A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group

On 9 May, 18:35, "Adam Lea" wrote:
BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. *The reason's name is Doug Bollen.

No it was going downhill before then. There was a troll infestation before
Doug came here, amplified by certain posters who kept responding to them
even when it was apparent the trolls were just trying to wind people up.

What motivated these trolls to attempt to wreck the newsgroup is not clear,
however I suspect some of the more extremist statements against motorists*
may have had something to do with it.

It is more likely to be extreme statements against cyclists by
motorists. Why would contributors to a cycling newsgroup be bothered
by extreme statements against motorists?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

On 10 May, 07:41, Doug wrote:
On 9 May, 18:35, "Adam Lea" wrote: BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. �The reason's name is Doug Bollen.

No it was going downhill before then. There was a troll infestation before
Doug came here, amplified by certain posters who kept responding to them
even when it was apparent the trolls were just trying to wind people up..

What motivated these trolls to attempt to wreck the newsgroup is not clear,
however I suspect some of the more extremist statements against motorists*
may have had something to do with it.

It is more likely to be extreme statements against cyclists by
motorists. Why would contributors to a cycling newsgroup be bothered
by extreme statements against motorists?

Because many of them will also be motorists? Just like you were until
you could no longer drive, Mr Bollen. Or do the years of driving a 14
mpg Land Rover somehow not count any more?

On 9 May, 23:40, Judith Smith wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:22:39 +0100, Roger Thorpe

wrote:
BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. �The reason's name is Doug Bollen.
As I see it, Doug is a new problem. This group has been in decline since
judith came over a year ago.

Oh really - perhaps you could point to the one specific post from over
a year ago made by me which caused the decline of the group.

No one specific post, just your stupid, trolling posts i.e. all your
posts.

I must say I've never seen such an honest admission from a car-hater
that they wish to censor opposing points of view. In that respect,
Rudi is at least truthful. But that is where the positive points
about his posts end.

Doug wrote:
On 9 May, 18:35, "Adam Lea" wrote:
BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)
The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. The reason's name is Doug Bollen.
No it was going downhill before then. There was a troll infestation before
Doug came here, amplified by certain posters who kept responding to them
even when it was apparent the trolls were just trying to wind people up.

What motivated these trolls to attempt to wreck the newsgroup is not clear,
however I suspect some of the more extremist statements against motorists*
may have had something to do with it.

It is more likely to be extreme statements against cyclists by
motorists. Why would contributors to a cycling newsgroup be bothered
by extreme statements against motorists?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".




How about the fact that most cyclists are also motorists?
And don't come back with your usual claptrap about 'real cyclists' &
'closet motorists'.

--
Tony the Dragon

On May 8, 11:34*pm, Julian wrote:
On 08 May 2009 15:14:39 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson

wrote:

snip

*
* * Require posters (of some kinds of articles?) to give and use
* * their real name (eg, to avoid nym-shifting).

Oh yes, we must be able to weed out those people who we don't want
posting here, even if everything they say conforms to the moderation
policy.

Yep. A moderation policy will hopefully provide the excuse(s) needed
to boot someone who has the wrong POVs, but if not, we need to reserve
the right to do it anyway. We can't have people waltzing in and
embarrassing us by stating true POVs which we know we have no argument
against.

* * More severe restrictions on articles about controversial topics.
* * (We could make a list of the subjects, or have the moderators
* * maintain a list.)

More ********, * we will not allow discussion of those topics, where
no matter how sensible the post, there is an implied criticism of
cycling, or the benefits of cycling.

We want nothing objective stating in this moderated group.

Quite.

* * Maintain a list of approved posters of some kind and impose
* * draconian restrictions even as to subject matter of un-approved
* * posters.
*

We cannot allow an individual to contradict the views of those who
really know.

Exactly. No-one should be allowed to criticise speed cameras,
advocate helmets, etc. It doesn't matter whether they're right or
not: we find it inconvenient to deal with such arguments, so we're
just going to ban them altogether, and then we can pretend that such
nasty, annoying arguments don't really exist at all.

* * Prohibit postings about `road politics' from any previously-unknown
* * poster.
*
* * Prohibit postings about `road poltiics' from pseudonymous posters.

We don't want anyone coming in to *our* moderated group and raising
controversial issues.

....except if they've shown that they have the "right" (actually, the
wrong) POVs.

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

You must discuss those threads you know nothing about.

