Nuxx:309e9393-c8d1-4a3b-8f86-5dab443f4b15@h11g2000yqb.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!h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <309e9393-c8d1-4a3b-8f86-5dab443f4b15@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Ian Jackson: Why Alan Braggins as a "Moderator"? Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 41 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.153.43.239 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246507247 15652 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2009 04:00:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 04:00:47 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.153.43.239; 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: 3535 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:830758

Ian Jackson: Please state why you have selected Alan Braggins as a "moderator" of URCM, despite numerous objections (even from URC "regulars"), and despite the fact that his behaviour (e.g. forging posts, "troll"-baiting, intolerance of those with whom he disagrees, all of which have happened recently) clearly makes him a bad choice?

Did you choose him because he's a personal friend of yours and he uses your server? Would you still have chosen him had he not been a friend of yours and/or disagreed with you about helmets, anti-motorist measures etc? Do you think the list of moderators should be a bunch of people who are your friends and who agree with you about most things, or do you think it should comprise people who aren't necessarily your mates, have a diverse range of opinions and intend to moderate impartially according to whether people have broken the rules rather than what they think about things? I guess the answer to that depends upon why the new group's really being proposed.

Despite your heavily sarcastic and oh-so-witty protestations to the contrary, you have not properly explained why you selected some moderators and not others. Please list each proposed "moderator" and your reasons for selecting them. Why have you selected Peter Clinch when he's not even bothering to contribute to this discussion, and is blatantly unsuitable anyway? Why have you selected Simon Brooke when he has gone on record as saying that he doesn't intend to "moderate" fairly? Is that all part of the plan (i.e. moderating fairly has nothing to do with it, as this whole thing is just an exercise in getting rid of people who have certain opinions)? Would you have selected JNugent, Simon Mason or Tom Crispin had they volunteered themselves? If not, why not?

Finally, do you think it is appropriate for you, as the proponent of a "moderated" group who should surely be leading by example, to call your opponents names like "troll" just because you disagree with them? (What's that? "I don't"?  Then please list all speed camera opponents on URC who you don't think are "trolls" and haven't killfiled.  What's that?  "There aren't any"?  Well there's a coincidence.)

Can't reply without losing face? Better not reply at all then, and hope people believe that you just happened to re-killfile me just before you would have read this post.