Nuxx:0d5f34e7-783d-44a2-9975-d6dd921377e5@x17g2000yqd.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!x17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <0d5f34e7-783d-44a2-9975-d6dd921377e5@x17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Alas, poor Usenet (was Re: 2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup 	uk.rec.cycling.moderated) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:20:25 -0700 (PDT) References: <4af74073-3326-43b4-9ebc-91cbd645ae8e@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com><55f445ldk632fvtt13d12qj8tp9h3sdho1@4ax.com>  <83q1m.48458$OO7.960@text.news.virginmedia.com> <5ff84f45-f140-4d92-a6c8-e633fb24963f@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> Lines: 68 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.160.138.240 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246188027 22802 127.0.0.1 (28 Jun 2009 11:20:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: x17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.160.138.240; 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: 5498 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:54261 uk.rec.cycling:5804

On Jun 27, 4:53 pm, Simon Brooke  wrote: > > Similarly, some people > clearly come to u.r.c solely and explicitly to insult, taunt or > threaten cyclists, rather than to take any constructive part in > discussion.

How many times do I have to say it? I don't have a problem with cyclists. I know and like many cyclists. What I *do* have a problem with is car-hating zealots who use "cycling advocacy" as a front for their car-hating because they're too cowardly to admit what they're really up to. They are making things harder for real cyclists by advocating anti-car measures which make things *more dangerous* for cyclists, and so every real cyclist should be just as against them as I am.

It's not my fault if people either can't, or won't, see that, but pretending that people like me are "trolls" or here to "threaten cyclists" (because that's easier than accepting the truth) won't help this group one little bit.

> I learned about Michael Jackson's death on a cycling web forum. Was it > on topic? Not in the least. Was it objectionable? Not in the least. A > well-known member of that forum was taking to his friends in their > accustomed social space. There is no reason to object to people who > are established members of a community wandering briefly off-topic, > and moderation policy should not seek to prevent that.

Of course that should be allowed, but really there's no problem in URC with off-topic posts. What there is a problem with is people like Chapman calling on-topic posts off-topic because they contain opinions which they disagree with, but know they can't argue with. Anyone who deliberately abuses the off-topic rules in such a way should be dealt with accordingly in URCM (or at least would be if the whole thing wasn't just an exercise in censorship).

> What I'm suggesting is that if they > do so in language which would cause an ordinary landlord in an > ordinary pub to sling them out of the door, then the moderators, > taking on the role of the ordinary landlord, should sling them out the > door.

And that applies to Chapman and co as much as it does to anyone else.

I don't think URCM is going to be the haven of censorship of nasty true unarguable awkward facts that so many are hoping it will be. If moderation is fair and impartial, the nasty true facts will still be let through, and Chapman will eventually be de-whitelisted for saying "Fuck off, troll" or similar once too often when such true facts are posted. If moderation is unfair, the group will very quickly become extremely unpopular, there will be endless (justified) complaints about moderator bias, and the group will in no way ever be like the "old URC".

The best way forward is for people to grow up, accept that if something's true then someone has a perfect right to post it, get rid of the most malicious, poisonous car-haters (Chapman and Spindrift), and stop calling people who they purport to disagree with "trolls" when they know they're not. *That* is the best way to get the "old URC" back, even if it will cause short-term pain for some as they are forced to accept the way things are.

How anyone thinks they'll get the "old URC" back by, err, abandoning the old URC and bringing in something completely new ("moderation") is beyond me. As with "speed cameras save lives", those people are kidding themselves that something's the case simply because they would like it to be. Who does such an attitude help in the long run? Precisely no-one. Time to get real.