2nd CFV - Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
SECOND CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2)
Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 BST, 7th August 2009.
Please note that all email addresses other than the ballot
request address are spamtrapped or munged. Addresses on the
ballot paper are unaltered, in accordance with standard
practice. Please take extreme care, therefore, with the ballot
paper that you receive and ensure that it is not stored in the
mail spool of a virus-infected PC.
For voting questions and queries contact
Votetaker: Pedt Scragg
<query (at) fairfieldtowers (dot) net>
For questions about the proposed new newsgroup please contact the
proponent.
Proponent : Ian Jackson
<ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
===================================================================
Distribution:
This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.cycling
===================================================================
This CFV contains the following sections.
1. Rationale
2. Summary of Discussion from the Proponent
3. Changes from the last RFD from the Proponent
4. Initial Moderation Policy
5. Newsgroups line
6. Charter
7. Standard Voting Instructions
8. Instructions on how to obtain a ballot paper and template
===================================================================
RATIONALE
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. 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
===================================================================
PROPONENT's Summary of Discussion
This CFV (and the 2nd RFD, which was almost identical) is the
result of major changes made to the 1st RFD following extensive 1st
RFD discussion. The current proposal is much shorter and simpler
than the 1st RFD and and has a much more light-touch moderation
policy.
Following the 2nd RFD there was once more an extensive and wide
ranging discussion. Unfortunately, of the >1400 articles, a
majority were personal abuse and off-topic ranting. However, there
were also some important and relevant points.
At least 31 people posted to say that they were in favour of the
proposal and would like to see it enacted; some of these were
departed posters from urc who said they would return to use the new
group.
Many specific questions were asked about the moderators' views
about various kinds of moderation decision. One proposed moderator
reviewed a period of posts to uk.rec.cycling and posted a list of
messages they would have approved.
Questions were asked and about my technical facilities and skills
as proposed moderation systems host; additionally the operator of
moderation.org.uk kindly volunteered to help with the hosting.
Some people objected to moderation in principle, and/or raised more
detailed objections. While these objections were strongly expressed
and vigorously pursued often at length, they came from only a handful
of posters and in my view were not supported more generally.
The method by which the moderators were selected was again examined
in some detail. It was suggested that the moderators should be
individually elected. This would be an unusual practice for a
moderated group and in my view raises at least as many problems as it
solves. The discussion consensus was in favour of the usual approach
(which is to vote on the moderation panel as a whole, and thereafter
have the moderators appoint their successors).
The question of the crossposting policy was once again discussed at
length. Even amonst more experienced participants in the discussion
there was no clear consensus on whether the moderation policy should
absolutely ban all crossposting. I have chosen to retain the existing
wording as this will be more truthful (for example, appropriate usenet
management announcements such as RFDs will be permitted the new
moderated group). The moderators made it clear that they intend to
ban crossposing to uk.rec.cycling and of course crossposted trolling.
There was extensive discussion of the appeal and escalation options
and processes available to people who disagree with moderation
decisions; the answers did not appear to satisfy the objectors.
There was much discussion of the exact status of .signatures,
particularly .sigs containing inflammatory statements (which have been
a problematic feature in urc). The moderators indicated that messages
with flamebait in the .sig would be rejected. A few posters objected
and complained that this wasn't spelled out in the moderation policy.
Some other objections I rejected: The moderation panel was a clique.
The encouragement of `General discussion amongst UK cyclists' was
purely there to allow the clique to post whatever they liked. The
point was to let people be nasty to trolls without letting trolls
reply. Permitting limited discussion of the moderation policy in
the group itself would surely spell doom for the new group. The
moderators should not blacklist persistent offenders or should only
do so with reference to some formal procedure. Crossposting was not
being 100% ruled out because the plan was to crosspost trolling rants
in hostile newsgroups. Moderation decisions should be governed by
published procedures to ensure consistency. The failure of
uk.local.yorkshire.moderated demonstrated that creating a moderated
newsgroup could not solve a noise problem. uk.rec.cycling had been
much better recently so it would be better to wait six months and see
if moderation was still needed then.
===================================================================
CHANGES from the last RFD
Banning `obscenity' gave the impression that cursing would not be
permitted, despite the general view (as in the previous discussion)
that it should be allowed. `Obscenity' was also thought rather
vague. There being no reason to retain it, The moderation policy
has been altered to remove `obscenity' from the list of things
prohibited.
