Nuxx:Bb337117-20c9-4d59-9ecd-43c6ab8f6af6@e20g2000vbc.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!e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Pre-RFD: uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 01:42:01 -0700 (PDT) References: <2lc*4xWHs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <784aj1F1j3r9uU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 77 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1243413722 29422 127.0.0.1 (27 May 2009 08:42:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:42:02 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 5203 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:704522

On May 27, 9:06=A0am, Matt B  wrote: > Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Also, we need some moderators. =A0If you would like to put yourself > > forward, or suggest someone else, please post here in this thread. > > If you have problems with potential moderators, feel free also to > > email me privately if you prefer. > > I am fundamentally opposed to moderation or censorship of any kind on a > public forum. =A0It will lead to the formation and further consolidation > of in-bred views which is already a very serious weakness in urc.

It very much is, yes: quite possibly the most serious weakness in fact. This is therefore completely the wrong "solution". "Isn't the medicine working? Let's double the dose." After all, that's the approach behind the proliferation of speed cameras and ever-lowering speed limits....

> > I think we should be looking for a panel of around six moderators. > > I'm willing to volunteer. =A0If you think I'd be a bad choice, please > > say so here or privately. > > I think that those who have openly claimed to have used kill-files in > the past as a means of attempting to suppress the views and opinions of > those with whom they disagree should be automatically debarred from > becoming moderators.

Strongly agreed again, and indeed I have said exactly the same thing about Jackson elsewhere in this thread. The fact that he refuses to read the points of view of those with whom he disagrees even in this thread further shows that he is not the right person to be leading, moderating, hosting or playing any other part in the creation of the new group.

> > Note that I have many of the trolls firmly killfiled. =A0 > > Ah. =A0We need an objective definition of "troll" too. =A0This shouldn't > include those who merely question and challenge long-held prejudices and > =A0 preconceptions.

Strongly agreed again. That doesn't mean that we'll *get* an objective definition of "troll", seeing as the word has become so consistently misused round these parts. But hopefully external influences will force a sufficient amount of balance and fairness such that this will happen. In the end, it will help uk.rec.cycling.moderated, and the only people who will be disadvantaged by it are the ones who wish to censor opposing POVs.

> > This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling > > in the UK. =A0Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and > > other forms of cycling are all on-topic. > > > Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil, > > pleasant, and sympathetic to cyclists and cycling. > > Strongly disagree. =A0Sympathetic to "cycling" - yes, but "cyclists" > should not be included in that clause. =A0We cannot rule-out criticising > individual cyclists and their views in favour of supporting cycling in > general. =A0There are many cyclists with whom I have no sympathy at all > (some post here), but I am one of the strongest sympathisers of cycling > as a whole.

Again, sounds sensible, although as we know, the whole "sympathetic to cyclists and cycling" bit has just been added as a deliberately vague rule which can be used to get rid of people with POVs that the moderators disagree with, while leaving in others. (I don't think Jackson wants to get rid of those who criticise individual cyclists...unless they're on the wrong "side".)

It doesn't matter how sympathetic you *actually* are to cycling, you will be told that you are unsympathetic to it simply because you don't toe the party line on speed cameras et al. The "sympathetic" clause gives them an excuse (albeit a very poor one) to get rid of the person who claims that speed cameras are dangerous to cyclists, while not getting rid of Chapman for calling them a "trolling fuckwit who just wants to drive at whatever speed they like and doesn't care if cyclists are killed or injured as a result".