk.net.news.config.  People responding are asked to keep the
followups to both groups.

Note however that the official discussion is regarded only as that which
is seen in uk.net.news.config, readers from uk.rec.cycling are encouraged
to read both groups to ensure that they do not miss important parts of
the discussion through lack of cross-posting.

Newsgroup line:
uk.rec.cycling.moderated	Cycling in the UK (Moderated)


      *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from trolling,
nym-shifting and forgeries.  Many of these posts are abusive and
hostile to cycling.  There are even credible allegations of real-world
harassment such as abusive late night phone calls.  Repetitive flamage
now constitutes 50-75% of the group by number of articles.  This
ongoing and worsening problem has been making the group nearly
unuseable for ordinary discussion; many posters have already left.

I therefore propose that we should create:

uk.rec.cycling.moderated


CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
other forms of cycling are all on-topic.

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.


Binaries and Formatting

Encoded binaries (eg pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a
pointer may be posted.  Cryptographic signatures (eg PGP) may be used
where authentication is important and should be as short as possible.

Posts must be readable as plain text.  HTML, RTF and similarly
formatted messages are prohibited.  To see how to make some common
news readers comply with this, read  http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html

END CHARTER


INITIAL MODERATION POLICY

The following are on-topic and encouraged:
 * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
 * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
   on cycling within the UK;
 * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
 * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.

The following are prohibited:
 * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
 * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
 * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
   discussion.

Crossposting is at present generally not permitted.
Brief and constructive discussion of the moderation policy is
permitted in the newsgroup itself.


The moderators operate a passlist system, so that messages from
regular on-topic posters can be posted promptly and automatically.
Threads which have descended into repetition or abuse may be closed by
the moderators.

Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole
moderation panel.

This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit.

The moderators can be reached at
  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/
A summary of approved and rejected posts is available on the website.

The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
advertising the moderated group and inviting posters to switch.

Moderators:

  Alan Braggins
  Andy Leighton
  Danny Colyer
  David Damerell
  Ian Jackson
  Martin Dann
  Nigel Cliffe
  Peter Clinch
  Peter Fox
  Roger Thorpe
  Simon Brooke


SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION, AND CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS RFD:

There has been a full and healthy discussion so far.  The consensus of
this discussion is that a 2nd RFD is needed.


The most controversial element of the proposal in the 1st RFD was that
the newsgroup would be clearly intended to be `sympathetic to cyclists
and cycling'.  This met with opposition, and in general has given many
people the impression that the planned moderation would be draconian,
which was not our intent.

After consulting the proposed moderators, I have therefore removed
this phrase and replaced it with the substantially watered down `of
interest to cyclists'.


Many people expressed the view that the charter, and the moderation
policy, were too long, too complex, and/or specified matters in too
much detail.  (Separately from the charter/modpolicy formatting
problem which I discuss below.)

Much of the length derives from comments during the pre-RFD in
uk.rec.cycling, and of course many of the detailed comments during the
1st RFD discussion raised questions that might be answered in the
moderation policy.

On the whole it seems clear that most people would prefer a much
simpler and shorter document, in more general terms.  Many people
responded favourably to a proposal from Ian Smith, from which I have
therefore shamelessly cribbed (with his permission, and my thanks);
any errors or wrongheadednesses in the results are mine.

The result is a substantially shortened and simplified charter and
moderation policy.


It was suggested several times that the solution to the problem was
killfiles and/or willpower: that the troll problem would go away, if
we would only stop feeding them.  In principle this is of course true
but we have tried this approach for quite some time (at least a year)
already.

It is necessary to distinguish those cyclist posters to urc who are
proposing the new newsgroup - and proposing to moderate it - from
those who are unable to restrain themselves from troll-feeding.
As we are unable to impose our will on either the trolls or the
troll-wrestlers in urc, it is sadly necessary, as a last resort, to
turn to moderation.


There was disagreement about precisely how strong, and how specific,
the prohibition against crossposting needs to be.  Everyone agreed
that crossposting should be approached very cautiously, and that it
would have to be prohibited initially for technical reasons.  However
some went further and asserted that crossposting a discussion between
a moderated and unmoderated group is never appropriate.

To try to sidestep this argument, I have consolidated the comments
about crossposting in the moderation policy (as opposed to the
charter), where the moderators can review the policy in the light of
circumstances, but also strengthened the wording discouraging
crossposting.


Various posters asked questions about the selection of the moderation
panel; worries were expressed that they might be a clique, or consist
entirely of like-minded people.  The moderators were also asked about
their cycling background.  I hope that our answers have been
satisfactory.

Very few people criticised specific individual proposed moderators.
One or two posters have objected to most of the moderators, and
objected also to people not proposed as moderators.
However, there were no objections which I consider justified.
I have therefore retained the panel from the 1st RFD.


Whether discussions of the moderation policy should be permitted in
the group itself, was a question that divided opinion.  This question
is now answered in the moderation policy where the moderators can
update the rules in the light of experience.

My intent is that friendly discussions of the moderation policy should
be possible; this was discussed at some length in urc during the
pre-RFD and seemed to command a majority of support, although only a
very rough consensus if a consensus at all.

In any case anyone who has a serious grievance and/or feels that they
may be censored in urcm can of course use unnm.


People asked whether the following would or should be permitted, and
the moderators have indicated that the intent is to allow them:
 * Swearing, for example `I just came back from a bloody fast ride'
   (as opposed to insults, which are not permitted);
 * Discussions on the merits or otherwise of helmets, even
   vigorous ones;
 * Postings by UK cyclists about things outside the UK.  (I have
   updated the proposed charter and moderation policy to make this
   clearer.)


There was a detailed discussion of the exact status of .sigs.  The
consensus was that signatures should be regarded as part of the
posting and fully subject to rules of the group, except that - as is
customary - rules about relevance, repetition and advertising are
relaxed for signatures which are properly formatted and within the
usual size limits.  I felt that the dominant view, with which I agree,
was that this did not need to be spelled out in the RFD.

Some people held that postings should always be accepted or rejected
solely based on the body content of a message - ie that the history of
an individual poster should be entirely disregarded.  However the
rough consensus appeared to be that the moderators should be entitled
to take account of a person's posting history when making moderation
decisions.

There was a structural problem in the 1st RFD as posted, introduced
during editing, where the moderation policy appeared to be included as
part of the charter.  Since the charter requires another RFD process
to change, this is not appropriate.

This was discussed at some length and with some confusion.
I trust this is now fixed.


Some other specific detailed points were raised, which I have
accepted: the charter should not mention any other newsgroups; the
formatting of the newsgroups file line was not correct for automatic
parsing; there is no place for euphemism in the charter; it is
marginally better to use the words `passlist' (and `blocklist') to
avoid distracting questions about whether this is somehow related to
skin colour.


PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until July 3rd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.  Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website).  Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
        uk.net.news.announce
        uk.net.news.config
        uk.rec.cycling

Proponent:
        Ian Jackson 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.9-(Cygwin)
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBSj/f1mOfGXkh8vHZAQJbvAP/ZYQUQ6UtlnPQ3aJJu28yHRVSBZ+ns/L2
kEni2xCTUinK0/cKSbYLA1UXfR4Znj/UmKqkAN+Zi5hXBPpDsUPKLmKiS0vrfEjE
9zcFDO7Q5evwxK/WOSLq97n6vBLDPlGh5P4s1yrFt1xgSfj/6RkI+6+OVMJFunKT
Bg7DTCIdHZo=
=XMd8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Ian Jackson"  wrote ...

> CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
> and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
> other forms of cycling are all on-topic.
>
> 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.

Short and sweet but I can see, paraphrased, "moderators can do as they damn
well please", attracting some flak. While noting that the moderation policy
is not intended to be part of the Charter, I feel it would be good to
include a statement of principles for moderation ( or a link to it ).

From uk.legal.moderated, the associated clause there is; "The moderators
shall keep and publish regularly a detailed policy document detailing how
moderation is currently performed".

Given that there will no doubt be those who claim moderation is not being
applied fairly or reasonable and, worse still, in secret with no indication
of what moderation policy is, something along those lines would seem
appropriate and not too onerous.

As an aside, but probably of interest to others as well as myself, what can
be done if moderators of any group do decide to play silly buggers ?

On 2009-06-22, Ian Jackson wrote:

>
>                     2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>            create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

[snipped a bunch of good stuff]

Nice work, thanks.  I agree with all that.

On Jun 22, 8:45 pm, Ian Jackson 
wrote:
>
> There are even credible allegations of real-world
> harassment such as abusive late night phone calls.

Still not good enough.  "Credible" how?  Because the person who made
the allegations is anti-motorist like you?  Would such an allegation
by JNugent (who couldn't *possibly* be called a "troll") have even
made it into the RFD?  No, because he doesn't toe the anti-motorist
line.

You are just showing exactly why you're not suitable to moderate
anything: your blatant bias towards those who you agree with, no
matter what the evidence for what they're saying, is totally
unacceptable.  If you can't even stop being biased for the RFD then
what hope is there that you'll be unbiased when censoring (sorry,
"moderating")?

Even without the "credible", that nonsense has no place in the RFD.
If you want to show (albeit belatedly) that you're genuinely even-
handed then GET RID OF IT.

In the meantime I object to Ian Jackson and Alan Braggins being
moderators, and I strongly object to Peter Clinch.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

Mr Guy Chapman: Did you make the first post as Lou Knee?

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:




I object to:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The following are on-topic and encouraged:

... general discussion amongst UK cyclists".


So anyone in the clique  (who no one doubts are cyclists)  can have a
general discussion on whatever they like.

It has previously been suggested that the group is not needed - but is
intended for a small number of people who constitute a clique.

This confirms that intention  - and should not  be allowed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*All* adverts should be banned unless they are for events open to
all-comers.

Once again - you are potentially catering for the clique and business
friends

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I strongly object to Alan Braggins as a moderator.

The only reason he has been chosen as a potential  moderator is that
he is a personal friend of yours with whom you share your computing
faclities.  It would be of interest to know if any of the other
proposed moderators have similar access - please can you comment.

In the previous discussion Braggins forged a post such that it
incorrectly attributed words to people they and the previous poster
had not said or quoted.

This is just one of many false accusation he has made over the months
to people.

He cannot be trusted as a moderator - he lacks integrity.

Given that similar objections to other proposed moderators have been
made : I propose that there is an election of the moderators.

If you want to retain the concept of the clique - continue with your
proposed clique list.

This will allay the fears of the many people that a clique is forming
a newsgroup for their own exclusive use. 

The fact that you chose people who you knew, but who had made little
contribution to urc over the last few years, as moderators supports
that view.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the idea of a block-list.

The way it is to be used must  be fair and reasonable.  Some of the
things previously said indicate that this may not be the intention -
and that things will happen behind closed doors.

This will be unacceptable

I understand that some of your proposed moderators have suggested that
the block list is set up immediately before the group gets off the
ground.

This stinks - and is another indication of the group being a clique
group.

Posts must  not be censored based on what a poster has said in the
past - or has said elsewhere.

If people are to be put on a block list, then the process and result
should be totally transparent and published.

ie - if warning are made to an individual over their  action, then
these should  be in public.  It will then be public knowledge of the
criteria being used to censor posts of an individual.

If people are added to a block list - then the precise reason, and the
duration of the block should be made public.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other moderated groups provide statistics on delays to posts held in
the moderation process (eg uk.legal.moderated)  - this requirement
should be a formal requirement of the proposed group.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:22:23 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

A clumsy forgery, which would of course fail moderation.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:28:23 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>Other moderated groups provide statistics on delays to posts held in
>the moderation process (eg uk.legal.moderated)  - this requirement
>should be a formal requirement of the proposed group.

There are no SLAs for a voluntary function.  No such statistics are
necessary.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

In message 
<rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090622194543$3937@gradwell.net>, Ian 
Jackson  writes
>
>At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
>and uk.net.news.config.  People responding are asked to keep the
>followups to both groups.
>

But fu's ended up being set to just unnc.....

>
>RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
>uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from trolling,
>nym-shifting and forgeries.  Many of these posts are abusive and
>hostile to cycling.  There are even credible allegations of real-world
>harassment such as abusive late night phone calls.

I'm not sure there is a need for the bit about abusive phone calls. I've 
no idea if the allegation is true, or how credible it might be, but I 
suspect it will just be another area to argue about. I don't think it 
really adds anything to the argument for the creation of urcm, I think 
the posting behaviour of some posters to urc is sufficient reason.

>This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
>and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
>other forms of cycling are all on-topic.
>
>Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil,
>pleasant, and of interest to cyclists.
>
Yup, much better than the first time round.
>
>
>INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
>
>The following are on-topic and encouraged:
> * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
> * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
>   on cycling within the UK;
> * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
> * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.
>

I'd be tempted to include something along the lines of "matters 
regarding cycling outside of the UK of interest to UK cyclists"
>
>The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
>advertising the moderated group and inviting posters to switch.
>

'Switch' seems the wrong word, since there is no need for reading either 
of the groups  to be exclusive. 'inviting posters to read it' maybe. 
Though just saying that the group will be advertised on urc seems 
sufficient.


The summary and explanation of changes seemed fair.

Good work Ian.
-- 
Chris French

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090622194543$3937@gradwell.net...

snippity..

>
> This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of
> the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
> and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
> days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
> (i.e. until July 3rd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
> posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
> Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.  Please
> do not attempt to vote until this happens.


Seems reasonable - lots of work done. Thanks.

Ian Jackson wrote:
> 
> INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
> 
> The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>  * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;

Good.

>  * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
>    on cycling within the UK;

OK.

>  * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;

What's that then?  Discussion between cyclists (but disallowing 
contributions by non-cyclists) about something which is nothing to do 
with cycling?

>  * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.

But not necessarily cycling related?

> The following are prohibited:
>  * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;

So publicising good deals for cyclists abroad (cyclist travel deals, 
cyclist accommodation etc.) is banned?

>  * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;

What about general or group abuse such as "all cyclists are..."?  What 
about the use of derogatory and inflammatory terms such as "lycra 
louts", "cagers" and "speedophiles"?

>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>    discussion.

That's OK only if summary dismissal of a contribution based upon 
controversial assertions of how other contradictory evidence should be 
interpreted, or upon alternative interpretations of the same evidence, 
is also prohibited.

-- 
Matt B

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:42:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:28:23 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>Other moderated groups provide statistics on delays to posts held in
>>the moderation process (eg uk.legal.moderated)  - this requirement
>>should be a formal requirement of the proposed group.
>
>There are no SLAs for a voluntary function.  No such statistics are
>necessary.
>
>Guy

No one mentioned an SLA - that is not what is needed

It is fully understood that the moderators will be doing it in their
own time and will be doing their best to turn things round as
reasonably possible; and that is all that they should do.

However - people need to be able to see whether posts by certain
individuals are being "delayed".

It would of course immediately dispel any accusations of such 
impropriety; I am amazed that you are against it knowing your own
personal crusade for honesty and truthfulness.

Your disagreement of course supports the view that the moderated group
is for the benefit of the clique - some people will be unwelcome - and
some would do whatever they could to deter them posting.

Full transparency in the moderation policy and the group  is needed -
do you not agree?

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:22 +0100, chris French
 wrote:

>I'm not sure there is a need for the bit about abusive phone calls. I've 
>no idea if the allegation is true, or how credible it might be, but I 
>suspect it will just be another area to argue about. I don't think it 
>really adds anything to the argument for the creation of urcm, I think 
>the posting behaviour of some posters to urc is sufficient reason.

As the recipient of said calls I can state that they bloody well did
happen, contact me via email if you want more evidence, but I don't
think they are relevant to the specific problem of the abuse of
uk.rec.cycling for hate campaigns and wildly off-topic diatribes, so I
would think that could safely be left out if anyone actually objects
to it.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:16:47 +0100, Matt B
 wrote:

>>  * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists
>But not necessarily cycling related?

An example of such a case might be the opening of a new Youth Hostel.
So no, not necessarily directly or solely related to cycling.  I think
the mods would be unlikely to pass an announcement of a new SUV from
Hummer, and it's equally unlikely that anyone would post such a thing.

>> The following are prohibited:
>>  * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
>So publicising good deals for cyclists abroad (cyclist travel deals, 
>cyclist accommodation etc.) is banned?

That's not advertising.  Advertising is done for gain, mentioning a
good deal from a specific shop or similar unsolicited endorsements
would be acceptable in most social contexts and I don't see why this
would be any different.

>>  * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
>What about general or group abuse such as "all cyclists are..."?  What 
>about the use of derogatory and inflammatory terms such as "lycra 
>louts", "cagers" and "speedophiles"?

I would suppose that abusive and inflammatory posts would be out, but
that use of satirical terms within posts that are not merely abusive
and inflammatory would be fine.  Thus, a post expressing irritation at
lycra louts because the buggers dropped you on Ditchling Beacon would
be perfectly acceptable.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

In message , jms 
 writes
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>I object to:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------
>"The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>
>... general discussion amongst UK cyclists".
>
>
>So anyone in the clique  (who no one doubts are cyclists)  can have a
>general discussion on whatever they like.
>

I don't think that is the intention (I think you need to read it in 
context of the charter), but I think that yes the line could be 
construed as such I suppose.

How about "general discussion related to cycling among UK cyclists"

>It has previously been suggested that the group is not needed - but is
>intended for a small number of people who constitute a clique.
>

However, I do not agree with the reason for your objection
>
>I agree with the idea of a block-list.
>
>The way it is to be used must  be fair and reasonable.
<snip>
>
>I understand that some of your proposed moderators have suggested that
>the block list is set up immediately before the group gets off the
>ground.
>
This was discussed as a possibility by various posters in the first RFD 
discussions. My impression was that this would not be the approach 
taken, but  we can see what discussion ensues here.

>

>
>Other moderated groups provide statistics on delays to posts held in
>the moderation process (eg uk.legal.moderated)  - this requirement
>should be a formal requirement of the proposed group.
>
Whilst I'm all for providing such information if practicable, I do not 
think that making it a requirement  is appropriate.
-- 
Chris French

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:30:39 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:22 +0100, chris French
> wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure there is a need for the bit about abusive phone calls. I've 
>>no idea if the allegation is true, or how credible it might be, but I 
>>suspect it will just be another area to argue about. I don't think it 
>>really adds anything to the argument for the creation of urcm, I think 
>>the posting behaviour of some posters to urc is sufficient reason.
>
>As the recipient of said calls I can state that they bloody well did
>happen, contact me via email if you want more evidence


Ah yes - the old ones are the best.

I have plenty of evidence  - which I can't post or discuss here - but
I will if *you* e-mail me.

(Oh - Hi Chris - I don't actually have any evidence but I think it
happened, and I think I know *who* did it - I pretend that I have
evidence in order to frighten him.  Please keep this to yourself)

Whilst not wanting to post the evidence here - any chance of a pointer
as to what sort of "evidence"  it may be?

You have actually previously accused someone of making the calls - so
I assume the evidence also shows who it was.

What did the police say when you contacted them?

There is a real danger that some people do not believe that you are
quite truthful - and there is just a very teeny, tiny, incy, wincey,
slim possibility that you have made this all up.


(I agree that this is not for the moderation issue - so I will set
follow- ups to urc)











--        
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

Control wrote:
>At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
>and uk.net.news.config.  People responding are asked to keep the
>followups to both groups.

In fact, a technical hitch seems to mean that this didn't happen with
this 2nd RFD.

>Note however that the official discussion is regarded only as that which
>is seen in uk.net.news.config, readers from uk.rec.cycling are encouraged
>to read both groups to ensure that they do not miss important parts of
>the discussion through lack of cross-posting.

So this paragraph is even more important.

(I have crossposted this article to both urc and unnc and left the
followups going to both groups, so if you want to post to both and
find it difficult to override your newsreader, you can follow up to
this message from me.  Apologies for the inconvenience.)

-- 
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 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:32:24 +0100, chris French
 wrote:

<snip>


>Whilst I'm all for providing such information if practicable, I do not 
>think that making it a requirement  is appropriate.


I for one think that there must be as much transparency in the
moderation policy as possible.

Some people  have genuine misgivings on how things will be done - so
anything which shows fairness is to be recommended.

If things are not done openly and fairly and there seems to be some
sort of censorship the group may attract all sorts of disruptive
people.

In article <g8S%l.46176$OO7.42129@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
The Happy Hippy  wrote:
>Short and sweet but I can see, paraphrased, "moderators can do as they damn
>well please", attracting some flak.

Thanks for your comments.

Yes.  My previous version, in the 1st RFD, had more process in the
charter in an effort to make the moderators accountable.  However, the
discussion was very clearly in favour of a much shorter document.

> While noting that the moderation policy is not intended to be part
>of the Charter, I feel it would be good to include a statement of
>principles for moderation ( or a link to it ).

I think that's what the moderation policy is.  It doesn't make sense
to put the actual URL in the charter because if the moderators move
their hosting it will change and changing the charter requires a new
RFD.

It would be good for the page on usenet.org.uk containing the charter
to have a link to the moderators' current page with details of the
moderation policy and so on.  I see that this isn't currently done for
ulm, at least, but when we're a bit further through the process I'll
talk to the usenet.org.uk people about arranging that.  It would be a
useful thing for most moderated groups I think.

>From uk.legal.moderated, the associated clause there is; "The moderators
>shall keep and publish regularly a detailed policy document detailing how
>moderation is currently performed".

In practice the only thing that your proposed phrasing prohibits is
the moderators completely withdrawing the moderation policy, which I
think is pretty unlikely.  So I don't think it helps very much.

>As an aside, but probably of interest to others as well as myself, what can
>be done if moderators of any group do decide to play silly buggers ?

In practice the moderators of any newsgroup can do almost what they
like and putting stuff in the charter doesn't really bind them if they
feel like violating it.  The only practical limits are (a) the other
moderators, (b) that the moderators presumably value their good name
and (c) it is I think in principle possible to change the moderators
of an uk.* newsgroup via the RFD and (presumably) a vote.

I'm not sure whether item (c) has ever been successfully prosecuted in
uk.*.  The amount of work and flameage that would be involved would be
prohibitive in all but the most serious cases.

This is one reason why I have gone for such a large moderation panel.
I don't expect all of them to be equally active, but a large group is
much less susceptible to various kinds of stupidity and groupthink.

-- 
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 <8kdT84Nuu$PKNA$9@gauva.familyfrench.co.uk>,
chris French   wrote:
>But fu's ended up being set to just unnc.....

Yes, so I see.  I'll post a pointer to urc.  

(I've just double-checked the final version I sent to Control and it
was correct, but I know that Control had some technical difficulties
getting it posted - hence the delay - so perhaps this was a casualty
of that.)

>I'm not sure there is a need for the bit about abusive phone calls. I've 
>no idea if the allegation is true, or how credible it might be, but I 
>suspect it will just be another area to argue about. I don't think it 
>really adds anything to the argument for the creation of urcm, I think 
>the posting behaviour of some posters to urc is sufficient reason.

The Rationale doesn't form part of the charter of the group and is
provided for information as part of the group creation proposal.  If
the group is created it will be of historical interest only.

But this does seem to have been a distraction rather than a helpful
argument so I'll reconsider whether or it ought to have a place in the
CFV.

>> * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
>> * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.
>
>I'd be tempted to include something along the lines of "matters 
>regarding cycling outside of the UK of interest to UK cyclists"

I think this is adequately covered by `general discussion amongst UK
cyclists', and everyone very much wanted the document to be short.  

If this turns out to be a point of contention I expect the moderators
to clarify it in a revision to the policy.  To be honest, I expect the
moderation policy to grow rather than shrink with experience (as these
kind of documents usually do) so start it as short as possible is
good.

>>The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
>>advertising the moderated group and inviting posters to switch.
>
>'Switch' seems the wrong word, since there is no need for reading either 
>of the groups  to be exclusive. 'inviting posters to read it' maybe. 
>Though just saying that the group will be advertised on urc seems 
>sufficient.

Yes.

>The summary and explanation of changes seemed fair.

Thanks for your comments.

-- 
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 22 Jun 2009 23:42:42 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

<snip>


>This is one reason why I have gone for such a large moderation panel.
>I don't expect all of them to be equally active, but a large group is
>much less susceptible to various kinds of stupidity and groupthink.


Given the reservations which have been raised about some of the
proposed moderators - why do you not allow a vote of the moderation
panel - and allow other people to stand if they wish.

This is another example  of things appearing to be by the clique - for
the clique.

In message , jms 
 writes
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:30:39 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:22 +0100, chris French
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not sure there is a need for the bit about abusive phone calls. I've
>>>no idea if the allegation is true, or how credible it might be, but I
>>>suspect it will just be another area to argue about. I don't think it
>>>really adds anything to the argument for the creation of urcm, I think
>>>the posting behaviour of some posters to urc is sufficient reason.
>>
>>As the recipient of said calls I can state that they bloody well did
>>happen, contact me via email if you want more evidence
>
>
>Ah yes - the old ones are the best.
>
>I have plenty of evidence  - which I can't post or discuss here - but
>I will if *you* e-mail me.
>
Seems reasonable enough, the details of the issue are not relevant to 
the RFD

<snip attempts to drag the issue up again>


>(I agree that this is not for the moderation issue - so I will set
>follow- ups to urc)

I disagree, I'm not interested in discussing the specifics of this issue 
here, but it pertains to the inclusion or otherwise of reference to it 
in the RFD, so followups to unnc reinstated
>
Like I said, it'll likely just be a distraction
-- 
Chris French

Ian Jackson  considered Mon, 22 Jun
2009 20:45:43 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>           create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
Excellent work.
I can't see anything in this which is significantly problematic (i.e.
worth delaying creation over).

How soon can we get this thing off the ground?

On Jun 23, 9:09 am, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
wrote:
> Ian Jackson  considered Mon, 22 Jun
> 2009 20:45:43 퍝 the perfect time to write:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> >in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> >           create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> Excellent work.
> I can't see anything in this which is significantly problematic (i.e.
> worth delaying creation over).
>
> How soon can we get this thing off the ground?

Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.

James

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:03:59 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>Given the reservations which have been raised about some of the
>proposed moderators - why do you not allow a vote of the moderation
>panel - and allow other people to stand if they wish.

Have these reservations been expressed by anyone other than you and
Nuxx and your invisible friends?

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

James wrote:
> On Jun 23, 9:09 am, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
> wrote:
>> Ian Jackson  considered Mon, 22 Jun
>> 2009 20:45:43 퍝 the perfect time to write:
>> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> 
>>> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> 
>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
>>> changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>> 
>>> create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>> 
>> Excellent work.
>> I can't see anything in this which is significantly problematic (i.e.
>> worth delaying creation over).
>> 
>> How soon can we get this thing off the ground?
> 
> Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
> wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.
> 
> James

Same here (and thanks to Ian for his efforts).


