|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
U.r.c.m Moderation policy
It's been suggested that nominee moderators for the proposed
uk.net.news.moderated should indicate their approach to moderation policy by indicating which messages they would pass and which they would block. I therefore went through the group as an exercise looking at just that. As I thought I would block virtually all the messages, I started a pass list rather than a block list; however, going through the exercise carefully I find the situation is not quite as bad as I had thought it was. Here is a list of messages posted between noon and 9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may be messages not on this list which I simply missed. All posts cross- posted to other groups, including unnc, would have been blocked for that reason, so their absence from this list is not /necessarily/ a reflection of their contents. Note there are messages of mine which I would hope some other moderator would have had the good sense to block; for example should have been blocked. Help! Brompton-fu weak Just zis Guy, you know? Clubs Bill Simon Mason Bimble Marc The dangers of pavement cycling Tom Anderson i John Kane 53580c17-9b5c-43e4-a035- Are these wheels any good? AMuzi Simon Brooke 85be0646-9c3d-4255-94d1- Tyre Pressures Alistair Gunn Alan Braggins Simon Brooke cd6fc193- Paul Luton Nigel Cliffe Simon Mason John Kane Tom Crispin Cycling in England - South East Justin Lewis Simon Brooke 8f1f2281-a6a1-42d7- Adam Lea Justin Lewis Keitht JNugent Danny Colyer Alistair Gunn Roger Merriman Greenwich and Woolwich Tunnels Brimstone Happi Monday Keitht Just zis Guy, you know? Brimstone Tom Crispin David Hansen Tom Crispin Tom Crispin Brimstone Brimstone Tom Crispin Brimstone Tom Crispin Alistair Gunn Tom Crispin Tom Crispin How do the police respond to Dangerous Driving reports? Danny Colyer Adam Lea Just zis Guy, you know? JNugent Mudguards ( the lack of) Jeremy Parker Jeremy Parker LightLane Virtual Bike Path to Become a Reality Jeremy Parker What is this the rest of the time? Jeremy Parker *big* hole in bike path Jeremy Parker |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
U.r.c.m Moderation policy
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
wrote: Here is a list of messages posted between noon and 9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may be messages not on this list which I simply missed. All posts cross- posted to other groups, including unnc, would have been blocked for that reason, so their absence from this list is not /necessarily/ a reflection of their contents. Why the Devil would you censor: Message-ID: Giving details of crossings of the River Thames between the Woolwich Ferry and Tower Bridge, and the proposed pedestrian/cyclist bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
U.r.c.m Moderation policy
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:00:49
uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke wrote: Here is a list of messages posted between noon and 9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may be messages not on this list which I simply missed. All posts cross- posted to other groups, including unnc, would have been blocked for that reason, so their absence from this list is not /necessarily/ a reflection of their contents. Why the Devil would you censor: Message-ID: Giving details of crossings of the River Thames between the Woolwich Ferry and Tower Bridge, and the proposed pedestrian/cyclist bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf? I'd expect to read that. -- Wm... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
U.r.c.m Moderation policy
On 27 June, 23:00, Tom Crispin
wrote: On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke wrote: Here is a list of messages posted between noon and 9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may be messages not on this list which I simply missed. All posts cross- posted to other groups, including unnc, would have been blocked for that reason, so their absence from this list is not /necessarily/ a reflection of their contents. Why the Devil would you censor: Message-ID: Giving details of crossings of the River Thames between the Woolwich Ferry and Tower Bridge, and the proposed pedestrian/cyclist bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf? Oversight. Having read it this morning, it's clear I missed it. You're right, there's no reason to block that. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
U.r.c.m Moderation policy
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
wrote: Oversight. Having read it this morning, it's clear I missed it. You're right, there's no reason to block that. It might be simpler and less ambiguous to list the threads / posts you would have blocked and why. 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
U.r.c.m Moderation policy
On Sun, 28 Jun, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke wrote: [simon listed postings he would have passed, explicitly noting that he might have missed some] [someone questioned why he did not include a particular posting] Oversight. Having read it this morning, it's clear I missed it. You're right, there's no reason to block that. It might be simpler and less ambiguous to list the threads / posts you would have blocked and why. So, we don't have moderation, the moderation that is being proposed does not have a formalised appeals process whereby the moderators have to justify publicly every decision and already a would-be-moderator is being taken to task and people are picking over individual decisions and requiring justification, and telling him better ways to do the job. _This_ is exactly why it is better to close the avenue to such. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
U.r.c.m Moderation policy
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke wrote: [simon listed postings he would have passed, explicitly noting that he might have missed some] [someone questioned why he did not include a particular posting] Oversight. Having read it this morning, it's clear I missed it. You're right, there's no reason to block that. It might be simpler and less ambiguous to list the threads / posts you would have blocked and why. So, we don't have moderation, the moderation that is being proposed does not have a formalised appeals process whereby the moderators have to justify publicly every decision and already a would-be-moderator is being taken to task and people are picking over individual decisions and requiring justification, and telling him better ways to do the job. _This_ is exactly why it is better to close the avenue to such. regards, Ian SMith Yes! You never need a better way! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
U.r.c.m Moderation policy
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
wrote: It's been suggested that nominee moderators for the proposed uk.net.news.moderated should indicate their approach to moderation policy by indicating which messages they would pass and which they would block. I therefore went through the group as an exercise looking at just that. As I thought I would block virtually all the messages, I started a pass list rather than a block list; however, going through the exercise carefully I find the situation is not quite as bad as I had thought it was. Here is a list of messages posted between noon and 9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may be messages not on this list which I simply missed. snip all this discussion of moderators escapes me, surely it's just for those who lack a configurable client & the effort to configure it (I suppose that includes users of google groups & similar, who IMO bring it upon themselves). Personally I just read the posts I read & ignore the others, almost all posts regarding moderation fall into the latter - even if the list of posts snipped falls into the former. Moderate if you will but if & when have the decency to CP into URC |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
U.r.c.m Moderation policy
On 28 Jun 2009 11:20:36 GMT
Ian Smith wrote: So, we don't have moderation, the moderation that is being proposed does not have a formalised appeals process whereby the moderators have to justify publicly every decision and already a would-be-moderator is being taken to task and people are picking over individual decisions and requiring justification, and telling him better ways to do the job. _This_ is exactly why it is better to close the avenue to such. That's fascism, and not necessarily of the benevolent variety. Do you really not see why concerns are being raised? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
U.r.c.m Moderation policy
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:52:23 +0200, BIG_ONE
wrote: all this discussion of moderators escapes me, surely it's just for those who lack a configurable client & the effort to configure it (I suppose that includes users of google groups & similar, who IMO bring it upon themselves). Personally I just read the posts I read & ignore the others, almost all posts regarding moderation fall into the latter - even if the list of posts snipped falls into the former. Moderate if you will but if & when have the decency to CP into URC How can you configure a newsreader to ignore someone posting the same message to every thread under different false names (without killing every message in the group)? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Moderation was Totally OT | Mark[_15_] | UK | 0 | June 17th 09 11:43 AM |
Need an *initial* RFD for a moderated group say who the proposed moderation team is? | Wm... | UK | 211 | June 1st 09 07:43 PM |
An Alternative to Moderation | Nuxx Bar | UK | 0 | May 26th 09 11:33 PM |
Moderation of URC | James[_4_] | UK | 74 | October 8th 08 07:30 AM |
Appropriate Use Policy | [email protected] | Recumbent Biking | 81 | February 16th 05 01:40 AM |