Nuxx:B92a08c2-99f1-48c8-8f4e-d05c443133fd@e9g2000vbi.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!e9g2000vbi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM - worrying developments? Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:04:34 -0800 (PST) References: <8qo5k0Fb54U1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 34 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1296497075 29374 127.0.0.1 (31 Jan 2011 18:04:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:04:35 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e9g2000vbi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.00,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2662 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:36578

On Jan 31, 4:20=A0pm, Matt B  wrote: > The moderation of URCM certainly seems to have improved since Christmas.

The only way was up.

> =A0 Threads are being allowed to develop much more than they once were, > and a greater spectrum of views and interpretations of data are > certainly being allowed through in posts.

I'll take your word for it. But I think most of us have realised that things won't improve properly and lastingly without intervention.

> However, what I've noticed in the last few days, and since the backlash > against the increase again in the number of incorrect "repetition" > rejections occurring, and what worries me slightly; is that personal > attacks (some more subtle than others) are now also apparently being > waved through unchallenged, and particularly against contributors who > have submitted some of the aforementioned types of posts that would > previously have been incorrectly rejected.

That's nothing new:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling.moderated/msg/6ad73266fa6cc5d= 0

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling.moderated/msg/61c889daaf0d427= a

And when it happens then any attempts at defending oneself are rejected. If the moderators want a policy of "Personal attacks against posters with unfashionable opinions are OK" then they should be explicit about that, instead of laughably and dishonestly maintaining that all personal attacks are disallowed and everyone is treated the same.