Nuxx:Ccfcba45-2d53-4854-a3f2-76bd6bbe4e84@k8g2000yqn.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!k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 03:29:34 -0700 (PDT) References:  <31ca6efe-3fa3-4a1a-9514-0604f7c18709@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <80h*vIZKs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>       Lines: 36 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.132.160.236 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246703374 17632 127.0.0.1 (4 Jul 2009 10:29:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 10:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.132.160.236; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3423 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:55410 uk.rec.cycling:6684

On Jul 4, 11:12=A0am, Andy Leighton  wrote: > On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:17:33 +0100, > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Tom Crispin  wrote: > > > > It seems to me that a lot of discussion has gone on, by the > > moderators, away from the RFD to shape moderation policy. > > I've been on holiday and obviously haven't posted for a few weeks. =A0But > moderation policy is initially shaped and formed by the moderation > panel. =A0Are you surprised it is discussed elsewhere - we need to form > our opinions of how policy will be implemented and how we will deal > with certain issues when they crop up.

But what exactly would you legitimately need to discuss that couldn't, at this stage at least, be discussed in a public thread? Please give some examples.

Can you confirm that there has been no discussion about censoring certain people or certain points of view? Can you confirm that there are no hidden agendas behind the proposal?

> > Would I be consored for that!? > > Consored? =A0Really this whole censored thing is frankly baffling. =A0 > People have been ranting on about moderation =3D=3D censorship for > the past 30 years (or nearly that). =A0It isn't and has never been.

I agree that moderation !=3D censorship. But what is being proposed is not moderation: it's censorship (dressed up as moderation), of particular points of view that some people don't want to read because they don't want them to be true but they can't refute them, hence they are fighting tooth and nail to stop them being expressed (rather than just accepting the way things are). Apart from saying a lot about the character of such people, the proposal is therefore a deception, and should be voted against on principle.