Nuxx:4272ec0f-77da-4fcf-97b4-06337628ed04@o20g2000yqk.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!o20g2000yqk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4272ec0f-77da-4fcf-97b4-06337628ed04@o20g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM - abuse of moderation power Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:37:29 -0700 (PDT) References: <8vs35aFuv9U1@mid.individual.net> <8vs9dqFdjnU1@mid.individual.net>   <20110404125604.289267be@gododdin.internal.journeyman.cc> <8vts98F804U1@mid.individual.net> <6OSdncYfyoRjXQTQnZ2dnUVZ8i-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>   <9YO6hDYBbfmNFwob@fishcake.eternal-september.org> <20110404180620.4479c094@bluemoon> Lines: 23 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 1301938649 28551 127.0.0.1 (4 Apr 2011 17:37:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:37:29 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o20g2000yqk.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: 2793 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:40093

On Apr 4, 6:06=A0pm, Rob Morley  wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:50:09 +0100 > > Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote: > > Charter modifications though go via RFD ;) A little slack in the > > moderators decisions on policy would, I suspect, cater for the large > > majority in seeing the mods are being reasonable if can be > > consistently reasonable (though no-one obviously expects [or should > > expect] 100%). > > > I suspect a lot of the URCM "here's another" would die a death in > > terms of others agreeing with - it would be nice if URCM could > > descend to the level of, say, ULM discussions in here. > > That looks like proper English, but I don't seem to be able to extract > as much meaning as I would like.

I read it as "A little slack in the moderators' decisions on policy would mean that the large majority saw those decisions as reasonable, even if not 100% consistent. I suspect a lot of the URCM 'Here's another unfair rejection' threads would die a death, or at least get little support/agreement.  If would be nice if the amount of URCM- related discussion on UNNM were no more than the amount that ULM gets."