|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CFV Changes to URCM Charter
Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators. I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the cycling newsgroup. ================================================== ================================= FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated Statement from the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated: Summary: We oppose this hostile CFV. It will - Forbid reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it would prevent the use of a passlist, slowing much discussion. - Violate the privacy of transgressive posters; - Lead to more rather than fewer complaints and arguments. We recommend a NO vote. Our full reasons are as follows: 1. The proposed charter change would forbid a variety of moderation techniques which the urcm moderators and moderators of other moderated groups find useful. Examples of moderation techniques which the charter change would forbid include: - The passlist, which arranges to automatically approve articles by posters we consider unlikely to breach the moderation guidelines. This would mean that the principal effect of this change would be to slow down activity in the group. - Poster-specific limits on number of articles posted per day. We have in the past considered this, as a useful approach employed with new users of some other discussion mediums as a counter to sock puppetry. It is likely that if lesser tools are not available, we will find that we need to make more use of bans. 2. Transgressive posters, whom we find it necessary to ban, should not have their identities revealed. We do not think it appropriate that such disciplinary matters should be aired in public. To do so would be a breach of the poster's privacy. 3. The proposal is likely to lead to many more rejected posters claiming that their posts were rejected because of the poster's identity rather than the content. The result will be an increase in noise in the uk.* management groups. 4. We observe that urcm has already been the subject of three previous hostile RFDs, one intending to replace the moderators. In other usenet hierarchies, this level of interference with a moderation team would not be tolerated. For example in the Big 8 (rec.* etc., the B8MB say): It is highly unlikely that the board would publish proposals for: ... - removal of an active moderator or removal of a moderated group without the consent of the moderator. -- David Damerell Distortion Field! Today is Oneiros, December. Tomorrow will be Mania, December. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
CFV Changes to URCM Charter
"Judith" wrote in message
... Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators. I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the cycling newsgroup. ================================================== ================================= FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated Statement from the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated: Summary: We oppose this hostile CFV. It will - Forbid reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it would prevent the use of a passlist, slowing much discussion. - Violate the privacy of transgressive posters; - Lead to more rather than fewer complaints and arguments. We recommend a NO vote. Our full reasons are as follows: 1. The proposed charter change would forbid a variety of moderation techniques which the urcm moderators and moderators of other moderated groups find useful. Examples of moderation techniques which the charter change would forbid include: - The passlist, which arranges to automatically approve articles by posters we consider unlikely to breach the moderation guidelines. This would mean that the principal effect of this change would be to slow down activity in the group. - Poster-specific limits on number of articles posted per day. We have in the past considered this, as a useful approach employed with new users of some other discussion mediums as a counter to sock puppetry. It is likely that if lesser tools are not available, we will find that we need to make more use of bans. 2. Transgressive posters, whom we find it necessary to ban, should not have their identities revealed. We do not think it appropriate that such disciplinary matters should be aired in public. To do so would be a breach of the poster's privacy. 3. The proposal is likely to lead to many more rejected posters claiming that their posts were rejected because of the poster's identity rather than the content. The result will be an increase in noise in the uk.* management groups. 4. We observe that urcm has already been the subject of three previous hostile RFDs, one intending to replace the moderators. In other usenet hierarchies, this level of interference with a moderation team would not be tolerated. For example in the Big 8 (rec.* etc., the B8MB say): It is highly unlikely that the board would publish proposals for: ... - removal of an active moderator or removal of a moderated group without the consent of the moderator. -- David Damerell Distortion Field! Today is Oneiros, December. Tomorrow will be Mania, December. ========================================= Can anyone else recommend a YES vote in URCM or will those posts be rejected for being "meta" (off-topic)? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
CFV Changes to URCM Charter
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:28:12 +0000, Luke Moore