-- 
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

In message , at 00:03:59 on 
Tue, 23 Jun 2009, jms  wibbled
>On 22 Jun 2009 23:42:42 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>This is one reason why I have gone for such a large moderation panel.
>>I don't expect all of them to be equally active, but a large group is
>>much less susceptible to various kinds of stupidity and groupthink.
>
>
>Given the reservations which have been raised about some of the
>proposed moderators - why do you not allow a vote of the moderation
>panel - and allow other people to stand if they wish.

The normal procedure in uk.* is to vote "no" for creating the group at 
the CFV stage (or objection to an FT) if you are unhappy with the list 
of proposed moderators in the final RFD.

uk.* tries to make the process of creating (and voting on if needed) a 
new group as straightforward as possible. I've no particular view on 
this RFD but, technically, voting for initial moderators is a practical 
issue of time and work and, as mentioned below, may not have any impact 
on a CFV on the RFD for a moderated group.

For a formal vote on initial moderators a vote would be needed on how to 
elect the initial moderators (STV, FPTP etc), how that vote would be 
done (STV, FPTP, etc) and how many moderators there would be, etc. Then 
you've got the whole procedure (like in the Committee vote) of the 
nominations, hustings and vote for the moderators. Then you can start 
the RFD for the moderated group - and, if the previous vote results are 
not to the satisfaction of a potential voter in an RFD, then they can 
still vote "no" at the group creation RFD when a CFV is issued so 
nothing is really gained by the extra steps.

With my unnc hat on, it seems an unnecessary complication and the system 
we have already isn't broken. With my UKV hat on, you'd probably have to 
have the same VT throughout and I would very much doubt a VT would be 
able to commit to availability for possibly 6 months or more.

-- 
Pedt
Speaking as a member of, but not for, UKVoting

Colin Nelson wrote:
> 
> James wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 9:09 am, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>> wrote:
>>> Ian Jackson  considered Mon, 22 Jun
>>> 2009 20:45:43 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
>>>> changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>>> create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>> Excellent work.
>>> I can't see anything in this which is significantly problematic (i.e.
>>> worth delaying creation over).
>>>
>>> How soon can we get this thing off the ground?
>> Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
>> wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.
>>
>> James
> 
> Same here (and thanks to Ian for his efforts).
> 
> 

And me.

--chris

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:27:18 +0100 someone who may be Chris Gerhard
 wrote this:-

>And me.

Me too.




-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In message , David Hansen 
 writes
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:27:18 +0100 someone who may be Chris Gerhard
> wrote this:-
>
>>And me.
>
>Me too.
>
Count me in too.
-- 
geomannie

On 22 June, 22:28, jms  wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 퍝, Ian Jackson
>
>  wrote:
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> >in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> I object to:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------> "The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>
> ... general discussion amongst UK cyclists".
>
> So anyone in the clique  (who no one doubts are cyclists)  can have a
> general discussion on whatever they like.

Are you then of the opinion that discussion in uk.rec.sheds should be
strictly limited to structural details of sloping-roofed buildings, or
that uk.singles should discuss only seven-inch vinyl records? Any
Usenet group is a conversation, among people who often become friends;
it's natural that sometimes they will discuss things which are not
strictly on topic. A cyclist is anyone who cycles - which means a very
substantial proportion of the UK population. No-one can describe that
as a 'clique'.

In brief summary to the rest of your comments, there is no suggestion
that uk.rec.cycling be removed. It will continue to exist, and you can
continue to use it exactly as you do now. If that does not satisfy
you, there are several thousand other troll fests^W^Wusenet groups for
you to partake in. The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
not choose to take part in it, and no-one who is prepared to engage in
it constructively. To object to such a group on the broad grounds that
you have is to make clear that your true objection is to action to
reduce trolling.

geomannie wrote:
> In message , David Hansen
>  writes
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:27:18 +0100 someone who may be Chris Gerhard
>>  wrote this:-
>>
>>> And me.
>>
>> Me too.
>>
> Count me in too.

One more supporting creation of the group.  (I am listed on the proposed 
moderation panel).


- Nigel


-- 
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

On Jun 23, 12:49 am, chris French 
wrote:

[in respect of my choosing not to share more details about crank
calls]
> Seems reasonable enough, the details of the issue are not relevant to
> the RFD

Indeed they are not.  The fact of the crank calls is sideshow, the
real issue is abuse of urc for the pursuit of personal vendettas; that
abuse is plain and visible in the archives to all, there is no need
for me to share confidential information in order to underscore it.
It is not as if Nuxx's reputaiton could get any lower, after all.
--
Guy

On Jun 22, 11:47 pm, jms  wrote:

> >As the recipient of said calls I can state that they bloody well did
> >happen, contact me via email if you want more evidence

> Ah yes - the old ones are the best.
> I have plenty of evidence  - which I can't post or discuss here - but
> I will if *you* e-mail me.

The reasons for not making the evidence public are very easy to
understand.  As you are a perpetrator rather than a victim of
harassment I do not expect you to understand this, but others clearly
do.

> There is a real danger that some people do not believe that you are
> quite truthful - and there is just a very teeny, tiny, incy, wincey,
> slim possibility that you have made this all up.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.  If you want to believe that your
chum Nuxx is not a deranged obsessive then you carry on, the rest of
us are not really in any doubt.

On 23 June, 00:10, jms  wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:32:24 퍝, chris French
>
>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Whilst I'm all for providing such information if practicable, I do not
> >think that making it a requirement  is appropriate.
>
> I for one think that there must be as much transparency in the
> moderation policy as possible.
>
> Some people  have genuine misgivings on how things will be done - so
> anything which shows fairness is to be recommended.
>
> If things are not done openly and fairly and there seems to be some
> sort of censorship the group may attract all sorts of disruptive
> people.

Yes of course the people who have caused the need to have a moderated
group feel misgivings about a moderated group.

Rudi

On Jun 23, 9:17 am, Simon Brooke  wrote:
> The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
> not choose to take part in it, and no-one who is prepared to engage in
> it constructively. To object to such a group on the broad grounds that
> you have is to make clear that your true objection is to action to
> reduce trolling.

Precisely.  Nobody is forcing anyone to subscribe or post to the
proposed group, the RFC is a response to a clear demand expressed by a
number of people for a group in which discussion is not constantly
disrupted by off-topic rants, personal attacks, vendettas and the
pursuit of grudges.

The stated opposition does not address the RFC in any meaningful way -
we are already well aware that the two individuals most clearly
identified with the trolling problem in urc are unhappy about the idea
of a group from which they clearly feel they will be excluded, but
that has already been addressed directly in the discussion: everybody
gets a clean slate, nobody will be blacklisted unless they violate the
moderation policy or charter.  If these individuals whose abuse of urc
has caused the moderated group to be proposed, can abide by the
charter and moderation policy, then their posts will be passed.  If
they can't, they won't.

If their opposition is based on the potential for blacklisting for
repeated violations of charter or moderation policy, then there is a
really simple solution: don't do that.  There is a limit to the amount
of junk that volunteer mods should have to wade through and use of
blacklists is perfectly normal for any moderated newsgroup.  In fact
the proposed moderation policy is a good deal more forgiving than most
moderated online forums and looks to me to be no more onerous or
restrictive than any other moderated group in the uk.* hierarchy.
--
Guy

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:58:08 +0100, Pedt <"\"@
@\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote:

>uk.* tries to make the process of creating (and voting on if needed) a 
>new group as straightforward as possible. I've no particular view on 
>this RFD but, technically, voting for initial moderators is a practical 
>issue of time and work and, as mentioned below, may not have any impact 
>on a CFV on the RFD for a moderated group.

I think some people are missing the point.  A proposal has been made
for a moderated group with an initial set of moderators.  If you don't
like it, vote against.

One could say that one will vote against unless (insert conditions
about moderator selection here).

But from what I can see the opposition, though vocal, is small.

On 22 June, 20:45, Ian Jackson 
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>                     2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>            create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> Administrative note:
>
> At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
> and uk.net.news.config.  People responding are asked to keep the
> followups to both groups.
>
> Note however that the official discussion is regarded only as that which
> is seen in uk.net.news.config, readers from uk.rec.cycling are encouraged
> to read both groups to ensure that they do not miss important parts of
> the discussion through lack of cross-posting.
>
> Newsgroup line:
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated        Cycling in the UK (Moderated)
>
>       *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
>
> This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
> Further procedural details are given below.
>
> RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from trolling,
> nym-shifting and forgeries.  Many of these posts are abusive and
> hostile to cycling.  There are even credible allegations of real-world
> harassment such as abusive late night phone calls.  Repetitive flamage
> now constitutes 50-75% of the group by number of articles.  This
> ongoing and worsening problem has been making the group nearly
> unuseable for ordinary discussion; many posters have already left.
>
> I therefore propose that we should create:
>
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
> and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
> other forms of cycling are all on-topic.
>
> 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.
>
> Binaries and Formatting
>
> Encoded binaries (eg pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
> forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a
> pointer may be posted.  Cryptographic signatures (eg PGP) may be used
> where authentication is important and should be as short as possible.
>
> Posts must be readable as plain text.  HTML, RTF and similarly
> formatted messages are prohibited.  To see how to make some common
> news readers comply with this, read  http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html
>
> END CHARTER
>
> INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
>
> The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>  * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
>  * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
>    on cycling within the UK;
>  * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
>  * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.
>
> The following are prohibited:
>  * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
>  * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>    discussion.
>
> Crossposting is at present generally not permitted.
> Brief and constructive discussion of the moderation policy is
> permitted in the newsgroup itself.
>
> The moderators operate a passlist system, so that messages from
> regular on-topic posters can be posted promptly and automatically.
> Threads which have descended into repetition or abuse may be closed by
> the moderators.
>
> Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
> to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole
> moderation panel.
>
> This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit.
>
> The moderators can be reached at
>   urcm-moderat...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/
> A summary of approved and rejected posts is available on the website.
>
> The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
> advertising the moderated group and inviting posters to switch.
>
> Moderators:
>
>   Alan Braggins
>   Andy Leighton
>   Danny Colyer
>   David Damerell
>   Ian Jackson
>   Martin Dann
>   Nigel Cliffe
>   Peter Clinch
>   Peter Fox
>   Roger Thorpe
>   Simon Brooke
>
> SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION, AND CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS RFD:
>
> There has been a full and healthy discussion so far.  The consensus of
> this discussion is that a 2nd RFD is needed.
>
> The most controversial element of the proposal in the 1st RFD was that
> the newsgroup would be clearly intended to be `sympathetic to cyclists
> and cycling'.  This met with opposition, and in general has given many
> people the impression that the planned moderation would be draconian,
> which was not our intent.
>
> After consulting the proposed moderators, I have therefore removed
> this phrase and replaced it with the substantially watered down `of
> interest to cyclists'.
>
> Many people expressed the view that the charter, and the moderation
> policy, were too long, too complex, and/or specified matters in too
> much detail.  (Separately from the charter/modpolicy formatting
> problem which I discuss below.)
>
> Much of the length derives from comments during the pre-RFD in
> uk.rec.cycling, and of course many of the detailed comments during the
> 1st RFD discussion raised questions that might be answered in the
> moderation policy.
>
> On the whole it seems clear that most people would prefer a much
> simpler and shorter document, in more general terms.  Many people
> responded favourably to a proposal from Ian Smith, from which I have
> therefore shamelessly cribbed (with his permission, and my thanks);
> any errors or wrongheadednesses in the results are mine.
>
> The result is a substantially shortened and simplified charter and
> moderation policy.
>
> It was suggested several times that the solution to the problem was
> killfiles and/or willpower: that the troll problem would go away, if
> we would only stop feeding them.  In principle this is of course true
> but we have tried this approach for quite some time (at least a year)
> already.
>
> It is necessary to distinguish those cyclist posters to urc who are
> proposing the new newsgroup - and proposing to moderate it - from
> those who are unable to restrain themselves from troll-feeding.
> As we are unable to impose our will on either the trolls or the
> troll-wrestlers in urc, it is sadly necessary, as a last resort, to
> turn to moderation.
>
> There was disagreement about precisely how strong, and how specific,
> the prohibition against crossposting needs to be.  Everyone agreed
> that crossposting should be approached very cautiously, and that it
> would have to be prohibited initially for technical reasons.  However
> some went further and asserted that crossposting a discussion between
> a moderated and unmoderated group is never appropriate.
>
> To try to sidestep this argument, I have consolidated the comments
> about crossposting in the moderation policy (as opposed to the
> charter), where the moderators can review the policy in the light of
> circumstances, but also strengthened the wording discouraging
> crossposting.
>
> Various posters asked questions about the selection of the moderation
> panel; worries were expressed that they might be a clique, or consist
> entirely of like-minded people.  The moderators were also asked about
> their cycling background.  I hope that our answers have been
> satisfactory.
>
> Very few people criticised specific individual proposed moderators.
> One or two posters have objected to most of the moderators, and
> objected also to people not proposed as moderators.
> However, there were no objections which I consider justified.
> I have therefore retained the panel from the 1st RFD.
>
> Whether discussions of the moderation policy should be permitted in
> the group itself, was a question that divided opinion.  This question
> is now answered in the moderation policy where the moderators can
> update the rules in the light of experience.
>
> My intent is that friendly discussions of the moderation policy should
> be possible; this was discussed at some length in urc during the
> pre-RFD and seemed to command a majority of support, although only a
> very rough consensus if a consensus at all.
>
> In any case anyone who has a serious grievance and/or feels that they
> may be censored in urcm can of course use unnm.
>
> People asked whether the following would or should be permitted, and
> the moderators have indicated that the intent is to allow them:
>  * Swearing, for example `I just came back from a bloody fast ride'
>    (as opposed to insults, which are not permitted);
>  * Discussions on the merits or otherwise of helmets, even
>    vigorous ones;
>  * Postings by UK cyclists about things outside the UK.  (I have
>    updated the proposed charter and moderation policy to make this
>    clearer.)
>
> There was a detailed discussion of the exact status of .sigs.  The
> consensus was that signatures should be regarded as part of the
> posting and fully subject to rules of the group, except that - as is
> customary - rules about relevance, repetition and advertising are
> relaxed for signatures which are properly formatted and within the
> usual size limits.  I felt that the dominant view, with which I agree,
> was that this did not need to be spelled out in the RFD.
>
> Some people held that postings should always be accepted or rejected
> solely based on the body content of a message - ie that the history of
> an individual poster should be entirely disregarded.  However the
> rough consensus appeared to be that the moderators should be entitled
> to take account of a person's posting history when making moderation
> decisions.
>
> There was a structural problem in the 1st RFD as posted, introduced
> during editing, where the moderation policy appeared to be included as
> part of the charter.  Since the charter requires another RFD process
> to change, this is not appropriate.
>
> This was discussed at some length and with some confusion.
> I trust this is now fixed.
>
> Some other specific detailed points were raised, which I have
> accepted: the charter should not mention any other newsgroups; the
> formatting of the newsgroups file line was not correct for automatic
> parsing; there is no place for euphemism in the charter; it is
> marginally better to use the words `passlist' (and `blocklist') to
> avoid distracting questions about whether this is somehow related to
> skin colour.
>
> PROCEDURE:
>
> This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of
> the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
> and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
> days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
> (i.e. until July 3rd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
> posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
> Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.  Please
> do not attempt to vote until this happens.
>
> This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
> within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
> and is available fromhttp://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html(the UK
> Usenet website).  Please refer to this document if you have any questions
> about the process.
>
> DISTRIBUTION:
>
> This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>         uk.net.news.announce
>         uk.net.news.config
>         uk.rec.cycling
>
> Proponent:
>         Ian Jackson 
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG-v1.4.9-(Cygwin)
> Charset: noconv
>
> iQCVAwUBSj/f1mOfGXkh8vHZAQJbvAP/ZYQUQ6UtlnPQ3aJJu28yHRVSBZ黏
> kEni2xCTUinK0/cKSbYLA1UXfR4Znj/UmKqkAN昮慜Ꮹ໅༨릊褭⾭
> 9zcFDO7Q5evwxK/WOSLq97n6vBLDPlGh5P4s1yrFt1xgSfj/6RkI锰酮鲤
> Bg7DTCIdHZo=
> =XMd8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I would vote vote for this. It is exactly what is needed.

Rudi

On 23 June, 00:03, jms  wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2009 23:42:42 퍝 (BST), Ian Jackson
>
>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >This is one reason why I have gone for such a large moderation panel.
> >I don't expect all of them to be equally active, but a large group is
> >much less susceptible to various kinds of stupidity and groupthink.
>
> Given the reservations which have been raised about some of the
> proposed moderators - why do you not allow a vote of the moderation
> panel - and allow other people to stand if they wish.
>
> This is another example  of things appearing to be by the clique - for
> the clique.

I am entirely happy with the proposed moderation panel and think it
should be left as it is

Rudi

On 22 June, 20:45, Ian Jackson 
wrote:

> Moderators:
>
>   Alan Braggins
>   Andy Leighton
>   Danny Colyer
>   David Damerell
>   Ian Jackson
>   Martin Dann
>   Nigel Cliffe
>   Peter Clinch
>   Peter Fox
>   Roger Thorpe
>   Simon Brooke

A panel who's common-sense contributions in URC I have always read and
enjoyed.  I support the choice.

Peter.

On 22 June, 23:00, "wafflycat" <w*a*ffl£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com>
wrote:
> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
>
> news:rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090622194543$3937@gradwell.net...
>
> snippity..
>
>
>
> > This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of
> > the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
> > and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
> > days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
> > (i.e. until July 3rd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
> > posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
> > Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.  Please
> > do not attempt to vote until this happens.
>
> Seems reasonable - lots of work done. Thanks.

If creating URC-moderated gets WafflyCat and others back on line, then
just do it.  Do it NOW.  I have missed news from Norfolk on paving
slabs and bib-shorts.

Peter.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:39:55 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:27:18 +0100 someone who may be Chris Gerhard
> wrote this:-
>
>>And me.
>
>Me too.

+1

-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:50:20 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"
 wrote:

>As an aside, but probably of interest to others as well as myself, what can
>be done if moderators of any group do decide to play silly buggers ?

Not much.  The group either dies, or becomes a sandpit for those with
a key to the playground gate, or someone RFDs the removal on the
grounds that [whatever] is or isn't happening in line with the
charter.

I've no real issue with moderators coming or going, or changing the
goalposts, or moving the pitch.  The group is about contributors, not
moderators, and if moderation fails in some way, the contributors will
move elsewhere.  QED.

.m

al Mossah twisted the electrons to say:
> On 22 June, 23:00, "wafflycat" <w*a*ffl£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com>
> wrote:
> > Seems reasonable - lots of work done. Thanks.
> If creating URC-moderated gets WafflyCat and others back on line, then
> just do it.  Do it NOW.  I have missed news from Norfolk on paving
> slabs and bib-shorts.

<nods>  Count me as raising my hand and going "aye" for this proposal.
The initial moderation panel looks fine, charter seems okay (the "general
discusion" line might need a little tweaking, but nothing major) and
frankly the sooner we can get this off of the ground the better!

Though I think I can personally live without the news on bib-shorts.  :-)
-- 
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Ian Jackson  wrote:

> 
> 
you shouuld see the size of those scissors!

>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>    discussion.
> 


the only thing that as ever i'll be worried about is essentely getting
into sensorship over questions which to be fair may have been asked many
many times before, but as long as it's a fair question and not just a
attempt to troll, it really should be allowed how ever many times it's
come up. just pointing them to a FAQ isn't going to cut it.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

In article ,
Phil W Lee  <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>Excellent work.

Thanks.

>I can't see anything in this which is significantly problematic (i.e.
>worth delaying creation over).

Yes, I'm hoping not to need a 3rd RFD.

>How soon can we get this thing off the ground?

This round of discussion has a minimum length of 10 days.  After that
we'll probably hold a vote (see below), which will probably take a
week or so to organise and will last for between 18 and 28 days.  If
the vote is successful, following a 5 day waiting period the group
could be created immediately.  I hope to use the time during the vote
to set up the moderation machinery.  So at a guess another 30-60 days
I'm afraid.


In principle it would then be possible for me to make a Fast Track
request after 10 days' discussion.  Fast Tracks are intended to smooth
the passage of uncontroversial groups, and can be blocked by a
sufficient number of objections or any one objection considered
justified by the Committee.  If the Fast Track fails, there will have
to be a vote anyway.  I don't have a good feel about whether the Fast
Track request would be likely to be a waste of everyone's time.

I think that it would be fair to say that this revised proposal is
reasonably uncontroversial amongst those who've posted so far
(although of course it was only posted yesterday).  The opposition is
very vocal and determined but consists of just two or three people.

But I think that I will ask the Committee and take their advice, and
their advice is likely to be that I should skip the attempt at a Fast
Track and request a vote.  That's what Committee members were saying
during the 1st RFD discussion.

-- 
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

"al Mossah"  wrote in message 
news:eaf32960-30fd-43c7-b037-03c07ac83bc2@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.
>
>If creating URC-moderated gets WafflyCat and others back on line, then
>just do it.  Do it NOW.  I have missed news from Norfolk on paving
>slabs and bib-shorts.
>
>Peter.

:-)

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:18:12 +0100, 
   	       Roger Merriman  wrote:
> Ian Jackson  wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
> you shouuld see the size of those scissors!
>
>>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>>    discussion.
>
> the only thing that as ever i'll be worried about is essentely getting
> into sensorship over questions which to be fair may have been asked many
> many times before, but as long as it's a fair question and not just a
> attempt to troll, it really should be allowed how ever many times it's
> come up. just pointing them to a FAQ isn't going to cut it.

I think it is a fair point.  I think that you'll have to show a bit of
trust in the moderators.  The aim isn't to scare off newbies asking
newbie questions (even if they have been answered loads of times
before).  We all know what repetitious posting this is aimed at cutting 
out.

However pointing newbies at a FAQ item as a first response is a fine
answer (assuming we have a FAQ which is regularly posted and also
available over the web).  If they then have further questions on the 
subject or disagree with the FAQ that can lead to interesting discussion.

-- 
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, 23 Jun 2009 06:42:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:03:59 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>Given the reservations which have been raised about some of the
>>proposed moderators - why do you not allow a vote of the moderation
>>panel - and allow other people to stand if they wish.
>
>Have these reservations been expressed by anyone other than you and
>Nuxx and your invisible friends?
>
>Guy

Not yet.

Why would the clique have any reservations about the proposal?

By the clique for the clique.

I am trying to bring some sensible and open balance.

It would be terrible if the population at large thought that the whole
issue was some sort of stitch up.

PS - I can see that comments like your above "invisible friends" are
the sort which have forced the requirement for the moderated group; I
don't think there is any place for them in the discussion.

Please try and keep things civil and sensible.

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> geomannie wrote:
>> In message , David Hansen
>>  writes
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:27:18 +0100 someone who may be Chris Gerhard
>>>  wrote this:-
>>>
>>>> And me.
>>> Me too.
>>>
>> Count me in too.
> 
> One more supporting creation of the group.  (I am listed on the proposed 
> moderation panel).



Since I can't think of an original way to express it:

Me too.

-- 
Roger Thorpe

She said her stereo was four-way, and I'd just love it in her room.....

In message , at 08:14:38 on 
Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Geoff Berrow  wibbled
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:58:08 +0100, Pedt <"\"@
>@\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>uk.* tries to make the process of creating (and voting on if needed) a
>>new group as straightforward as possible. I've no particular view on
>>this RFD but, technically, voting for initial moderators is a practical
>>issue of time and work and, as mentioned below, may not have any impact
>>on a CFV on the RFD for a moderated group.
>
>I think some people are missing the point.  A proposal has been made
>for a moderated group with an initial set of moderators.  If you don't
>like it, vote against.

Quite... as per first sentence, above the bit you quoted, in my reply.

I was trying to point out *why* it was a bad idea and would make no 
sense to pre-vote for moderators thereafter to possibly prevent an 
interminable sub-thread developing.

-- 
Pedt

Ian Jackson  writes:

>                     2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> 
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
> 
>            create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

<snip>

I think this is good, and should happen.

Matthew

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

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:15:07 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Alistair
Gunn  wrote this:-

>Though I think I can personally live without the news on bib-shorts.  :-)

You can always set up a filter to filter it out:-)


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Matt B"  wrote in message 
news:7aae45F1ucvfoU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
>>
>> The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>>  * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
>
> Good.
>
>>  * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
>>    on cycling within the UK;
>
> OK.
>
>>  * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
>
> What's that then?  Discussion between cyclists (but disallowing 
> contributions by non-cyclists) about something which is nothing to do with 
> cycling?

I see nothing to say that anyone would be "disallowed" according to this. 
It is a statement of what is to be encouraged, rather than what it 
prohibited by the moderation policy.  As always, IIUC, the moderation policy 
consists of guidelines to the moderators who then must exercise a certain 
discretion.  I don't really think if a thread happens to wander into public 
transport discussions (trains seem popular with many contributors to URC!) 
then the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles 
regularly.

Colin

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:01:04 +0100, Pedt <"\"@
@\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote:

>>I think some people are missing the point.  A proposal has been made
>>for a moderated group with an initial set of moderators.  If you don't
>>like it, vote against.
>
>Quite... as per first sentence, above the bit you quoted, in my reply.
>
>I was trying to point out *why* it was a bad idea and would make no 
>sense to pre-vote for moderators thereafter to possibly prevent an 
>interminable sub-thread developing.

Yes, once a moderated group is formed the moderators choose the
moderators.  I get the impression people think this process is more
democratic than it actually is.

Having said that it makes sense to choose an initial set of moderators
that most will agree on, leaving out anyone controversial.

I support the creation of this group and would be a regular participant.

On 23 Jun 2009 11:22:30 +0100 (BST) someone who may be Ian Jackson
 wrote this:-

>Yes, I'm hoping not to need a 3rd RFD.

You're not the only one.

>I don't have a good feel about whether the Fast
>Track request would be likely to be a waste of everyone's time.

I agree. The wreckers would undoubtedly produce large numbers of
objections under 1001 different identities.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:38:07 -0500 someone who may be Andy Leighton
 wrote this:-

>However pointing newbies at a FAQ item as a first response is a fine
>answer (assuming we have a FAQ which is regularly posted and also
>available over the web).  If they then have further questions on the 
>subject or disagree with the FAQ that can lead to interesting discussion.

As long as the pointing is done gently, I agree.

"Read the FAQ, thicko, <URL:blablabla>" is different to, "This
question comes up a lot. There are two main schools of thought,
pro-choice and pro-compulsion, which are hotly debated. The pros and
cons are outlined in the FAQ <URL:blablabla>. We have already done
this to death many times, you can read the arguments in the archives
<URL:ipsofacto> and so we are not keen to add to the same old
flames. If, after reading the FAQ, you have something new to post
about this please do so."

The second option could be boilerplate text the moderators have.
They could also perhaps change the subject to add something which
people can filter on, should they not even wish to see these
replies.

In order to arrest the trolls the poster could be kept on moderation
for a while, though this might be done for new posters anyway.




-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Ian Jackson  wrote:

> Brief and constructive discussion of the moderation policy is
> permitted in the newsgroup itself.

Big mistake. Take it to uk.net.news.moderatiomn.

