Nuxx:MPG.2677718cfd8fb307989777@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!xlned.com!feeder5.xlned.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!192.87.166.28.MISMATCH!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: urc and urcm; this be skewed stats territory, do not read if you are of a gentle nature Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 22:14:24 +0100 References: <0a73e131-b7b1-4175-8b5d-d56b00a6ae4e@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <871rbrFf6sU2@mid.individual.net>        <873q5uF5oqU14@mid.individual.net> <26fp065jkcu2b8kq6hdbrvslci9deonvm5@4ax.com> <8742vsF5oqU18@mid.individual.net> Lines: 42 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100607-1, 07/06/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: eb665c40.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=@8::Bk^6iB7f0PeGg]Xii?0g@SS;SF6n7ogMo?Vo4ZT7>ol\Z[TVBh^8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 4175 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:31141

In article <8742vsF5oqU18@mid.individual.net>, stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com says... > > Yes, but, Usenet doesn't work the way Usenet is supposed to work, which > is why it is dying: users are leaving it in droves, preferring the more > policed discussions provided by web fora. I can't help feeling it is > worth, as an experiment on whether Usenet can be saved, trying to provide > areas of Usenet which have some degree of policing - enough so that the > sane and valuable contributors are not driven away by the rest.

"some degree"? I would say that URCM is more heavily policed than any web forum I've ever posted on, by far. The forums I've posted on (some of which have covered very controversial subjects) basically allow all posts and then only delete posts and/or ban users if it's absolutely necessary. It's done reluctantly and as a last resort.

Whereas you (plural) scrutinise all posts which aren't by a chosen few who can be trusted to post the right opinions, and very frequently reject posts for "reasons" which are incredibly trivial, and which would never have been used in the forums I'm thinking of. Now obviously you can't retrospectively delete usenet posts in the same way that you can forum posts, which means that there must be more upfront scrutiny, but I still think that (particularly for posts by those who think the "wrong" things) there is a heavy presumption towards rejection if in any doubt whatsoever. Unfortunately at least some of the URCM moderators seem to derive pleasure and satisfaction from rejecting posts from their opponents (Clinch's "I'm just fed up with you" shows the mindset: rejection is a weapon as far as he's concerned), and you can't think that's right.

Basically, if web forums on controversial subjects can function while having fewer than one post a month forcibly deleted, as I have frequently seen, then there is no way that URCM posts should be getting rejected *anywhere near* as often as there are. There really needs to be a step change in attitude from some of the moderators: rejection should be seen not as a routine tool, or a costless way of gagging your opponents, or something that's necessary to "show who's boss"...it should be a last resort. It should be such that things would be mostly much the same if rejection wasn't even an option. Instead it is being used as *the* way of shaping the group, and that's not going to help anyone in the long run, least of all those who want a "proper cycling group".