Asking posters to uk.rec.cycling to `switch' to the new group was
felt by some to be inappropriate. The moderation policy now speaks
of 'inviting posters and readers' without suggesting that they
should abandon the unmoderated group.
The rationale previously referred to telephone harassment suffered
by a poster to uk.rec.cycling. This didn't add anything to the
proposal and was needlessly controversial so, following suggestions
in the discussion, this has been removed.
There are no changes to the charter or moderator panel.
===================================================================
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;
* 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 readers and posters.
Moderators:
Alan Braggins
Andy Leighton
Danny Colyer
David Damerell
Ian Jackson
Martin Dann
Nigel Cliffe
Peter Clinch
Peter Fox
Roger Thorpe
Simon Brooke
===================================================================
NEWSGROUPS LINE
uk.rec.cycling.moderated Cycling in the UK (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
===================================================================
VOTING INSTRUCTIONS
If you fail to follow the instructions below your ballot paper may
be ruled invalid. This means your vote will not be counted.
1) One person, one vote.
2) No two voters may vote from the same email address.
In the event that only one address is available to two persons
who both wish to vote, both these persons should contact the
votetaker prior to voting.
3) Votes must be emailed directly from the voter to the address
specified by the votetaker.
4) There may be technical reasons, such as breaks in the email
headers of your ballot, which may mean that the votetaker is
unable to confirm the validity of your vote. The votetaker
will contact you if there are any irregularities.
If you have followed the voting instructions correctly, you will
receive an acknowledgement of your vote within five days from the
votetaker.
This does not always mean that your vote is valid. The votetaker
will contact you if there is a problem with your vote.
If you do not receive an acknowledgement of receipt of your ballot
paper within five days you should contact the votetaker.
If the acknowledgement "bounces" back to the votetaker (the mail
containing the acknowledgment is returned as undeliverable by a
mailserver), your vote will not be counted.
It is your responsibility to ensure that your ballot paper has been
received by checking that the acknowledgement arrives. You should
also check that your vote is recorded correctly in the
acknowledgement. If there are any problems with your
acknowledgement, you should contact the votetaker.
===================================================================
HOW TO VOTE
This vote is being run with a voting system which was introduced
in January 2003, so if you haven't voted since then this is going
to be new to you.
Please read the instructions carefully.
Under this new system, the email address that will be published in
the results is the one that the ballot paper was sent to. So for
example if a ballot paper was sent to example-voter@ukvoting.org.uk,
this would be the address shown in the result. This address has to
be valid, otherwise you will not receive a ballot paper.
To receive a ballot paper, you must send an email to the Ballot
Request Address, which is xurcm <at> request.ukvoting.org.uk.
For most news-reading software, just replying by email to this post
will address your email correctly, but *please check* that the
address above is actually in the To field before you send the mail.
We recognise that sometimes people submit their votes from
different addresses for varying reasons, especially when more than
one email address is available to a voter. If you want the results
to record your vote as coming from a different address to that
from which you post your request, you can do this by putting the
address you want recorded in the Reply-To field in your ballot
request. If you do not know how to do this, or if you are unable
for whatever reason, then put the address you want recorded in the
Subject line of your ballot request instead.
Note: Please remember that you must be able to read email sent to
the address you choose to use as your voting address, otherwise you
will be unable to retrieve your ballot paper and you will be unable
to vote.
If you change the Subject field in your email to contain the
address you want to use, it doesn't matter whether you also include
your name or not, and it doesn't matter whether you enclose your
voting address in <angle brackets> or not.
It also doesn't matter whether you quote this entire post or
delete everything when making your ballot request.
THE REPLY TO YOUR REQUEST
If the autoresponder understands your voting address in the Subject
or other fields, it will send a ballot paper immediately to that
address. This ballot paper will be personalised and unique to the
voting address used.
===================================================================
CASTING YOUR VOTE
Your personalised ballot paper will contain a ballot ID and will
have your voting address prefilled for your convenience.
Do not change either of these or your vote will not be valid. If
you want to use a different voting address you must request
another ballot paper for the new address.
1) Enter the name under which you want your vote recorded in the
results. This must be either your real name or the pseudonym
("handle") which you normally use to post to usenet.