Other than that, much improved and I see no reason to object.

RudiL  wrote:

> I would vote vote for this. It is exactly what is needed.

One would hope that at some time you wiull learn where the delete key is
on your keyboard. There's no need to re-quote 298 lines including a PGP
signature just to add "me too" to the end.

David Hansen  wrote:

> On 23 Jun 2009 11:22:30 +0100 (BST) someone who may be Ian Jackson
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >Yes, I'm hoping not to need a 3rd RFD.
> 
> You're not the only one.
> 
> >I don't have a good feel about whether the Fast
> >Track request would be likely to be a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> I agree. The wreckers would undoubtedly produce large numbers of
> objections under 1001 different identities.

It's probably goping to need a vote, the Committee can't just strike out
objections because you don't want them to exist or because you are in a
tearing hurry.

On 2009-06-23, Simon Brooke wrote:

> Are you then of the opinion that discussion in uk.rec.sheds should be
> strictly limited to structural details of sloping-roofed buildings, or
> that uk.singles should discuss only seven-inch vinyl records? Any
> Usenet group is a conversation, among people who often become friends;
> it's natural that sometimes they will discuss things which are not
> strictly on topic. A cyclist is anyone who cycles - which means a very
> substantial proportion of the UK population. No-one can describe that
> as a 'clique'.
>
> In brief summary to the rest of your comments, there is no suggestion
> that uk.rec.cycling be removed. It will continue to exist, and you can
> continue to use it exactly as you do now. If that does not satisfy
> you, there are several thousand other troll fests^W^Wusenet groups for
> you to partake in. The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
> not choose to take part in it, and no-one who is prepared to engage in
> it constructively. To object to such a group on the broad grounds that
> you have is to make clear that your true objection is to action to
> reduce trolling.

Good arguments.  I agree.

On 2009-06-23, Alistair Gunn wrote:

> al Mossah twisted the electrons to say:
>> On 22 June, 23:00, "wafflycat" <w*a*ffl£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Seems reasonable - lots of work done. Thanks.
>> If creating URC-moderated gets WafflyCat and others back on line, then
>> just do it.  Do it NOW.  I have missed news from Norfolk on paving
>> slabs and bib-shorts.
>
><nods>  Count me as raising my hand and going "aye" for this proposal.
> The initial moderation panel looks fine, charter seems okay (the "general
> discusion" line might need a little tweaking, but nothing major) and
> frankly the sooner we can get this off of the ground the better!
>
> Though I think I can personally live without the news on bib-shorts.  :-)

Same here, but you can't really argue that it's off-topic.
;-)

James  wrote:
> Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
> wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.

+1.

As it's reasonably well attested that two of the initial proposed
moderators (Messrs Jackson and Damerell) have absolutely no time for
me, and vice versa, I would also submit this as evidence against any
of this "clique" nonsense. ;)

Richard

On 23 June, 12:38, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> RudiL  wrote:
> > I would vote vote for this. It is exactly what is needed.
>
> One would hope that at some time you wiull learn where the delete key is
> on your keyboard. There's no need to re-quote 298 lines including a PGP
> signature just to add "me too" to the end.

Its more a question of remembering - sorry. I realised I had done this
as soon as I had posted it.

Rudi

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090622194543$3937@gradwell.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>           create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

I have no objections at all to this revised version or with the moderation 
panel.  Thanks for the hard work Ian, and I look forward to the anticipated 
creation of the group :-)

Colin

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:35:25 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:38:07 -0500 someone who may be Andy Leighton
> wrote this:-
>
>>However pointing newbies at a FAQ item as a first response is a fine
>>answer (assuming we have a FAQ which is regularly posted and also
>>available over the web).  If they then have further questions on the 
>>subject or disagree with the FAQ that can lead to interesting discussion.
>
>As long as the pointing is done gently, I agree.
>
>"Read the FAQ, thicko, <URL:blablabla>" is different to, "This
>question comes up a lot. There are two main schools of thought,
>pro-choice and pro-compulsion, which are hotly debated. The pros and
>cons are outlined in the FAQ <URL:blablabla>. We have already done
>this to death many times, you can read the arguments in the archives
><URL:ipsofacto> and so we are not keen to add to the same old
>flames. If, after reading the FAQ, you have something new to post
>about this please do so."
>
>The second option could be boilerplate text the moderators have.
>They could also perhaps change the subject to add something which
>people can filter on, should they not even wish to see these
>replies.
>
>In order to arrest the trolls the poster could be kept on moderation
>for a while, though this might be done for new posters anyway.

My opinion is that we must give new posters the benefit of the doubt,
especially in the early days of the ng.  I'd rather see a limited
amount of repetitions than risking alienating a new member.

I don't want to see urcm "dying on the vine".

-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In article <1j1rki8.14g3bjq1ncbri1N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>It's probably goping to need a vote, the Committee can't just strike out
>objections because you don't want them to exist or because you are in a
>tearing hurry.

I presume the Committee would feel able to disregard objections made
by sock puppets.  The difficulty is that unmasking socks can be hard
work - work which will need to be done anyway if we have a vote.

So as I say my current view is that I'll ask the Committee's advice,
after we've given it a bit more time to see what the discussion here
thinks of the 2nd RFD.

-- 
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 <1j1rjou.1bt0f8tkyx9hcN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>Ian Jackson  wrote:
>> Brief and constructive discussion of the moderation policy is
>> permitted in the newsgroup itself.
>
>Big mistake. Take it to uk.net.news.moderatiomn.

I'm afraid I can't remember offhand what reason you personally gave
for this view but I think there are really two possible problems:


1. Useless meta-discussions will dominate and destroy the new group

I don't think this is a serious risk.  If it does start to happen, the
moderators can change the moderation policy itself to completely
forbid it and direct all such discussion to unnm.


2. Possible censorship by the moderators and abuse of their position

There is nothing stopping people from taking their discussion of the
moderation policy to unnm, if they feel that the moderators are
preventing them from getting a fair hearing (or might do so).
Permitting discussion of the moderation policy in urcm cannot prevent
this.

Furthermore, even if the formal policy was that discussion of the
moderation policy was forbidden, the moderators could still abuse
their powers by permitting only such posts which they found agreeable.

So in practice I think the moderation bias problem is made worse, not
better, by having a formal policy that moderation discussions are not
allowed.  Since the moderators are in any case likely to err in favour
of acceptance rather than rejection, and the acceptance/rejection
decision is very much a matter of judgement, it is much easier for the
moderators to accidentally allow their personal bias to affect the
character of a discussion which is nominally out of order.

In practice some articles about moderation policy (and functioning of
the moderation systems) are permitted in ulm, for example, but without
saying that the moderators have acted improperly, it seems to me that
it has been easier to post articles which agree with the moderators
than ones that disagree with them, because the former are rather less
likely to be regarded as `too much' by the moderators.


Personally I think it will be easier to hold the moderators to account
if constructive criticism and discussion of their decisions is both
possible and effectively supported in the very community for which
they are responsible.  

Permitting discussion of the moderation in urcm provides that
alternative channel, but doesn't cut off the ability to use unnm.

So, thanks for your comments, but I find that I disagree with you.

-- 
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 Jun 23, 11:50 am, Judith M Smith  wrote:

> >Have these reservations been expressed by anyone other than you and
> >Nuxx and your invisible friends?

> Not yet.
> Why would the clique have any reservations about the proposal?

Ah, so a meaningless definition of "clique", then.  Everybody but you
and Nuxx agrees, therefore this is prima facie evidence that you and
Nuxx are not the problem?  I think not.

I think that about the only thing all of urc agrees about is that the
vituperative crap form you and Nuxx is a problem.  This is quite
remarkable unanimity if you look at the history of debates on spokes,
wind resistance, helmets or anything else relevant to cycling.
--
Guy

On Jun 23, 8:35 pm, Adam Funk  wrote:
> On 2009-06-23, Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>
>
> > Are you then of the opinion that discussion in uk.rec.sheds should be
> > strictly limited to structural details of sloping-roofed buildings, or
> > that uk.singles should discuss only seven-inch vinyl records? Any
> > Usenet group is a conversation, among people who often become friends;
> > it's natural that sometimes they will discuss things which are not
> > strictly on topic. A cyclist is anyone who cycles - which means a very
> > substantial proportion of the UK population. No-one can describe that
> > as a 'clique'.
>
> > In brief summary to the rest of your comments, there is no suggestion
> > that uk.rec.cycling be removed. It will continue to exist, and you can
> > continue to use it exactly as you do now. If that does not satisfy
> > you, there are several thousand other troll fests^W^Wusenet groups for
> > you to partake in. The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
> > not choose to take part in it, and no-one who is prepared to engage in
> > it constructively. To object to such a group on the broad grounds that
> > you have is to make clear that your true objection is to action to
> > reduce trolling.
>
> Good arguments.  I agree.

TBH I think it's a bit problematic to explicitly invite any and all
"General discussion amongst UK cyclists" - on the face of it it says
anything is on-topic so long as the poster rides a bike.

James

Ian Jackson  wrote:

> In article <1j1rjou.1bt0f8tkyx9hcN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> >Ian Jackson  wrote:
> >> Brief and constructive discussion of the moderation policy is
> >> permitted in the newsgroup itself.
> >
> >Big mistake. Take it to uk.net.news.moderatiomn.
> 
> I'm afraid I can't remember offhand what reason you personally gave
> for this view but I think there are really two possible problems:
> 
> 
> 1. Useless meta-discussions will dominate and destroy the new group
> 
> I don't think this is a serious risk.  If it does start to happen, the
> moderators can change the moderation policy itself to completely
> forbid it and direct all such discussion to unnm.

It's that one. It will happen. The trolls will be determined to make it
happen. If the moderators start to block discussions of moderation by
user then the trolls will have made their point that censorship is
happening.

It's best not to even let them get their foot in the door.

> So, thanks for your comments, but I find that I disagree with you.

That's OK, you're allowed to be wrong. But it's possibly better if you
listen to experience.

In article ,
James   wrote:
>Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
>wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.

+1

I would subscribe to this group; I anticipate its much improved 
signal-to-noise ratio will make it readable by occasional visitors 
in the way that the urc trollpit is not.

Clare

-- 
clareb+bike@chiark.greenend.org.uk grass grass grass grass grass grass g
grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass pheasant grass grass gra
ass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass gr

"Simon Brooke"  wrote in message 
news:b365b2c4-036e-459e-bfea-dbff6d57ce0c@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...


>Are you then of the opinion that discussion in uk.rec.sheds should be
>strictly limited to structural details of sloping-roofed buildings, or
>that uk.singles should discuss only seven-inch vinyl records? Any
>Usenet group is a conversation, among people who often become friends;
>it's natural that sometimes they will discuss things which are not
>strictly on topic. A cyclist is anyone who cycles - which means a very
>substantial proportion of the UK population. No-one can describe that
>as a 'clique'.
>
>In brief summary to the rest of your comments, there is no suggestion
>that uk.rec.cycling be removed. It will continue to exist, and you can
>continue to use it exactly as you do now. If that does not satisfy
>you, there are several thousand other troll fests^W^Wusenet groups for
>you to partake in. The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
>not choose to take part in it, and no-one who is prepared to engage in
>it constructively. To object to such a group on the broad grounds that
>you have is to make clear that your true objection is to action to
>reduce trolling.

Very well said that man.

Mark  wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:35:25 +0100, David Hansen
>  wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:38:07 -0500 someone who may be Andy Leighton
> > wrote this:-
> >
> >>However pointing newbies at a FAQ item as a first response is a fine
> >>answer (assuming we have a FAQ which is regularly posted and also
> >>available over the web).  If they then have further questions on the
> >>subject or disagree with the FAQ that can lead to interesting discussion.
> >
> >As long as the pointing is done gently, I agree.
> >
> >"Read the FAQ, thicko, <URL:blablabla>" is different to, "This
> >question comes up a lot. There are two main schools of thought,
> >pro-choice and pro-compulsion, which are hotly debated. The pros and
> >cons are outlined in the FAQ <URL:blablabla>. We have already done
> >this to death many times, you can read the arguments in the archives
> ><URL:ipsofacto> and so we are not keen to add to the same old
> >flames. If, after reading the FAQ, you have something new to post
> >about this please do so."
> >
> >The second option could be boilerplate text the moderators have.
> >They could also perhaps change the subject to add something which
> >people can filter on, should they not even wish to see these
> >replies.
> >
> >In order to arrest the trolls the poster could be kept on moderation
> >for a while, though this might be done for new posters anyway.
> 
> My opinion is that we must give new posters the benefit of the doubt,
> especially in the early days of the ng.  I'd rather see a limited
> amount of repetitions than risking alienating a new member.
> 
> I don't want to see urcm "dying on the vine".


indeed while a news group that isn't just a sand pit for fighting trolls
would be nice, a ever decreasing in numbers censored group would be
worse.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:14:38 +0100, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:58:08 +0100, Pedt <"\"@
>@\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>uk.* tries to make the process of creating (and voting on if needed) a 
>>new group as straightforward as possible. I've no particular view on 
>>this RFD but, technically, voting for initial moderators is a practical 
>>issue of time and work and, as mentioned below, may not have any impact 
>>on a CFV on the RFD for a moderated group.
>
>I think some people are missing the point.  A proposal has been made
>for a moderated group with an initial set of moderators.  If you don't
>like it, vote against.


I think *you* are missing the point:

RFD : Request For Discussion.


Are you suggesting we have the vote now?

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:24:26 -0700 (PDT), al Mossah
 wrote:

>On 22 June, 23:00, "wafflycat" <w*a*ffl£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com>
>wrote:
>> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090622194543$3937@gradwell.net...
>>
>> snippity..
>>
>>
>>
>> > This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of
>> > the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
>> > and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
>> > days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
>> > (i.e. until July 3rd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
>> > posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
>> > Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.  Please
>> > do not attempt to vote until this happens.
>>
>> Seems reasonable - lots of work done. Thanks.
>
>If creating URC-moderated gets WafflyCat and others back on line, then
>just do it.  Do it NOW.  I have missed news from Norfolk on paving
>slabs and bib-shorts.
>
>Peter.


Yes  - that's how I understood the proposal:

Waffly Cat is a cyclist we know - part of the clique.

Therefore she can post OT on paving slabs etc. or anything else she
wishes to.

In message <6Wx*-AdKs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
          Clare Boothby  wrote:

> In article ,
> James   wrote:
> >Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
> >wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.
> 
> +1
> 
> I would subscribe to this group; I anticipate its much improved 
> signal-to-noise ratio will make it readable by occasional visitors 
> in the way that the urc trollpit is not.
> 
> Clare
> 

+1

My queries from the 1st RFD have been answered and the continuing troll
wrestling that also infected that discussion has now persuaded me that a
moderated group is worth trialing.

Mike
-- 
 o/ \\    //        |\   ,_ o      Mike Clark
<\__,\\  //   __o   | \ /  /\,   "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
 ">    ||   _`\<,_  |__\  \> | caving, antibody engineer and
  `    ||  (_)/ (_) |   \corn computer user"

Ian Jackson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
>                     2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> 
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
> 
>            create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

<snip>

This seems like the only answer to Nuxx and Judith.  It gets my vote 
when it comes up.

On 23 Jun 2009 13:33:52 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In article <1j1rki8.14g3bjq1ncbri1N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
>Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>It's probably goping to need a vote, the Committee can't just strike out
>>objections because you don't want them to exist or because you are in a
>>tearing hurry.
>
>I presume the Committee would feel able to disregard objections made
>by sock puppets.  The difficulty is that unmasking socks can be hard
>work - work which will need to be done anyway if we have a vote.
>
>So as I say my current view is that I'll ask the Committee's advice,
>after we've given it a bit more time to see what the discussion here
>thinks of the 2nd RFD.

Vote takers will need to keep your eye out for Lou Knee.

Guy Chapman has posted using this nym. at least a couple of times -
probably more.



--        
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:07:17 +0100, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
Merriman) wrote:
<snip>


>> I don't want to see urcm "dying on the vine".

<snip>

> a ever decreasing in numbers censored group would be
>worse.


Would you like a prediction?

(I like your use of the word: "censored")

On 23 Jun 2009 13:24:33 +0200, hbhb  wrote:

>I support the creation of this group and would be a regular participant.


Yes - get the groundwork  done now - ready for the vote.

On 23 Jun 2009 13:30:24 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

<snip>


>So, thanks for your comments, but I find that I disagree with you.


At  least no-one can censor him here just because of a disagreement.

The proposed  group is being set up with precisely that in mind

On Jun 23, 9:45 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:47 pm, jms  wrote:
>
> > >As the recipient of said calls I can state that they bloody well did
> > >happen, contact me via email if you want more evidence
> > Ah yes - the old ones are the best.
> > I have plenty of evidence  - which I can't post or discuss here - but
> > I will if *you* e-mail me.
>
> The reasons for not making the evidence public are very easy to
> understand.

Will you make the evidence available to me if I email you?  As you are
accusing me I have a right to know what you are basing those
accusations upon.  Maybe (not at all likely, but it's just possible)
there's a genuine misunderstanding on your part, and if so, perhaps
I'll be able to clear it up.

If you pretend not to have read this post then it will show that, just
as I suspect, you're making the whole thing up and you don't want to
be found out.

Ian Jackson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
>                     2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> 
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
> 
>            create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> 
> Administrative note:
> 
> At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
> and uk.net.news.config.  People responding are asked to keep the
> followups to both groups.
> 
> Note however that the official discussion is regarded only as that which
> is seen in uk.net.news.config, readers from uk.rec.cycling are encouraged
> to read both groups to ensure that they do not miss important parts of
> the discussion through lack of cross-posting.
> 
> Newsgroup line:
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated	Cycling in the UK (Moderated)
> 
> 
>       *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
> 
> This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
> Further procedural details are given below.
> 
> RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> 
> uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from trolling,
> nym-shifting and forgeries.  Many of these posts are abusive and
> hostile to cycling.  There are even credible allegations of real-world
> harassment such as abusive late night phone calls.  Repetitive flamage
> now constitutes 50-75% of the group by number of articles.  This
> ongoing and worsening problem has been making the group nearly
> unuseable for ordinary discussion; many posters have already left.
> 
> I therefore propose that we should create:
> 
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> 
> 
> CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> 
> This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
> and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
> other forms of cycling are all on-topic.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Binaries and Formatting
> 
> Encoded binaries (eg pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
> forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a
> pointer may be posted.  Cryptographic signatures (eg PGP) may be used
> where authentication is important and should be as short as possible.
> 
> Posts must be readable as plain text.  HTML, RTF and similarly
> formatted messages are prohibited.  To see how to make some common
> news readers comply with this, read  http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html
> 
> END CHARTER
> 
> 
> INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
> 
> The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>  * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
>  * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
>    on cycling within the UK;
>  * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
>  * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.
> 
> The following are prohibited:
>  * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
>  * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
>

I object in principle to the idea of a moderated group. When I want to 
say something I want or often need to say it in the form that I want or 
need to say it. I accept that some may find that offensive , but I 
believe that my opinion should outweight their right not to be offended, 
and conversley I then accept that I can't complain about being offended 
in turn. If somone is talking bollocks I want to be able to tell them so 
and accept the risk that they might think me a twat, and say so, those 
that live by the sword etc...

In addition to the objection to moderation in general I have even more 
of an objection to the use of the word "obscenity " within the 
moderation policy. Obscenity has a very wide and nebulous boundary to 
it's meaning one persons obscenity is another's everyday speech pattern 
and I would not like to be at the whim of an unpublished list of words 
that have to be second guessed as to which could or couldn't be used, or 
even worse the childish bowlderisation of replacing twat with twot, tw*t 
or some such bollocks.

In message , jms 
 writes
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:24:26 -0700 (PDT), al Mossah
> wrote:
>
>>
>>If creating URC-moderated gets WafflyCat and others back on line, then
>>just do it.  Do it NOW.  I have missed news from Norfolk on paving
>>slabs and bib-shorts.
>>
>
>Yes  - that's how I understood the proposal:
>
>Waffly Cat is a cyclist we know - part of the clique.
>

You know, every time you use the word clique you make yourself look a 
bit more silly.

>Therefore she can post OT on paving slabs etc. or anything else she
>wishes to.
>

ROFL -  Google Groups is your friend here if you really want to find out 
why the paving slabs and fairies are on topic for urc :-)
-- 
Chris French

In article ,
Marc   wrote:
>I object in principle to the idea of a moderated group.

The idea of trying a moderated group seems to have strong support from
a number of potential readers and posters.  If you don't like it, you
don't have to read it or post to it, of course.  But I hope you won't
stand in the way of those of us who would like to create this
alternative venue, and of course I hope that you'll come around when
you see what a success it is.

>In addition to the objection to moderation in general I have even more 
>of an objection to the use of the word "obscenity" [...]
>and I would not like to be at the whim of an unpublished list of words

The moderators have already clarified that that's not going to
happen.  Cursing is fine, being abusive is not.  Perhaps this isn't
sufficiently clear in the policy but I hope the proposed moderators'
comments will reassure you.  

I'm reluctant to expand on it in the policy because everyone is very
clear that they want the policy kept short, and also because I would
like to avoid a 3rd RFD.

-- 
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 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:51:52 -0700 (PDT), RudiL 
wrote:
<snip>


>
>Yes of course the people who have caused the need to have a moderated
>group feel misgivings about a moderated group.
>
>Rudi


Are you saying Chapman is not in favour of the moderated group?

Odd - I thought that he was.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
 wrote:

>On 22 June, 22:28, jms  wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> >                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>> >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>> >in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>
>> I object to:
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
>> "The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>>
>> ... general discussion amongst UK cyclists".
>>
>> So anyone in the clique  (who no one doubts are cyclists)  can have a
>> general discussion on whatever they like.
>
>Are you then of the opinion that discussion in uk.rec.sheds should be
>strictly limited to structural details of sloping-roofed buildings, or
>that uk.singles should discuss only seven-inch vinyl records?

I think that you will find that both uk.sheds and uk.singles are
populated by social misfits; they are hardly representative of society
at large.  Many from urc would be at home

Do you frequent either? - I understand that Chapman does.




> Any
>Usenet group is a conversation, among people who often become friends;
>it's natural that sometimes they will discuss things which are not
>strictly on topic. A cyclist is anyone who cycles - which means a very
>substantial proportion of the UK population. No-one can describe that
>as a 'clique'.


I think you will find that the cycle fascists who frequent urc are
atypical of the UK cycling community - and hopefully represent a very
tiny portion of them




>In brief summary to the rest of your comments, there is no suggestion
>that uk.rec.cycling be removed. It will continue to exist, and you can
>continue to use it exactly as you do now.

I think you fill find that the need to do so will disappear,


>The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
>not choose to take part in it, and no-one who is prepared to engage in
>it constructively. 

I am more than willing to engage in the new group constructively.

I wonder if I will be given to a chance.

I do hope so.

>To object to such a group on the broad grounds that
>you have is to make clear that your true objection is to action to
>reduce trolling.


Oh really.

If you think that creation of a new group will stop who you call
"trolls" then I suggest that you think again.

I think you will find that if certain people conduct themselves as
they have done so to date - and I am not referring to those *you* call
trolls, that the new group will most likely turn to rat-shit in the
same way that this one nearly did.


PS How long have you known Jackson?  I see that you are one of his
cronies?  Cambridge perhaps?

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
>           create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
>Administrative note:
>
>At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
>and uk.net.news.config.  People responding are asked to keep the
>followups to both groups.

Follow-ups have not been set to urc and unnc.  urc regulars who do not
subscribe to unnc are being excluded from this discussion unless the
crosspost is put in manually (as I have).

[snip]

>CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
>This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
>and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
>other forms of cycling are all on-topic.

I refer to:
Message-ID: <h0nvev$2ur$1@corncockle-nntp.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Would this post be allowed or moderated in urcm?

If it would be allowed, I suggest the following wording:

This group is for the discussion of all matters, especially those
matters relating to cycling and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling
for transport, racing, and other forms of cycling are all on-topic.

[snip]

>Moderators:
>
>  Alan Braggins
>  Andy Leighton
>  Danny Colyer
>  David Damerell
>  Ian Jackson
>  Martin Dann
>  Nigel Cliffe
>  Peter Clinch
>  Peter Fox
>  Roger Thorpe
>  Simon Brooke

Not all the above have been regular and frequent posters over the past
year.  The selection process was neither transparent or democratic.

In answer to a simple question:
"Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
Message-ID: 
Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
request.

However, one chose to be deliberately unhelpful, suggesting a full
Google Groups search on their posting history to trawl for the answer.
Message-ID: 

A simple answer, a reply stating that he did not consider that
information to be necessary, or simply ignoring the post would all
have been appropriate responses.  The response given tells a lot about
the person and I do not consider him appropriate as moderator.  This
puts me in the somewhat uncomfortable position of agreeing with
Judith.

I would prefer to see a democratic process for the selection of
moderators, or, if this is not possible for the new group to be
formed, a timescale and process put in place for a future democratic
process for the selection of moderators.

[snip]

In its present form I am unlikely to support the new group.  However,
I admire and appreciate the work Ian Jackson has put in so far to
right the ills of urc.  The creation of urcm is likely to be the death
of urc, and if not its death, urc's character will be irreversibly
changed.  urcm will never be like urc of old - not while it is a
moderated group.

Civil and useful discourse is still possible in urc.  A selection is
referenced below:
Message-ID:

Message-ID:

Message-ID: 
(Went slightly off track)
Message-ID: 
(One forged reply)
Message-ID: <w3M_l.29393$9M6.11465@newsfe13.ams2>
Message-ID: <Y7bj5zA7a2OKFwCu@downie#n0sapm#.co.uk>
Message-ID: 

While in theory a moderated group would not prevent such discussion,
in practise it may.

New posters may be put off by moderation.
Regular posters may be put off by moderation.
Posters may think twice about starting topic drift, humour or banter.

Therefore, to support a moderated group I have to be convinced that
the new group is likely to be better than the group which is about to
have its character changed.

1. Several of the proposed moderators have not been regular posters to
urc over the past year.

2. One of the proposed moderators has been deliberately unhelpful.

3. All the proposed moderators have been selected by a single person,
not through a democratic and representative process.

While not alone a sufficient reason to oppose the new group, I have a
fear that the new group will form into more of a clique than the
current group, and it would be better served by a mailing list.

Unless something is done to rectify one or more of the points above I
will not support this group's creation, and urge others to consider
the same questions I have asked of myself.

Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:45:36 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Jun 23, 12:49 am, chris French 
>wrote:
>
>[in respect of my choosing not to share more details about crank
>calls]
>> Seems reasonable enough, the details of the issue are not relevant to
>> the RFD
>
>Indeed they are not.  The fact of the crank calls is sideshow, the
>real issue is abuse of urc for the pursuit of personal vendettas; that
>abuse is plain and visible in the archives to all, there is no need
>for me to share confidential information in order to underscore it.
>It is not as if Nuxx's reputaiton could get any lower, after all.


Personal vendettas?

I wonder if you are self-delusional?