wrote: John Benn wrote: "Judith" wrote in message . .. Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators. I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the cycling newsgroup. ================================================ =================================== FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated Statement from the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated: Summary: We oppose this hostile CFV. It will - Forbid reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it would prevent the use of a passlist, slowing much discussion. - Violate the privacy of transgressive posters; - Lead to more rather than fewer complaints and arguments. We recommend a NO vote. [...] ========================================= Can anyone else recommend a YES vote in URCM or will those posts be rejected for being "meta" (off-topic)? Who'd be stupid enough to try? Unless, of course, somebody fancies being fast-tracked to a ban of indeterminate length. Let's try to work it into a response from posters to urc - and see who is brave enough to post it. =========== FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated Statement from posters of uk.rec.cycling: Summary: We support this sensible CFV. It will - Allow reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it won't prevent the use of a passlist, speeding much discussion. - Facilitate the privacy of transgressive posters; - Lead to fewer rather than more complaints and arguments. We recommend a YES vote. Our full reasons are as follows: =========== Sorry, there's something on TV I want to watch. Can someone please pick up the baton? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
CFV Changes to URCM Charter
On Dec 8, 9:09*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:28:12 +0000, Luke Moore wrote: John Benn wrote: "Judith" *wrote in message . .. Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators. I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the cycling newsgroup. ================================================ =================================== FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated Statement from the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated: Summary: We oppose this hostile CFV. *It will *- Forbid reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it would * *prevent the use of a passlist, slowing much discussion. *- Violate the privacy of transgressive posters; *- Lead to more rather than fewer complaints and arguments. We recommend a NO vote. [...] ========================================= Can anyone else recommend a YES vote in URCM or will those posts be rejected for being "meta" (off-topic)? Who'd be stupid enough to try? Unless, of course, somebody fancies being fast-tracked to a ban of indeterminate length. Let's try to work it into a response from posters to urc - and see who is brave enough to post it. =========== FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2) AND BALLOT PAPER Amend Charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated Statement from posters of uk.rec.cycling: Summary: We support this sensible CFV. *It will * - Allow reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it won't * * prevent the use of a passlist, speeding much discussion. * - Facilitate the privacy of transgressive posters; * - Lead to fewer rather than more complaints and arguments. We recommend a YES vote. Our full reasons are as follows: =========== Sorry, there's something on TV I want to watch. Can someone please pick up the baton? Have you wondered why Jon Ribbens did not post his call for votes in urc and you had to forward it? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
CFV Changes to URCM Charter
On 08/12/2012 18:03, Judith wrote:
Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators. I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the cycling newsgroup. Classic post from the moderators. My take would be that it is astonishing for the following reasons: Firstly the characterisation of RFDs and CFVs as hostile. I thought the concept of the uk hierarchy was that of a cooperative hierarchy ultimately governed democratically by the users. Describing RFDs by Mark Goodge and Daniele (et al) as hostile seems to be odds with the very concepts of the democratic uk hierarchy. The principal reason for rejecting the CFV given is that it would ban the use of white listing. However it is not mentioned that this was not bought up at the RFD stage, the proposer does not make this interpretation, members of the moderation team appear to be opposed to modifying the CFV to explicitly allow white listing and no one at all has called for white listing to be banned. This message is published in urcm but responses to it are blocked and urcm posters are not even given a reference to a forum where they can read and discuss alternative view points. I hope that the committee do allow the CFV to be modified/resubmitted so that we can have a fair vote that genuinely reflects people's views of Mark's proposal. As I understand it there hasn't been any vote on the way moderation is being performed since the group was formed. I for one would be very interested to see the result of a sensible vote untainted by the spectre of trickery. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
CFV Changes to URCM Charter
On Dec 9, 11:33*am, Nick wrote:
