Nuxx:Af0b688b-b966-4e62-aa8f-8f4b7be2b7b2@c26g2000vbq.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!c26g2000vbq.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: To Any URCM Moderators Who Object to the Current Madness... Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 34 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1301678324 5562 127.0.0.1 (1 Apr 2011 17:18:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:18:44 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: c26g2000vbq.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3243 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39824

I think it would be wise for any current URCM moderators who disagree with the more unpopular decisions we've all endured, e.g. the bans, the treatment of Andy Crawford/Micky Frost, the straw poll, etc to make it known now so that they can be retained as moderators of the new URCM once the inevitable RFD goes through. It would be preferable if they did this publicly, but if they're reluctant to do that (which would be understandable), then they should email D.M. Procida or someone else connected to the forthcoming RFD, or if they don't want to do that, then someone "neutral" and trusted like Geoff Berrow or Tony Evans.

I just think it's important that any of the current moderators who object to the nastiness perpetrated by Jackson and co make it clear now, because once the RFD is in place, it may be too late for them to do so without people suspecting that they're "just saying that now" because they want to continue as moderators. Obviously if the likes of Jackson/Damerell/Braggins made such statements then they would have to be taken with a pinch of salt even if they were made now, but with people like Eleanor Blair it would be a different story, and I think such people should be given an opportunity to distance themselves from the unpleasantness exhibited by their co-moderators.

If Eleanor Blair (for example) is indeed unhappy with the way the other "moderators" are behaving, then I don't see why she should be dragged down with them simply because she's chosen to remain as a moderator (and presumably done as much as she reasonably can to oppose the incorrect decisions). But I think she and any similar-minded moderators need to make their stances clear to "someone" sooner rather than later, so that there's a clear record of their objection. I suppose it also wouldn't hurt for unrepentant "moderators" to make statements along the lines of "I fully support the bans/straw polls/ mistreatment of Andy Crawford/Micky Frost/Matt B/Tom Crispin, and I'm not remotely sorry, and I'm not going to change the way I moderate, so if you don't like it then fuck you"....