A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group

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.



* 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.


* 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.



* 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.



* 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.


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


"Objectively"?


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.

Marc wrote:

1 is

2 Dugh means as one

3 Doug regards Dugh as personal abuse.

No no no, that's Duhg *Bollen* !! 'Our' Duhg doesn't mind being called
Duhg. I can see why you got confused, though, what with both of them
sharing the same house, computer, IP address, etc...

On May 8, 10:45*pm, wrote:
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.

We saw off one tosser, and he could make posts in English.

Francis

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, 14:58, "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.

Exactly, they're about cars etc.

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"?

The second and third, because Doug uses the second as abuse towards other
people and the third is a phrase that would never be used by reasonable
people. For the avoidance of doubt, the first is a statement of fact.

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

"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

So you agree with me.

2 Dugh means as one

I think that doesn't necessarily make it one, but more significantly
you didn't specify that Doug made the posting, or that the poster
intended it to be so. So, what you are saying is that it depends on
context - so you agree with me.

3 Doug regards Dugh as personal abuse.

You did not specify that the post was directed at Doug. The
recipient's opinion does not necessarily trump all other
considerations.

So, what you seem to be saying is that I cannot be moderator because
you agree with me exactly on two thirds of decisions, and on the
remaining third you had in mind a situation you did not describe.

Besides which, I have no intention or desire to be moderator. It is a
thankless task and a role I consider to be unnecessary.

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

On Sat, 9 May 2009, Brimstone wrote:
Marc wrote:

"Doug you are moron!"

For the avoidance of doubt, the first is a statement of fact.

That does not prevent it being abuse.

If you are male, were I to say "Brimstone is a ******" it would almost
certainly be literally and precisely true. It is also personal abuse.

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

Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2009, Brimstone wrote:
Marc wrote:

"Doug you are moron!"

For the avoidance of doubt, the first is a statement of fact.

That does not prevent it being abuse.

It does put it into context though.


If you are male, were I to say "Brimstone is a ******" it would almost
certainly be literally and precisely true. It is also personal abuse.

FYI females masturbate.

On Sat, 9 May 2009, Brimstone wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:

If you are male, were I to say "Brimstone is a ******" it would almost
certainly be literally and precisely true. It is also personal abuse.

FYI females masturbate.

Yes, but generally reckoned that a lower percentage does so regularly
(so it would be less certainly true), and it's less commonly termed
"wank". For example, the Oxford dictionary has "masturbation, esp by
a boy or a man" for 'wank' and "A person, esp a boy or man, who
masturbates" for '******'. So I remain satisfied that my comment is
true and appropriate.

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