Nuxx:Eef104c8-adcc-45b7-b93a-cc6812a6856f@t21g2000yqi.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!t21g2000yqi.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: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT) References:    <6b304519emjbpdlcsmgardq8nq4d8s5qf4@4ax.com>     Lines: 72 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: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246393253 12087 127.0.0.1 (30 Jun 2009 20:20:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: t21g2000yqi.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: 5003 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:54769 uk.rec.cycling:6205

On Jun 30, 7:52=A0pm, jms  wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:18:16 +0100, Pedt <"\"@ > > > > @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote: > >In message , at 17:37:21 on > >Wed, 24 Jun 2009, jms  wibbled > >>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:58:08 +0100, Pedt <"\"@ > >>@\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote: > > >>>In message <6b304519emjbpdlcsmgardq8nq4d8s5...@4ax.com>, at 00:03:59 o= n > >>>Tue, 23 Jun 2009, jms  wibbled > > >>>>Given the reservations which have been raised about some of the > >>>>proposed moderators - why do you not allow a vote of the moderation > >>>>panel - and allow other people to stand if they wish. > > >>>The normal procedure in uk.* is to vote "no" for creating the group at > >>>the CFV stage (or objection to an FT) if you are unhappy with the list > >>>of proposed moderators in the final RFD. > > >[snip. Don't see what these bits have to do with a purely technical > >post] > > >>I am sorry - but "it is too difficult" =A0is not the answer to =A0why n= ot > >>elect the moderators. > > >"it is too difficult" is not what I said. > > >What I was conveying was that you could go through all the process of > >formally deciding how moderators are elected and then formally electing > >the moderators for a proposed group but, at the end of the day, when the > >RFD for the group finally appears (4-5 months down the line possibly & > >probably longer due to VT availability) then those that don't like the > >elected moderators can still vote "no" when the group creation RFD goes > >to a vote. Therefore it's pointless and a waste of unnc time, posters to > >a group who decide to vote in the preliminaries time, Committee time and > >UKV time. The current procedure, IMO, suffices. > > >The alternative is an RFD with a multi-part vote. This is a bad idea as > >the number of options and votes to be cast depending on what happens > >previously would lead to a humongously sized ballot paper if you are > >voting on a) should the group be created; b) how are the moderators > >elected if so; c) How many moderators for each of the options in b; > >d..whatever) on the possible combinations. UKV could handle it but a > >multi-thousand line CFV with x number of if...then...else...if...then is > >very unlikely to be well received when posted. > > >The normal procedure for an RFD for a moderated group is as I described > >in what you quoted. An RFD stands on the proposal in toto and will > >either succeed or fail on its merits. See Geoff's posts on this subject > >as well. > > The vote could =A0be taken on whether the group is formed or not - > irrespective of moderators. > > In parallel - calls can be made for proposed moderators - so at the > time of the vote - or shortly after - =A0the possible moderators will be > known. > > If the group goes ahead - allow 5 further days for the vote for mods - > transferable vote.

Shit, that's a great idea. Now those who are desperate to railroad through clique members as moderators are going to have to work really hard to come up with an excuse as to why that's "not possible". Why do you have to keep making things so difficult for The Deceivers by coming up with awkward facts? Can't you just stop it and go away, you "troll"?