Motoring and trolls

I've been using Usenet for more than twenty years. In that time, I've had
a number of 'home' groups, groups on which I've hung out and spent a
fair bit of time. All of them, except this one, have been destroyed by
trolls and are now moribund.

And no, this isn't 'just me'. I admit I do occasionally make deliberately
inflammatory posts, and much too often allow myself to get dragged into
off-topic flame fests. But across Usenet there are hundreds of once
useful, lively, vibrant groups which are now empty but for sporadic
postings of spam.

This group can go the same way, and it /will/ go the same way unless we
all get our act together.

* Children being killed by cars /is/ tragic/. We all agree. That the
legal system is dangerously lenient when dealing with motorists is
uncontroversial. But, unless the child was cycling, it is not on topic
on this group. Ever.

* Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.

* Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ. Could we
nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will post just
exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or helmet safety,
and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.

Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
fundamentally as trolls, with no serious interest in cycling and no good
will towards this group. I don't need to list them; you all know who I
mean. Please, everyone, just killfile them.

Yes, I /know/ a good argument is fun, particularly when you are
frustrated or bored. But this group is /not/ an appropriate place. It's
my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; my other religion is Emacs

Simon Brooke wrote:
All of them, except this one, have been destroyed by
trolls and are now moribund.

Totally agree Simon. You need only look at a.r.b.r to see a once great
group on a sad decline, due to OT posting and Troll Wars.

It would be a tragedy if u.r.c was to go the same way.

--
Stuart


The Richard P Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm:
(1) write down the problem;
(2) think very hard;
(3) write down the answer.

Simon Brooke wrote:

* Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ.
Could we nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will
post just exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or
helmet safety, and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.

I don't particularly agree with the idea of a FAQ if it means people no
longer post on a particular subject. It's handy to have the FAQ file for
reference, but it shouldn't supplant discussion/debate. Essentially, a FAQ
used in such a way is little more than the incumbents saying that they can't
be bothered reading or replying to certain subjects, therefore, they
shouldn't be discussed.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Simon Brooke" wrote in message
...
I've been using Usenet for more than twenty years. In that time, I've had
a number of 'home' groups, groups on which I've hung out and spent a
fair bit of time. All of them, except this one, have been destroyed by
trolls and are now moribund.

And no, this isn't 'just me'. I admit I do occasionally make deliberately
inflammatory posts, and much too often allow myself to get dragged into
off-topic flame fests. But across Usenet there are hundreds of once
useful, lively, vibrant groups which are now empty but for sporadic
postings of spam.

This group can go the same way, and it /will/ go the same way unless we
all get our act together.

* Children being killed by cars /is/ tragic/. We all agree. That the
legal system is dangerously lenient when dealing with motorists is
uncontroversial. But, unless the child was cycling, it is not on topic
on this group. Ever.

* Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.

* Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ. Could we
nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will post just
exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or helmet safety,
and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.

Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
fundamentally as trolls, with no serious interest in cycling and no good
will towards this group. I don't need to list them; you all know who I
mean. Please, everyone, just killfile them.

Yes, I /know/ a good argument is fun, particularly when you are
frustrated or bored. But this group is /not/ an appropriate place. It's
my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; my other religion is Emacs

Well put Simon...OK by me.

Colin N.

Simon Brooke wrote:
I've been using Usenet for more than twenty years. In that time, I've had
a number of 'home' groups, groups on which I've hung out and spent a
fair bit of time. All of them, except this one, have been destroyed by
trolls and are now moribund.

And no, this isn't 'just me'. I admit I do occasionally make deliberately
inflammatory posts, and much too often allow myself to get dragged into
off-topic flame fests. But across Usenet there are hundreds of once
useful, lively, vibrant groups which are now empty but for sporadic
postings of spam.

This group can go the same way, and it /will/ go the same way unless we
all get our act together.

* Children being killed by cars /is/ tragic/. We all agree. That the
legal system is dangerously lenient when dealing with motorists is
uncontroversial. But, unless the child was cycling, it is not on topic
on this group. Ever.

Agreed

* Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.

uk.transport et all are the place for this sort of chat. It's an
important topic of discussion and I'd encourage people to fight the good
fight. But I agree, not here.

* Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ. Could we
nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will post just
exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or helmet safety,
and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.

Not so sure on this one. Helmets are on topic and we shouldn't kill the
subject just because it's contentious. Anyone who doesn't want to play
can skip the thread.

Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
fundamentally as trolls, with no serious interest in cycling and no good
will towards this group. I don't need to list them; you all know who I
mean. Please, everyone, just killfile them.

I'd add an additional caution to Simon's list: avoid cross posting.

Yes, I /know/ a good argument is fun, particularly when you are
frustrated or bored. But this group is /not/ an appropriate place. It's
my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.

in message , Wally
') wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:

* Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ.
Could we nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will
post just exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or
helmet safety, and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.

I don't particularly agree with the idea of a FAQ if it means people no
longer post on a particular subject. It's handy to have the FAQ file
for reference, but it shouldn't supplant discussion/debate.
Essentially, a FAQ used in such a way is little more than the
incumbents saying that they can't be bothered reading or replying to
certain subjects, therefore, they shouldn't be discussed.

Yup, but the helmet debate has been done to death, all the positions have
been advanced ad nauseam. No-one who has taken part is going to change
their opinion; far more heat than light has been generated. We don't
need to rehash it again, and again, and again.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
of copper roove nails.

Simon Brooke came up with the following;:

* Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.

Surely speed limits are on topic? The speeds that vehicles and other road
users travel at has a major bearing on cyclists, cycling and the enjoyment
of such.

Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
fundamentally as trolls, with no serious interest in cycling and no good
will towards this group.

I'd guess some people have me killfiled, but I post as a cyclist and as a
motorist, pedestrian, horse rider, rambler, hill-climber, train user, bus
passenger, airport user etc and speak out for what I believe or perceive. I
have _never_ trolled in URC, can't think where i might have elsewhere
either, and don't intend to. I may have opposing views and may not express
them as succinctly or as polarised towards cycling as some, but just because
I might be 'wrong' in their eyes doesn't mean I am trolling.

I don't need to list them; you all know who I
mean. Please, everyone, just killfile them.

If everyone 'knows' who these trolls are, why can't you post their names? I
dunno who's out just to troll, indeed compared to some groups I also use
this group has almost none. Maybe those you think are trolls simply have a
totally different viewpoint and you're too blinkered to see it.

Yes, I /know/ a good argument is fun, particularly when you are
frustrated or bored. But this group is /not/ an appropriate place.

Isn't argument what keeps groups alive?

It's
my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.

IMHO this smacks of trollishness itself ... I mean, who determines what's
useful? How do you know it's going to be useful, or not, if no-one posts
about it? Will there be a list of 'useful' subjects?

Why not just open a moderated group .....

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
ebay 8023391484

I don't particularly agree with the idea of a FAQ if it means people no
longer post on a particular subject. It's handy to have the FAQ file for
reference, but it shouldn't supplant discussion/debate. Essentially, a FAQ
used in such a way is little more than the incumbents saying that they
can't
be bothered reading or replying to certain subjects, therefore, they
shouldn't be discussed.

As far as helmets are concerned, there's liitle to add to the debate and the
FAQ would be a useful resources to point people to. All that seems to
happen when the topic arises is that the same folk trot out the same
prejudices, I mean opinions ;-) and statistics and is of little interest to
those who have frequented the environs of u.r.c for a fortnight or more as a
certain feeling of deja vu overcomes the need to read any further.

Simon Brooke wrote:
* Children being killed by cars /is/ tragic/. We all agree. That the
legal system is dangerously lenient when dealing with motorists is
uncontroversial. But, unless the child was cycling, it is not on topic
on this group. Ever.

As has been discussed before, there is no charter for urc, which makes
it difficult to determine /exactly/ what is and isn't on topic. Clearly
there are regulars here who feel that the subject /is/ on topic, as it
is about the treatment by motorists of other road users, which has an
enormous impact on the environment in which we cycle.

* Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.

Again, the first two have an impact on the cycling environment and are
therefore worthy of (limited) discussion in a cycling ng. VED is
classically used by motorists as an excuse for anti-cycling sentiment,
so is again relevant to cyclists.

* Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ. Could we
nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will post just
exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or helmet safety,
and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.

Fantastic idea, I agree.

Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
fundamentally as trolls ... Please, everyone, just killfile them.

Ditto.

It's
my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.

I've followed urc continuously for the last 7 years, and it is certainly
my favourite ng. I agree, I'd hate to see it lose its usefulness. The
two rules that I would encourage people to follow a

1. Don't feed the trolls.

2. Don't crosspost (especially to uk.transport)

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/
Subscribe to PlusNet URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Brooke said: snippity

Perhaps we should consider a charter for the group?