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

[Please leave urc in the newsgroup line in any reply as I do no
subscribe to unnm]

Background:

There was a discussion in urcm about why some posts were approved in
seconds and others took several hours to be passed.

Peter Clinch replied giving two possible explainations:

Message-ID:

But he failed to give the real explaination, something of which the
confused posters were clearly unawa that a pass-list is in
operation.

I posted to clarify this:

====================
You left out the probable explanation:

All posters are created equal, but some are more equal than others:
you are operating a pass-list.
====================


I think this post should be allowed because:

- it clarifies to those who are clearly unaware that a pass-list is in
operation, and;
- is a reasonable explaination of the length of time for some posts to
appear.

My reply, and the censorship of my reply, clearly demonstates that the
operation of a pass-list is being hidden from posters not on the
pass-list by some moderators: several moderators replied to the
questions over the length of time for posts to appear, but none
mentioned the operation of a pass-list as the obvious explaination.

My reply might be considered infamatory by the use of the 'Animal
Farm' misquote, but:

- it is not aimed at any specific person, and;
- it is a reasonable representation of the facts, and;
- is not cited as a reason for the rejection which is incorrectly
given as "Everyone knows we are operating a pass-list. This is not
news."

I, for one, had not considered the possibility of a pass-list being
the reason for some posts taking hours to show up until a different
moderator sent me a personal email informing me of this fact. Others
are unaware of the pass-list being the reason for seemingly instant
approval of their posts, or the prolonged delay in getting their posts
approved.

Tom Crispin wrote:

[Please leave urc in the newsgroup line in any reply as I do no
subscribe to unnm]

So you are posting off-topic in URC?
It has no relevance to URC, so do the decent thing, and post it only in
unnm.

Background:
There was a discussion in urcm about why some posts were approved in
seconds and others took several hours to be passed.
Peter Clinch replied giving two possible explainations:
Message-ID:
But he failed to give the real explaination, something of which the
confused posters were clearly unawa that a pass-list is in
operation.

No ****. How do you think moderated groups work then? Every post gets
read by a Moderator?
Get real.
Once someone has a 'good' posting history, they'll be put onto the list,
so their posts will be automatically accepted.
If you post OT or malicious content, then the post will be rejected, and
you will not get on the list until you show good manners for a while.
Contribute positively, and your posts will get straight through after a
while.
Simple really.
Alan.

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

A.Lee wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:

[Please leave urc in the newsgroup line in any reply as I do no
subscribe to unnm]

So you are posting off-topic in URC?
It has no relevance to URC, so do the decent thing, and post it only in
unnm.


Yee please show some courtesy to u.r.c and subscribe to u.n.n.m if you
want to discuss moderation.

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

In article ,
Tom Crispin wrote:
====================
You left out the probable explanation:

All posters are created equal, but some are more equal than others:
you are operating a pass-list.
====================

I was the moderator who rejected your posting. I did so because it's
hardly a secret that we are operating a passlist. The moderation
policy itself says:

The moderators operate a passlist system, so that messages from
regular on-topic posters can be posted promptly and
automatically. [...]

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.

For reference, few of the moderators are currently on the passlist.

I, for one, had not considered the possibility of a pass-list being
the reason for some posts taking hours to show up until a different
moderator sent me a personal email informing me of this fact. Others
are unaware of the pass-list being the reason for seemingly instant
approval of their posts, or the prolonged delay in getting their posts
approved.

I'm sorry that apparently this has not been as widely advertised as
necessary. Perhaps people can't be bothered to read the webpage which
we have carefully hidden. Um.

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

--
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 Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:03:33 +0000, (A.Lee) wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:

[Please leave urc in the newsgroup line in any reply as I do no
subscribe to unnm]

So you are posting off-topic in URC?
It has no relevance to URC, so do the decent thing, and post it only in
unnm.

Background:
There was a discussion in urcm about why some posts were approved in
seconds and others took several hours to be passed.
Peter Clinch replied giving two possible explainations:
Message-ID:
But he failed to give the real explaination, something of which the
confused posters were clearly unawa that a pass-list is in
operation.

No ****. How do you think moderated groups work then? Every post gets
read by a Moderator?
Get real.
Once someone has a 'good' posting history, they'll be put onto the list,
so their posts will be automatically accepted.
If you post OT or malicious content, then the post will be rejected, and
you will not get on the list until you show good manners for a while.
Contribute positively, and your posts will get straight through after a
while.
Simple really.
Alan.


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?

That is just the sort of deceit people were predicting from the motley
moderation crew.

(You'd have been a welcome addition to the moderation team - you seem
to possess all of the ****wittery required)
--

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 25 Oct 2009 18:45:32 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
wrote:

[Newsgroup line restored - if you alter a newsgroup line it is common
courtesy to make mention of the fact.]

In article ,
Tom Crispin wrote:
====================
You left out the probable explanation:

All posters are created equal, but some are more equal than others:
you are operating a pass-list.
====================

I was the moderator who rejected your posting. I did so because it's
hardly a secret that we are operating a passlist. The moderation
policy itself says:

The moderators operate a passlist system, so that messages from
regular on-topic posters can be posted promptly and
automatically. [...]

Thank-you, and yes, I was aware of the intent to use a pass-list, but
as you had previously advised that moderators were moderating each
others' posts I was not aware that a pass-list was being used. Clearly
I was not alone.

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. Constructive: it
clearly answered the question of why some posts were being passed
quickly while others were taking hours. You /must/ have known and
understood this reason and the confusion of others, but clearly you
were not going to mention this in fact in urcm on even though you took
an active part in the discussion. Indeed, you even felt the need to
send me a personal email explaining why certain inflamatory messages
had passed the moderation system as those people were on your
pass-list.

For reference, few of the moderators are currently on the passlist.

I, for one, had not considered the possibility of a pass-list being
the reason for some posts taking hours to show up until a different
moderator sent me a personal email informing me of this fact. Others
are unaware of the pass-list being the reason for seemingly instant
approval of their posts, or the prolonged delay in getting their posts
approved.

I'm sorry that apparently this has not been as widely advertised as
necessary. Perhaps people can't be bothered to read the webpage which
we have carefully hidden. Um.

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.

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.

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. But
you make valid points. To quote Nugent in another thread, "[You
aren't] wrong about everything. No-one ever is."

But not only did the moderators, who knew that a pass-list had already
been implimented, fail to make mention of this, but they went further
and censored the very mention of the pass-list, and that was the sole
reason given for the post's rejection:

====================
Everyone knows we are operating a pass-list. This is not news.
====================

This is clearly not true. The intent to use a pass-list was clearly
widely known, but as the moderators had already stated that they were
moderating each other's posts the operation of a pass-list was not
known. Furthermore, the discussion clearly indicated ignorance of an
operating pass-list.

If my "Animal Farm" reference was considered too inflamatory this
should have been stated in the rejection notice and I should have been
invited to repost omitting the offending reference.

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

[Follow-up set to unnm]

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

I cannot moan to urcm as urcm seem reluctant to allow honest posts
explaining the cause of posting lag for some.

By popular request I have now subscribed to unnm.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

--
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