RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Administrative note:

At the proponent's request followups have been set to both uk.rec.cycling
and uk.net.news.config. People responding are asked to keep the
followups to both groups.

Note however that the official discussion is regarded only as that which
is seen in uk.net.news.config, readers from uk.rec.cycling are encouraged
to read both groups to ensure that they do not miss important parts of
the discussion through lack of cross-posting.

Newsgroup line:
uk.rec.cycling.moderated Cycling in the UK (Moderated)


*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from an infestation of
trolls, nym-shifters and forgeries. Many of these posters are hostile
to cycling. There has even been real-world harassment such as
abusive late night phone calls. Repetitive flamage now constitutes
50-75% of the group by number of articles. This ongoing and worsening
problem has been making the group nearly unuseable for ordinary
discussion.

I therefore propose that we should create:

uk.rec.cycling.moderated

CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
in the UK. Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
other forms of cycling are all on-topic.

Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil,
pleasant, and sympathetic to cyclists and cycling.

The moderators may, as they see fit to achieve these goals: approve,
reject, robomodorate, whitelist, blacklist, make enquiries, write and
change detailed procedures or policies, delegate, and/or take other
reasonable measures.

In case of disagreement amongst the moderators, the majority of the
moderation panel shall prevail; in case of deadlock, the status quo
shall remain. The moderation panel may vote to dismiss or appoint
moderators.

Crossposting to uk.rec.cycling is not normally permitted.
Constructive discussion of the moderation policy is permitted in the
newsgroup itself; extensive metadiscussion and any accusations of
misconduct by moderators should be posted to uk.net.news.moderation.

uk.rec.cycling will remain as an unmoderated alternative; articles
which are unsympathetic to cycling (for example, vehement opposition
to cycling or cyclists, and full and frank discussions of transport
policy) may be posted there or to other unmoderated groups in uk.*.

Initial Moderators:

Alan Braggins
Andy Leighton
Danny Colyer
David Damerell
Ian Jackson
Martin Dann
Nigel Cliffe
Peter Clinch
Peter Fox
Roger Thorpe
Simon Brooke


INITIAL MODERATION POLICY

Postings should be conducive to a civil and pleasant atmosphere,
and remain sympathetic to cyclists and cycling. Each moderator will
accept or reject postings based on their own judgement.

Disagreement about the best way to cycle, and respectful criticism
of specific behaviours, is on topic. The moderators will be
vigilant to ensure that such discussions remain civil and
interesting, avoiding problems such as invective and repetition.

Announcements of events are permitted at the moderators' discretion.
Commercial advertising of products and services is not permitted.
The moderators may permit private sales of cycling-related products
and services by existing posters at their discretion.

Crossposts other than to urc will be considered on their merits;
crosspostings to uk.transport will not normally be permitted.

The moderators will operate a whitelist system: new posters' messages
will be manually moderated by whichever moderator happens to get to
them first. Individual moderators may, when they consider a poster
sensible, add the poster to the whitelist; whitelisted posters'
messages will thereafter be posted automatically. Individual
moderators may remove a poster from the whitelist, when they post
inappropriate or borderline messages.

If a thread ceases to contain new and interesting content, and
descends into repetition and/or attacks, the moderators will `close'
the thread, by instructing the robot to automatically reject future
postings to it with a polite explanation.

Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
to close a thread, may be appealed to the whole moderation panel. The
panel would prefer this to be done privately to make it easier for the
panel to overrule a mistaken moderator without anyone losing face.

This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit.

The moderators can be reached at

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/

The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
advertising the moderated group and inviting posters to switch.

END CHARTER

PROCEDU

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until June 12th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.cycling

Proponent:
Ian Jackson

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.9-(Cygwin)
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBSiQeamOfGXkh8vHZAQKrYAP+P4RzohPChkTWwbNfzU ZOpakp8K2dWnwY
AJdDmpNdIXMVPCPBQOSfMEZ57JJniswNI4RadS/FuvKMCDaliZkms2kI75Y4vDRR
Q309F649kaX/RPQ/n+8SwwlR4mTnBfWgAl94R/sYoWgbT0njPjp68kw0+wY4RN3K
a15Tw2AQDsA=
=aRBh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:27:52 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil,
pleasant, and sympathetic to cyclists and cycling.

[snip]

uk.rec.cycling will remain as an unmoderated alternative; articles
which are unsympathetic to cycling (for example, vehement opposition
to cycling or cyclists, and full and frank discussions of transport
policy) may be posted there or to other unmoderated groups in uk.*.

I am uncomfortable with "sympathetic to cyclists and cycling" and
"full and frank discussions of transport policy [belong elsewhere]".
This charter is just too cosy - it should permit posting by those who
are unsympathetic to cycling and cyclists, provided they remain civil
and coherent.

As it stands, someone who thinks cyclists are a nuisance and wants to
discuss this view, even if they remain interesting, coherent, civil
and so on cannot post to the group. This is a bad thing, imo.

Suggesting that you can't have full and frank discussion on a
particular topic in the group is also a bad thing, for basically the
same reason - it's too cosy.

This charter reads like "anyone can post, as long as they agree with
this list of moderators". If that's what you want, why not set up a
mailing t=list for the dozen of you?

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

On 01 Jun 2009 18:46:26 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

snip


This charter reads like "anyone can post, as long as they agree with
this list of moderators". If that's what you want, why not set up a
mailing t=list for the dozen of you?

regards, Ian SMith


I think that you have put your finger on exactly the intentions of the
proposed group.



--

The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced
is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.
Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

Quoting Ian Smith :
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:27:52 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
uk.rec.cycling will remain as an unmoderated alternative; articles
which are unsympathetic to cycling (for example, vehement opposition
to cycling or cyclists, and full and frank discussions of transport
policy) may be posted there or to other unmoderated groups in uk.*.
As it stands, someone who thinks cyclists are a nuisance and wants to
discuss this view, even if they remain interesting, coherent, civil
and so on cannot post to the group. This is a bad thing, imo.

They cannot if they are also engaging in "vehement opposition".

Can you remember any occasion on which someone on urc has been vehemently
opposed to cycling or cyclists and also interesting, coherent, civil and
so on? Who was it?

This seems like a bit of an edge case, especially given that uk.rantsport
exists.
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, June.

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:27:52 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

[...snip...]

CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
in the UK. Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
other forms of cycling are all on-topic.

Cycle touring outside the UK?
Cycle facilities beyond the UK?

[...snip...]

Initial Moderators:

Alan Braggins
Andy Leighton
Danny Colyer
David Damerell
Ian Jackson
Martin Dann
Nigel Cliffe
Peter Clinch
Peter Fox
Roger Thorpe
Simon Brooke

I hope they are a representative sample of cyclists, either British or
living in the UK.

Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do.

[...snip...]

Ian Jackson wrote:

Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil,
pleasant,

Those moderation ideals I agree with.

and sympathetic to cyclists and cycling.

That one is IMO a step too far. I would suggest that *if* this group is
to be created then the moderation policy should more closely match that
of uk.legal.moderated, in requiring civility but not agreement.


I say "if" because after the latest performance I'm still convinced that
both sides of the argument are acting like children and need their heads
banging together. I'm also convinced that there are better ways of
achieving the ends, as uk.business.agrculture proved. Killfiling or
simply ignoring the trolls does away with them.

Ian Smith wrote:

This charter reads like "anyone can post, as long as they agree with
this list of moderators". If that's what you want, why not set up a
mailing t=list for the dozen of you?

I agree. If the news group is to work it has to work for more than a
clique of individuals.

Tom Crispin wrote:

Initial Moderators:

Alan Braggins
Andy Leighton
Danny Colyer
David Damerell
Ian Jackson
Martin Dann
Nigel Cliffe
Peter Clinch
Peter Fox
Roger Thorpe
Simon Brooke

I hope they are a representative sample of cyclists, either British or
living in the UK.

Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do.

Ridiculous and unacceptable. A moderator does not need to be a cyclist.
Not for any group. I don't think the question should have been asked and
I certainly don't think that it should be answered.

If the uk.rec.cycling group want to go in the direction that you are
suggesting then they would be better advised to start a web forum.

David Damerell wrote:

This seems like a bit of an edge case, especially given that uk.rantsport
exists.

Maybe, and it's a bit of a long shot I know. But maybe if you, and the
rest of the uk.rec.cycling regulars could wind your horns in, be a
little less pig-headed and resist your desire to be offensive to
everyone who doesn't ride a bicycle then you wouldn't have any need of a
moderated group at all.

If you want to be evangelical found a church of the bicycle.

On 01 Jun 2009 18:46:26 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

I am uncomfortable with "sympathetic to cyclists and cycling" and
"full and frank discussions of transport policy [belong elsewhere]".
This charter is just too cosy - it should permit posting by those who
are unsympathetic to cycling and cyclists, provided they remain civil
and coherent.

There's a form of words used on Wikipedia which may work: "topics
related to cycling in the uk, broadly defined." Trolling can be
handled by exceptions against hate speech, pointless repetitious
diatribes, personal attacks, harassment and other conduct identified
as exceptionally objectionable by the group.

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.