The future of uk.rec.cycling.moderated

It seems to me that some of the moderators of the Usenet news group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated are alienating cyclists and the wider uk.*
community.

The group was created a little over three months ago, on 12 October
2009, following a long debate over the form the new group should take.
The group was created following a vote which generated an overwhelming
majority in favour of the group. For this reason I do not think that
there should be any suggestion that the group be removed: there is a
clear desire for a group where cyclists and non-cyclists can debate
cycling issues and engage in general banter.

However, there are a sizable number of people who are dissatisfied
with the management and heavy-handed moderation in the new group.
Those people dissatisfied fall into three groups.

1 - uk.net.news.* posters
2 - regular cyclists who want to discuss cycling matters
3 - other 'subscribers' who want to discuss cycling matters

Areas of concern include:
People unable to send messages to the moderators using the official
contact e-mail address;
Difficultly getting onto the pass-list and not knowing the criteria
for getting onto the pass-list;
Being put on a delay-list (watch-list) that results in long delays of
having posts approved;
Absurd moderation decisions meaning that time spent composing a reply
has been utterly wasted;
The chief moderator blatantly abusing their position by canvassing for
votes through the use of a .sig file.

Others may want to add to the above list.

I feel that there is need for an RFD to discuss how the group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated is managed. At the moment I would favour a
discussion over the creation of a committee of three with wide ranging
powers to manage the group. The committee would be selected as
follows:
1 committee member appointed by the current moderators.
2 committee members appointed by the uk.* committee, self-nominated
from regular posters to urcm (it would be up to the uk.* committee to
decide if a nominee is a 'regular' poster). These three committee
posts would be re-appointed annually.

Powers of the committee would include:
Being able to hire and fire moderators;
Changing the moderation software;
How the moderators can be contacted;
Adjudicating on any complaints;
Deciding if rejected posts should be on a web site.

Others may want to add to the above list.

Help and constructive criticism is welcome to put together a workable
RFD if there is sufficient consensus that an RFD is required to
further improve the working of uk.rec.cycling.moderated.

Tom Crispin wrote:
It seems to me that some of the moderators of the Usenet news group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated are alienating cyclists and the wider uk.*
community.

If it weren't for your x-posted rant, Tom, I'd be blissfully happily
ignorant of the goings on in urcm.

Please God send us some nice weather so we can all get out cycling again!

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

Tom Crispin wrote:

It seems to me that some of the moderators of the Usenet news group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated are alienating cyclists and the wider uk.*
community.

The group was created a little over three months ago, on 12 October
2009, following a long debate over the form the new group should take.
The group was created following a vote which generated an overwhelming
majority in favour of the group. For this reason I do not think that
there should be any suggestion that the group be removed: there is a
clear desire for a group where cyclists and non-cyclists can debate
cycling issues and engage in general banter.

However, there are a sizable number of people who are dissatisfied
with the management and heavy-handed moderation in the new group.
Those people dissatisfied fall into three groups.

1 - uk.net.news.* posters
2 - regular cyclists who want to discuss cycling matters
3 - other 'subscribers' who want to discuss cycling matters

Areas of concern include:
People unable to send messages to the moderators using the official
contact e-mail address;
Difficultly getting onto the pass-list and not knowing the criteria
for getting onto the pass-list;
Being put on a delay-list (watch-list) that results in long delays of
having posts approved;
Absurd moderation decisions meaning that time spent composing a reply
has been utterly wasted;
The chief moderator blatantly abusing their position by canvassing for
votes through the use of a .sig file.

Others may want to add to the above list.

I feel that there is need for an RFD to discuss how the group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated is managed. At the moment I would favour a
discussion over the creation of a committee of three with wide ranging
powers to manage the group. The committee would be selected as
follows:
1 committee member appointed by the current moderators.
2 committee members appointed by the uk.* committee, self-nominated
from regular posters to urcm (it would be up to the uk.* committee to
decide if a nominee is a 'regular' poster). These three committee
posts would be re-appointed annually.

Powers of the committee would include:
Being able to hire and fire moderators;
Changing the moderation software;
How the moderators can be contacted;
Adjudicating on any complaints;
Deciding if rejected posts should be on a web site.

Others may want to add to the above list.

Help and constructive criticism is welcome to put together a workable
RFD if there is sufficient consensus that an RFD is required to
further improve the working of uk.rec.cycling.moderated.

Does this ng still exist? I can't get it on my news server, which
seems otherwise to include all. I would like to see a bike ng without
all that bull**** and spam.
--
Dieter Britz (dieterbritzatyahoo.com)

In article ,
Tom Crispin wrote:

It seems to me that some of the moderators of the Usenet news group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated are alienating cyclists and the wider uk.*
community.

The group was created a little over three months ago, on 12 October
2009, following a long debate over the form the new group should take.
The group was created following a vote which generated an overwhelming
majority in favour of the group. For this reason I do not think that
there should be any suggestion that the group be removed: there is a
clear desire for a group where cyclists and non-cyclists can debate
cycling issues and engage in general banter.

However, there are a sizable number of people who are dissatisfied
with the management and heavy-handed moderation in the new group.
Those people dissatisfied fall into three groups.

1 - uk.net.news.* posters
2 - regular cyclists who want to discuss cycling matters
3 - other 'subscribers' who want to discuss cycling matters

Do they? Are you sure?

Areas of concern include:
People unable to send messages to the moderators using the official
contact e-mail address;
Agreed - this seems to be bloody mindedness on the part of the chap with
the software and from what I've read here, could be very easily fixed.