Do you ever wonder why it is that *you* are the one to fall out with
so many people?

What do *you* think is the common factor?

Could it be that people do see you as despicable?

Any chance of answering the question?


--        
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:45:59 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Jun 22, 11:47 pm, jms  wrote:
>
>> >As the recipient of said calls I can state that they bloody well did
>> >happen, contact me via email if you want more evidence
>
>> Ah yes - the old ones are the best.
>> I have plenty of evidence  - which I can't post or discuss here - but
>> I will if *you* e-mail me.
>
>The reasons for not making the evidence public are very easy to
>understand.  As you are a perpetrator rather than a victim of
>harassment I do not expect you to understand this, but others clearly
>do.
>
>> There is a real danger that some people do not believe that you are
>> quite truthful - and there is just a very teeny, tiny, incy, wincey,
>> slim possibility that you have made this all up.
>
>Denial is not just a river in Egypt.  If you want to believe that your
>chum Nuxx is not a deranged obsessive then you carry on, the rest of
>us are not really in any doubt.


What do you mean "As you are a perpetrator rather than a victim of
harassment"

that's rather strong.

OH - I see - poor lickle Guy has been victimised as he?

Well perhaps poor lickle Guy should not be such a despicable fuckwit.

I bet you think that you were bullied at school as well don't you?

 

--        
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

Tom Crispin wrote:
                               <snip>
> Therefore, to support a moderated group I have to be convinced that
> the new group is likely to be better than the group which is about to
> have its character changed.
> 
> 1. Several of the proposed moderators have not been regular posters to
> urc over the past year.
> 
> 2. One of the proposed moderators has been deliberately unhelpful.
> 
> 3. All the proposed moderators have been selected by a single person,
> not through a democratic and representative process.
>

I am one of the proposed moderators. I think that almost everyone who 
volunteered to be a moderator with the intention of making the group 
work has been proposed as one in this RFD.
To be honest I don't think that a democratic election is practical and 
(IMO) not necessary. I would expect to disagree with some of the other 
moderators on a range of issues, but I don't expect there to be a heavy 
hand used.

> While not alone a sufficient reason to oppose the new group, I have a
> fear that the new group will form into more of a clique than the
> current group, and it would be better served by a mailing list.
> 
> Unless something is done to rectify one or more of the points above I
> will not support this group's creation, and urge others to consider
> the same questions I have asked of myself.
> 
> Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.

I think that we'll agree with that, but the situation at the moment 
leads to polarisation, rather than a broad spectrum of opinions.

It's an experiment that we should try to make work.

-- 
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Tom Crispin <> wrote:
> 
>  In answer to a simple question:
>  "Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
>  Message-ID: 
>  Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
>  request.
> 
>  However, one chose to be deliberately unhelpful, suggesting a full
>  Google Groups search on their posting history to trawl for the answer.
>  Message-ID: 

No, that answer is more helpful than silence.  This seems to reflect 
your stated opinion on answering the helmets questions - you seem to 
maintain that it would be better to have a decisive answer than an 
accurate answer.

Here, you seem to be saying an answer that sets out a method of 
finding all you want with full nuance and elaboration is unhelpful.  
Apparently, you'd prefer a decisive simplification, even if it's an 
over-simplification.

As I've said before, I'd rather have the truth, even if it's messy and 
unclear, than a tidily packaged soundbite.

>  I would prefer to see a democratic process for the selection of
>  moderators, or, if this is not possible for the new group to be
>  formed, a timescale and process put in place for a future democratic
>  process for the selection of moderators.

You basically can't have a democratic process.  There are no 
democratic moderated groups - at best, you get to influence the 
initial choice of dictator.  (Possibly, I overstate it a bit, but in 
practice I think not much.)

Further, adding a detailed and complex election process will simply 
encourage amateur lawyering nit-pickery from the trolls.  I don't 
believe it could be made to work as effectively as a benevolent 
dictatorship.

>  New posters may be put off by moderation.

New posters are more likely to be put off by the antics of the trolls 
and wrestlers.

>  Regular posters may be put off by moderation.

Regular posters HAVE been put off by the antics of the trolls and 
wrestlers, and have voted with their feet.

>  Posters may think twice about starting topic drift, humour or banter.

Good, so they should.  Everyone should think twice before posting.

>  1. Several of the proposed moderators have not been regular posters to
>  urc over the past year.

Who, and to what definition?
 
regards,   Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

On 22 Jun 2009 23:54:53 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>Control wrote:
>>At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
>>and uk.net.news.config.  People responding are asked to keep the
>>followups to both groups.
>
>In fact, a technical hitch seems to mean that this didn't happen with
>this 2nd RFD.
>

Ah yes - a "technical hitch" - happens all the time.

Common name : "cock-up"

Who will be responsible for the technical operation of the moderation
system?

Chapman had a technical hitch when he posted as Lou Knee and didn't
spot it was from an IP address he had used earlier.

Roger Thorpe wrote:

<snip>

> I think that we'll agree with that, but the situation at the moment 
> leads to polarisation, rather than a broad spectrum of opinions.
> 
> It's an experiment that we should try to make work.

No, you run an experiment, look at the results, and they stand by 
themselves.  This venture may fail miserably, turn into a clique of 
mutual masterbation, but I think it should be tried, no more, no less.

On 23 June, 23:24, Ian Smith  wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Tom Crispin <> wrote:
>

> >  New posters may be put off by moderation.
>
> New posters are more likely to be put off by the antics of the trolls
> and wrestlers.

I think to some extent they will be put off, but one of the real
problems at the moment is that new posters are likely to be suspected
of being a nym shift of a troll. e.g. the recent question on the
primary position, when I replied I did wonder if I was being trolled.

> >  Regular posters may be put off by moderation.
>
> Regular posters HAVE been put off by the antics of the trolls and
> wrestlers, and have voted with their feet.

Regulat posters with valid email addresses, and good posting histories
will probably be put on a passlist, so won't have to worry about
delays.

> >  Posters may think twice about starting topic drift, humour or banter> Good, so they should.  Everyone should think twice before posting.

I often write replies, and then hit cancel before sending. However I
think that a lot of topic drift and homour in the past has made URC
good.

On 23 June, 20:22, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
wrote:

> In answer to a simple question:
> "Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
> Message-ID: 
> Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
> request.

I had not previously seen this message.

I'm not sure what relevance the bikes I have has to this discussion,
but, for the record,  my 'working set' include a Klein Mantra, a
Cannondale Jekyll, a Dolan time trial bike and a Dolan cross bike.
This year in addition to being foreman of the routing crew for the
Girvan Race I have been safety officer for two criteriums. I time
trial a bit but don't race much these days. I take part in club runs
and occasional longer organised rides as well as pootling by myself
and commuting regularly to work by bicycle,

> I would prefer to see a democratic process for the selection of
> moderators, or, if this is not possible for the new group to be
> formed, a timescale and process put in place for a future democratic
> process for the selection of moderators.

This isn't a perfect world, and votes on Usenet are exceedingly open
to abuse. If nothing is done to control trolling uk.rec.cycling will
gradually die as the noise-to-signal ratio becomes untenable; as has
happened to all the other Usenet groups I used to frequent. Ian
Jackson's proposal may work; personally I'm not enormously helpful,
but it could. If we don't try it, we had better accept the fact that
the era of Usenet is over, and that, sad though it is, the privatised
fiefdoms of the various web fora now provide a more civil and
constructive place for cyclists to share experience online.

> 1. Several of the proposed moderators have not been regular posters to
> urc over the past year.

I stopped posting two years ago. I stopped partly because the trolling
had become so excessive as to render the group a hostile,
argumentative and unpleasant place to hang out, and partly because,
like Guy, I find myself too easily tempted to wrestle with trolls - so
I perceived that I had become part of the problem.

> 2. One of the proposed moderators has been deliberately unhelpful.

We're none of us perfect. I've made a couple of posts myself in the
past fortnight which, looked at in the cool light of day, have been
decidedly unhelpful.

> While not alone a sufficient reason to oppose the new group, I have a
> fear that the new group will form into more of a clique than the
> current group, and it would be better served by a mailing list.

The benefit of a Usenet group is that it is easy for anyone to take
part. Those who have thus far been proposed as potential mods form a
pretty broad church. If we can achieve a light moderating touch I
believe we could achieve a group which is open, welcoming, good
humoured and well mannered. I agree it's not perfect but I believe
it's our last, best chance.

> Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.

On that, I wholeheartedly agree.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:00:22 +0100, 
   	   Roger Thorpe  wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> 
>> Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.
>
> I think that we'll agree with that, but the situation at the moment 
> leads to polarisation, rather than a broad spectrum of opinions.
>
> It's an experiment that we should try to make work.

Absolutely.  I am heartened by the number of people I have seen support
the 2nd RFD who are not urc posters.  If urcm is a place where they feel
more at home and they become regulars (OK a couple of big ifs) then
it can only help diversity.  At the moment they are not being served by
urc as they either cannot or will not put up with the ranting and
raving.

-- 
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, 23 Jun 2009 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
 wrote:

>This isn't a perfect world, and votes on Usenet are exceedingly open
>to abuse. If nothing is done to control trolling uk.rec.cycling will
>gradually die as the noise-to-signal ratio becomes untenable; as has
>happened to all the other Usenet groups I used to frequent. Ian
>Jackson's proposal may work; personally I'm not enormously helpful,
>but it could. If we don't try it, we had better accept the fact that
>the era of Usenet is over, and that, sad though it is, the privatised
>fiefdoms of the various web fora now provide a more civil and
>constructive place for cyclists to share experience online.

Perhaps urc will gradually die, just like the telegram, telex and
other forms of communication have gradually died.  But I have shown
that there is still use in urc.  What I fear is that the creation of
urcm will speed the death of both groups, not prolong them.

You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:57:02 -0700 (PDT), 
   	       	    Martin.  wrote:
> On 23 June, 23:24, Ian Smith  wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Tom Crispin <> wrote:
>
>> >  Posters may think twice about starting topic drift, humour or banter.
>>
>> Good, so they should.  Everyone should think twice before posting.
>
> I often write replies, and then hit cancel before sending. However I
> think that a lot of topic drift and homour in the past has made URC
> good.

A number of the moderators (ok one of them is me) have been around usenet
for a long time.  We know what makes usenet special (when it works) and
we aren't trying to enforce some totally alien set of rules on to the
group.  I fully expect that a certain amount of topic drift and homour 
(whatever that is) will certainly continue to get posted to the
moderated group.  Also people always have the option of putting an
obBike sentence/paragraph in their post.

-- 
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, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100, 
   	   Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.

You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  The level of crap
reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of 
sensible posters remaining.  People will piss off to web-based fora,
and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK 
cyclists.

-- 
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_

In article , Tom Crispin wrote:
>In answer to a simple question:
>"Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
>Message-ID: 
>Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
>request.
>
>However, one chose to be deliberately unhelpful, suggesting a full
>Google Groups search on their posting history to trawl for the answer.
>Message-ID: 
>
>A simple answer, a reply stating that he did not consider that
>information to be necessary, or simply ignoring the post would all
>have been appropriate responses.

I'm sorry you feel that way. My answer at the time was hurried - I
thought that the information was unnecessary and not directly relevent
to uk.net.news.config, but that it was available for those who really
cared (and that the fact that my posting history covered it was
relevent).

Most of my cycling is commuting, either a few miles on a folding bike
from a Park and Ride car park, or a longer distance on a road bike
(Raleigh Vitesse), a hybrid (GT Arette) I originally bought as a tow 
bike for a Cycle Design Tag-a-long (since sold, as was a Pashley U+2),
or an Orange (model unknown) originally bought at a police cycle auction
as a spare bike to keep at work while commuting by train (I didn't have
the folder (Dawes Kingpin) then). More recently, I bought a Dawes XC
for use on off-road family cycle rides.
The Arrete is currently (and has been for some time) part way through
having an electric assist kit fitted.

Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article ,
> Marc   wrote:
>> I object in principle to the idea of a moderated group.
> 
> The idea of trying a moderated group seems to have strong support from
> a number of potential readers and posters.  If you don't like it, you
> don't have to read it or post to it, of course. 

I'm a rational anarchist and I'll accept any law or rule that you think 
you need, if I approve of it I'll follow it, if I don't I  will either 
ignore it or move on.


  But I hope you won't
> stand in the way of those of us who would like to create this
> alternative venue, and of course I hope that you'll come around when
> you see what a success it is.

It's your business, I've said my piece.
> 
>> In addition to the objection to moderation in general I have even more 
>> of an objection to the use of the word "obscenity" [...]
>> and I would not like to be at the whim of an unpublished list of words
> 
> The moderators have already clarified that that's not going to
> happen.  Cursing is fine, being abusive is not.

If "obsenities" are fine as long as they are not being abusive then what 
is the point of having a rule that says they are not?

   Perhaps this isn't
> sufficiently clear in the policy but I hope the proposed moderators'
> comments will reassure you.  

Policemen tend to think like policemen, that's not very reasuring.
> 
> I'm reluctant to expand on it in the policy because everyone is very
> clear that they want the policy kept short, and also because I would
> like to avoid a 3rd RFD.

Yes, debate is a bugger when you want to move things along.
>

Ian Jackson wrote:
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
> 
>            create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> 

Reluctantly, I think this is now needed, thanks for the work you've put in.

-- 
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

In article , Simon Brooke wrote:
>              The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
>not choose to take part in it

That's not necessarily strictly true: if posters give up on the unmoderated 
group in favour of the moderated one, then those who prefer an unmoderated 
discussion will have lost some of their audience, and they have a reduced
change of useful answer to questions, or less debate stimulated.

Obviously I personally think the potential benefits of a moderated group
curreently outweigh the disadvantages, but I wouldn't say that someone who 
feels otherwise has no possible cause for concern.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, 
   	       Ian Jackson  wrote:
> DISTRIBUTION:
>
> This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>         uk.net.news.announce
>         uk.net.news.config
>         uk.rec.cycling

I notice that one individual has totally misrepresented the charter
and moderation policy and seems to have solicited for votes against
in a couple of unrelated groups (uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport).

-- 
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 Jun 24, 6:24 am, Tom Crispin
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.

If urcm turns out as badly as you are worrying, there is nothing to
stop people using urc. Of course people will drift away, they always
do, the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
let alone 10.

James

On Tue, Jun 23 2009, Tom Crispin wrote (to Simon Brooke):

> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.

As you are probably aware, Simon was, for a very long time, one of the
dozen or so regular posters that made URC what it was -- interesting,
informative, mostly civilised if anarchic, and one of the last
worthwhile social usenet groups. 

I would have been strongly against moderation, until quite recently, but
I now feel it is the only hope for the group.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan Halpin,  Department of Sociology,  University of Limerick,  Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:brendan.halpin@ul.ie  http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

James wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:24 am, Tom Crispin
> <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> 
>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
> 
> If urcm turns out as badly as you are worrying, there is nothing to
> stop people using urc. Of course people will drift away, they always
> do, the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
> let alone 10.
>
I am!

On Jun 24, 7:00 am, Marc  wrote:
> James wrote:

> > the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
> > let alone 10.
>
> I am!

Can I borrow your mirror?

James

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:18:12 +0100, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
Merriman) wrote:

>the only thing that as ever i'll be worried about is essentely getting
>into sensorship over questions which to be fair may have been asked many
>many times before, but as long as it's a fair question and not just a
>attempt to troll, it really should be allowed how ever many times it's
>come up. just pointing them to a FAQ isn't going to cut it.

Yes, everybody gets to be a n00b once.  But only once each.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Tue, Jun 23 2009, James wrote:

> On Jun 24, 7:00 am, Marc  wrote:
>> James wrote:
>
>> > the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
>> > let alone 10.
>>
>> I am!
>
> Can I borrow your mirror?

He has an ASCII-art portrait in the attic.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan Halpin,  Department of Sociology,  University of Limerick,  Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:brendan.halpin@ul.ie  http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:30:37 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>Waffly Cat is a cyclist we know - part of the clique.

You mean that uk.rec.cycling is dominated by cyclists? Shut it down
immediately!

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:35:12 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>>So, thanks for your comments, but I find that I disagree with you.

>At  least no-one can censor him here just because of a disagreement.
>The proposed  group is being set up with precisely that in mind

A statement requiring evidence.  Nobody has said that contrary views
are forbidden, though wilful contrarianism is different.  Please point
out the section of the charter or moderation policy that forbids
posting material with which Teh Cabal (TINC) disagrees.  When you're
done with that, please identify a subject on which Teh Cabal (TINC) is
in unanimous agreement, other than that they've had enough spiteful
crap in uk.rec.cycling.

It seems to me that the charter and moderation policy are designed to
stop spite, malice, vindictiveness and circular argument not
constructive disagreement.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

In message , Tom Crispin 
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>
>>
>>                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>
>>           create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>
>
<snip>
>>Moderators:
>>
>>  Alan Braggins
>>  Andy Leighton
>>  Danny Colyer
>>  David Damerell
>>  Ian Jackson
>>  Martin Dann
>>  Nigel Cliffe
>>  Peter Clinch
>>  Peter Fox
>>  Roger Thorpe
>>  Simon Brooke
>
>Not all the above have been regular and frequent posters over the past
>year.

I don't think that really matters, all are long time regulars of urc.

> The selection process was neither transparent or democratic.
>
<snip

>I would prefer to see a democratic process for the selection of
>moderators, or, if this is not possible for the new group to be
>formed, a timescale and process put in place for a future democratic
>process for the selection of moderators.
>

As has been pointed out in other replies to the thread (by Pedt I 
think), there are various issues with moderator voting.
>[snip]
>
>In its present form I am unlikely to support the new group.  However,
>I admire and appreciate the work Ian Jackson has put in so far to
>right the ills of urc.  The creation of urcm is likely to be the death
>of urc, and if not its death, urc's character will be irreversibly
>changed.  urcm will never be like urc of old - not while it is a
>moderated group.

Well, hopefully it will be more like the urc of old than the current urc 
though. Which seems more pertinent.

>
>Civil and useful discourse is still possible in urc.

<snip>

It is, but not enough IMO to counter the crap. urc feels like somewhere 
to be endured nowadays rather than enjoyed.
>
>New posters may be put off by moderation.
>Regular posters may be put off by moderation.
>Posters may think twice about starting topic drift, humour or banter.
>
People are being put off urc as it is.

>Therefore, to support a moderated group I have to be convinced that
>the new group is likely to be better than the group which is about to
>have its character changed.
>
Strikes me that urc as is doesn't provide a very high bar here.
>
>Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.

I agree.
-- 
Chris French

In message , Marc 
 writes
>James wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 6:24 am, Tom Crispin
>> <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who 
>>>has
>>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>>  If urcm turns out as badly as you are worrying, there is nothing to
>> stop people using urc. Of course people will drift away, they always
>> do, the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
>> let alone 10.
>>
>I am!

Me too :-)

And there are a number of regulars that ISTR as being around for a long 
time
-- 
Chris French

In message , Andy Leighton 
 writes
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
>          Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>
>You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
>them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  The level of crap
>reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
>current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
>sensible posters remaining.

Indeed, I gave up on urc a while back because of the crap level. I've 
been back here a bit more recently, but it's no better, probably worse.
Basically it's not fun anymore. I will give up on it again I imagine, 
possibly for good..

> People will piss off to web-based fora,
>and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
>the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
>cyclists.
>
Yep.
-- 
Chris French

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:21:37 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:15:07 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Alistair
>Gunn  wrote this:-
>
>>Though I think I can personally live without the news on bib-shorts.  :-)
>
>You

There will be one - it is called the moderation panel - but as the
proposal says

anything goes as long as it is

 "General discussion amongst UK cyclists"

Translation - if you are a member of the clique - discuss what you
like.

If you are not - well tough shit

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:22:19 +0100, "Colin Reed"
 wrote:

>
>"Matt B"  wrote in message 
>news:7aae45F1ucvfoU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>> INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
>>>
>>> The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>>>  * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
>>
>> Good.
>>
>>>  * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
>>>    on cycling within the UK;
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>>  * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
>>
>> What's that then?  Discussion between cyclists (but disallowing 
>> contributions by non-cyclists) about something which is nothing to do with 
>> cycling?
>
>I see nothing to say that anyone would be "disallowed" according to this. 
>It is a statement of what is to be encouraged, rather than what it 
>prohibited by the moderation policy.  As always, IIUC, the moderation policy 
>consists of guidelines to the moderators who then must exercise a certain 
>discretion.  I don't really think if a thread happens to wander into public 
>transport discussions (trains seem popular with many contributors to URC!) 
>then the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles 
>regularly.
>
>Colin 
>


So the group is only for those who the moderators *think*  "cycle
regularly"

Thanks for the clarification.

(It gets better all the time)

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:16:35 -0700 (PDT), al Mossah
 wrote:

>On 22 June, 20:45, Ian Jackson 
>wrote:
>
>> Moderators:
>>
>>   Alan Braggins
>>   Andy Leighton
>>   Danny Colyer
>>   David Damerell
>>   Ian Jackson
>>   Martin Dann
>>   Nigel Cliffe
>>   Peter Clinch
>>   Peter Fox
>>   Roger Thorpe
>>   Simon Brooke
>
>A panel who's common-sense contributions in URC I have always read and
>enjoyed.  I support the choice.
>
>Peter.


Could you point out the common sense contributions made by Braggins  -
I seem to have missed them.

There was the one where he altered what someone had said - and then
replied to it.  "Forgery" is I think the term; hardly common sense.

I see there is the odd one who has professed to having qualifications
he hasn't actually got yet - that was hardly common-sense.

Clinch posts all through the day and is likely to get his wrists
slapped by the University sometime soon for doing so in University
time : hardly common sense.

URCM : by the clique - for the clique.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:18:12 +0100, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
Merriman) wrote:

>Ian Jackson  wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>you shouuld see the size of those scissors!
>
>>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>>    discussion.
>> 
>
>
>the only thing that as ever i'll be worried about is essentely getting
>into sensorship over questions which to be fair may have been asked many
>many times before, but as long as it's a fair question and not just a
>attempt to troll, it really should be allowed how ever many times it's
>come up. just pointing them to a FAQ isn't going to cut it.
>
>roger

I am sorry  - you have misunderstood:

"the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
regularly."

 the group is for:

" * General discussion amongst UK cyclists"

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:35:25 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:38:07 -0500 someone who may be Andy Leighton
> wrote this:-
>
>>However pointing newbies at a FAQ item as a first response is a fine
>>answer (assuming we have a FAQ which is regularly posted and also
>>available over the web).  If they then have further questions on the 
>>subject or disagree with the FAQ that can lead to interesting discussion.
>
>As long as the pointing is done gently, I agree.
>
>"Read the FAQ, thicko, <URL:blablabla>" 


Yes - I recall my welcome in to the group;

'Well - you think wrong then'

It went downhill as a result of that and here we are today.

Judith M Smith  wrote:

>  "General discussion amongst UK cyclists"
> 
> Translation - if you are a member of the clique - discuss what you
> like.
> 
> If you are not

Then talk in another group.

Damn that was difficult, eh?

In message , jms 
 writes

<snip misrepresentation>

I've tried to treat your posts in the RFD thread as if you are posting 
in a reasonable manner, with a reasonable argument (yup I know ......)

But you as you are now reverting to your old tactics of misrepresenting 
what others have said (when it has been pointed out already how you have 
misquoted them) then at least I feel I can now revert to ignoring you 
again with good reason.

TTFN
-- 
Chris French

"Brendan Halpin"  wrote in message 
news:87k532bna1.fsf@wivenhoe.ul.ie...
> On Tue, Jun 23 2009, James wrote:
>
>> On Jun 24, 7:00 am, Marc  wrote:
>>> James wrote:
>>
>>> > the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
>>> > let alone 10.
>>>
>>> I am!
>>
>> Can I borrow your mirror?
>
> He has an ASCII-art portrait in the attic.
>

The one in the attic is MP4 by now

"jms"  wrote in message 
news:0pq24515jiv7f2hjgcs3u469tpc58mgffr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:22:19 +0100, "Colin Reed"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Matt B"  wrote in message
>>news:7aae45F1ucvfoU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
>>>>
>>>> The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>>>>  * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
>>>
>>> Good.
>>>
>>>>  * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
>>>>    on cycling within the UK;
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>>  * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
>>>
>>> What's that then?  Discussion between cyclists (but disallowing
>>> contributions by non-cyclists) about something which is nothing to do 
>>> with
>>> cycling?
>>
>>I see nothing to say that anyone would be "disallowed" according to this.
>>It is a statement of what is to be encouraged, rather than what it
>>prohibited by the moderation policy.  As always, IIUC, the moderation 
>>policy
>>consists of guidelines to the moderators who then must exercise a certain
>>discretion.  I don't really think if a thread happens to wander into 
>>public
>>transport discussions (trains seem popular with many contributors to URC!)
>>then the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
>>regularly.
>>
>>Colin
>>
>
>
> So the group is only for those who the moderators *think*  "cycle
> regularly"
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> (It gets better all the time)
>

Well that was an only slightly better attempt than the deliberate 
misrepresentation of this very post on two unrelated groups in a rather 
pathetic attempt to garner "no" votes when the CFV arrives.  As is more than 
clear to most other people who read this, the above quote was to suggest 
that actually the moderators would *not* do exactly what you suggest. 
Anyway, I see no reason why this discussion should be dumbed down enough 
just so the exceptionally vocal "me, me, listen to me, me me - look at me, 
I'm being really clever" annoying little child in the corner can understand 
it.  As long as you actually quote the entire phrase, unlike your deliberate 
lying on the other groups earlier, then most people will be able to 
understand what was really being said, and your misunderstanding of it - 
deliberate or just plain stupidity - will be clear for others to see.

Colin

On Jun 24, 4:22 am, Tom Crispin
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

> New posters may be put off by moderation.
> Regular posters may be put off by moderation.
> Posters may think twice about starting topic drift, humour or banter.
>
> Therefore, to support a moderated group I have to be convinced that
> the new group is likely to be better than the group which is about to
> have its character changed.

I think it's worth explicitly drawing your (and others') attention to
the fact that a significant number of ex-contributors (who I presume
have been occasionally lurking, but basically not posting) have been
tempted back to add their support for this proposal. These old posters
are real people with a history you can check, who have (understandably
but regrettably IMO) given up on urc as it now is. I think their real
contribution substantially outweighs the vague spectre of hypothetical
newcomers who might potentially be put off by - shock, horror - the
spectre of having to think before they post.

James

"jms"  wrote in message 
news:6qq245poo3bo4fkcnhb2u9tuuaeohvl4b5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:18:12 +0100, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
> Merriman) wrote:
>
>>Ian Jackson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>you shouuld see the size of those scissors!
>>
>>>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>>>    discussion.
>>>
>>
>>
>>the only thing that as ever i'll be worried about is essentely getting
>>into sensorship over questions which to be fair may have been asked many
>>many times before, but as long as it's a fair question and not just a
>>attempt to troll, it really should be allowed how ever many times it's
>>come up. just pointing them to a FAQ isn't going to cut it.
>>
>>roger
>
> I am sorry  - you have misunderstood:
>
> "the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
> regularly."
>
> the group is for:
>
> " * General discussion amongst UK cyclists"
>

The full quote is
"I see nothing to say that anyone would be "disallowed" according to this.
It is a statement of what is to be encouraged, rather than what it
prohibited by the moderation policy.  As always, IIUC, the moderation policy
consists of guidelines to the moderators who then must exercise a certain
discretion.  I don't really think if a thread happens to wander into public
transport discussions (trains seem popular with many contributors to URC!)
then the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
regularly.

