A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group

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) and the group has largely been taken over
by motoring/anti-cycling trolls and responses to them, and the amount
of discussion about cycling now forms quite a small part of what goes
on here. Furthermore discussion from the trolls is astonishingly full
of really vile personal abuse of other posters. Additionally a cycling
newsgroup is somewhere posters should be allowed (despite what the non-
cycling trolls say) to let off steam about the phenomenon (motorists
and other motorised road traffic) that most affects the pleasurabilty/
safety of their chosen activity. They should also be able to discuss
measures that they think would improve their lives. Yet every time
they do, they get met by a torrent of abuse/its or some counter
argument about why they should just either stop cycling or just put up
with the situation. Imagine if people did the same to people who have
been burgled/mugged. No wonder people have dropped out.

Some posters advocate the use of kill-files. The main drawback of this
is that it doesn't really solve the problem in general. Although you
may not see the posts you don't want to see, it doesn't stop the group
being overwhelmed with irrelevant/nasty postings so other people can
be put off the group. Additionally not everyone uses a news reader
with a kill-file facility, or they don't have the technical expertise,
or willingness to keep updating it to keep up with new trolls/nym-
shifts etc. Additionally it is very hard for non-troll (i.e. pro-
cycling) users of this newsgroup not to get drawn into troll-wresting/
winding up even though on the whole we know it is pointless and
probably only makes the problem worse. I myself have been guilty of
this recently.

So what can be done?

A) One response would be to moderate urc. Although this would probably
sort the problem for the majority there are disadvantages to this:

1) not every one wants urc to be moderated
2) some people actually enjoy engaging with the trolls (actually it
can be quite fun winding them up, but it does damage the news group)
3) in addition to the people who don’t like moderation on principle,
there are possibly so many motoring trolls (and I’m sure the ones
there are could call on others from certain transport related groups,
and/or adopt multiple identities) that I’m not sure it would be easy
to get a moderation call through

B) An alternative response is to just start up an alternative
moderated news-group. This however runs the risk of splitting the
cycling community into those on one group and those on another

So is there some way of leaving urc unmoderated while still somehow
enabling people who want to to essentially see a moderated version?

I think it would be not too hard to write a program that would run on
an appropriate server that did the following:

1) read in all messages posted to urc
2) run these through a filter which passed some, kill-filed others,
and passed some through to human moderator (note this does not affect
anyone's view of urc itself)
3) sent the messages passed either by the filter or the human
moderator through to another new news group
4) Anything posted directly to this new group would also go through
the same filtering/moderation process
5) Anything that gets through this moderation/filtering process would
also be sent automatically to urc, unless it originated there (since
it would already be there!)

In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version of
urc. Those who don’t want any moderation, or don’t like the way the
moderator(s) do their job could just stay on urc as now - they would
see everything posted to urc just as now, and urc would function just
as now. Other people can switch back and forth between the groups as
they see fit. Even posts to the new group would be seen on urc.
However those who preferred to see a more cycling related newsgroup
would just read the alternative group, knowing that actually anyone on
urc would still see their posts.

Possibly a scheme of multiple moderators could lessen the burden on
the moderator, although an automated "robo-moderator" would help.
Multiple moderators would also lessen concerns about who was in
charge, although as stated above anyone unhappy with this can just
switch back to urc and not miss anything (just gain lots of trolling!)


My hope would be that this could satisfy everyone (except people whose
only real aim in life is to disrupt urc as a cycling newsgroup).
Before investing any time in trying to set something like this up I
would be interested in other people’s views.

Rudi

PS On a technical note I believe there are Python libraries that make
dealing with NNTP protocols easy, and there are automated moderator
systems like this one

http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/

which should make all this possible reasonably easily.

If there is interest I will have a go, or if I find time is short I
may set it up as a possible inal year project for our undergradiates.
It would make a very good project! But that way it would take rather
longer to get going (about a year)


My hope would be that this could satisfy everyone (except people whose
only real aim in life is to disrupt urc as a cycling newsgroup).
Before investing any time in trying to set something like this up I
would be interested in other people’s views.

Rudi

PS On a technical note I believe there are Python libraries that make
dealing with NNTP protocols easy, and there are automated moderator
systems like this one

http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/

which should make all this possible reasonably easily.

If there is interest I will have a go, or if I find time is short I
may set it up as a possible inal year project for our undergradiates.
It would make a very good project! But that way it would take rather
longer to get going (about a year)

I, for one would like my cycling newsgroup back please. Count me as
interested.

J

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!!

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!!

The only reason that doesn't happen is because too many people give in to
the trolls and wreckers.

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.

So there can be no simple solution to your problem. Good luck though
with your cycling discussions.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

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.

So there can be no simple solution to your problem. Good luck though
with your cycling discussions.

Doug, you are part of the problem since the vast majority of your posts are
about cars and motoring.

On 8 May, 14:58, "Brimstone" 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.

So there can be no simple solution to your problem. Good luck though
with your cycling discussions.

Doug, you are part of the problem since the vast majority of your posts are
about cars and motoring.

You mislead as usual. They are mainly about the impact of mass car
use on peds and cyclists.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".

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.

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.
He's right Doug. What you do here will not advance the cause at all
because you're talking to cyclists on one hand and people that you've
antagonised and irritated for a number of years on the other. Have a
long, hard look and see if you've had a positive effect on the culture
of this group and then make up your mind what you will do about it. I
don't need to tell Judith or Nuxx that I think they are a destructive
influence, but I feel the need to tell you because, when all is said and
done I think that your heart is in the right place. Just give the
polemic a rest please.

"I want sprocket-talk and I want it NOW!"

Roger Thorpe

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.

I think many people (not Ian Jackson, although I still think it offers
benefits over just having a separate moderated group) are
misunderstanding my proposal. I am not proposing to moderate urc. I
would leave it exactly as it is now. Anyone posting to urc would have
their messages appear on urc as now, and anyone replying to posts on
urc would be able to just as now. What i am proposing is to have a new
news group which *automatically* gets copies of the posts which appear
on urc and filters them so that the new news group only displays a
subset of the messages which are on urc. The new news group can also
be posted to directly but these messages would a) go through the
filtering mechanism before being made publicly available on the new
group
b) be posted to urc.

So at all times the new group would have a filtered (read moderated)
subset of the messages on urc.

This should not lead to fragmentation of the cycling community since
urc readers would see *all* the messages that readers of the new group
see. Readers of the new group would see a selected subset. If they get
concerned that they might be missing something they can always read
urc.

My hope would be that at least one forum would be free (perhaps not
completely at all times but 99% say) of the kind of pointless time
wasting off-putting stuff that currently makes up, and might well
still continue to make up the content of urc. Furthermore should
something slip through into the new group it could be killed off by
the moderator(s), have new stuff added to kill files, disallowed
posters etc. As I said, if anyone decides they don't like this they
can always go back to urc without losing anything since anything on
the new group would be there too.

I agree that (as far as i know) no-one has done anything like this
before. In fact if the software could be set up to do this I think
quite a number of newsgroups might benefit from it.

Rudi