Nuxx:E9eaf32e-6656-49a1-bfab-29e9ed09f634@y26g2000yqd.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!postnews.google.com!y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: uk.rec.cycling.moderated - RFD withdrawn Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:52:02 -0700 (PDT) References: <1jynbrt.smzlqhskuob5N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> <8v1l14Fp32U3@mid.individual.net>    Lines: 100 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1301071923 8269 127.0.0.1 (25 Mar 2011 16:52:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:52:03 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: y26g2000yqd.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: 6498 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39485

On Mar 25, 1:45=A0pm, "Mr Benn" <%...@iinvalid.com> wrote: > "Geoff Berrow"  wrote in message > > news:ni2po6hmfonn7h09vr6htl8uj4p312dkn4@4ax.com... > > > > > On 25 Mar 2011 10:37:59 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson > >  wrote: > > >>In article <8v1l14Fp3...@mid.individual.net>, > >>Tony Raven =A0 wrote: > >>>No, that you either go for RFD and vote on how you think it should be > >>>moderated or you let the moderators moderate as they see fit within th= e > >>>charter. =A0I don't hold with them doing all the moderating work while= you > >>>sit back and issue a list of demands about how they moderate. > > >>It's good of you to point out how the problems with the approach taken > >>by the gang of four; and it's helpful in general for the more hardline > >>users of urcm to post here to provide a counterbalance to the "let the > >>trolls have their way" faction. > > >>But in this particular case, going by what's being said on the mods' > >>list I don't get the impression that my colleages feel threatened. =A0O= n > >>the contrary, there's no discussion of or reference to the RFD, > >>threats, etc. on the mods' list; we seem to regard the gang of four's > >>antics as irrelevant. > > >>Based on the information we have now, particularly from the straw poll > >>and from what moderates have said here, it seems to me that it's clear > >>that (a) we're doing what the group's users want (insofar as such a > >>diverse group could be said to have a common view) (b) if the gang of > >>four were to force things to a vote they would lose. > > >>So to my mind the bluster in Daniele's message is just a way for the > >>gang of four to save face. > > >>Of course the last thing the wreckers want is a vote convincingly won > >>by the moderators. =A0That would completely take the wind out of their > >>sails. =A0But, as far as the moderators are concerned, I don't think > >>we need that boost to our confidence. =A0So I wouldn't goad the gang of > >>four into a vote, as that's just a lot of work and hassle for no > >>significant benefit. > > > Someone has still not learned when it's best to STFU? > > -- > > Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) > > It's only Usenet, no one dies. > > My opinions, not the committee's, mine. > > Simple RFDswww.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker > > Was that tripe really from Ian Jackson or someone impersonating him?

Well if it was someone impersonating him then never fear, the "moderators" can randomly ban who they *think* it *might* *possibly* have been from URCM.

But no, no-one can do that kind of sheer, bloody-minded arrogance but Jackson himself. He's just confirmed that he will be defiant and unrepentant to the absolute last, and will take no prisoners. Only he knows for sure whether this is a bluff, or whether (as I suspect) he really is stupid enough to think that the possible RFD isn't a threat, even after so many diverse people (who he can conveniently pigeonhole as the "'let the trolls have their way' faction" all he wants) have told him that his tyranny, his extreme control freakery and his insistence on punishing people he doesn't like with unfair "moderation" decisions are absolutely not on.

We all know that Jackson's attitude will not change. He created URCM for very specific reasons which have already been well documented, and for him, if he can't "run" URCM in that way then there's no point in doing it at all. If he can't use URCM to punish and exclude those who disagree with him then it doesn't matter how much it benefits UK cyclists, it's a pointless venture as far as he's concerned. That, together with all the problems that he's caused through such an attitude and his latest unmistakable "up yours" to those who are (in all but one case at least) sincerely trying to improve the newsgroup, is surely enough for any reasonable person to believe that an RFD will be needed sooner or later, as Jackson has absolutely no intention of listening even slightly to the "troll sympathisers": he would rather be forced out than do even one of the things that the "Gang" have asked for, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he went out of his way to create a new "straw poll"-type fiasco in the next few months with the express purpose of goading them and bringing this all to a head.

In the end, I don't think the (few) censorship-loving psycholists would have reacted so bitterly to this latest news unless they were, deep down, worried that the RFD would in fact succeed, and I suppose Jackson doesn't like being given a taste of his own medicine by being held to ransom (he can't be happy that a new moderation platform has been found, and that that probably also severely weakens his "de facto Chief Moderator" position within the current "moderators"). It'll be interesting to see when exactly we do finally get "the" RFD, and what triggers it, but surely Jackson's outburst of barely-suppressed tyrannical rage above removes the last remaining doubt that it *will* happen.