Colin "

So it is clear that it is you that has not understood.  Although, 
considering this has been pointed out by people other than me, I can only 
presume that you have resorted to posting deliberate lies since you are 
repeating this pathetically edited snippet.  Do you wish to keep posting 
deliberate lies?

Colin

chris French wrote on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:22 +0100:

> I'd be tempted to include something along the lines of "matters
> regarding cycling outside of the UK of interest to UK cyclists"

+1
-- 
Alex
"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind."
          --Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

jms  considered Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:55:36
+0100 the perfect time to write:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:35:25 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:38:07 -0500 someone who may be Andy Leighton
>> wrote this:-
>>
>>>However pointing newbies at a FAQ item as a first response is a fine
>>>answer (assuming we have a FAQ which is regularly posted and also
>>>available over the web).  If they then have further questions on the 
>>>subject or disagree with the FAQ that can lead to interesting discussion.
>>
>>As long as the pointing is done gently, I agree.
>>
>>"Read the FAQ, thicko, <URL:blablabla>" 
>
>
>Yes - I recall my welcome in to the group;
>
>'Well - you think wrong then'
>
>It went downhill as a result of that and here we are today.

It might have helped if you'd shown any ability to think at all.

jms  considered Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:55:18
+0100 the perfect time to write:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:18:12 +0100, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
>Merriman) wrote:
>
>>Ian Jackson  wrote:
>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>you shouuld see the size of those scissors!
>>
>>>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>>>    discussion.
>>> 
>>
>>
>>the only thing that as ever i'll be worried about is essentely getting
>>into sensorship over questions which to be fair may have been asked many
>>many times before, but as long as it's a fair question and not just a
>>attempt to troll, it really should be allowed how ever many times it's
>>come up. just pointing them to a FAQ isn't going to cut it.
>>
>>roger
>
>I am sorry  - you have misunderstood:
>
>"the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
>regularly."
>
> the group is for:
>
>" * General discussion amongst UK cyclists"

Well, nobody is stopping you from raising an rfd for
uk.trolling.moderated if you want a place where you set the rules.

"Colin Reed"  considered Wed, 24 Jun
2009 01:52:33 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>
>"jms"  wrote in message 
>news:6qq245poo3bo4fkcnhb2u9tuuaeohvl4b5@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:18:12 +0100, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
>> Merriman) wrote:
>>
>>>Ian Jackson  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>you shouuld see the size of those scissors!
>>>
>>>>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>>>>    discussion.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>the only thing that as ever i'll be worried about is essentely getting
>>>into sensorship over questions which to be fair may have been asked many
>>>many times before, but as long as it's a fair question and not just a
>>>attempt to troll, it really should be allowed how ever many times it's
>>>come up. just pointing them to a FAQ isn't going to cut it.
>>>
>>>roger
>>
>> I am sorry  - you have misunderstood:
>>
>> "the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
>> regularly."
>>
>> the group is for:
>>
>> " * General discussion amongst UK cyclists"
>>
>
>The full quote is
>"I see nothing to say that anyone would be "disallowed" according to this.
>It is a statement of what is to be encouraged, rather than what it
>prohibited by the moderation policy.  As always, IIUC, the moderation policy
>consists of guidelines to the moderators who then must exercise a certain
>discretion.  I don't really think if a thread happens to wander into public
>transport discussions (trains seem popular with many contributors to URC!)
>then the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
>regularly.
>
>Colin "
>
>So it is clear that it is you that has not understood.  Although, 
>considering this has been pointed out by people other than me, I can only 
>presume that you have resorted to posting deliberate lies since you are 
>repeating this pathetically edited snippet.  Do you wish to keep posting 
>deliberate lies?
>
I take it that was intended to be rhetorical?

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
"Martin."  wrote:

> I often write replies, and then hit cancel before sending.

I increasingly find myself discarding replies, for a variety of
reasons.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:08:04 +0100
Marc  wrote:

> I object in principle to the idea of a moderated group. When I want
> to say something I want or often need to say it in the form that I
> want or need to say it. I accept that some may find that offensive ,
> but I believe that my opinion should outweight their right not to be
> offended, and conversley I then accept that I can't complain about
> being offended in turn. If somone is talking bollocks I want to be
> able to tell them so and accept the risk that they might think me a
> twat, and say so, those that live by the sword etc...

I object to the idea of a moderated group in the same way that I object
to the idea of a gated community - isolating yourself from a problem
doesn't make the problem go away or teach you to deal with it, and
those left outside the gate may be at a severe disadvantage.
> 
> In addition to the objection to moderation in general I have even
> more of an objection to the use of the word "obscenity " within the 
> moderation policy. Obscenity has a very wide and nebulous boundary to 
> it's meaning one persons obscenity is another's everyday speech
> pattern and I would not like to be at the whim of an unpublished list
> of words that have to be second guessed as to which could or couldn't
> be used, or even worse the childish bowlderisation of replacing twat
> with twot, tw*t or some such bollocks.

I hate those fucking asterisks.

On Jun 24, 4:48 am, Rob Morley  wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
>
> "Martin."  wrote:
> > I often write replies, and then hit cancel before sending.
>
> I increasingly find myself discarding replies, for a variety of
> reasons.

No great loss.

James wrote:
> On Jun 24, 7:00 am, Marc  wrote:
>> James wrote:
> 
>>> the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
>>> let alone 10.
>> I am!
> 
> Can I borrow your mirror?
> 
> James
Yes, as long as you don't touch the picture in the attic.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:55:36 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>Yes - I recall my welcome in to the group;
>'Well - you think wrong then'
>It went downhill as a result of that and here we are today.

I guess this is true, for some values of true.  Yes, you did think
wrong, and your increasingly vicious attacks on those who proved that
you were wrong, starting within an  hour of your first post with your
attack on someone who made a perfectly defensible reply, was indeed
the start of the downward slope.  But it happened in several different
threads.

Presumably your contention is that all people had to do was let you
post ill-informed drivel without correction and you'd have remained
pleasant.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:33:24 -0500, Andy Leighton
 wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100, 
>   	   Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>
>You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
>them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  

I can tolerate them, just as I could tolerate a chap with Tourette's
sitting in a pub.

>The level of crap
>reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
>current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of 
>sensible posters remaining.  People will piss off to web-based fora,
>and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
>the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK 
>cyclists.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:59:43 -0700 (PDT), James
 wrote:

>On Jun 24, 6:24 am, Tom Crispin
><kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>
>If urcm turns out as badly as you are worrying, there is nothing to
>stop people using urc. Of course people will drift away, they always
>do, the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
>let alone 10.

My point is that ucrm will speed the decline of urc, not prolong it.

On 23 June, 12:08, Roger Thorpe  wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> > geomannie wrote:
> >> In message , David Hansen
> >>  writes
> >>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:27:18 퍝 someone who may be Chris Gerhard
> >>>  wrote this:-
>
> >>>> And me.
> >>> Me too.
>
> >> Count me in too.
>
> > One more supporting creation of the group.  (I am listed on the proposed
> > moderation panel).
>
> Since I can't think of an original way to express it:
>
> Me too.

Me too, too.

I support the creation of the moderated group ukrcm.

In article , Tom Crispin wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:59:43 -0700 (PDT), James
> wrote:
>>On Jun 24, 6:24 am, Tom Crispin
>><kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
>>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>>
>>If urcm turns out as badly as you are worrying, there is nothing to
>>stop people using urc. Of course people will drift away, they always
>>do, the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
>>let alone 10.
>
>My point is that ucrm will speed the decline of urc, not prolong it.

But is the decline reversible, and if so how? If the decline is
inevitable, speeding it up might well be a worthwhile price to pay
(assuming that the moderated group doesn't suffer a similar decline).

On 24 Jun 2009 07:42:37 +0100 (BST), armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>But is the decline reversible, and if so how? If the decline is
>inevitable, speeding it up might well be a worthwhile price to pay
>(assuming that the moderated group doesn't suffer a similar decline).

I do not know whether both groups will thrive, whether the moderated
group will get all the interesting stuff and the unmoderated die, or
whether the lack of an audience will cause judith and Nuxx to give up
and go home, in which case people will probably move back to urc.

I don't think this matters.  The resources required are modest, so
whether there is a long-term future for both groups is probably not
that relevant to the question of whether there is, right now,
significant (and sufficient) demand for the new group.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.

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

> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
>  wrote:
> 
> >This isn't a perfect world, and votes on Usenet are exceedingly open
> >to abuse. If nothing is done to control trolling uk.rec.cycling will
> >gradually die as the noise-to-signal ratio becomes untenable; as has
> >happened to all the other Usenet groups I used to frequent. Ian
> >Jackson's proposal may work; personally I'm not enormously helpful,
> >but it could. If we don't try it, we had better accept the fact that
> >the era of Usenet is over, and that, sad though it is, the privatised
> >fiefdoms of the various web fora now provide a more civil and
> >constructive place for cyclists to share experience online.
> 
> Perhaps urc will gradually die, just like the telegram, telex and
> other forms of communication have gradually died.  But I have shown
> that there is still use in urc.  What I fear is that the creation of
> urcm will speed the death of both groups, not prolong them.
> 
> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.

some other newsgroups are doing fine others are not. URC is one of the
nots, for what it's worth, with my newsreader and it's kill all
followups URC is quite readable as most of the trolling/flaming is all
gone.

but i can see that there are large threads/sub threads all the time,
some groups manage to not to reply to them others do.

as to URCM is there a real danger of the group disapeapering? Yes this
said since people seem to lack the abilty to ignore trolls this may be
it's only chance.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

Andy Leighton  wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100, 
>          Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >
> > You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
> > already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> > fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
> 
> You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
> them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  The level of crap
> reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
> current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of 
> sensible posters remaining.  People will piss off to web-based fora,
> and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
> the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK 
> cyclists.

it's not impossible to get newsreaders to kill file author and then
followups so I don't see guy taunting them or what ever as it's all been
killed.

so for me it's fine thank you very much.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:43 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>URCM : by the clique - for the clique.

That's what a moderated group is.  Did you have some idea it might be
otherwise?

If you want a group to be exactly how you want it to be, RFD one.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:49:03 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>I don't think this matters.  The resources required are modest, so
>whether there is a long-term future for both groups is probably not
>that relevant to the question of whether there is, right now,
>significant (and sufficient) demand for the new group.

There seems to be a lot of support for urcm, and very little
opposition.  It may even qualify for fast track from what I've seen.

As for the future I suspect that is one or two people got bored and
moved on urc would be fine and there would be no need for urcm.

My prediction is that it will follow ulym, but we'll have to see.

On 23 June, 15:49, Mike Clark  wrote:

> My queries from the 1st RFD have been answered and the continuing troll
> wrestling that also infected that discussion has now persuaded me that a
> moderated group is worth trialing.
>
> Mike
> --


I also support the creation of the group.

Mike

chris French  wrote:

> In message , jms 
>  writes
> 
> <snip misrepresentation>
> 
> I've tried to treat your posts in the RFD thread as if you are posting
> in a reasonable manner, with a reasonable argument (yup I know ......)
> 
> But you as you are now reverting to your old tactics of misrepresenting
> what others have said (when it has been pointed out already how you have
> misquoted them) then at least I feel I can now revert to ignoring you
> again with good reason.
> 
> TTFN

I gave up and put her/him/it into the killfile from the last round it
will time out like all my killfiles. so she/him/it can rest at ease that
i will read her/him/it's posts again hower briefly or not until back in
the killfile

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

At 14:12:13 on Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Simon Brooke  
wrote in 
:

>On 23 June, 20:22, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>wrote:

>> 2. One of the proposed moderators has been deliberately unhelpful.
>
>We're none of us perfect. I've made a couple of posts myself in the
>past fortnight which, looked at in the cool light of day, have been
>decidedly unhelpful.

Nobody is expected to be perfect 100% of the time.  So long as the 
moderators are diligent and helpful *as moderators*, it really doesn't 
affect the moderation of the group if they are sometimes neither in the 
rest of their lives.  The same applies to everyone else with 
responsibilities in Usenet - Committee members, votetakers, mentors etc. 
While it would be just lovely if we were all sweetness and light all the 
time, that ain't the way that life works.  So long as we fulfil our 
responsibilities to the expected standard, that is all that anyone else 
can require.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On Jun 24, 12:14 am, chris French 
wrote:
> In message , Andy Leighton
>  writes
>
> >On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
> >          Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
> >> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
> >> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> >> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>
> >You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
> >them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  The level of crap
> >reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
> >current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
> >sensible posters remaining.
>
> Indeed, I gave up on urc a while back because of the crap level. I've
> been back here a bit more recently, but it's no better, probably worse.
> Basically it's not fun anymore. I will give up on it again I imagine,
> possibly for good..
>
> > People will piss off to web-based fora,
> >and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
> >the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
> >cyclists.
>
> Yep.

Amazing the way that even when they're talking about "last hopes", the
regulars *still* won't even discuss the possibility that those who are
more anti-motorist than pro-cyclist are the real problem in URC
(especially the ones who lie about being anti-motorist, not to mention
everything else), and getting rid of them would make things far more
pleasant, depoliticise the group, and also attract a lot more people
(at the moment, anyone who sticks up for motorists in *any way* is
made to feel very unwelcome, and is either called a "troll" or very
reluctantly tolerated, which simply shouldn't happen in a cycling
newsgroup).  Surely it's worth at least talking about that approach
before giving up on the group for good?

Just ask yourself a question: "If Guy Chapman and Spindrift left the
group, would it get better overall as a result, or worse?"  We all
know the answer.  Yet Chapman's sycophants rally round and ensure once
again that the Dreadful Truth isn't mentioned, lest it offend their
Master.  Even when they're desperately trying to save their group,
they still daren't even mention the one solution that would actually
work.  They would rather lose their group than risk incurring
Chapman's wrath.  It's just bizarre.  What has Chapman done to earn
this "position", and why are they so scared of him: what can he do to
them if they "disobey" him?

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:06:46 +0100, Rob Morley  wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:08:04 +0100
> Marc  wrote:
>
>> I object in principle to the idea of a moderated group. When I want
>> to say something I want or often need to say it in the form that I
>> want or need to say it. I accept that some may find that offensive ,
>> but I believe that my opinion should outweight their right not to be
>> offended, and conversley I then accept that I can't complain about
>> being offended in turn. If somone is talking bollocks I want to be
>> able to tell them so and accept the risk that they might think me a
>> twat, and say so, those that live by the sword etc...
>
> I object to the idea of a moderated group in the same way that I object
> to the idea of a gated community - isolating yourself from a problem
> doesn't make the problem go away or teach you to deal with it, and
> those left outside the gate may be at a severe disadvantage.

Up to a point.  How many care in the community cases do you want to
carry?  If I go in a pub and it has a high proportion of nutters and
thugs who shout threats and insults at me and my companions - guess
what?  We leave and find a pub where they do not exist - maybe the
landlord insists on proper behaviour and bars those who misbehave.

-- 
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_

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
news:dbf345tvb6rrp1v4jtlvsr7slsrbndceg4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:33:24 -0500, Andy Leighton
>  wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
>>      Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>
>>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
>>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>>
>>You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
>>them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.
>
> I can tolerate them, just as I could tolerate a chap with Tourette's
> sitting in a pub.
>

Although if people came into a pub deliberately being provocative with 
things like "all beer drinkers are fuckwits" and suggesting that it is 
inevitable that a bib wearing law would be passed, then you might reasonably 
expect the landlord to chuck them out.

Colin

Rob Morley  wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:08:04 +0100
> Marc  wrote:
> 
> > I object in principle to the idea of a moderated group. When I want
> > to say something I want or often need to say it in the form that I
> > want or need to say it. I accept that some may find that offensive ,
> > but I believe that my opinion should outweight their right not to be
> > offended, and conversley I then accept that I can't complain about
> > being offended in turn. If somone is talking bollocks I want to be
> > able to tell them so and accept the risk that they might think me a
> > twat, and say so, those that live by the sword etc...
> 
> I object to the idea of a moderated group in the same way that I object
> to the idea of a gated community - isolating yourself from a problem
> doesn't make the problem go away or teach you to deal with it, and
> those left outside the gate may be at a severe disadvantage.

i would agree but sadly it doesn't apear to be working, looking with out
the killfiles there is not just rants from trolls but flames from others
so cycling is getting further pushed to the margins now if this group
was cycling.transport.Advocacy that would be fair enought.

so i reluctly support the mod process though i remain very cynical about
it.
> > 

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

"chris French"  wrote in message 
news:uf6nCVGPHWQKNA3z@gauva.familyfrench.co.uk...
> In message , Andy Leighton 
>  writes
>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
>>          Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>
>>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
>>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>>
>>You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
>>them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  The level of crap
>>reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
>>current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
>>sensible posters remaining.
>
> Indeed, I gave up on urc a while back because of the crap level. I've been 
> back here a bit more recently, but it's no better, probably worse.
> Basically it's not fun anymore. I will give up on it again I imagine, 
> possibly for good..
>


Same here. Even with kill-files of the obvious trolls, it was the trolls' 
nym-shifting and those who for some odd reason seem to think that entering 
dialogue with a troll is going to produce rational discussion that has 
ruined the group.

Another couple of newsgroups I frequent (non-cycling and also unmoderated) 
that have been around for years and continue to thrive have little problem 
with trolls for the simple reason that trolls are ignored. Starved of 
'oxygen' the trolls get bored and go away. Newcomers to the groups are 
welcomed, but if a welcomed newbie turns out to be a troll after all, then 
the only thing that works is done. And it works. For some reason, too many 
on URC can't do this and the group, which *was* a welcoming place for the 
discussion of all aspects of cycling has effectively been destroyed by 
trolls and those who keep on responding to the trolls. I periodically have a 
look at what is going on in URC, having once been a regular denizen of the 
group and alas it's the now usual troll-fest. And it's a shame it happened.

>> People will piss off to web-based fora,
>>and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
>>the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
>>cyclists.
>>
> Yep.

Indeed. I see a lot of people I know originally via URC now on web-based 
fora which are all moderated, and on blogs. Years ago URC gave me a lot of 
information and encouragement when I got back into cycling after years and 
years away from it and I am grateful for that. I have also made some good 
friends over the years thanks to participation in the group. Good 
discussions were held - it was never a place where everyone agreed with each 
other all the time - robust discussions were held - but it was never the 
troll-fest it has become these days. Indeed if I were a newbie to cycling 
now, I'd take one look at the current URC and never go back again.  It would 
be, I think, good try to get back to that original ethos of URC and I think 
that having a moderated group is the only way it is likely to have a chance 
of succeeding.


> -- 
> Chris French
>

In message <1j1t1yn.1bg6az1198694N%NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk>, Roger 
Merriman  writes
>Andy Leighton  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
>>          Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>> >
>> > You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
>> > already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>> > fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>>
>> You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
>> them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  The level of crap
>> reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
>> current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
>> sensible posters remaining.  People will piss off to web-based fora,
>> and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
>> the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
>> cyclists.
>
>it's not impossible to get newsreaders to kill file author and then
>followups so I don't see guy taunting them or what ever as it's all been
>killed.
>
>so for me it's fine thank you very much.
>
It's just the crap that gets posted, much of that is killed here as 
well.

It's as much that amount of the enjoyable cycling discussion has gone 
down, presumably because of people stopping reading the group?
-- 
Chris French

On 24 June, 07:59, N...@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Andy Leighton  wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 퍝,
> >          Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
> > > You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
> > > already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> > > fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>
> > You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
> > them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  The level of crap
> > reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
> > current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
> > sensible posters remaining.  People will piss off to web-based fora,
> > and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
> > the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
> > cyclists.
>
> it's not impossible to get newsreaders to kill file author and then
> followups so I don't see guy taunting them or what ever as it's all been
> killed.
>
> so for me it's fine thank you very much.

Thing is, I don't /want/ to killfile Guy. He is well informed, well
connected, and often has useful, valuable interesting and amusing
things to say. But under present conditions you pretty much have to,
because every cast of a lure from a troll and he's on it like a flash.

chris French  wrote:

> In message <1j1t1yn.1bg6az1198694N%NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk>, Roger 
> Merriman  writes
> >Andy Leighton  wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
> >>          Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
> >> > already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> >> > fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
> >>
> >> You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
> >> them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  The level of crap
> >> reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
> >> current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
> >> sensible posters remaining.  People will piss off to web-based fora,
> >> and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
> >> the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
> >> cyclists.
> >
> >it's not impossible to get newsreaders to kill file author and then
> >followups so I don't see guy taunting them or what ever as it's all been
> >killed.
> >
> >so for me it's fine thank you very much.
> >
> It's just the crap that gets posted, much of that is killed here as 
> well.

in many ways usenet needs killfiles as it's largely un moderated, so you
need to either killfile or other ways of filtering though.
> 
> It's as much that amount of the enjoyable cycling discussion has gone
> down, presumably because of people stopping reading the group?

does apear so yes.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

Simon Brooke  wrote:

> On 24 June, 07:59, N...@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > Andy Leighton  wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
> > >          Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >
> > > > You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
> > > > already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> > > > fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
> >
> > > You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
> > > them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  The level of crap
> > > reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
> > > current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
> > > sensible posters remaining.  People will piss off to web-based fora,
> > > and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
> > > the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
> > > cyclists.
> >
> > it's not impossible to get newsreaders to kill file author and then
> > followups so I don't see guy taunting them or what ever as it's all been
> > killed.
> >
> > so for me it's fine thank you very much.
> 
> Thing is, I don't /want/ to killfile Guy. He is well informed, well
> connected, and often has useful, valuable interesting and amusing
> things to say. But under present conditions you pretty much have to,
> because every cast of a lure from a troll and he's on it like a flash.

you don't have to!

i don't and i still don't see any of his replys to trolls they are
mostly all killfiled with a rule thats says killfile this author
auto-kill any replys to this post. so i only see guy's posts about
bromptons, to be honest.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

Roger Merriman wrote:
> Andy Leighton  wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100, 
>>          Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
>>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>> You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
>> them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  The level of crap
>> reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
>> current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of 
>> sensible posters remaining.  People will piss off to web-based fora,
>> and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
>> the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK 
>> cyclists.
> 
> it's not impossible to get newsreaders to kill file author and then
> followups so I don't see guy taunting them or what ever as it's all been
> killed.
> 
> so for me it's fine thank you very much.
> 
> roger
At the moment I'm less bothered by the trolls and their lunatic nonsense 
than I am by the way that every thread either originates as, or is 
turned into an argument about road safety.
I'm not sure that moderation will change that, but I hope it will.

-- 
Roger Thorpe

She said her stereo was four-way, and I'd just love it in her room.....

Roger Thorpe  wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> > Andy Leighton  wrote:
> > 
> >> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100, 
> >>          Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
> >>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> >>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
> >> You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
> >> them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  The level of crap
> >> reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
> >> current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
> >> sensible posters remaining.  People will piss off to web-based fora,
> >> and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
> >> the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
> >> cyclists.
> > 
> > it's not impossible to get newsreaders to kill file author and then
> > followups so I don't see guy taunting them or what ever as it's all been
> > killed.
> > 
> > so for me it's fine thank you very much.
> > 
> > roger
> At the moment I'm less bothered by the trolls and their lunatic nonsense
> than I am by the way that every thread either originates as, or is 
> turned into an argument about road safety.
> I'm not sure that moderation will change that, but I hope it will.

it has been uk.transport.cycling for some time now which is why i have
mostly shifted to web forums.

as there only so many primary/helmets etc that one can be intrested in,
or rather not.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

On 24 June, 02:15, James  wrote:

>
> I think it's worth explicitly drawing your (and others') attention to
> the fact that a significant number of ex-contributors (who I presume
> have been occasionally lurking, but basically not posting) have been
> tempted back to add their support for this proposal. These old posters
> are real people with a history you can check, who have (understandably
> but regrettably IMO) given up on urc as it now is. I think their real
> contribution substantially outweighs the vague spectre of hypothetical
> newcomers who might potentially be put off by - shock, horror - the
> spectre of having to think before they post.
>
> James

Exactly right.  Makes me look forward to URCM.

Andy Leighton  wrote:

> Up to a point.  How many care in the community cases do you want to
> carry?

Well... you seem happy to carry them as long as they profess to ride a
bicycle. Duhg, for example.

wafflycat <w*a*ffl£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:

> Same here. Even with kill-files of the obvious trolls, it was the trolls'
> nym-shifting and those who for some odd reason seem to think that entering
> dialogue with a troll is going to produce rational discussion that has
> ruined the group.

I beg to differ. What ruined the group was accepting the militant
cyclists as regulars and then adopting their views. URC became a cycling
madrasah, indoctrinating the faithfull in the "one true path" and where
any voice of dissent was howled down by the massed loons.

I'm going to be amused to see what happens in the moderated group.

Colin Reed  wrote:

> Although if people came into a pub deliberately being provocative with
> things like "all beer drinkers are fuckwits" and suggesting that it is
> inevitable that a bib wearing law would be passed, then you might reasonably
> expect the landlord to chuck them out.

I don't think so. I've seen people with similar views in pubs. They get
ignored or people treat them with respect for their views but they only
get asked to leave if they start being aggressive. Judith passed over
that particular hurdle some time ago. Indeed she is combative and
pointlessly aggressive each time she tries to indulge in conversation
with others. The real way for dealing with such people in newsgroups is
discipline among the other newsgroup users.

Sadly the URC regulars seem rather short on personal discipline and have
this bizarre view that an insult to a bicycle is just cause for
vituperative attack. Weird.

Simon Brooke  wrote:

> I don't /want/ to killfile Guy. He is well informed, well
> connected, and often has useful, valuable interesting and amusing
> things to say.

<boggle>

He's become an obsessed one-trick pony.

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Andy Leighton  wrote:
> 
> > Up to a point.  How many care in the community cases do you want to
> > carry?
> 
> Well... you seem happy to carry them as long as they profess to ride a
> bicycle. Duhg, for example.

to be fair he's having little impact here, URC i think most would see
him as if not loony bin not far off.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:05:14 +0100, chris French
 wrote:

>In message , Tom Crispin 
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes
>>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>>
>>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>>>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>>
>>>           create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>>
>>
><snip>
>>>Moderators:
>>>
>>>  Alan Braggins
>>>  Andy Leighton
>>>  Danny Colyer
>>>  David Damerell
>>>  Ian Jackson
>>>  Martin Dann
>>>  Nigel Cliffe
>>>  Peter Clinch
>>>  Peter Fox
>>>  Roger Thorpe
>>>  Simon Brooke
>>
>>Not all the above have been regular and frequent posters over the past
>>year.
>
>I don't think that really matters, all are long time regulars of urc.
>
>> The selection process was neither transparent or democratic.
>>
><snip
>
>>I would prefer to see a democratic process for the selection of
>>moderators, or, if this is not possible for the new group to be
>>formed, a timescale and process put in place for a future democratic
>>process for the selection of moderators.
>>
>
>As has been pointed out in other replies to the thread (by Pedt I 
>think), there are various issues with moderator voting.
>>[snip]


There are no "issues" - other than pretending it is too difficult and
a lack of will

much too difficult to do something fairly and democratic  - just chose
a bunch of mates from the clique

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1j1tf6i.7e9saey0qzvuN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Colin Reed  wrote:
>
>> Although if people came into a pub deliberately being provocative with
>> things like "all beer drinkers are fuckwits" and suggesting that it is
>> inevitable that a bib wearing law would be passed, then you might 
>> reasonably
>> expect the landlord to chuck them out.
>
> I don't think so. I've seen people with similar views in pubs. They get
> ignored or people treat them with respect for their views but they only
> get asked to leave if they start being aggressive. Judith passed over
> that particular hurdle some time ago. Indeed she is combative and
> pointlessly aggressive each time she tries to indulge in conversation
> with others. The real way for dealing with such people in newsgroups is
> discipline among the other newsgroup users.

Quite - I'd imagined someone in the aggressive "judith" mode as my 
provocative pub customer, maybe it didn't come across that way when I wrote 
it.

>
> Sadly the URC regulars seem rather short on personal discipline and have
> this bizarre view that an insult to a bicycle is just cause for
> vituperative attack. Weird.

Well I don't see it quite as bad as that, but if that's your perception then 
so be it.  Opinions vary, and as long as they're not deliberately 
misrepresented in other groups in an effort to sabotage the vote, then 
everyone is entitled to their own.

Colin

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:45:37 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Andy Leighton  wrote:
>
>> Up to a point.  How many care in the community cases do you want to
>> carry?
>
> Well... you seem happy to carry them as long as they profess to ride a
> bicycle. Duhg, for example.

If you read my previous article you will see I included him in the list
of problem posters.  However as long as he is willing to abide by the
rules he belongs (as does anyone else - although I suspect that some
haven't been near a bike for quite some time).  Some of his posts about
CM are on-topic and relevant after all (even if not all of us agree with
CM's actions).

-- 
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_

Steve Firth wrote:
> Andy Leighton  wrote:
> 
>> Up to a point.  How many care in the community cases do you want to
>> carry?
> 
> Well... you seem happy to carry them as long as they profess to ride a
> bicycle. Duhg, for example.

I wouldn't say that we're happy to have him here. Barely tolerated might 
be closer.
Those who never tire of the prime/non-prime wheel user arguments may 
differ on that.
-- 
Roger Thorpe

She said her stereo was four-way, and I'd just love it in her room.....

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Andy Leighton  wrote:
> 
> > Up to a point.  How many care in the community cases do you want to
> > carry?
> 
> Well... you seem happy to carry them as long as they profess to ride a
> bicycle. Duhg, for example.

Oh FFS.

This is a prime example of why a moderated group is needed.
What the hell relevance has this petty argument got to the RFD.

Only two possible responses are on topic for an RFD in unnc :-

a) I support this proposal
b) I do not support this proposal

Windbags might like to add BRIEF reasons but nobody is really interested
in random ramblings so keep it short.

On Jun 24, 12:45 pm, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

> > I don't /want/ to killfile Guy. He is well informed, well
> > connected, and often has useful, valuable interesting and amusing
> > things to say.

> <boggle>

> He's become an obsessed one-trick pony.

But on the plus side if you're only going to have one trick then it's
a great trick: designing virtual infrastructures, SANs and disaster
recovery environments while simultaneously developing an endpoint
management and compliance framework, all while building a model
railway, singing and riding a bicycle.
--
Guy

On 24 Jun 2009 13:56:54 GMT
crn@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:

> Oh FFS.
> 
> This is a prime example of why a moderated group is needed.
> What the hell relevance has this petty argument got to the RFD.
> 
> Only two possible responses are on topic for an RFD in unnc :-
> 
> a) I support this proposal
> b) I do not support this proposal
> 
> Windbags might like to add BRIEF reasons but nobody is really
> interested in random ramblings so keep it short.
> 
So what do /you/ think the D stands for in RFD?

In article ,
Andy Leighton   wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, 
>Ian Jackson  wrote:
>> This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>>         uk.net.news.announce
>>         uk.net.news.config
>>         uk.rec.cycling
>
>I notice that one individual has totally misrepresented the charter
>and moderation policy and seems to have solicited for votes against
>in a couple of unrelated groups (uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport).

Thanks for the heads-up.  I'll take a look and consider whether to
follow up there.

-- 
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

> One more supporting creation of the group.  (I am listed on the 
> proposed moderation panel).
>
>
> - Nigel

I support creation too.

Add my thanks, too for those volunteering to be part of the panel, 
and to those who have put in the work to date on setting up the group

Jeremy Parker

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:HB*OZiKs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article ,
> Andy Leighton   wrote:
>>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100,
>>Ian Jackson  wrote:
>>> This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>>>         uk.net.news.announce
>>>         uk.net.news.config
>>>         uk.rec.cycling
>>
>>I notice that one individual has totally misrepresented the charter
>>and moderation policy and seems to have solicited for votes against
>>in a couple of unrelated groups (uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport).
>
> Thanks for the heads-up.  I'll take a look and consider whether to
> follow up there.
>

It's the obvious troll stirring things up as usual by crosspoting to 
uk.transport & uk.rec.driving.
Just fancy that... the predictable trolling and just proving exactly why a 
moderated URC needs to be given the go-ahead.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:47:23 -0500, Andy Leighton
 wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, 
>   	       Ian Jackson  wrote:
>> DISTRIBUTION:
>>
>> This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>>         uk.net.news.announce
>>         uk.net.news.config
>>         uk.rec.cycling
>
>I notice that one individual has totally misrepresented the charter
>and moderation policy and seems to have solicited for votes against
>in a couple of unrelated groups (uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport).


Don't beat about the bush sunshine - that was me.

They are not unrelated newsgroups at all - you wish.

Indeed many here are so anti the transport people  that they have
invented the name uk.tossposts - which as discussed will be allowed in
the moderated group.

I hope that the members of uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport take an
interest in what is happening here.

They will of course be eligible to vote  - as members of many other
groups will be.

They will have experienced the views of the cycling clique before and
may well have relevant views to express in the moderated group.

However - they will not be able to do so - however relevant their
views to a particular issue  - if the moderating clique do not even
*think* that they are cyclists.

This seems as good a reason for voting against the proposal as any.

Ian Jackson  wrote:

> Thanks for the heads-up.  I'll take a look and consider whether to
> follow up there.

Several have already pointed out that the individual in question is
telling lies and have corrected the wilful misquoting of the discussion.

I for one loathe individuals who consider that their particular
hobby-horse gives them a licence to tell any lie necessary to achoeve
their aims. Whether those individuals are politicians or simply
net-loons is largely irrelevant.

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

> designing virtual infrastructures, SANs and disaster recovery environments
> while simultaneously developing an endpoint management and compliance
> framework,

How odd, that's what I do. You're not unique.

> all while building a model railway, singing and riding a bicycle.

Yeah, I had to share a desk with someone as tedious as that last year
while building a pair of data centres. There's something about DCs that
seems to attract the lycra brigade, unfortunately.  Fortunately the car
park was full of the usual collection of BMWs, Jags, Astons, Porsches
etc so we could ignore the smelly loon on a bike most of the time.

However as is usual with loons, you seem to try to justify your
monomaniacal car-hating habits by reference to something completely
unrelated.

On 23 Jun 2009 22:26:23 +0100 (BST), armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>In article , Tom Crispin wrote:
>>In answer to a simple question:
>>"Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
>>Message-ID: 
>>Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
>>request.
>>
>>However, one chose to be deliberately unhelpful, suggesting a full
>>Google Groups search on their posting history to trawl for the answer.
>>Message-ID: 
>>
<snip>






Perhaps you could tell us (as a proposed moderator ) ..... what should
happen if someone was caught forging a post - eg altering the names of
people in a post made by someone else?

Should they be block-listed?

Are they suitable people to be posting in the moderated group?

Would they be suitable as a moderator?

Do you expect moderators to be able to justify their actions and
answer relevant questions when asked?

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:59:43 -0700 (PDT), James
 wrote:

>On Jun 24, 6:24 am, Tom Crispin
><kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>
>If urcm turns out as badly as you are worrying, there is nothing to
>stop people using urc. Of course people will drift away, they always
>do, the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
>let alone 10.
>
>James


There has been an inability for certain individuals (eg Guy Chapman)
to use a kill-file.

This is not a good reason to  introduce the moderated group.

The vast majority of nym-shifts were not made by the "trolls" but by
people like Chapman and Raven who thought that they  could post
anonymously  - but were in fact caught out.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:33:24 -0500, Andy Leighton
 wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100, 
>   	   Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>> You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
>> already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
>> fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>
>You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
>them from other threads?


Have you not got the ability to kill-file people.

So - some people  are incompetent and cannot control themselves -
therefore we must have a moderated group.  Is that what you are
saying?

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
<snip>


>Perhaps urc will gradually die, just like the telegram, telex and
>other forms of communication have gradually died.  But I have shown
>that there is still use in urc.  What I fear is that the creation of
>urcm will speed the death of both groups, not prolong them.




There is an awful lot of sense and truth in what you say; but many in
urc have an aversion to that sort of thing - and of course will be
able to censor such things in a moderated group.

People were actually sent anonymous emails by the clique telling them
not to engage in any discussion with certain named people in urc.

They will now be able to censor all posts from those people with
opposing views.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
 wrote:

>On 23 June, 20:22, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>wrote:
>
>> In answer to a simple question:
>> "Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
>> Message-ID: 
>> Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
>> request.
>
>I had not previously seen this message.
>
>I'm not sure what relevance the bikes I have has to this discussion,
>but, for the record,  my 'working set' include a Klein Mantra, a
>Cannondale Jekyll, a Dolan time trial bike and a Dolan cross bike.
>This year in addition to being foreman of the routing crew for the
>Girvan Race I have been safety officer for two criteriums. I time
>trial a bit but don't race much these days. I take part in club runs
>and occasional longer organised rides as well as pootling by myself
>and commuting regularly to work by bicycle,
>
>> I would prefer to see a democratic process for the selection of
>> moderators, or, if this is not possible for the new group to be
>> formed, a timescale and process put in place for a future democratic
>> process for the selection of moderators.
>
>This isn't a perfect world, and votes on Usenet are exceedingly open
>to abuse. If nothing is done to control trolling uk.rec.cycling will
>gradually die as the noise-to-signal ratio becomes untenable; as has
>happened to all the other Usenet groups I used to frequent.


An inability to kill-file those you disagree with is a reason for
having a moderated group is it?

<snip>


>I stopped posting two years ago. I stopped partly because the trolling
>had become so excessive as to render the group a hostile,
>argumentative and unpleasant place to hang out, and partly because,
>like Guy, I find myself too easily tempted to wrestle with trolls - so
>I perceived that I had become part of the problem.

So you yourself have an inability to ignore people who have views
different from your own. 

How do you think that you will translate that in to imposing a
moderation policy - will they be allowed to express those views you
find so abhorrent that you cannot ignore them?



>> 2. One of the proposed moderators has been deliberately unhelpful.
>
>We're none of us perfect. I've made a couple of posts myself in the
>past fortnight which, looked at in the cool light of day, have been
>decidedly unhelpful.

Yes - it doesn't bode well for your ability to moderate fairly does
it.

> Those who have thus far been proposed as potential mods form a
>pretty broad church

Rubbish -  a clique is not a broad church.

You were not "proposed" - you were handpicked by Ian Jackson.

jms  wrote:

> Don't beat about the bush sunshine - that was me.

So why did you lie about the moderation policy?

wrote:

> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > Andy Leighton  wrote:
> > 
> > > Up to a point.  How many care in the community cases do you want to
> > > carry?
> > 
> > Well... you seem happy to carry them as long as they profess to ride a
> > bicycle. Duhg, for example.
> 
> Oh FFS.
> 
> This is a prime example of why a moderated group is needed.

If you mean your angry and over the top response, then I agree. Sadly I
suspect that whatever is said now about moderation the truth will be
that the moderation policy will be "my mates can post, no one else can".

> What the hell relevance has this petty argument got to the RFD.

I don't know, why did you start it?

> Only two possible responses are on topic for an RFD in unnc :-
> 
> a) I support this proposal
> b) I do not support this proposal

Did someone appoint you as the arbiter of what is on-topic in unnc?
 
> Windbags might like to add BRIEF reasons but nobody is really interested
> in random ramblings so keep it short.

Which bit of "fuck off and die, you tedious petty arsewipe" are you
having difficulty understanding?

BTW, thanks for proving that the trolls are only (a small) part of the
problem in urc. What is it about riding a bicycle that turns so many
people into tedious, abusive pricks like you?

On 23 Jun 2009 20:24:04 GMT, Ian Smith  wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Tom Crispin <> wrote:
>> 
>>  In answer to a simple question:
>>  "Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
>>  Message-ID: 
>>  Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
>>  request.
>> 
>>  However, one chose to be deliberately unhelpful, suggesting a full
>>  Google Groups search on their posting history to trawl for the answer.
>>  Message-ID: 
>
>No, that answer is more helpful than silence.  

The simple question was:
"Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."

A very reasonable question - to which Braggins gave the arrogant
response - search Google.

Again he shows he is not fit to be a moderator - after his little
forgery.

What exactly is your relationship with him?  

Why does he use *your* "greenend" facilities.


<snip>

>You basically can't have a democratic process.  There are no 
>democratic moderated groups - at best, you get to influence the 
>initial choice of dictator.  (Possibly, I overstate it a bit, but in 
>practice I think not much.)
>

Rubbish - you want to have your hand-picked team.

There is no reason whatsoever why people should not be proposed and
then have a vote.  A first past the post would be better than just
having the clique imposed.

Anyone who says "You basically can't have a democratic process." - is
frankly not fit to be a moderator themselves.


>
>Regular posters HAVE been put off by the antics of the trolls and 
>wrestlers, and have voted with their feet.

People are unable to filter out the views of those they disagree with
- therefore we must have a moderated group and we will be able to stop
people expressing those views where they are most likely to be read.

>>  1. Several of the proposed moderators have not been regular posters to
>>  urc over the past year.
>
>Who, and to what definition?

Here's a Braggins answer:

"Do a Google search"

I am surprised you don't know - what made you think that certain
people should be part of the moderation team?

Good mates - perhaps?

Same college?

Why not ask them what contribution *they* have made to urc over the
last two years.

Oh - I forgot - "You basically can't have a democratic process." and
anyway  it's much too difficult.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:19:07 -0500, Andy Leighton
 wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:00:22 +0100, 
>   	   Roger Thorpe  wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> 
>>> Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.
>>
>> I think that we'll agree with that, but the situation at the moment 
>> leads to polarisation, rather than a broad spectrum of opinions.
>>
>> It's an experiment that we should try to make work.
>
>Absolutely.  I am heartened by the number of people I have seen support
>the 2nd RFD who are not urc posters.  If urcm is a place where they feel
>more at home and they become regulars (OK a couple of big ifs) then
>it can only help diversity.  At the moment they are not being served by
>urc as they either cannot or will not put up with the ranting and
>raving.


Are you saying  that they have an inability to kill-file  and ignore
the posts which they do  not want to read - or should those posts not
be made in the first place?

The censored group will enable the second of the two options.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:00:22 +0100, Roger Thorpe
 wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>                               <snip>
>> Therefore, to support a moderated group I have to be convinced that
>> the new group is likely to be better than the group which is about to
>> have its character changed.
>> 
>> 1. Several of the proposed moderators have not been regular posters to
>> urc over the past year.
>> 
>> 2. One of the proposed moderators has been deliberately unhelpful.
>> 
>> 3. All the proposed moderators have been selected by a single person,
>> not through a democratic and representative process.
>>
>
>I am one of the proposed moderators. I think that almost everyone who 
>volunteered to be a moderator with the intention of making the group 
>work has been proposed as one in this RFD.
>To be honest I don't think that a democratic election is practical and 
>(IMO) not necessary. I would expect to disagree with some of the other 
>moderators on a range of issues, but I don't expect there to be a heavy 
>hand used.
>
>> While not alone a sufficient reason to oppose the new group, I have a
>> fear that the new group will form into more of a clique than the
>> current group, and it would be better served by a mailing list.
>> 
>> Unless something is done to rectify one or more of the points above I
>> will not support this group's creation, and urge others to consider
>> the same questions I have asked of myself.
>> 
>> Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.
>
>I think that we'll agree with that, but the situation at the moment 
>leads to polarisation, rather than a broad spectrum of opinions.
>
>It's an experiment that we should try to make work.


Any chance of answering the other points/question which Tom raised?

They are quite difficult - same sort of magnitude in the "difficult
stakes" as having a vote on moderators.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:36:13 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Jun 23, 11:50 am, Judith M Smith  wrote:
>
>> >Have these reservations been expressed by anyone other than you and
>> >Nuxx and your invisible friends?
>
>> Not yet.
>> Why would the clique have any reservations about the proposal?
>
>Ah, so a meaningless definition of "clique", then.  Everybody but you
>and Nuxx agrees, therefore this is prima facie evidence that you and
>Nuxx are not the problem?  I think not.
>
>I think that about the only thing all of urc agrees about is that the
>vituperative crap form you and Nuxx is a problem.  This is quite
>remarkable unanimity if you look at the history of debates on spokes,
>wind resistance, helmets or anything else relevant to cycling.



Have you noticed the number of people commenting on your inability to
ignore posts which you disagree with as being one of the major needs
for the moderated group.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:49:24 +0100, Mike Clark 
wrote:

>In message <6Wx*-AdKs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>          Clare Boothby  wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> James   wrote:
>> >Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
>> >wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.g
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> I would subscribe to this group; I anticipate its much improved 
>> signal-to-noise ratio will make it readable by occasional visitors 
>> in the way that the urc trollpit is not.
>> 
>> Clare
>> 
>
>+1
>
>My queries from the 1st RFD have been answered and the continuing troll
>wrestling that also infected that discussion has now persuaded me that a
>moderated group is worth trialing.
>
>Mike

I see you are part of the Cambridge clique.


Were you asked if you wanted to be a moderator?

Rob Morley  wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2009 13:56:54 GMT
> crn@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
> 
> > Oh FFS.
> > 
> > This is a prime example of why a moderated group is needed.
> > What the hell relevance has this petty argument got to the RFD.
> > 
> > Only two possible responses are on topic for an RFD in unnc :-
> > 
> > a) I support this proposal
> > b) I do not support this proposal
> > 
> > Windbags might like to add BRIEF reasons but nobody is really
> > interested in random ramblings so keep it short.
> > 
> So what do /you/ think the D stands for in RFD?

Discussion of the proposal YTC. Nothing else is on topic.

On 23 Jun 2009 14:39:10 +0100 (BST), Clare Boothby
 wrote:

>In article ,
>James   wrote:
>>Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
>>wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.
>
>+1
>
>I would subscribe to this group; I anticipate its much improved 
>signal-to-noise ratio will make it readable by occasional visitors 
>in the way that the urc trollpit is not.
>
>Clare


Oh - hello Claire.

I see you use "greenend.org.uk"

Were you asked if you wanted to be a moderator?

Were you encouraged to come along ready for the vote?

On 23 Jun 2009 22:42:52 +0100 (BST), armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>In article , Simon Brooke wrote:
>>              The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
>>not choose to take part in it
>
>That's not necessarily strictly true: if posters give up on the unmoderated 
>group in favour of the moderated one, then those who prefer an unmoderated 
>discussion will have lost some of their audience, and they have a reduced
>change of useful answer to questions, or less debate stimulated.
>
>Obviously I personally think the potential benefits of a moderated group
>curreently outweigh the disadvantages, but I wouldn't say that someone who 
>feels otherwise has no possible cause for concern.


In the light of specific criticism (the "forgery" and "use Google")
and other objections about  you,  do you think you will be an
appropriate moderator?

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:51:41 +0100, Marc
 wrote:

<snip>

>
>Yes, debate is a bugger when you want to move things along.
>> 


Indeed.

Why all of a sudden is the need to get the group in place asap - with
democracy out of the window?

Having a vote on moderators will be much too difficult

(Only  if you can't be arsed and have a hand-picked team from the
clique waiting in the wings)

jms wrote:


> Any chance of answering the other points/question which Tom raised?
> 
> They are quite difficult - same sort of magnitude in the "difficult
> stakes" as having a vote on moderators.
> 
I think that I expressed my opinion on the issues reasonably well.
I suppose that if a significant number of people objected to the 
proposed moderator list then some sort of election might be worthwhile, 
but so far I have only seen two people expressing serious objections.

-- 
Roger Thorpe

...you had the whole damn thing all wrong/
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:33:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:35:12 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>>So, thanks for your comments, but I find that I disagree with you.
>
>>At  least no-one can censor him here just because of a disagreement.
>>The proposed  group is being set up with precisely that in mind
>
>A statement requiring evidence.  Nobody has said that contrary views
>are forbidden, though wilful contrarianism is different.  Please point
>out the section of the charter or moderation policy that forbids
>posting material with which Teh Cabal (TINC) disagrees.  When you're
>done with that, please identify a subject on which Teh Cabal (TINC) is
>in unanimous agreement, other than that they've had enough spiteful
>crap in uk.rec.cycling.


"Teh Cabal (TINC)"?

I think you could genuinely be mentally unstable.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:26:18 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:30:37 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>Waffly Cat is a cyclist we know - part of the clique.
>
>You mean that uk.rec.cycling is dominated by cyclists? Shut it down
>immediately!
>
>Guy


Sorry Guy  - I had forgotten that you are not bright.

You have said many times that just because people post in urc does not
mean that they are cyclists.

As one of the criteria proposed for the new group will be that the
moderator "thinks" that the poster is a cyclist - having posted in urc
will not be sufficient.

Phil W Lee wrote on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:09:02 +0100:

> Ian Jackson  considered Mon, 22 Jun
> 2009 20:45:43 +0100 the perfect time to write:
> 
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>
>>           create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>
> Excellent work.
> I can't see anything in this which is significantly problematic (i.e.
> worth delaying creation over).
> 
> How soon can we get this thing off the ground?

+1

-- 
Alex
The only thing that we know is that we know nothing and that is the
highest flight of human wisdom.
                 -Leo Tolstoy

On 24 June, 12:45, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Indeed she is combative and
> pointlessly aggressive each time she tries to indulge in conversation
> with others. The real way for dealing with such people in newsgroups is
> discipline among the other newsgroup users.
>
> Sadly the URC regulars seem rather short on personal discipline

Sadly, this is indeed part of the problem.

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:17:32 
uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow 

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:49:03 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>
>>I don't think this matters.  The resources required are modest, so
>>whether there is a long-term future for both groups is probably not
>>that relevant to the question of whether there is, right now,
>>significant (and sufficient) demand for the new group.
>
>There seems to be a lot of support for urcm, and very little
>opposition.  It may even qualify for fast track from what I've seen.

I can't see anything serious worth picking at in the charter in the 2nd
RFD.  Can anyone else see a problem from the pure unnc end?

My reading of the 2nd discussion so far (no kf for the 2nd RFD to date)
is that nothing new is coming up and a fast track should be considered.
Aside: I notice at least one sock post has been made in the last day or
so and some people may want to push a fast track to a vote just for
perversion.  I can't recall if we have ever had a 6 sock fast track
block.

All the above was unnc hat.

>As for the future I suspect that is one or two people got bored and
>moved on urc would be fine and there would be no need for urcm.

I'm inclined to agree on principle but since it seems they won't, urcm
seems necessary or at least worth a try (as a cyclist I don't follow urc
but would follow urcm).

>My prediction is that it will follow ulym, but we'll have to see.

I'm going to predict otherwise.  I think urcm will succeed long term.

The break in my head sums is something like this:

against:        about 3 (for whatever reason)

for:            many

wavering:       quite a few (mainly, I think, "we want it back like it
                was" OR "if you used your kf it could be like it was")

interlocutors:  a few but I'd like to think they'd stand down from a
                fast track and don't think they are the sort of person
                that would vote against a group they don't have an
                essential interest in (though I agree the discussion is
                fun).

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

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:49:39 +0100, chris French
 wrote:

>In message , jms 
> writes
>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:24:26 -0700 (PDT), al Mossah
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>If creating URC-moderated gets WafflyCat and others back on line, then
>>>just do it.  Do it NOW.  I have missed news from Norfolk on paving
>>>slabs and bib-shorts.
>>>
>>
>>Yes  - that's how I understood the proposal:
>>
>>Waffly Cat is a cyclist we know - part of the clique.
>>
>
>You know, every time you use the word clique you make yourself look a 
>bit more silly.

Oh  - really.

So the "hand-picked" team of proposed moderators were a random sample
of people who had posted in  urc over the last year were they?


>>Therefore she can post OT on paving slabs etc. or anything else she
>>wishes to.
>>
>
>ROFL -  Google Groups is your friend here if you really want to find out 
>why the paving slabs and fairies are on topic for urc :-)


'Fraid not sunshine - OT to the discussion

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:45:51 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst
 wrote:

>James  wrote:
>> Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
>> wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.
>
>+1.
>
>As it's reasonably well attested that two of the initial proposed
>moderators (Messrs Jackson and Damerell) have absolutely no time for
>me, and vice versa, I would also submit this as evidence against any
>of this "clique" nonsense. ;)
>
>Richard


Sorry - the following is not a definition of clique:

"Someone who  has no time for Richard Fairhurst"

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:58:08 +0100, Pedt <"\"@
@\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote:

>In message , at 00:03:59 on 
>Tue, 23 Jun 2009, jms  wibbled
>>On 22 Jun 2009 23:42:42 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
>> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>This is one reason why I have gone for such a large moderation panel.
>>>I don't expect all of them to be equally active, but a large group is
>>>much less susceptible to various kinds of stupidity and groupthink.
>>
>>
>>Given the reservations which have been raised about some of the
>>proposed moderators - why do you not allow a vote of the moderation
>>panel - and allow other people to stand if they wish.
>
>The normal procedure in uk.* is to vote "no" for creating the group at 
>the CFV stage (or objection to an FT) if you are unhappy with the list 
>of proposed moderators in the final RFD.


In which case a resounding no vote is needed.

The need for the creation of the proposed group in this case is quite
different from the needs I have seen before.

What we have here is a very small group of people wanting to set up a
"public" group for their almost exclusive use.

You may have seen this with the suggestions that there is a block list
produced before the group has been formed.

I have never seen such suggestions before.

There are always two sides to every argument - but what we see here is
the proposed censorship of some views which do not fit in with the
views of the clique.

People object to some of the things which I have said and done - I
have no problem with that.

