Appeal of rejected post to uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Ian Jackson wrote in
:


I think it is too difficult to have anything but the most general
of discussions about moderation policy in the new group itself.
Anything very specific too quickly risks becoming both heated, and
dull for the readers who want to read about bikes.

uk.net.news.moderation exists exactly for these kind of things.
If you want to accuse the moderators of operating a "some people
are more equal than others" policy in so many words then you
should do so in that group, not in urcm. Regardless of whether
the comment is true.

This is, of course, why several of us suggested you put the exclusion
of moderation discussions (and they don't get much more general than
mentioning there is a "pass list") in the charter. But that was just
the committee frustrating your intentions, perhaps ...

--
Percy Picacity

Percy Picacity wrote:

Ian Jackson wrote in
:


I think it is too difficult to have anything but the most general
of discussions about moderation policy in the new group itself.
Anything very specific too quickly risks becoming both heated, and
dull for the readers who want to read about bikes.

uk.net.news.moderation exists exactly for these kind of things.
If you want to accuse the moderators of operating a "some people
are more equal than others" policy in so many words then you
should do so in that group, not in urcm. Regardless of whether
the comment is true.

This is, of course, why several of us suggested you put the exclusion
of moderation discussions (and they don't get much more general than
mentioning there is a "pass list") in the charter. But that was just
the committee frustrating your intentions, perhaps ...

It's also why several suggested that the moderators of urcm take a good
hard look at the moderation of ulm and come to understand why that group
is successful where other moderated groups have fallen by the wayside. I
can't see any point reiterating the reasons why ulm is so good, it's
been done, already. However it's clear that the moderators for urcm
didn't listen, didn't learn and have already realised the worst fears
expressed during the debate. They have made urcm a forum for fawning
agreement.

Steve Firth wrote:
Percy Picacity wrote:

Ian Jackson wrote in
:


I think it is too difficult to have anything but the most general
of discussions about moderation policy in the new group itself.
Anything very specific too quickly risks becoming both heated, and
dull for the readers who want to read about bikes.

uk.net.news.moderation exists exactly for these kind of things.
If you want to accuse the moderators of operating a "some people
are more equal than others" policy in so many words then you
should do so in that group, not in urcm. Regardless of whether
the comment is true.
This is, of course, why several of us suggested you put the exclusion
of moderation discussions (and they don't get much more general than
mentioning there is a "pass list") in the charter. But that was just
the committee frustrating your intentions, perhaps ...

It's also why several suggested that the moderators of urcm take a good
hard look at the moderation of ulm and come to understand why that group
is successful where other moderated groups have fallen by the wayside. I
can't see any point reiterating the reasons why ulm is so good, it's
been done, already. However it's clear that the moderators for urcm
didn't listen, didn't learn and have already realised the worst fears
expressed during the debate. They have made urcm a forum for fawning
agreement.
With the predominance of techies on the moderating panel it was/is a
concern that hard systems would win out over soft. Maybe that's why
Checkland is reknowned and the moderation panel aren't?

On 25 Oct 2009 20:41:51 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
wrote:

In article ,
Tom Crispin wrote:
On 25 Oct 2009 18:45:32 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
wrote:
Also I felt your message was put in very tendentious language.
According to our agreed policy, discussion of the moderation policy is
supposed to be "brief and constructive". I didn't feel your message
was constructive.

24 words. It could hardly have been briefer. [...]

While your post was brief, I felt it was part of an extended
discussion which I felt wasn't constructive.

It was the only /honest/ explaination of the delayed posts, and there
were 12 replies, including two by moderators, to Colin's question as
to why his posts were taking so long to be approved while others were
approved more quickly.

Those expressing bafflement at the delay or speed in their posts being
approved:
Tom Crispin (delay)
Colin Nelson (delay)
Peter Grange (speed)
Marc (delay)
Matt B (delay)
Roger Merriman (speed)

That is a judgement which as a moderator I am called to make.
Necessarily there will be grey areas, and your posting is arguably in
one.

I can see why you disagree with my decision. I appreciate your
argument that you were informing the readers of the group of the
existence of the passlist. You do seem to have been right to some
extent that some people weren't aware of it.

I am certainly right. And unless those people are reading urc or unnm
they are still ignorant.

However, most people don't seem to think it was such a big deal and I
felt that your message had a tendentious and aggressive tone. I hope
that you can see why I made the decision that I did. I have drawn the
whole panel's attention to this thread and if they feel I was wrong
they'll tell me so.

The Animal Farm reference contained an aggressive tone!? Do you know
the quote? Do you know that it shares its origins with the popular
cyclists' mantra "Two wheels good".

I can also see that it's annoying to have your post rejected. I have
had messages rejected from other newsgroups and found it annoying. No
doubt I will have messages rejected from urcm (although I hope I won't
overstep the mark soon!). You're entitled to complain about it here
but let's not make it into a huge flamewar.

