A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group

On 8 May, 17:59, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2009, Marc wrote:

*URC cannot be moderated , it is a non moderated NG, if the want
*Uk.rec.cycling.moderated that would be a different group

It could (theoretically) be changed into a moderated group. *It is,
however, some years since a group was changed in this way.

regards, * Ian SMith

I have come to the conclusion that it only takes one or two people
to trigger the destruction a usenet newsgroup. I have seen
a couple that were killed off and this one is the third. Best plan is
to move on.

The architecture is fundamentally flawed in that "bad actors" can
always generate disruption, reasonable people drift away. With
so many alternatives now available they will never come back.
It only needs one bad actor and a couple of 386's
(http://xkcd.com/386/) and a group is finished. 386's are
numerous on t'internet:-)

I would not waste your time with a moderated group now. If you want
to see one result of an alternative-moderated-group created
in response to a bad actor or two, check out the stats on
rec.skiing.alpine and rec.skiing.alpine.moderated.
The moderated group never got going at all really. One reason
might be that moderation introduces delays and is expensive.

At present drivers are fighting to maintain their existing right to
kill
without care or redress and a random few see this group as a
political force that is worth destroying. They can, they will, in
practice
they have already. It seems clear to me that the days of such carefree
death are now numbered. I have the idea that jail sentences for
driving offences are now more frequent and are more severe
that they were quite recently. What might be the outcome
if the HSE decide to extend workplace safety on to the roads? People
at
work will not be able to use the roads on company time since at
present
they are far too dangerous. Something will have to be done.

The idea of driving on the roads as entertainment will disappear, if
only
because cars will quite soon be further automated. There will be no
driver.

By the way this newsgroup is a political force, it is the only reason
that I wrote to my MP, to Boris and to others during the
Highway Code debacle regarding the right of cyclists to use the road.
That was a very close shave - thanks to all who helped.

"bad actors" - term used by the inventor of usenet on a
Computer History Museum video.

Ian Smith wrote:
On 08 May 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:

* Reject postings from posters who cherry-pick the articles to reply
to, to ones they have an answer for.

Eh? I don't think I can believe you mean that - you would reject
postings from anyone unless they regularly make postings on a topic
about which they are clueless or have nothing to bring to the
discussion?

We don't want anyone here who only speaks when they know the answer,
nosiree.


If you must have moderation, have:

1: no personal abuse of anyone living


"Doug you are moron!"

"You are a closet motorist!"

"Dugh's right"


Which of the above are "personal abuse"?

On Fri, 08 May 2009 21:20:12 +0100, Marc wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:

If you must have moderation, have:

1: no personal abuse of anyone living


"Doug you are moron!"

"You are a closet motorist!"

"Dugh's right"


Which of the above are "personal abuse"?

1 is
2 may be, dependant on context
3 is not

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

Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2009 21:20:12 +0100, Marc wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:

If you must have moderation, have:

1: no personal abuse of anyone living

"Doug you are moron!"

"You are a closet motorist!"

"Dugh's right"


Which of the above are "personal abuse"?

1 is
2 may be, dependant on context
3 is not


I don't think you should apply for the job as moderator

1 is

2 Dugh means as one

3 Doug regards Dugh as personal abuse.

On 8 May, 18:40, thaksin wrote:
Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

(Snip pile of whiny ********)

So in essence you want to censor the posts, and only read that which
fits with your current prejudices? And more importantly, you want
everyone ELSE to only read your current prejudices too! LOL what a crock
of ****! Don't like it? Then don't ****ing read it. Simple. You're
pathetic,,,

I'm sure that you are trying to get a serious point across. Why don't
you use the direct approach?

On 8 May, 17:37, RudiL wrote:
On 8 May, 17:17, Daniel Barlow wrote:



"Paul - xxx" writes:

Rudi wrote:

Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

There's a simple answer. *Post articles about bikes and discuss bikes.
Ignore other posts ...

I don't actually think there are enough people left on the group who are
interested in posting about cycling and informed enough to say anything
useful. *I've pretty much given up on this place as a resource for
anything vaguely technical: web forums and twitter have eclipsed it.
Ian's post illustrates why - whereas on usenet we apparently need an
objective and bulletproof moderation policy, a centralised web forum
acts according to the whim of its owner who can make things up as he
goes along

(Some forum owners are better than this than others, and if you don't
like one then you simply find another)

If you'd told me five years ago I'd be recommending web fora on usenet
I'd have laughed at you ... sigh

-dan

I wasn't actually proposing an objective and bulletproof moderation
policy although I (or whoever else was doing the moderating) would
probably try. As I said, if someone doesn't like the moderation policy
they can read urc. All messages will be there, and can be replied to
just as now. Only people who liked the moderation policy need read the
new group. My hope would be that the new group would be entirely
cycling related *(including letting off steam now again when a
motorist has cut one up or whatever). Urc would be largely motoring
elated as now, with some cycling stuff (including everything from the
new group). It would be especially nice if over time urc then slowly
reverted to its proper function


"Urc would be largely motoring elated" Surely not?!

On 8 May, 17:11, Marc wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 8 May, 14:05, wrote:
On 8 May, 13:22, "Jackbike" me@somewhere wrote:

I, for one would like my cycling newsgroup back please. Count me as
interested.
Yea, it would be good to talk about bikes on a cycling newsgroup for
once!!

I don't want to be a wet blanket but my experience has been that
USENET, like the world at large, has become infested and dominated by
motorists who, now that they are under extreme pressure from the
environmental lobby, are having to try to justify their chosen mode of
transport. Part of their justification seems to be trying to rubbish
cleaner forms of transport such as cycling while embracing polluting
forms of transport such as flying.

My experience is that the only "motorists" that come here to justify
anything are here answering you. If you dissapeared so would they.

No they wouldn't. Uk.Transport has had a Yankee invasion. These
motorists are asylum-seekers. They can't go home again.

On Fri, 8 May 2009 11:25:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On 8 May, 19:05, Ian Smith wrote:

1: no personal abuse of anyone living

What about Guy Chapman's late father?


Why would you want to abuse him?

He was only 50% responsible.

--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

I've been giving quite a bit of thought to what has been going on
in urc. I have noticed that over the last few years many regular
posters have largely dropped out (whatever happened to Waffly Cat
amongst others for example)

Recently posted to uklm

http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html

I don't think moderating (or a separate moderated group) is the answer.
If you want that type of thing go to one of the online forums (or is
that fora).


Martin.

Marc wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On 08 May 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:

* Reject postings from posters who cherry-pick the articles to reply
to, to ones they have an answer for.

Eh? I don't think I can believe you mean that - you would reject
postings from anyone unless they regularly make postings on a topic
about which they are clueless or have nothing to bring to the discussion?

We don't want anyone here who only speaks when they know the answer,
nosiree.


If you must have moderation, have:

1: no personal abuse of anyone living


"Doug you are moron!"

"You are a closet motorist!"

"Dugh's right"


Which of the above are "personal abuse"?

Dunno which one is abuse, but the bottom two are impossible - does that
help?