On 08/12/2012 18:03, Judith wrote: Here is a copy of a post which has been made in URCM by the moderators. I am surprised that they did not have the decency to post it here or in the cycling newsgroup. Classic post from the moderators. My take would be that it is astonishing for the following reasons: Firstly the characterisation of RFDs and CFVs as hostile. I thought the concept of the uk hierarchy was that of a cooperative hierarchy ultimately governed democratically by the users. Describing RFDs by Mark Goodge and Daniele (et al) as hostile seems to be odds with the very concepts of the democratic uk hierarchy. The principal reason for rejecting the CFV given is that it would ban the use of white listing. However it is not mentioned that this was not bought up at the RFD stage, the proposer does not make this interpretation, members of the moderation team appear to be opposed to modifying the CFV to explicitly allow white listing and no one at all has called for white listing to be banned. This message is published in urcm but responses to it are blocked and urcm posters are not even given a reference to a forum where they can read and discuss alternative view points. I hope that the committee do allow the CFV to be modified/resubmitted so that we can have a fair vote that genuinely reflects people's views of Mark's proposal. As I understand it there hasn't been any vote on the way moderation is being performed since the group was formed. I for one would be very interested to see the result of a sensible vote untainted by the spectre of trickery. A vote based on what electoral roll? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
CFV Changes to URCM Charter
On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 11:33:11 +0000, Nick wrote
in om: Classic post from the moderators. My take would be that it is astonishing for the following reasons: Firstly the characterisation of RFDs and CFVs as hostile. I thought the concept of the uk hierarchy was that of a cooperative hierarchy ultimately governed democratically by the users. Describing RFDs by Mark Goodge and Daniele (et al) as hostile seems to be odds with the very concepts of the democratic uk hierarchy. My search of uk.net.news.announce found only the current RFD+CFV and one previous RFD (proposed by 'sun flower') that did not proceed to a CFV. Is there a gap in the history I have or are the urcm moderators confusing the endless tedious informal proposals (and complaints) with RFDs? I still hold the opinion that both the warring factions are their own worst enemy in attracting my support and vote. The post from the urcm moderators almost persuaded me to vote FOR the proposal. Unfortunately it does seem to me to be fatally flawed. It would impose inappropriate restrictions on reasonable moderators so I cannot support it merely because of the behaviour of the current moderators. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
CFV Changes to URCM Charter
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ... Bertie Wooster considered Sat, 08 Dec 2012 We support this sensible CFV. It will - Allow reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it won't prevent the use of a passlist, speeding much discussion. An outright lie, and anyone reading the text of the CFV will easily see. The ONLY exception which it allows to the ban on poster identity being taken into consideration is the ban list. The CFV clearly uses "moderation" as a polite euphemism for "rejection". If you feel there's a risk of confusion, you could ask Mark to rephrase the CFV to "Rejection of posts will be carried out solely according to their content, and not the identity of the author". UKLM successfully operates moderation-by-content *and* a whitelist, so there's no fundamental problem with that combination. If URCM moderators were to adopt a similar approach, they would solve 90% of their problems at a stroke. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
CFV Changes to URCM Charter
On 09/12/2012 20:04, Steve Walker wrote:
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ... Bertie Wooster considered Sat, 08 Dec 2012 We support this sensible CFV. It will - Allow reasonable approaches to moderation. Specifically, it won't prevent the use of a passlist, speeding much discussion. An outright lie, and anyone reading the text of the CFV will easily see. The ONLY exception which it allows to the ban on poster identity being taken into consideration is the ban list. The CFV clearly uses "moderation" as a polite euphemism for "rejection". That's far from clear - I reckon it's not actually true. Hence the discussion we're having. The charter isn't a place for polite euphemism - the language chosen should be clear and unambiguous. If you feel there's a risk of confusion, you could ask Mark to rephrase the CFV to "Rejection of posts will be carried out solely according to their content, and not the identity of the author". That would help. AIUI Mark is working with people to see what can be done about making changes to solve this little problem. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
CFV Changes to URCM Charter
On 08/12/2012 21:09, Bertie Wooster wrote:
Sorry, there's something on TV I want to watch. Peppa Pig? 64 Zoo Lane? Dora the Explorer? -- Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a regular basis." |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RFD: Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated | Judith[_4_] | UK | 0 | November 26th 12 01:31 PM |
3rd RFD: Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated | Judith[_4_] | UK | 3 | September 24th 12 11:36 AM |
rec.sport.unicycling charter | Unisykolist | Unicycling | 4 | April 22nd 08 06:17 AM |
revised aus.bicycle charter | hippy | Australia | 14 | January 12th 06 05:48 PM |
charter flight from Waterloo | Claudius Vitalis | Racing | 30 | July 13th 05 04:04 PM |