To address for the future the question of informing users of how the
group works, we have a draft regular intro posting which I just need
to plumb into cron appropriately.

If you want to draw a conclusion to a thread that you feel has drifted
too far off-topic, I suggest something to that effect be posted in the
thread before censoring posts that make you feel uncomfortable.

The problem is not that they make me (or other moderators) feel
uncomfortable. The problem was that these posts, of which yours was
the last, in my opinion detracted from the pleasant atmosphere.

People were rightly annoyed that no honest explaination was given for
the delay in their posts. An honest explaination would have been
accepted. You and Peter chose not to give that explaination, with
Peter, unfortunately, giving two "pretty straightforward
explainations" which were not explainations at all. That post by
Peter should have been moderated, and not my truthful explaination.

I don't know if it's any consolation, but I have been also very
hesitant to approve messages praising the moderators, and I wouldn't
approve a message with a tendentious attack on someone who was
criticising the moderation policy or the moderators (no matter whether
I felt that the attack's substance was justified).

I think it is too difficult to have anything but the most general of
discussions about moderation policy in the new group itself. Anything
very specific too quickly risks becoming both heated, and dull for the
readers who want to read about bikes.

Explaining to confused posters that the delay in their posts being
approved is because they are not on the pass-list seems pretty general
to me.

uk.net.news.moderation exists exactly for these kind of things. If
you want to accuse the moderators of operating a "some people are more
equal than others" policy in so many words then you should do so in
that group, not in urcm. Regardless of whether the comment is true.

It wasn't an accusation; it was an appropriate quote describing the
pass-list, watch-list system.

Likewise if anyone were to post to urcm telling you to get a grip, I
would reject that too.

#1 - You tell me my post was rejected because, "Everyone knows we are
operating a pass-list. This is not news."

This was shown likely to be incorrect.

#2 - You tell me my post was rejected because, "I didn't feel your
message was constructive."

This was shown to be incorrect. It was informative.

#3 - You tell me my post was rejected because I had an "aggressive
tone".

This too has been shown to be incorrect: the quote had some wit with a
very subtle cycling reference.

==========
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
==========
Four legs good, two legs better!
==========
Animal Farm by George Orewell (Eric Arthur Blair)

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...

Ah yes, the webpage. How stupid of people not to have referred to
that when cross-referencing the time lag between their posts appearing
and that of others in the posting log.

Yes. It is stupid of you to have not checked that. It's stupid of you to
have missed the discussion where whitelisting or passlisting was mentioned
many times.

Anyway I'll draw the moderators' attention to this thread and they'll
discuss it.

If you want to draw a conclusion to a thread that you feel has drifted
too far off-topic, I suggest something to that effect be posted in the
thread before censoring posts that make you feel uncomfortable.

This thread ain't on URCM.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:34:51 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:59:25 +0000, jms
wrote:

The point is that there has been much discussion about delayed posts -
posts going astray etc etc.

Clinch (a moderator) gave a reason for delays

If - and no reason why they shouldn't - they are operating a
white-list - did they just not say so?

You support makes my appeal to allow my post even less likely.


Sorry about that.

I will try and keep things civil.

I don't think people will think worse of you because I agree with what
you say

But in the current clime - who knows?

People must accept - various people predicted these sorts of failings.

Hopefully the moderators (despite my misgivings) are not all tarred
with the same brush.

--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:40:42 +0000, Happi Monday
wrote:

Please **** off to URCM and moan about it there - this group is for
discussing cycling matters.


Why have you nothing to say on them then?

--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

In message , Tom Crispin
writes

#3 - You tell me my post was rejected because I had an "aggressive
tone".

This too has been shown to be incorrect: the quote had some wit with a
very subtle cycling reference.

I think that whilst the point you were making about a passlist was
valid, and I can't really get Ian's point that there was no need to post
a reminder that a passlist system might be in operation and that could
be a reason for some posts seeming to be delayed compared to other
posts.

However, I think if I was a mod I'd have rejected it also because of the
'all poster are equal etc. ' statement. (Yes, I did recognise it).

But TBH, I'm somewhat bemused about the fuss being made about this. It
feels like you are just trying to pick a fight for the sake of it Tom.

(FUs set to unnm, it's no place in urc)
--
Chris French

jms wrote:


That is just the sort of deceit


A couple of ****-stirrers

were predicting from the motley
moderation crew.


--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:54:38 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
.. .

Ah yes, the webpage. How stupid of people not to have referred to
that when cross-referencing the time lag between their posts appearing
and that of others in the posting log.

Yes. It is stupid of you to have not checked that. It's stupid of you to
have missed the discussion where whitelisting or passlisting was mentioned
many times.


Perhaps he had checked it - seen the lie:

"This is a copy of the official charter published at
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycl...ng.moder ated

when of course that is not true,

and had then wondered if he could believe any other part of it.





--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents