2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

On 24 Jun 2009 07:42:37 +0100 (BST), (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 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 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 **** 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

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

On 23 June, 20:22, Tom Crispin
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 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 **** 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?

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:33:24 -0500, Andy Leighton
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
Tom Crispin 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 ****wits" 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

"chris French" wrote in message
...
In message , Andy Leighton
writes
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
Tom Crispin 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 **** 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