2) Enter the email address which you normally use to post to
Usenet, including the spamblock if applicable. If you use a
number of different email addresses, please give the most
recent, a typical or the most commonly used address. If, and
only if, you do not post to Usenet, enter the word "none".
Please do not enter any text in this field other than your
posting address or the word "none". If you have any doubt as
to how to complete this section, please contact the votetaker.
This section is recommended but optional and is to help the
votetaker verify your vote. If you do not answer this question,
and the votetaker cannot verify your identity from the other
information on the ballot, then the votetaker will need to
carry out further investigations which may include contacting
you for additional information. If you are unable or unwilling
to provide such information if requested, your vote might not
be counted.
3) Mark your voting preferences, as indicated on the ballot
according to the instructions below.
4) Send your vote.
This vote is being conducted under the Yes/No procedure.
This vote requires a simple 'yes', 'no' response as you wish
The letters Y/N may be used if you prefer.
You may abstain, and have your abstention recorded in the results,
by filling in one or more of the voting boxes [ ] with A or
ABSTAIN. Similarly if you wish to Cancel a vote and have no record
in the results, use C or CANCEL on your ballot paper, and resubmit
it.
You may resubmit your ballot, with different choices, at any time
up to the close of the vote. Your identification details on the
resubmitted ballot paper must be the same as earlier ones.
Repeat votes will be resolved in favour of the last valid ballot
paper.
The purpose of this vote is to determine the genuine interest of
persons who would read the proposed newsgroup.
Soliciting votes from disinterested parties defeats this purpose.
Under no circumstances should you post your completed ballot paper
to any Usenet/Net News newsgroup or other forum.
If you ignore any of these instructions, your vote may be rejected
as invalid. This includes, but is not limited to, any false answers
given on the ballot paper or any attempt to circumvent the "one
person, one vote" rule or to conceal your identity.
===================================================================
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF YOUR BALLOT PAPER
The votetaker will send you an acknowledgement so that you know
that your ballot paper has been received. This may take up to five
days.
If you have not received such an acknowledgement after five days,
then contact the votetaker directly at the following address:
query (at) fairfieldtowers (dot) net
An acknowledgement does not necessarily mean that your vote will be
counted.
===================================================================
VOTE VALIDATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY
The acknowledgement which you receive (see above) will contain
details of how you voted. Check this acknowledgement carefully. If
there are any problems, or you did not vote then contact the
votetaker straight away.
During or at the end of the vote, the votetaker will validate every
vote submitted, and the votetaker may need to contact you
concerning any problem or query. You must assist the votetaker's
reasonable efforts to clarify any problem or query with regard to
your vote otherwise your vote may not be counted. Any communication
between the votetaker and yourself must not be considered to be
confidential and the votetaker reserves the right to publish any
information that the votetaker deems relevant to the vote
within the results post.
===================================================================
RESULTS
The names, addresses and vote preferences of all valid and invalid
votes will be published in the results, which are posted to
uk.net.news.announce.
All published email addresses will be scrambled to prevent them
being harvested by spammers.
===================================================================
The ballot paper will contain the following question(s).
The question(s) are shown below so that you know what you will
be asked on the ballot paper. You cannot use this to vote,
you must request a ballot paper.
Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated?
===================================================================
TROUBLESHOOTING
If you have any problems whatsoever with this process, contact the
votetaker directly at query <at> fairfieldtowers (dot) net
===================================================================
VOTING AND APPEAL GUIDELINES
This vote was conducted by neutral third party members of UKVoting.
UKVoting is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on
CFVs in the uk hierarchy. The rules under which this vote is taken
are posted regularly to uk.net.news.announce or can be found at the
following URL:
<ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-info/news.answers/uk/voting>
The UKVoting web pages can be found at <http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.9-(Cygwin)
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBSmSydGOfGXkh8vHZAQIewgP/Zh8+cZVvCs+5MUnuyHJS/7KxuckxLAAu
FebUIb6NhfL1xCUkiId2FBtbIdhw2lJyp5GsPcAROB6RtGm42Vuj5v4+FqlQheJT
wl8pvdbRO4xZxmAbovsBTsjSCu6mNppse54ukCtISR/OVgb2Ldc8zqoE1GTZxZfS
j4L7i92owuo=
=g/mG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:33:51 +0100
author: Pedt Scragg
|