Difficultly getting onto the pass-list and not knowing the criteria
for getting onto the pass-list;
Disagree - why should anyone other than the moderators know this? They
would be perfectly within their rights not to have a
whitelist/passlist/whatever at all and it should be a matter for them to
decide, if there were a magic formula you wouldn't need moderator input.

Being put on a delay-list (watch-list) that results in long delays of
having posts approved;
Disagree for much the same reasons as above.

Absurd moderation decisions meaning that time spent composing a reply
has been utterly wasted;
Agree - some of the reasons given for blocking messages have seemed to
me to be wrong

The chief moderator blatantly abusing their position by canvassing for
votes through the use of a .sig file.
Pointless nit-picking. It happened once and the I'm pretty sure won't
happen again.

Others may want to add to the above list.

I feel that there is need for an RFD to discuss how the group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated is managed. At the moment I would favour a
discussion over the creation of a committee of three with wide ranging
powers to manage the group. The committee would be selected as
follows:
1 committee member appointed by the current moderators.
2 committee members appointed by the uk.* committee, self-nominated
from regular posters to urcm (it would be up to the uk.* committee to
decide if a nominee is a 'regular' poster). These three committee
posts would be re-appointed annually.

Powers of the committee would include:
Being able to hire and fire moderators;
Changing the moderation software;
How the moderators can be contacted;
Adjudicating on any complaints;
Deciding if rejected posts should be on a web site.
Good God no! I disagree with all this. The things you've listed are all
withint the remit of anyone who posts to the group to RFD for changes
already. It looks to me like you're looking for some poor *******s to
take on the job of managing your complaints for you.

Despite my past postings complaining about some moderation decisions, I
still think they should be left to the moderators to make. I'm just
rather sad that the moderators are not all moderating according to what
was promised when the group was formed.

Thinking about it, it may well be easier for you to start another group
that runs the way you want rather than trying to force the one that's
here into your pattern.

Others may want to add to the above list.

You've already said that.

Help and constructive criticism is welcome to put together a workable
RFD if there is sufficient consensus that an RFD is required to
further improve the working of uk.rec.cycling.moderated.

The most constructive advice I could give is to say "give it up, you
won't get anywhere". I hardly look at either cycling group any more, the
unmoderated one because it's a shambles and the moderated one because
it's not being moderated the way I feel it should be. Which is a shame,
but I really don't like the sound of what you're trying to do.

--
Sara

Cuddler of rats, cats and husband

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Jim A wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
It seems to me that some of the moderators of the Usenet news group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated are alienating cyclists and the wider uk.*
community.

If it weren't for your x-posted rant, Tom, I'd be blissfully happily ignorant
of the goings on in urcm.

Please God send us some nice weather so we can all get out cycling again!

Well, we've got rain here, which is an advance on snow!

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

Can you please refrain from waffling on, off-topic in UKRC.

On 13/01/2010 22:11, Jim A wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
It seems to me that some of the moderators of the Usenet news group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated are alienating cyclists and the wider uk.*
community.

If it weren't for your x-posted rant, Tom, I'd be blissfully happily
ignorant of the goings on in urcm.

Please God send us some nice weather so we can all get out cycling again!

Seconded, on all points.

In article ,
Dieter Britz wrote:
Does this ng still exist? I can't get it on my news server, which
seems otherwise to include all. I would like to see a bike ng without
all that bull**** and spam.

Yes, the group does exist. You probably need to contact your server
operator to get it fixed. If you prefer I can do thast for you, if
you tell me their email address.

It might be best to follow this up by private email: could you send
more information to , please ?
If you don't get a reply tell postmaster@chiark and I'll pass it on.

Thanks.

--
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

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.net.news.config.]
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:34:42 +0000, Sara wrote:
In article ,
Tom Crispin wrote:

I feel that there is need for an RFD to discuss how the group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated is managed. At the moment I would favour a
discussion over the creation of a committee of three with wide ranging
powers to manage the group. The committee would be selected as
follows:

Good God no! I disagree with all this. The things you've listed are all
withint the remit of anyone who posts to the group to RFD for changes
already. It looks to me like you're looking for some poor *******s to
take on the job of managing your complaints for you.

I agree with Sara about the awfulness of this proposal. Yes, the
moderators are power-crazed *******, but this is not the way to fix
that.

rather sad that the moderators are not all moderating according to what
was promised when the group was formed.

Agreed again.

Thinking about it, it may well be easier for you to start another group
that runs the way you want

uk.rec.cycling.moderated.properly ?

The most constructive advice I could give is to say "give it up, you
won't get anywhere". I hardly look at either cycling group any more, the
unmoderated one because it's a shambles and the moderated one because
it's not being moderated the way I feel it should be. Which is a shame,
but I really don't like the sound of what you're trying to do.

With heavy kill-filing there's an occasional glimmer of interest in
uk.rec.cycling. I've given up on u.r.c.moderated (have I mentioned
that in passing before?)

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 14 Jan 2010 13:13:38 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
wrote:

In article ,
Dieter Britz wrote:
Does this ng still exist? I can't get it on my news server, which
seems otherwise to include all. I would like to see a bike ng without
all that bull**** and spam.

Yes, the group does exist. You probably need to contact your server
operator to get it fixed. If you prefer I can do thast for you, if
you tell me their email address.

It might be best to follow this up by private email: could you send
more information to , please ?
If you don't get a reply tell postmaster@chiark and I'll pass it on.

Thanks.


Or instead of jumping through hoops - you could of email via:
- which is the
official address for contacting moderators.