Nuxx:F915c104-8be9-4a91-bcee-50b931cc0204@r4g2000vbq.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!r4g2000vbq.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:45:11 -0800 (PST) References: <4_ydnZpOJKf8keXQnZ2dnUVZ8jKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <1b69b10d-4e22-4938-8067-da805b1a0fb7@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>  <143b0757-6529-4992-ba89-f3bbe3aa2fee@s18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>    <74d5df0d-37f8-43a7-a7d9-b5b6c6ec7934@a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> <546405783321530292.588814%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.individual.net>  <1jxyu27.15xikt51j2a3qcN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> <6be1e9bb-d1c1-4a14-a63c-aa6e91268645@r17g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> <20110311202518.1f076fe3@bluemoon> Lines: 60 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 1299973512 16411 127.0.0.1 (12 Mar 2011 23:45:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 23:45:12 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r4g2000vbq.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4899 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38849

On Mar 11, 8:25=A0pm, Rob Morley  wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:03:02 -0800 (PST) > > Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > You're right. =A0I should just not respond to "Trollsworth LeTrole"'s > > pathetic attempts at antagonism. =A0I'll endeavour not to do so. > > I must have missed those.

Yes, you must have. (Just because he may not have named me explicitly it doesn't mean that he wasn't very obviously referring to me. He's done it several times lately with no provocation, and unlike you, he's not just joking, he's trying to be genuinely unpleasant.  Still, as we're always being told, not responding is the best way to deal with trolling, and I'm going to follow that advice with Mr X.)

> > (Incidentally you really should require TlT to identify who he used to > > post as before allowing him to be a moderator in your Great New URCM. > > He has specifically stated that he doesn't want to be a moderator, as > have the other members of the gang of four/five/however many it was at > last count.

Well, I really did miss that, and that's good to hear. (Just as well since soon "Gang of Four" will also refer to how many current "moderators" are left, and that could have got confusing....)

Just out of interest, would you be a URCM moderator if asked? I'd like to see that, but it won't happen in the current climate, as you've been far too unsupportive of He Who Is Not In Charge, Honest.

> > If he doesn't then I will. =A0I can see why he doesn't want it to come > > out, bearing in mind who he did use to post as, but he has no choice > > in the matter. =A0If you want URCM to genuinely improve then the curren= t > > level of self-serving secrecy from the "moderators" must become a > > thing of the past.) > > That's true - but I don't think that moderators need to be real people > with photo ID, they just need to do a good job.

Perhaps in theory. Nevertheless, if I reinvented myself as a camera- loving helmet-hating prolific cyclist, became a moderator, did a good job, and then dropped a hint that I used to post as Nuxx Bar, I think people would be pretty keen to find out whether I actually did or not, and rightly or wrongly, many people's support would very much hinge on the answer.

You're right, I couldn't possibly keep up the charade well or long enough, but it's a potential real-world example. Why does TlT feel the need to hide who he used to post as, and if there were an RFD on him becoming a moderator, wouldn't it be fairer if people knew before voting? For example, it would affect whether he was likely to display irrational grudges against particular posters when accepting/rejecting posts.

Thankfully, it's moot now anyway, and we only have to worry about grudges from URC days displayed by *current* "moderators" (and even you must surely accept that people like me did *not* get a clean sheet on URCM as promised).