Nuxx:0a714037-d808-4453-ba70-859ee6e9618b@r10g2000yqa.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!r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <0a714037-d808-4453-ba70-859ee6e9618b@r10g2000yqa.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 04:40:49 -0700 (PDT) References: <55f445ldk632fvtt13d12qj8tp9h3sdho1@4ax.com>     Lines: 29 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: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246189249 26596 127.0.0.1 (28 Jun 2009 11:40:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:40:49 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r10g2000yqa.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: 2824 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:54278 uk.rec.cycling:5818

On Jun 28, 12:25=A0pm, Marc  wrote: > Ian Jackson wrote: > > In article <00b6ec37-9d8a-4e28-aadc-10288123c...@l12g2000yqo.googlegrou= ps.com>, > > Simon Brooke =A0 wrote: > >> If the moderator at the time judges it's unsuitable, it > >> gets blocked. End of story. There isn't time for each moderation > >> discussion to be appealed up to the House of Lords. > > > The proposed moderation policy does provide for decisions of > > individual moderators to be appealed to the whole moderation panel. =A0= I > > think this must have slipped your mind in the heat of the discussion. > > > Obviously there is potential for abuse here but I think the moderators > > will be able to work out a lightweight process where questionable > > decisions can be revisited, > > Good! > > Can we see it?

You're going to get yourself branded a "troll" if you carry on with the awkward questions. Of course we can't see the process. What potential for moderator bias and censorship would there be then? There's got to be a way of automatically dismissing appeals by "trolls" (those who have the wrong opinions and/or ask awkward questions) without having to follow any particular set process...that would be far too fair.