However - when the same sorts of things and actions are taken by
others - then there is not so much as a comment.

"Statistics"  are presented by some which are patently absurd.

I query them and state the correct figures - then I am called a troll.

You will not be allowed to state a particular view in the proposed
group.

This is censorship.

How come there are people in the proposed moderation list who have
hardly ever posted in urc in the past:

Friends of the proposer perhaps.

By the clique for the clique.

I am sorry - but "it is too difficult"  is not the answer to  why not
elect the moderators.

jms wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:51:41 +0100, Marc
>  wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Yes, debate is a bugger when you want to move things along.
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Why all of a sudden is the need to get the group in place asap - with
> democracy out of the window?
> 
> Having a vote on moderators will be much too difficult
> 
> (Only  if you can't be arsed and have a hand-picked team from the
> clique waiting in the wings)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Oh Shit! The Judith thing is agreeing with me, I must be wrong! I vote for!

James wrote on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:15:41 -0700:

> I think it's worth explicitly drawing your (and others') attention to
> the fact that a significant number of ex-contributors (who I presume
> have been occasionally lurking, but basically not posting) have been
> tempted back to add their support for this proposal.

That has been very noticeable. I eagerly await more Tales of an Unfit 
Family, and perhaps even news of Trevor.

-- 
Alex
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the 
 same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
             -Albert Einstein

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:08:49 +0100, Tosspot 
wrote:

>Ian Jackson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> 
>>                     2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> 
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>> 
>>            create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
><snip>
>
>This seems like the only answer to Nuxx and Judith.  It gets my vote 
>when it comes up.


Well thank you "Tosspot"  - is that synonymous with  "wanker"?

On 24 June, 17:37, jms  wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:58:08 퍝, Pedt <"\"@
>
>
>
>
>
> @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote:
> >In message , at 00:03:59 on
> >Tue, 23 Jun 2009, jms  wibbled
> >>On 22 Jun 2009 23:42:42 퍝 (BST), Ian Jackson
> >> wrote:
>
> >><snip>
>
> >>>This is one reason why I have gone for such a large moderation panel.
> >>>I don't expect all of them to be equally active, but a large group is
> >>>much less susceptible to various kinds of stupidity and groupthink.
>
> >>Given the reservations which have been raised about some of the
> >>proposed moderators - why do you not allow a vote of the moderation
> >>panel - and allow other people to stand if they wish.
>
> >The normal procedure in uk.* is to vote "no" for creating the group at
> >the CFV stage (or objection to an FT) if you are unhappy with the list
> >of proposed moderators in the final RFD.
>
> In which case a resounding no vote is needed.
>
> The need for the creation of the proposed group in this case is quite
> different from the needs I have seen before.
>
> What we have here is a very small group of people wanting to set up a
> "public" group for their almost exclusive use.
>
> You may have seen this with the suggestions that there is a block list
> produced before the group has been formed.
>
> I have never seen such suggestions before.
>
> There are always two sides to every argument - but what we see here is
> the proposed censorship of some views which do not fit in with the
> views of the clique.
>
> People object to some of the things which I have said and done - I
> have no problem with that.
>
> However - when the same sorts of things and actions are taken by
> others - then there is not so much as a comment.
>
> "Statistics"  are presented by some which are patently absurd.
>
> I query them and state the correct figures - then I am called a troll.
>
> You will not be allowed to state a particular view in the proposed
> group.
>
> This is censorship.
>
> How come there are people in the proposed moderation list who have
> hardly ever posted in urc in the past:
>
> Friends of the proposer perhaps.
>
> By the clique for the clique.
>
> I am sorry - but "it is too difficult"  is not the answer to  why not
> elect the moderators.

Because that is not how moderated groups are usually set up. You can
effectively elect them all by voting yes to the proposal, or elect
none by voting no.

Rudi

jms wrote:

> You may have seen this with the suggestions that there is a block list
> produced before the group has been formed.
> 
It might have been me that wondered aloud whether we would have a block 
list from the start. I think that the conclusion we all came to was that 
this was not just.

> How come there are people in the proposed moderation list who have
> hardly ever posted in urc in the past:
>
You have criticised the list of proposed moderators many times. Since 
you feel so strongly about this could you take the trouble to find out 
who volunteered or was proposed but is not on the list?

-- 
Roger Thorpe

...you had the whole damn thing all wrong/
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...

Alex Potter wrote:
> James wrote on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:15:41 -0700:
> 
>> I think it's worth explicitly drawing your (and others') attention to
>> the fact that a significant number of ex-contributors (who I presume
>> have been occasionally lurking, but basically not posting) have been
>> tempted back to add their support for this proposal.
> 
> That has been very noticeable. I eagerly await more Tales of an Unfit 
> Family, and perhaps even news of Trevor.
> 
And the ladies...

jms wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:24:26 -0700 (PDT), al Mossah
>  wrote:
> 
>> On 22 June, 23:00, "wafflycat" <w*a*ffl£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090622194543$3937@gradwell.net...
>>>
>>> snippity..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of
>>>> the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
>>>> and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
>>>> days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
>>>> (i.e. until July 3rd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
>>>> posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
>>>> Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.  Please
>>>> do not attempt to vote until this happens.
>>> Seems reasonable - lots of work done. Thanks.
>> If creating URC-moderated gets WafflyCat and others back on line, then
>> just do it.  Do it NOW.  I have missed news from Norfolk on paving
>> slabs and bib-shorts.
>>
>> Peter.
> 
> 
> Yes  - that's how I understood the proposal:
> 
> Waffly Cat is a cyclist we know - part of the clique.
> 
> Therefore she can post OT on paving slabs etc. or anything else she
> wishes to.

Which shows just how little of URC you know! :-(

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:24:04 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>Sorry Guy  - I had forgotten that you are not bright.

This is supposed to be your "good hand" sock, remember?

>You have said many times that just because people post in urc does not
>mean that they are cyclists.

And nobody's going to stop non-cyclists from posting.  But not about
non-cycling matters.  So a non-cyclist posting off-topic diatribes
will fail mod, while a productive member of the group discussing
something tangential or even off-topic will probably be tolerated.
Perfectly normal, perfectly acceptable.  Usenet is a social space,
after all.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:16:25 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>"Teh Cabal (TINC)"?
>I think you could genuinely be mentally unstable.

This is supposed to be your "good hand" sock, remember?  If you don't
understand a cultural reference then I suggest you either ask or keep
your ignorance to yourself.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:45:37 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Well... you seem happy to carry them as long as they profess to ride a
>bicycle. Duhg, for example.

Ignore all threads started by Doug, problem goes away.  Doug is a
harmless kook, judith and Nuxx are vicious sociopaths. There is a
difference.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1j1tmqr.1ae6j2fsj7zutN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>  wrote:
>
>
>> Windbags might like to add BRIEF reasons but nobody is really interested
>> in random ramblings so keep it short.
>
> Which bit of "fuck off and die, you tedious petty arsewipe" are you
> having difficulty understanding?
>
> BTW, thanks for proving that the trolls are only (a small) part of the
> problem in urc. What is it about riding a bicycle that turns so many
> people into tedious, abusive pricks like you?
>

I, for one, can't remember seeing this poster post in urc.  This subthread 
is only being followed at the moment in unnc.  What makes you assume the 
poster is a cyclist and a regular poster in URC?

Colin

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:15:23 +0100, Roger Thorpe
 wrote:

>so far I have only seen two people expressing serious objections.

Serious?  The only objections I've seen have been entirely frivolous.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.

"jms"  wrote in message 
news:3he445paheehj286pun7vr0b7usmd5m2q6@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:47:23 -0500, Andy Leighton
>  wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100,
>>          Ian Jackson  wrote:
>>> DISTRIBUTION:
>>>
>>> This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>>>         uk.net.news.announce
>>>         uk.net.news.config
>>>         uk.rec.cycling
>>
>>I notice that one individual has totally misrepresented the charter
>>and moderation policy and seems to have solicited for votes against
>>in a couple of unrelated groups (uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport).
>
>
> Don't beat about the bush sunshine - that was me.
>
> They are not unrelated newsgroups at all - you wish.
>
> Indeed many here are so anti the transport people  that they have
> invented the name uk.tossposts - which as discussed will be allowed in
> the moderated group.
>
> I hope that the members of uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport take an
> interest in what is happening here.
>
> They will of course be eligible to vote  - as members of many other
> groups will be.
>
> They will have experienced the views of the cycling clique before and
> may well have relevant views to express in the moderated group.
>
> However - they will not be able to do so - however relevant their
> views to a particular issue  - if the moderating clique do not even
> *think* that they are cyclists.
>
> This seems as good a reason for voting against the proposal as any.
>

Except, once again you are lying - hardly surprising.  The misquote you are 
constantly using was originally from me, stating that I did *not* believe 
that moderators would disallow posts based on them thinking that someone was 
a cyclist or not.  The original post is there for all to see - as is your 
continual deliberate misrepresentation.  Furthermore - and this is the point 
at which it may become a little too subtle for you - the part of the 
proposal in question was what would be encouraged, not what would be 
prohibited.  There is a distinction - and it's not a particularly fine one 
either!

Colin

"jms"  wrote in message 
news:58l445hnh5v2c8o60rl7squqvemhgh9uvg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:45:51 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst
>  wrote:
>
>>James  wrote:
>>> Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
>>> wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.
>>
>>+1.
>>
>>As it's reasonably well attested that two of the initial proposed
>>moderators (Messrs Jackson and Damerell) have absolutely no time for
>>me, and vice versa, I would also submit this as evidence against any
>>of this "clique" nonsense. ;)
>>
>>Richard
>
>
> Sorry - the following is not a definition of clique:
>
> "Someone who  has no time for Richard Fairhurst"
>

So, given that two proposed members of the moderation panel would each 
classify as "Someone who has no time for Richard Fairhurst", then you seem 
to be agreeing that it is not a clique.  Now that it has your approval I 
presume the creation of the moderated group with this proposed moderation 
panel can now go ahead.  Thanks for your support.

Colin

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:37:21  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>The need for the creation of the proposed group in this case is quite
>different from the needs I have seen before.

Do tell.  It seems to me you are saying you have encountered other group 
experiences before.

Is it possible other groups have not required your presence previously?

>People object to some of the things which I have said and done - I
>have no problem with that.
>
>However - when the same sorts of things and actions are taken by
>others - then there is not so much as a comment.

So it is OK that you do "it" but not ok if someone else does it?

>I am sorry - but "it is too difficult"  is not the answer to  why not
>elect the moderators.

You are wrong.  from the unnc POV it is right not to elect mods, that is 
for the mods to decide once the group has been formed.

uk.net.news chooses a committee every now and then ... I don't think 
you'd manage round one; it is harder than you think :)

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

On Jun 24, 6:51 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:15:23 퍝, Roger Thorpe
>
>  wrote:
> >so far I have only seen two people expressing serious objections.
>
> Serious?  The only objections I've seen have been entirely frivolous.

But you would say that, since they were from people you don't like
(and you only don't like them because they dare to disagree with you
and make your arguments look stupid...don't they know who you are?)

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:02:12 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Judith M Smith  wrote:
>
>>  "General discussion amongst UK cyclists"
>> 
>> Translation - if you are a member of the clique - discuss what you
>> like.
>> 
>> If you are not
>
>Then talk in another group.
>
>Damn that was difficult, eh?

Too difficult for you by the looks of things - but no surprise there

So you agree with it being a general discussion for *UK cyclists*
where these are people who the moderators *think* are UK cyclists.

The point is it should be open to discussion on cycling matters by
anyone  - not just UK cyclists -   even members of uk.transport or
drivers should be welcome; but they are obviously  not.

Would you want a uk.transport.moderated only for those who worked in
transport?  Or only *drivers* to post in uk.rec.driving?

"General Discussion?" - so as long as the moderators think you are a
cyclist you can talk about what you like?  How about how awful
"cagers" are; but of course they won't be able to respond - unless
they are a cyclist - or thought to be.

On Jun 24, 12:45 pm, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> wafflycat <w*a*ffl£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
> > Same here. Even with kill-files of the obvious trolls, it was the trolls'
> > nym-shifting and those who for some odd reason seem to think that entering
> > dialogue with a troll is going to produce rational discussion that has
> > ruined the group.
>
> I beg to differ. What ruined the group was accepting the militant
> cyclists as regulars and then adopting their views. URC became a cycling
> madrasah, indoctrinating the faithfull in the "one true path" and where
> any voice of dissent was howled down by the massed loons.

Spot on.

> I'm going to be amused to see what happens in the moderated group.

It will be amusing to see the clique's thinly-veiled efforts at
censorship fail miserably and backfire, certainly.  But it'll be sad
that it will kill off URC for good, when we'll all know that if the
regulars had just bitten the bullet and set about getting rid of the
"Motorists are scum and anyone who says otherwise is a troll"
nonsense, then URC would have turned into the group that *everyone*
wanted (well, everyone except the car-haters who are hijacking and
abusing the cause of cycling to its detriment because they're too
pathetic to even admit to being anti-motorist, and I think we can all
do without them, especially since they are the root cause of all the
problems in URC).

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:18:29 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:24:04 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>Sorry Guy  - I had forgotten that you are not bright.
>
>This is supposed to be your "good hand" sock, remember?
>
>>You have said many times that just because people post in urc does not
>>mean that they are cyclists.
>
>And nobody's going to stop non-cyclists from posting.  But not about
>non-cycling matters.  So a non-cyclist posting off-topic diatribes
>will fail mod, while a productive member of the group discussing
>something tangential or even off-topic will probably be tolerated.
>Perfectly normal, perfectly acceptable.  Usenet is a social space,
>after all.
>
>Guy



 * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;

and a  cyclist is someone who the moderators *think* is a cyclist.

Looks like a catchall get rid of whomever  we like (or dislike). 

Anyway - I see what you are saying:

Cyclists can talk about anything.

Non-cyclists can only talk about cycling.

That doesn't  seem to be very fair.

On Jun 24, 7:59 am, N...@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Andy Leighton  wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 퍝,
> >          Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
> > > You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work.  As someone who has
> > > already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
> > > fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
>
> > You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts?  You enjoy Guy taunting
> > them from other threads?  Doug?  I certainly don't.  The level of crap
> > reached the point of members leaving long ago.  If it continues at the
> > current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
> > sensible posters remaining.  People will piss off to web-based fora,
> > and the blogosphere.  As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
> > the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
> > cyclists.
>
> it's not impossible to get newsreaders to kill file author and then
> followups so I don't see guy taunting them or what ever as it's all been
> killed.
>
> so for me it's fine thank you very much.

Did you know that if you hold down the shift key and press a letter
key, that results in a capital letter?  Did you know that you can, and
should, do this at the start of every sentence?

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.net.news.config.]
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:46:34 +0100, jms  wrote:
>  On 23 Jun 2009 20:24:04 GMT, Ian Smith  wrote:
> 
> >No, that answer is more helpful than silence.  
> 
>  The simple question was:
>  "Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
> 
>  A very reasonable question - to which Braggins gave the arrogant
>  response - search Google.
> 
>  Again he shows he is not fit to be a moderator - after his little
>  forgery.
> 
>  What exactly is your relationship with him?  

We're both Lou Knee, I expect.
 
>  Why does he use *your* "greenend" facilities.

*My* greenend facilities?  What are you on about?  Even for you, this 
is an extraordinary bit of bollocks.

Newsflash for judith: not everyone called 'Ian' is the same person.  
I have never run Rhodesia, either.

Do pull yourself together woman, your obsessional paranoia is showing.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:39:56 +0100, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

>jms  considered Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:55:36
>+0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:35:25 +0100, David Hansen
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:38:07 -0500 someone who may be Andy Leighton
>>> wrote this:-
>>>
>>>>However pointing newbies at a FAQ item as a first response is a fine
>>>>answer (assuming we have a FAQ which is regularly posted and also
>>>>available over the web).  If they then have further questions on the 
>>>>subject or disagree with the FAQ that can lead to interesting discussion.
>>>
>>>As long as the pointing is done gently, I agree.
>>>
>>>"Read the FAQ, thicko, <URL:blablabla>" 
>>
>>
>>Yes - I recall my welcome in to the group;
>>
>>'Well - you think wrong then'
>>
>>It went downhill as a result of that and here we are today.
>
>It might have helped if you'd shown any ability to think at all.


Oh but I did.

I realised that when you said that 3,000 pedestrians were killed every
year by tripping and slipping that it was rubbish.

You never did admit you were wrong or produce the reference.

Because of me correcting things like that I became a "troll".

You can't have people correcting errors like that if it then paints
cycling in a worse light.

Still - you will be able to ignore such corrections  in the proposed
group as it can be censored out.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:42:25 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:55:36 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>Yes - I recall my welcome in to the group;
>>'Well - you think wrong then'
>>It went downhill as a result of that and here we are today.
>
>I guess this is true, for some values of true.  Yes, you did think
>wrong, and your increasingly vicious attacks on those who proved that
>you were wrong, starting within an  hour of your first post with your
>attack on someone who made a perfectly defensible reply, was indeed
>the start of the downward slope.  But it happened in several different
>threads.
>
>Presumably your contention is that all people had to do was let you
>post ill-informed drivel without correction and you'd have remained
>pleasant.
>
>Guy


Not relevant to the discussion on the proposed group.  Please try and
keep on topic.

--        
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:11:28 +0100, chris French
 wrote:

>In message , jms 
> writes
>
><snip misrepresentation>
>
>I've tried to treat your posts in the RFD thread as if you are posting 
>in a reasonable manner, with a reasonable argument (yup I know ......)
>
>But you as you are now reverting to your old tactics of misrepresenting 
>what others have said (when it has been pointed out already how you have 
>misquoted them) then at least I feel I can now revert to ignoring you 
>again with good reason.
>
>TTFN


So the bit you snipped was direct quotes from what had been said
previously and I misrepresented something did I?

"the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
regularly."

 the group is for:

" * General discussion amongst UK cyclists"



I rest my case - quote something which has previously been said - and
you will censor it out in the new group - just like you did above.

If you had said you disagreed with those comments then that would have
been more productive.  But  hey - just cut them out and lets pretend
no-one said them.

On 24 Jun 2009 18:22:09 GMT, Ian Smith  wrote:

>Newsflash for judith: not everyone called 'Ian' is the same person.  
>I have never run Rhodesia, either.

c|n>k

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Jun 24, 3:33 pm, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> I for one loathe individuals who consider that their particular
> hobby-horse gives them a licence to tell any lie necessary to achoeve
> their aims.

You mean like when Chapman lies about hating motorists, and about
thinking that speed cameras work, in an attempt to achieve his anti-
motorist utopia?  Yes, that is pretty loathsome.

> Whether those individuals are politicians or simply
> net-loons is largely irrelevant.

The latter with Chapman I think, although it's rumoured that he has
strong links with a certain political party (Labour, in case it wasn't
entirely obvious).

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:02:44  
uk.net.news.config Colin Reed 


>So, given that two proposed members of the moderation panel would each 
>classify as "Someone who has no time for Richard Fairhurst", then you 
>seem to be agreeing that it is not a clique.  Now that it has your 
>approval I presume the creation of the moderated group with this 
>proposed moderation panel can now go ahead.  Thanks for your support.

the jms brain may work in urc for some but it is going to fail in unnc

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

On 24/06/2009 08:49, Nuxx Bar wrote:
> Just ask yourself a question: "If Guy Chapman and Spindrift left the
> group, would it get better overall as a result...

Only inasmuch as it might serve to reduce the number of posts from those 
who seek to censor the views of Guy and Spindrift.  In particular, those 
from one frequent poster who, when not hypocritically telling us that 
censorship is unacceptable and should not be tolerated, likes to tell us 
that he will stop posting if Guy and Spindrift stop posting.

-- 
Danny Colyer  <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

On 24/06/2009 07:59, Roger Merriman wrote:
> it's not impossible to get newsreaders to kill file author and then
> followups so I don't see guy taunting them or what ever as it's all been
> killed.

Unfortunately it /is/ impossible to force everyone else to do the same, 
which means that regulars get fed up with the low S:N ration and leave. 
We then lose a great deal of enjoyable cycling discussion, resulting in 
an impoverished group.

> so for me it's fine thank you very much.

Not for me.  I don't see much of the rubbish, but I also no longer see 
much of what I actually read urc for.  I don't see the good stuff 
because it's no longer there - too many posters have left.

-- 
Danny Colyer  <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

"Wm..."  wrote in message 
news:EYZX$YWcDnQKFwDy@[127.0.0.1]...
> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:02:44  
> uk.net.news.config Colin Reed 
>
>
>>So, given that two proposed members of the moderation panel would each 
>>classify as "Someone who has no time for Richard Fairhurst", then you seem 
>>to be agreeing that it is not a clique.  Now that it has your approval I 
>>presume the creation of the moderated group with this proposed moderation 
>>panel can now go ahead.  Thanks for your support.
>
> the jms brain may work in urc for some but it is going to fail in unnc
>
> -- 
>

There's a jms brain???

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:52:33 +0100, "Colin Reed"
 wrote:

>
>"jms"  wrote in message 
>news:6qq245poo3bo4fkcnhb2u9tuuaeohvl4b5@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:18:12 +0100, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
>> Merriman) wrote:
>>
>>>Ian Jackson  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>you shouuld see the size of those scissors!
>>>
>>>>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>>>>    discussion.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>the only thing that as ever i'll be worried about is essentely getting
>>>into sensorship over questions which to be fair may have been asked many
>>>many times before, but as long as it's a fair question and not just a
>>>attempt to troll, it really should be allowed how ever many times it's
>>>come up. just pointing them to a FAQ isn't going to cut it.
>>>
>>>roger
>>
>> I am sorry  - you have misunderstood:
>>
>> "the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
>> regularly."
>>
>> the group is for:
>>
>> " * General discussion amongst UK cyclists"
>>
>
>The full quote is
>"I see nothing to say that anyone would be "disallowed" according to this.
>It is a statement of what is to be encouraged, rather than what it
>prohibited by the moderation policy.  As always, IIUC, the moderation policy
>consists of guidelines to the moderators who then must exercise a certain
>discretion.  I don't really think if a thread happens to wander into public
>transport discussions (trains seem popular with many contributors to URC!)
>then the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
>regularly.
>
>Colin "
>
>So it is clear that it is you that has not understood.  Although, 
>considering this has been pointed out by people other than me, I can only 
>presume that you have resorted to posting deliberate lies since you are 
>repeating this pathetically edited snippet.  Do you wish to keep posting 
>deliberate lies?
>
>Colin 

They are not lies.

They were direct quotes of what had previously been posted in this
thread 


I was repeating the quotes.

 I believe that 

The group should not just be for "General discussion amongst UK
cyclists" - it should be open to anyone.

and the moderators must not  "cut posts from anyone who they don't
think cycles regularly." for whatever reason.

You obviously disagree.

One must assume that most other people here are also happy with those
two points of view - however I'm not.

On 22 Jun 2009 Ian Jackson  wrote
in
news:rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090622194543$3937@gradwell.net: 


> RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> 
>  There are even credible allegations of
> real-world harassment such as abusive late night phone calls. 

Still not convinced that this is needed in the rationale since a) it's not something 
that people can check on and b) the group being moderated doesn't prevent it happening 
to those that participate in it.

> 
> CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> 
> 
> END CHARTER

No problem with that any more.
 
> 
> INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
> 
> The following are on-topic and encouraged:

>  * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;

Are you sure that you want that? Whilst having some thread drift is normal allowing 
anyone who cycles to talk about anything they want is unusual, especially for a 
moderated group.
 
> Brief and constructive discussion of the moderation policy is
> permitted in the newsgroup itself.

As others have said I'm not sure you want that. I'd suggest having a policy that 
people who want to discuss moderation email the moderators and that the moderators may 
start a thread for discussing points if they think there's general interest.
 
> This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see
> fit. 

No problem with this though it's technically redundant.

People do need to realise though that it can change in any way, when voting consider 
whether you trust the mod team to generally make good decisions rather than what's 
written here, it could change totally the day after creation if the mod team want it 
to.

> The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
> advertising the moderated group and inviting posters to switch.

Not comfortable with this. urcm needs to stand on its own. Also s/switch/also 
contribute to urcm/
 
> Moderators:
> 
>   Alan Braggins
>   Andy Leighton
>   Danny Colyer
>   David Damerell
>   Ian Jackson
>   Martin Dann
>   Nigel Cliffe
>   Peter Clinch
>   Peter Fox
>   Roger Thorpe
>   Simon Brooke

I don't think I saw an answer to my question in the previous RFD asking if anyone 
involved in this has any prior experience of moderation or the more technical end of 
Usenet. There's lots of things that can go wrong with getting posts to a moderated 
group, if you haven't got anyone with that experience you might want to ask around to 
try and find someone who will help. It's not uncommon to see a group have a "technical 
moderator" who doesn't actually moderate posts but helps the moderators in other ways.
 
I also saw you talking about fast-track or vote. The criteria for a fast track being 
accepted initially is that the proposal is "straightforward and non-controversial". 
It's definitely straigtforward but given the volume and tone of many of the posts in 
the RFD thread I wouldn't call it non-controversial. I've every confidence it would 
win a vote but don't think it would be right for a fast-track.

-- 
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:22:49  
uk.net.news.config jms 


>>It might have helped if you'd shown any ability to think at all.
>
>
>Oh but I did.
>
>I realised that when you said that 3,000 pedestrians were killed every
>year by tripping and slipping that it was rubbish.
>
>You never did admit you were wrong or produce the reference.
>
>Because of me correcting things like that I became a "troll".
>
>You can't have people correcting errors like that if it then paints
>cycling in a worse light.
>
>Still - you will be able to ignore such corrections  in the proposed
>group as it can be censored out.

This has fuck all to do with the currant discussion!

Go away, Judith and your morphs.

Come back when you have something sensible to say.

You are in unnc now.

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

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:20:19 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:16:25 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>"Teh Cabal (TINC)"?
>>I think you could genuinely be mentally unstable.
>
>This is supposed to be your "good hand" sock, remember?  If you don't
>understand a cultural reference then I suggest you either ask or keep
>your ignorance to yourself.
>
>Guy

I know what the reference means - I can use Google.

I was surprised that a grown man would use such a term.

Mentally unstable was maybe too strong : childish is better.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:38:21 +0100, Marc
 wrote:

>jms wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:51:41 +0100, Marc
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> Yes, debate is a bugger when you want to move things along.
>> 
>> 
>> Indeed.
>> 
>> Why all of a sudden is the need to get the group in place asap - with
>> democracy out of the window?
>> 
>> Having a vote on moderators will be much too difficult
>> 
>> (Only  if you can't be arsed and have a hand-picked team from the
>> clique waiting in the wings)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>Oh Shit! The Judith thing is agreeing with me, I must be wrong! I vote for!