Actually, this is the only one that I agree with in principle, though
he expressed it so poorly that no-one else seems to have grasped what
he was on about. Some posters make a point, have that point
demolished by another poster, then don't answer that poster, despite
answering other postings in the thread (and possibly even other points
by the same poster in the same post). They then make that same,
demolished point in another thread, and do the same thing all over
again. This blatantly shows that they are making a point despite
knowing that they can't defend it, thereby showing that they have some
hidden agenda or other (because otherwise why keep making that point?)

Of course, in this group, the posters that do that are usually the car-
haters, and I'm sure ****son wasn't referring to them, as it's pretty
obvious that this whole "moderation" idea is designed to ensure that
the car-haters' opponents, rather than the car-haters themselves, are
kept out.

* * Reject postings from posters who have frequently posted things
* * which can be objectively determined to be wrong.

"Objectively"?

Highly amusing, isn't it? Members of the clique invariably show that
there is nothing objective about their assessment of anything. I can
just see it now: "You defended motorists/said that cycling was
dangerous/said that socialism wasn't the best thing ever. You are,
quite clearly, objectively wrong. Goodbye."

*There is no technical difficulty with running a moderated group. *I'd
*be happy to host and run moderation software on my own colo machine.

An excellent post by the way.

The only debatable point was who would make it.

I quite agree once again.

A wonderful, stingingly accurate post by Julian there. It sums up the
attitude of the worst posters in this group and their determination to
censor their opponents' POVs better than anything before it.

On May 9, 6:35*pm, "Adam Lea" wrote:

What motivated these trolls to attempt to wreck the newsgroup is not clear,
however I suspect some of the more extremist statements against motorists*
may have had something to do with it.

*e.g.http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....810a257d1fcb2?...

So wouldn't it be better to stop the extremist statements against
motorists from being made (instead of attempting to bully those
"trolls" who quite reasonably take exception to such statements)?
This could be done extremely effectively simply by removing Doug,
Brian Robertson, Chapman and Spindrift. The vast majority of anti-
motorist statements come from those four posters (and sycophants of
Chapman, who would hopefully STFU once he went).

Although if we had to keep Doug then so be it. He's more comical and
less malicious than the other three, who are deserving of nothing but
the deepest contempt. (Actually, Robertson is comical as well, but
darkly so, and he's too disturbing to be much fun all in all.)

Marc wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:
BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. The reason's name is Doug Bollen.
As I see it, Doug is a new problem. This group has been in decline
since judith came over a year ago.
The problems I see are Judith, Nuxx, a propensity to have long,
infuriating and pointless discussions about helmets and now a lack of
friendly off-topic banter. Have a look at uk.rec.motorcycles, they
seem to be having a great old time and so could we.

I'm ready for a bit of banter...

Well, I watched the documentary about (Fleetwood Mac's) Peter Green on
Friday, but what caught my eye was the listing in Radio Times describing
two of the contributors..
" Guitar legend Carlos Santana and guitar holder Noel Gallagher..."

Roger Thorpe

Judith Smith wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:22:39 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)
The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. The reason's name is Doug Bollen.
As I see it, Doug is a new problem. This group has been in decline since
judith came over a year ago.
The problems I see are Judith, Nuxx, a propensity to have long,
infuriating and pointless discussions about helmets and now a lack of
friendly off-topic banter. Have a look at uk.rec.motorcycles, they seem
to be having a great old time and so could we.
Roger Thorpe


And how do you think statements like "The problems I see are
Judith,Nuxx..." contribute to the situation?


Even if I really believed that you were a woman named Judith Smith who
had been in some way mistreated or victimized by Guy, had an honest
misunderstanding about certain cycling issues and passionately held
beliefs on others I would still find your posts irritating and
destructive. Each time I read them I would still want to scream "Oh
bugger off!".
I am not alone in this.
Roger Thorpe

On May 10, 6:30*pm, Roger Thorpe
wrote:
Marc wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:
BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. *The reason's name is Doug Bollen.
As I see it, Doug is a new problem. This group has been in decline
since judith came over a year ago.
The problems I see are Judith, Nuxx, a propensity to have long,
infuriating and pointless discussions about helmets and now a lack of
friendly off-topic banter. Have a look at uk.rec.motorcycles, they
seem to be having a great old time and so could we.

I'm ready for a bit of banter...

Well, I watched the documentary about (Fleetwood Mac's) Peter Green on
Friday, but what caught my eye was the listing in Radio Times describing
two of the contributors..
" Guitar legend Carlos Santana and guitar holder Noel Gallagher..."

Sounds about right.