Nuxx:C7a45216-ddce-4853-9451-c5c85a510665@s20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!s20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Pre-RFD: uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 14:51:23 -0700 (PDT) References: <2lc*4xWHs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>      Lines: 58 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1243374684 3860 127.0.0.1 (26 May 2009 21:51:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 21:51:24 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: s20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4321 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:704439

On May 26, 6:19=A0pm, Marc  wrote: > spindrift wrote: > > You think? > > I do. > > > > > What have I posted that justifies that please? > > I don't have any reference to hand( I delete posts as a I read them, and > you have been killfiled for months) but your repeated postings of news > about non-cycling traffic events/offences for example. > To be honest I'm not at all keen on any sort of "moderation", but I > would =A0imagine that many of those that clamour for "them" to be shut > up/out would also be clamoured against( Grammar?) by others.

And why not? Surely just because someone is a cycling advocate (or, just as likely, a car-hater pretending to be a cycling advocate), that shouldn't mean that they don't have to obey the rules the same as anyone else?

> Want to put money on the nuxx thing, the judith thing and the new bod > thing all wanting to see Guy censored?

But Chapman *does* post plenty of unacceptable stuff. He's infamous for it. It'll be interesting to see how the moderators find an excuse to ban someone for (e.g.) saying that speed cameras make things more dangerous for cyclists, while *not* banning Chapman for calling them a "trolling fuckwit".

Of course, it would be nice to think that in that case, Chapman would be banned and the OP wouldn't, but I don't think anyone really thinks the moderation panel will be truly unbiased, especially with this nonsense about being "sympathetic to cycling" (which is deliberately vague so that it can be interpreted in whatever way the moderators feel like). Classic example above: derogatory references to "the new Bod thing", even though Bod has been careful to be polite, keep it on- topic, etc. It's simply his *opinions* that are objected to...all the normal excuses for objecting to such opinions (e.g. "off-topic", "abusive", "not relevant to the thread concerned", etc) have been shown to be just that, as if *anyone* on either "side" really thought otherwise.

I strongly object to Chapman (aka "Just zis Guy, you know?") being a moderator. He has extensive form for calling people "trolls" and worse simply for disagreeing with him, and abusing administrator tools on Wikipedia. But even if he isn't, with Ian Jackson in charge, the whole thing's doomed to failure. Even without him, it would still be doomed to failure.

uk.rec.cycling.moderated will simply result in endless controversy about moderation policy, with the result that all but the most intolerant of others' opinions will simply give up and realise that it's much easier to post to uk.rec.cycling after all. But this proposal will have a positive effect: at least there will be no more whinging about "off-topic" and "trolling" posts in uk.rec.cycling. At least there *shouldn't* be....