Very good - just like urc - makes me feel quite at home.

jms wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:38:21 +0100, Marc
>  wrote:
> 
>> jms wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:51:41 +0100, Marc
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Yes, debate is a bugger when you want to move things along.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> Why all of a sudden is the need to get the group in place asap - with
>>> democracy out of the window?
>>>
>>> Having a vote on moderators will be much too difficult
>>>
>>> (Only  if you can't be arsed and have a hand-picked team from the
>>> clique waiting in the wings)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Oh Shit! The Judith thing is agreeing with me, I must be wrong! I vote for!
> 
> 
> Very good - just like urc - makes me feel quite at home.
> 
You don't think you will feel at home in the proposed new group?

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:17:51 +0100, jms 
wrote:

> * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
>and a  cyclist is someone who the moderators *think* is a cyclist.
>Looks like a catchall get rid of whomever  we like (or dislike). 

You missed the important bit:

CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
other forms of cycling are all on-topic.

Also:

INITIAL MODERATION POLICY

The following are on-topic and encouraged:
 * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
 * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
   on cycling within the UK;
 * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
 * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.

The following are prohibited:
 * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
 * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
 * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
   discussion.

So, your selective quoting of a single item and assertion of this in
isolation is misleading.  It is absolutely clear that productive
on-topic material will be welcome *whoever* posts it, cyclist or not,
but that off-topic discussion by those who are not regular members
with a history of on-topic discussion, will probably not be tolerated.
This is a feature, not a bug.

Now this has been pointed out, and given that this is your "good hand"
sock, I take it you will desist from continuing to misrepresent this
single statement taken in isolation as being anything other than what
it is: an acknowledgement that members of a social group may choose to
discuss matters other than those they convened to discuss.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:29:14 +0100, jms 
wrote:

> the group is for:
>" * General discussion amongst UK cyclists"

False.

CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
other forms of cycling are all on-topic.

INITIAL MODERATION POLICY

The following are on-topic and encouraged:
 * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
 * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
   on cycling within the UK;
 * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
 * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.

The following are prohibited:
 * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
 * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
 * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
   discussion.


It is absolutely and unambiguously clear that the group is primarily
for the discussion of cycling, and tangentially for the benefit of
facilitating online social interaction between cyclists (and a goodly
number of the urc regulars past and present have met up either
accidentally or following discussion on the group, so this is entirely
consistent with past practice in urc).

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:03:52 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>I know what the reference means - I can use Google.
>I was surprised that a grown man would use such a term.

I would be faintly surprised if anyone much under 30 was familiar with
the reference in the context of Usenet, dating as it does from the
early 1980s.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone_cabal>

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:03:52 +0100, NEWS@sarlet.com (Roger Merriman)
wrote:

>Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Andy Leighton  wrote:
>> 
>> > Up to a point.  How many care in the community cases do you want to
>> > carry?
>> 
>> Well... you seem happy to carry them as long as they profess to ride a
>> bicycle. Duhg, for example.
>
>to be fair he's having little impact here, URC i think most would see
>him as if not loony bin not far off.
>
>roger



and there was me thinking I was in unnc

I must have strayed in to urc by mistake.


At least people in unnc can see the sorts of problems urc enjoyed.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:22:39 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

<snip>

> Doug is a harmless kook, judith and Nuxx are vicious sociopaths. 
>
>Guy


Fascinating.

What  do you think about yourself  these days?

On second thoughts  - please answer that in urc - and try and keep on
topic for the discussion in unnc

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:24:02  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee

Your premise is wrong.  Leave it alone before it becomes too 
embarrassing for you.

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

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:51:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:15:23 +0100, Roger Thorpe
> wrote:
>
>>so far I have only seen two people expressing serious objections.
>
>Serious?  The only objections I've seen have been entirely frivolous.
>
>Guy


Oh really  - what makes you think a proposal to have the moderators
elected is frivolous?

I can assure you it wasn't meant to be.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:55:40 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>You are in unnc now.

Timely reminder.  I have applied the bozotron and will leave her to
it.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

In message , jms 
 writes
>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:11:28 +0100, chris French
> wrote:
>
>>In message , jms
>> writes
>>
>><snip misrepresentation>
>>
>>I've tried to treat your posts in the RFD thread as if you are posting
>>in a reasonable manner, with a reasonable argument (yup I know ......)
>>
>>But you as you are now reverting to your old tactics of misrepresenting
>>what others have said


>So the bit you snipped was direct quotes from what had been said
>previously and I misrepresented something did I?
>

Yes,
-- 
Chris French

In message , jms 
 writes
>At least people in unnc can see the sorts of problems urc enjoyed.

Indeed.
-- 
Chris French

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:29:14  
uk.net.news.config jms 


>If you had said you disagreed with those comments then that would have
>been more productive.  But  hey - just cut them out and lets pretend
>no-one said them.

Anyone can say anything in the new group a few times, dear.

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

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Graham Drabble  wrote:
> > 
> > INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
> > 
> > The following are on-topic and encouraged:
> 
> >  * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
> 
>  Are you sure that you want that? Whilst having some thread drift is 
>  normal allowing anyone who cycles to talk about anything they want 
>  is unusual, especially for a moderated group.

uk.religion.christian:

Discussion topics
The following are considered to be on-topic:

    * Discussions regarding Christianity from a UK perspective, and 
    the UK from a Christian perspective.

    * General discussion amongst UK Christians and between UK 
    Christians and non-Christians.
 
    * Announcements of specific interest to UK Christians. 

It seems to work for that group (and that's in the charter, rather 
than merely the initial policy).

> > The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
> > advertising the moderated group and inviting posters to switch.
> 
>  Not comfortable with this. urcm needs to stand on its own. Also 
>  s/switch/also contribute to urcm/

I agree with both these observations.  Personally, neither (nor both) 
would be enough to make me vote against the proposal.

>  It's definitely straigtforward but given the volume and tone of 
>  many of the posts in the RFD thread I wouldn't call it 
>  non-controversial. I've every confidence it would win a vote but 
>  don't think it would be right for a fast-track.

Is it controversial in the second RFD?  The first RFD was 
controversial (I think that's accepted by all).

In the second RFD, there are certainly two vocal and repetitious 
opponents, but does that make it controversial?  (I don't know what 
"controversial" means to the committee in this context - I would 
expect there has been at least one opponent to every RFD proposal, 
purely on the basis that you will find someone that disagrees with 
anything.)

regards,   Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

"jms"  wrote in message 
news:k5s445dbhcpqp422k5ct2oj71mhhds5gas@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:52:33 +0100, "Colin Reed"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"jms"  wrote in message
>>news:6qq245poo3bo4fkcnhb2u9tuuaeohvl4b5@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:18:12 +0100, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
>>> Merriman) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ian Jackson  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>you shouuld see the size of those scissors!
>>>>
>>>>>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>>>>>    discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>the only thing that as ever i'll be worried about is essentely getting
>>>>into sensorship over questions which to be fair may have been asked many
>>>>many times before, but as long as it's a fair question and not just a
>>>>attempt to troll, it really should be allowed how ever many times it's
>>>>come up. just pointing them to a FAQ isn't going to cut it.
>>>>
>>>>roger
>>>
>>> I am sorry  - you have misunderstood:
>>>
>>> "the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
>>> regularly."
>>>
>>> the group is for:
>>>
>>> " * General discussion amongst UK cyclists"
>>>
>>
>>The full quote is
>>"I see nothing to say that anyone would be "disallowed" according to this.
>>It is a statement of what is to be encouraged, rather than what it
>>prohibited by the moderation policy.  As always, IIUC, the moderation 
>>policy
>>consists of guidelines to the moderators who then must exercise a certain
>>discretion.  I don't really think if a thread happens to wander into 
>>public
>>transport discussions (trains seem popular with many contributors to URC!)
>>then the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
>>regularly.
>>
>>Colin "
>>
>>So it is clear that it is you that has not understood.  Although,
>>considering this has been pointed out by people other than me, I can only
>>presume that you have resorted to posting deliberate lies since you are
>>repeating this pathetically edited snippet.  Do you wish to keep posting
>>deliberate lies?
>>
>>Colin
>
> They are not lies.

Yes they are.
>
> They were direct quotes of what had previously been posted in this
> thread

You quoted half a sentence - missing the part starting "I don't think if a 
thread..." to wilfully change the meaning of the quote.  That is lying.
>
>
> I was repeating the quotes.

No you weren't!

>
> I believe that
>
> The group should not just be for "General discussion amongst UK
> cyclists" - it should be open to anyone.
>
> and the moderators must not  "cut posts from anyone who they don't
> think cycles regularly." for whatever reason.
>
> You obviously disagree.

Actually I stated that I didn't think the moderators would cut posts from 
people who they don't think cycle regularly.  It's quite clearly stated up 
above.  When are you going to stop deliberately lying in this discussion?

>
> One must assume that most other people here are also happy with those
> two points of view - however I'm not.
>

I'm only talking for myself and not assuming anything about what other 
people are happy with.  If you're not happy with a cycling newsgroup being 
about cycling then go and read a different one.

Colin

Colin Reed  wrote:

>  What makes you assume the 
> poster is a cyclist and a regular poster in URC?

They are demented and abusive, heck it's difficult to spot any
relationship to a regular URC poster, eh?

In article <h1t194$5ta$1@corncockle-nntp.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, Roger Thorpe wrote:
>At the moment I'm less bothered by the trolls and their lunatic nonsense 
>than I am by the way that every thread either originates as, or is 
>turned into an argument about road safety.
>I'm not sure that moderation will change that, but I hope it will.

So long as the road safety argument is specifically relevent to cycling, 
I doubt that moderation would (or should) prevent it.

On 24 Jun 2009 21:08:27 +0100 (BST), armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>So long as the road safety argument is specifically relevent to cycling, 
>I doubt that moderation would (or should) prevent it.

Much of it is essentially circular so it is quite possible that there
would be some effect.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:02:12 <1j1sity.125czox1bm30xsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> 
uk.net.news.config Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>

>Judith M Smith  wrote:
>
>>  "General discussion amongst UK cyclists"
>>
>> Translation - if you are a member of the clique - discuss what you
>> like.
>>
>> If you are not
>
>Then talk in another group.
>
>Damn that was difficult, eh?

I think she likes you, SteveF.

She (for some value of female) isn't amongst our best.

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

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:39:56  
uk.net.news.config Colin Reed 

>
>"Wm..."  wrote in message 
>news:EYZX$YWcDnQKFwDy@[127.0.0.1]...
>> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:02:44  
>>uk.net.news.config Colin Reed 
>>
>>
>>>So, given that two proposed members of the moderation panel would 
>>>each classify as "Someone who has no time for Richard Fairhurst", 
>>>then you seem to be agreeing that it is not a clique.  Now that it 
>>>has your approval I presume the creation of the moderated group with 
>>>this proposed moderation panel can now go ahead.  Thanks for your support.
>>
>> the jms brain may work in urc for some but it is going to fail in unnc

>There's a jms brain???

Sorry.  The re-cycled I am

Better?

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

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:45:37 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>wafflycat <w*a*ffl£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
>
>> Same here. Even with kill-files of the obvious trolls, it was the trolls'
>> nym-shifting and those who for some odd reason seem to think that entering
>> dialogue with a troll is going to produce rational discussion that has
>> ruined the group.
>
>I beg to differ. What ruined the group was accepting the militant
>cyclists as regulars and then adopting their views. URC became a cycling
>madrasah, indoctrinating the faithfull in the "one true path" and where
>any voice of dissent was howled down by the massed loons.
>
>I'm going to be amused to see what happens in the moderated group.


Firth will not like me agreeing with him (bad for his street cred)  -
but he is correct.

It was the attitude of (what I call) the fascist cyclists which
encouraged me to stay in the group.

Despite what others will say - I did originally join the group in good
faith.

I very quickly realised the group was dominated by a very unusual
cross-section of society:

full of their own importance.
arrogant
a clique mentality
would not hear *any* criticism of cyclists - whoever they were.
would always respond with "motorists are worse" - whatever the
discussion
defend all cyclists law breakers whatever their fault
bragged about how they held their "primary position" and "held the
lane" even if it meant holding up other traffic.
refer to uk.transport as "uk.tosspots"
refer to all motorists as "cagers"

One particular individual has a reputation for being obnoxious in
other web spheres  - he cannot see that he is the common factor.  He
will nym-shift and do things he always criticises others for doing -
but will not accept one word of criticism.

a truly objectionable bunch.

There were many things which they said which were untrue - but they
could not stand correction.

The less vocal members of the group were unable to control the
zealots.

That is the true cause behind the activities within the group and its
demise.

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <h1t194$5ta$1@corncockle-nntp.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, Roger Thorpe wrote:
>> At the moment I'm less bothered by the trolls and their lunatic nonsense 
>> than I am by the way that every thread either originates as, or is 
>> turned into an argument about road safety.
>> I'm not sure that moderation will change that, but I hope it will.
> 
> So long as the road safety argument is specifically relevant to cycling, 
> I doubt that moderation would (or should) prevent it.
crospost to unnc removed to keep the noise down;

Well, posts such as "car crashes into wall" might be blocked if there 
were many similar threads started by the same person, but I was actually 
hoping that the general cycling discussions would increase.

-- 
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:12:21 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>jms  wrote:
>
>> Don't beat about the bush sunshine - that was me.
>
>So why did you lie about the moderation policy?


what lie would that be?

In message , at 12:24:28 on 
Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Geoff Berrow  wibbled
>  I get the impression people think this process is more
>democratic than it actually is.

I'm afraid you're right.
>
>Having said that it makes sense to choose an initial set of moderators
>that most will agree on, leaving out anyone controversial.

Agreed.

-- 
Pedt

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:18:29  
uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" 

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:24:04 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>Sorry Guy  - I had forgotten that you are not bright.
>
>This is supposed to be your "good hand" sock, remember?
>
>>You have said many times that just because people post in urc does not
>>mean that they are cyclists.
>
>And nobody's going to stop non-cyclists from posting.  But not about
>non-cycling matters.  So a non-cyclist posting off-topic diatribes
>will fail mod, while a productive member of the group discussing
>something tangential or even off-topic will probably be tolerated.
>Perfectly normal, perfectly acceptable.  Usenet is a social space,
>after all.

Leave it alone, Guy!  FFS

Just STOP replying.  End of.

Please.

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

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:34:25  
uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" 

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:55:40 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>You are in unnc now.
>
>Timely reminder.  I have applied the bozotron and will leave her to
>it.

:)

I made another reminder before I read your remembering :)  You may 
choose to ignore that.

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

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:39:22 <2d2ogtS67oQKFw0$@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> 
uk.net.news.config Pedt <"\"@ @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk>

>In message , at 12:24:28 on 
>Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Geoff Berrow  wibbled
>>  I get the impression people think this process is more
>>democratic than it actually is.
>
>I'm afraid you're right.
>>
>>Having said that it makes sense to choose an initial set of moderators
>>that most will agree on, leaving out anyone controversial.
>
>Agreed.

Hmmmn, with my cycling hat on I can't see any of the potential mods as 
invalid.  I see a broad opinion of views.

Does anyone from unnc think any of the moderators from the list is 
invalid?

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

"jms"  wrote in message 
news:str44550i7m1rhd4p7iu4vspjkkn35vbj8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:11:28 +0100, chris French
>  wrote:
>
>>In message , jms
>> writes
>>
>><snip misrepresentation>
>>
>>I've tried to treat your posts in the RFD thread as if you are posting
>>in a reasonable manner, with a reasonable argument (yup I know ......)
>>
>>But you as you are now reverting to your old tactics of misrepresenting
>>what others have said (when it has been pointed out already how you have
>>misquoted them) then at least I feel I can now revert to ignoring you
>>again with good reason.
>>
>>TTFN
>
>
> So the bit you snipped was direct quotes from what had been said
> previously and I misrepresented something did I?
>
> "the moderators will cut posts from anyone who they don't think cycles
> regularly."

... was never quoted in isolation by anyone except you.  By cutting out the 
beginning of the sentence, which (paraphrasing myself) essentially said "I 
don't think that..."  you are attempting to twist the meaning in a 
deliberate lie.  You are aware that this is the case because I and others 
have pointed it out quite clearly to you.  I've seen plenty of loons on 
usenet, but you are one of the few insidiously nasty people that crop up. 
So which is it - deliberate lying, or simple gross stupidity that you really 
don't understand what has been written?


Colin

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:39:22 +0100, Pedt <"\"@
@\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote:

>In message , at 12:24:28 on 
>Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Geoff Berrow  wibbled
>>  I get the impression people think this process is more
>>democratic than it actually is.
>
>I'm afraid you're right.
>>
>>Having said that it makes sense to choose an initial set of moderators
>>that most will agree on, leaving out anyone controversial.
>
>Agreed.

Because it would be "too difficult"  to elect them?

Lack of will.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:06:49 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:39:22 <2d2ogtS67oQKFw0$@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> 
>uk.net.news.config Pedt <"\"@ @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk>
>
>>In message , at 12:24:28 on 
>>Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Geoff Berrow  wibbled
>>>  I get the impression people think this process is more
>>>democratic than it actually is.
>>
>>I'm afraid you're right.
>>>
>>>Having said that it makes sense to choose an initial set of moderators
>>>that most will agree on, leaving out anyone controversial.
>>
>>Agreed.
>
>Hmmmn, with my cycling hat on I can't see any of the potential mods as 
>invalid.  I see a broad opinion of views.
>
>Does anyone from unnc think any of the moderators from the list is 
>invalid?


Why would anyone from  unnc have any reservations about any of the
proposed moderators?

Under what circumstances would someone be "invalid"?

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:25:27 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:02:12 <1j1sity.125czox1bm30xsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> 
>uk.net.news.config Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>
>>Judith M Smith  wrote:
>>
>>>  "General discussion amongst UK cyclists"
>>>
>>> Translation - if you are a member of the clique - discuss what you
>>> like.
>>>
>>> If you are not
>>
>>Then talk in another group.
>>
>>Damn that was difficult, eh?
>
>I think she likes you, SteveF.
>
>She (for some value of female) isn't amongst our best.

I suppose that is going to be the limit of your "contribution" -
please try and keep future posts relevant to the discussion.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:07:56 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:17:51 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>> * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
>>and a  cyclist is someone who the moderators *think* is a cyclist.
>>Looks like a catchall get rid of whomever  we like (or dislike). 
>
>You missed the important bit:
>
>CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
>This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
>and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
>other forms of cycling are all on-topic.
>
>Also:
>
>INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
>
>The following are on-topic and encouraged:
> * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
> * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
>   on cycling within the UK;
> * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
> * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.
>
>The following are prohibited:
> * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
> * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
> * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>   discussion.
>
>So, your selective quoting of a single item and assertion of this in
>isolation is misleading.  It is absolutely clear that productive
>on-topic material will be welcome *whoever* posts it, cyclist or not,
>but that off-topic discussion by those who are not regular members
>with a history of on-topic discussion, will probably not be tolerated.
>This is a feature, not a bug.



yawn.

Ok - so what you have said is: off-topic discussion by those who are
not regular members will (probably) not be tolerated.

but  off-topic discussion by those who *are* regular members will be
tolerated.

I understand - one rule for the clique - a different rule for those
not in the clique.

(PS - I do not think anyone should take advice from you on honesty and
truthfulness)

--     
He, like me, is prone to being rude, bullheaded and obnoxious. 
(Guy Chapman on a third party)

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:49:19 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:18:29  
>uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" 
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:24:04 +0100, jms 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry Guy  - I had forgotten that you are not bright.
>>
>>This is supposed to be your "good hand" sock, remember?
>>
>>>You have said many times that just because people post in urc does not
>>>mean that they are cyclists.
>>
>>And nobody's going to stop non-cyclists from posting.  But not about
>>non-cycling matters.  So a non-cyclist posting off-topic diatribes
>>will fail mod, while a productive member of the group discussing
>>something tangential or even off-topic will probably be tolerated.
>>Perfectly normal, perfectly acceptable.  Usenet is a social space,
>>after all.
>
>Leave it alone, Guy!  FFS
>
>Just STOP replying.  End of.
>
>Please.


Is this group moderated?

I wondered where you fitted in.

Self-appointment  or elected?

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:55:40 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:22:49  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>
>>>It might have helped if you'd shown any ability to think at all.
>>
>>
>>Oh but I did.
>>
>>I realised that when you said that 3,000 pedestrians were killed every
>>year by tripping and slipping that it was rubbish.
>>
>>You never did admit you were wrong or produce the reference.
>>
>>Because of me correcting things like that I became a "troll".
>>
>>You can't have people correcting errors like that if it then paints
>>cycling in a worse light.
>>
>>Still - you will be able to ignore such corrections  in the proposed
>>group as it can be censored out.
>
>This has fuck all to do with the currant discussion!
>
>Go away, Judith and your morphs.
>
>Come back when you have something sensible to say.
>


Sorry old-bean.

What do you mean morphs?

He was saying that I had no ability to think - I was giving an
example.

(Interesting there have been worse OT posts than this in the thread
which you have missed. Do you complain selectively? - you would fit in
well in urc.)

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:34:25 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:55:40 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>You are in unnc now.
>
>Timely reminder.  I have applied the bozotron and will leave her to
>it.
>
>Guy

Excellent - before you go - Did you make the Lou Knee post?  I hope
that it was not a cunning plan to get two votes in this process.


--        
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:52:16 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:34:25  
>uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" 
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:55:40 +0100, "Wm..."
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You are in unnc now.
>>
>>Timely reminder.  I have applied the bozotron and will leave her to
>>it.
>
>:)
>
>I made another reminder before I read your remembering :)  You may 
>choose to ignore that.


My word - you are having a choosy discussion - however, could you try
and keep it relevant to the discussion on the proposal please.

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:35:05 <aLzqXnSp$nQKNAg9@gauva.familyfrench.co.uk> 
uk.net.news.config chris French 

>In message , jms 
> writes

>>So the bit you snipped was direct quotes from what had been said
>>previously and I misrepresented something did I?
>>
>
>Yes,

D'ya think it is getting the idea?

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

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:04:32 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:24:02  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee
>
>Your premise is wrong.  Leave it alone before it becomes too 
>embarrassing for you.


Not relevant to the discussion of the proposal - or are you suggesting
he may try and vote using that name?

But do feel free to bring on the embarrassment in urc.

Chapman was caught nym-shifting - full stop.

--        
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:19:06 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>Firth will not like me agreeing with him (bad for his street cred)  -
>but he is correct.
>
>It was the attitude of (what I call) the fascist cyclists which
>encouraged me to stay in the group.
>
>Despite what others will say - I did originally join the group in good
>faith.

I am not convinced.

>I very quickly realised the group was dominated by a very unusual
>cross-section of society:
>
>full of their own importance.

I do not agree.

>arrogant

Possibly, but not especially so.

>a clique mentality

Agreed.  An element of bullying behaviour too.

>would not hear *any* criticism of cyclists - whoever they were.

It is not unusual for a community to defend their own.  I think that
we all despise certain categories of cyclists, few of us posting from
London will attend Critical Mass rides because we don't approve of the
critical mass culture, for example.

>would always respond with "motorists are worse" - whatever the
>discussion

Probably a valid criticism, but broadly true of motorists.  The danger
posed by errant cyclists is perceived rather than real.

>defend all cyclists law breakers whatever their fault

No.  We may seek expainations of why some cyclists will behave in the
way they do, but we do not defend reckless law-breaking.  Though where
we believe the law needs updating we may may defend certain types of
law breaking, e.g. a ten year old using the pavement alongside a busy
road to get to school.

>bragged about how they held their "primary position" and "held the
>lane" even if it meant holding up other traffic.

I have found some posts of videos showing evidence of cyclists in
primary position where it would be safe to share the road space deeply
disturbing - though the video evidence may not show the whole story.
Personally, I am constantly frustrated by motorists who overtake me
then hold me up when they get stuck in traffic a few yards further on,
so perhaps I should take primary position sooner when approaching a
traffic queue.

>refer to uk.transport as "uk.tosspots"

A term of endearment.

>refer to all motorists as "cagers"

As above,

>One particular individual has a reputation for being obnoxious in
>other web spheres  - he cannot see that he is the common factor.  He
>will nym-shift and do things he always criticises others for doing -
>but will not accept one word of criticism.

I think that you are obsessive, an autistic trait.

>a truly objectionable bunch.

PKB

>There were many things which they said which were untrue - but they
>could not stand correction.
>
>The less vocal members of the group were unable to control the
>zealots.
>
>That is the true cause behind the activities within the group and its
>demise.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:11:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:29:14 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>> the group is for:
>>" * General discussion amongst UK cyclists"
>
>False.
>
>CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
>This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
>and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
>other forms of cycling are all on-topic.
>
>INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
>
>The following are on-topic and encouraged:
> * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
> * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
>   on cycling within the UK;
> * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
> * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.
>
>The following are prohibited:
> * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
> * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
> * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>   discussion.
>
>
>It is absolutely and unambiguously clear that the group is primarily
>for the discussion of cycling, and tangentially for the benefit of
>facilitating online social interaction between cyclists (and a goodly
>number of the urc regulars past and present have met up either
>accidentally or following discussion on the group, so this is entirely
>consistent with past practice in urc).
>
>Guy


It does not need to say it in the policy - unless you are wishing to
imply that the "general discussion amongst UK cyclist" is OK - but
between others is not.


It is not needed.

Why not add:

* for cyclists who have met previously down the pub

It is just as relevant.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:14:56 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:03:52 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>I know what the reference means - I can use Google.
>>I was surprised that a grown man would use such a term.
>
>I would be faintly surprised if anyone much under 30 was familiar with
>the reference in the context of Usenet, dating as it does from the
>early 1980s.
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone_cabal>
>
>Guy


Fascinating.

Relevance - nil.

Confirmation of views held - very high.

In article ,
Graham Drabble   wrote:
>On 22 Jun 2009 Ian Jackson  wrote:
>>  There are even credible allegations of
>> real-world harassment such as abusive late night phone calls. 
>
>Still not convinced that this is needed in the rationale since a)
>it's not something that people can check on and b) the group being
>moderated doesn't prevent it happening to those that participate in
>it.

Perhaps you didn't see my comment about this earlier in the 2nd RFD
discussion (perhaps it was buried in hundreds of posts of drivel?) but
yes I take this point and I'll ask for that part to be removed from
the CFV or Fast Track.

>> INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
>> 
>> The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>>  * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
>
>Are you sure that you want that? Whilst having some thread drift is
>normal allowing anyone who cycles to talk about anything they want is
>unusual, especially for a moderated group.

I agree that it's unusual.  But urc has a tradition of entertaining
off-topic postings, and it was the clear conclusion from the
discussion that this should be the case in urcm.

>> Brief and constructive discussion of the moderation policy is
>> permitted in the newsgroup itself.
>
>As others have said I'm not sure you want that. I'd suggest having a
>policy that people who want to discuss moderation email the
>moderators and that the moderators may start a thread for discussing
>points if they think there's general interest.

I think we should try it with a liberal policy and tighten it up if it
turns out to be a problem, rather than the other way around.  But I'm
open to comments from the other moderators of course.

>People do need to realise though that it can change in any way, when
>voting consider whether you trus