U.r.c.m Moderation policy

It's been suggested that nominee moderators for the proposed
uk.net.news.moderated should indicate their approach to moderation
policy by indicating which messages they would pass and which they
would block. I therefore went through the group as an exercise looking
at just that. As I thought I would block virtually all the messages, I
started a pass list rather than a block list; however, going through
the exercise carefully I find the situation is not quite as bad as I
had thought it was. Here is a list of messages posted between noon and
9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may
be messages not on this list which I simply missed. All posts cross-
posted to other groups, including unnc, would have been blocked for
that reason, so their absence from this list is not /necessarily/ a
reflection of their contents.

Note there are messages of mine which I would hope some other
moderator would have had the good sense to block; for example

should have been blocked.

Help! Brompton-fu weak
Just zis Guy, you know?

Clubs
Bill
Simon Mason
Bimble
Marc
The dangers of pavement cycling
Tom Anderson i
John Kane 53580c17-9b5c-43e4-a035-

Are these wheels any good?

AMuzi
Simon Brooke 85be0646-9c3d-4255-94d1-

Tyre Pressures

Alistair Gunn
Alan Braggins
Simon Brooke cd6fc193-

Paul Luton
Nigel Cliffe
Simon Mason
John Kane

Tom Crispin

Cycling in England - South East
Justin Lewis
Simon Brooke 8f1f2281-a6a1-42d7-

Adam Lea
Justin Lewis
Keitht
JNugent
Danny Colyer
Alistair Gunn
Roger Merriman
Greenwich and Woolwich Tunnels
Brimstone
Happi Monday
Keitht
Just zis Guy, you know?

Brimstone
Tom Crispin
David Hansen
Tom Crispin
Tom Crispin
Brimstone
Brimstone
Tom Crispin
Brimstone
Tom Crispin
Alistair Gunn
Tom Crispin
Tom Crispin
How do the police respond to Dangerous Driving reports?
Danny Colyer
Adam Lea
Just zis Guy, you know?

JNugent
Mudguards ( the lack of)
Jeremy Parker
Jeremy Parker
LightLane Virtual Bike Path to Become a Reality
Jeremy Parker
What is this the rest of the time?
Jeremy Parker
*big* hole in bike path
Jeremy Parker

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
wrote:

Here is a list of messages posted between noon and
9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may
be messages not on this list which I simply missed. All posts cross-
posted to other groups, including unnc, would have been blocked for
that reason, so their absence from this list is not /necessarily/ a
reflection of their contents.

Why the Devil would you censor:
Message-ID:
Giving details of crossings of the River Thames between the Woolwich
Ferry and Tower Bridge, and the proposed pedestrian/cyclist bridge
between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf?

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:00:49
uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
wrote:

Here is a list of messages posted between noon and
9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may
be messages not on this list which I simply missed. All posts cross-
posted to other groups, including unnc, would have been blocked for
that reason, so their absence from this list is not /necessarily/ a
reflection of their contents.

Why the Devil would you censor:
Message-ID:
Giving details of crossings of the River Thames between the Woolwich
Ferry and Tower Bridge, and the proposed pedestrian/cyclist bridge
between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf?

I'd expect to read that.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 27 June, 23:00, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke

wrote:
Here is a list of messages posted between noon and
9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may
be messages not on this list which I simply missed. All posts cross-
posted to other groups, including unnc, would have been blocked for
that reason, so their absence from this list is not /necessarily/ a
reflection of their contents.

Why the Devil would you censor:
Message-ID:
Giving details of crossings of the River Thames between the Woolwich
Ferry and Tower Bridge, and the proposed pedestrian/cyclist bridge
between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf?

Oversight. Having read it this morning, it's clear I missed it. You're
right, there's no reason to block that.

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
wrote:

Oversight. Having read it this morning, it's clear I missed it. You're
right, there's no reason to block that.

It might be simpler and less ambiguous to list the threads / posts you
would have blocked and why.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.

On Sun, 28 Jun, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
wrote:

[simon listed postings he would have passed, explicitly noting that he
might have missed some]

[someone questioned why he did not include a particular posting]

Oversight. Having read it this morning, it's clear I missed it. You're
right, there's no reason to block that.

It might be simpler and less ambiguous to list the threads / posts you
would have blocked and why.


So, we don't have moderation, the moderation that is being proposed
does not have a formalised appeals process whereby the moderators have
to justify publicly every decision and already a would-be-moderator
is being taken to task and people are picking over individual
decisions and requiring justification, and telling him better ways to
do the job.

_This_ is exactly why it is better to close the avenue to such.

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

Ian Smith wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
wrote:

[simon listed postings he would have passed, explicitly noting that he
might have missed some]

[someone questioned why he did not include a particular posting]

Oversight. Having read it this morning, it's clear I missed it. You're
right, there's no reason to block that.
It might be simpler and less ambiguous to list the threads / posts you
would have blocked and why.


So, we don't have moderation, the moderation that is being proposed
does not have a formalised appeals process whereby the moderators have
to justify publicly every decision and already a would-be-moderator
is being taken to task and people are picking over individual
decisions and requiring justification, and telling him better ways to
do the job.

_This_ is exactly why it is better to close the avenue to such.

regards, Ian SMith

Yes! You never need a better way!

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
wrote:

It's been suggested that nominee moderators for the proposed
uk.net.news.moderated should indicate their approach to moderation
policy by indicating which messages they would pass and which they
would block. I therefore went through the group as an exercise looking
at just that. As I thought I would block virtually all the messages, I
started a pass list rather than a block list; however, going through
the exercise carefully I find the situation is not quite as bad as I
had thought it was. Here is a list of messages posted between noon and
9pm today on this group which I would NOT block. Note that there may
be messages not on this list which I simply missed.
snip

all this discussion of moderators escapes me, surely it's just for
those who lack a configurable client & the effort to configure it (I
suppose that includes users of google groups & similar, who IMO bring
it upon themselves). Personally I just read the posts I read & ignore
the others, almost all posts regarding moderation fall into the latter
- even if the list of posts snipped falls into the former. Moderate if
you will but if & when have the decency to CP into URC

On 28 Jun 2009 11:20:36 GMT
Ian Smith wrote:

So, we don't have moderation, the moderation that is being proposed
does not have a formalised appeals process whereby the moderators
have to justify publicly every decision and already a
would-be-moderator is being taken to task and people are picking over
individual decisions and requiring justification, and telling him
better ways to do the job.

_This_ is exactly why it is better to close the avenue to such.

That's fascism, and not necessarily of the benevolent variety. Do you
really not see why concerns are being raised?

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:52:23 +0200, BIG_ONE
wrote:

all this discussion of moderators escapes me, surely it's just for
those who lack a configurable client & the effort to configure it (I
suppose that includes users of google groups & similar, who IMO bring
it upon themselves). Personally I just read the posts I read & ignore
the others, almost all posts regarding moderation fall into the latter
- even if the list of posts snipped falls into the former. Moderate if
you will but if & when have the decency to CP into URC

How can you configure a newsreader to ignore someone posting the same
message to every thread under different false names (without killing
every message in the group)?