Nuxx:B2298e5c-be16-4428-aa37-67fffd53a2b2@m16g2000prc.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!m16g2000prc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: JMS do you think I was hurtful to you? Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 11:14:19 -0800 (PST) References:  <0a4c454f-d512-47ea-a2c3-961c5acdb862@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com> <8r2ld3Fe8rU1@mid.individual.net> <8r5h0cFfpdU1@mid.individual.net> <8r5r0aFkalU1@mid.individual.net> <1jw8oji.1rx7kfw6rxbw2N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> <1715531813318641056.599413%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.individual.net> <8r69inFgpdU1@mid.individual.net> <651888872318646590.851163%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.individual.net> <8r7bdaFfc3U1@mid.individual.net> <1jw9n7w.jaydxm7jch01N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> <8r82t8FgmiU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 51 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 1297019659 7777 127.0.0.1 (6 Feb 2011 19:14:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 19:14:19 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m16g2000prc.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/11.01,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4038 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:36940

On Feb 6, 5:08=A0pm, "The Todal"  wrote: > I am certainly not going to spend my time researching the past posting > history of dozens of posters in order to protect the delicate feelings of > certain easily-offended people.

Not like URCM "moderation" then. Must protect the little flowers from nasty comments which don't condemn helmets or motorists enough.

> And as far as I am concerned, the decision > whether to accept or reject a post should not take longer than 30 seconds= .

Not like URCM "moderation" then. Some posts, often those which would immediately and unquestionably get the nod in any properly moderated newsgroup (e.g. "I agree"), are deliberated over for the best part of 24 hours. I suspect the gist of the discussion is usually "We don't like this post but no obvious excuse for rejecting it comes to mind, so what shall we do?"

> Sometimes it will be the wrong decision and if I think it is, I'll say so= .

Not like URCM "moderation" then. Clearly, by definition, if the "moderators" make a decision then it's the correct one. They have spoken.

> Everyone can be as rude as they like to each others outside ULM as far as > I'm concerned.

Not like URCM "moderation" then. People's behaviour on URC and UNNM is clearly a factor, and they don't even have to be rude: expressing the wrong opinions, criticising URCM "moderation" decisions and/or disagreeing with the "moderators" is more than enough. In fact all posters who have been discriminated against on URCM have dared to do at least one of those things, meaning that they obviously deserve retribution.

> but there still isn't > anyone on the blacklist (banned list) and there is unlikely ever to be.

Not like URCM "moderation" then.

It's telling how many examples of clearly good moderation policy are the exact opposite of what occurs in URCM. Keep up the good work TT...thank god there are reasonable people like you who are prepared to moderate newsgroups. With replacement of most if not all of the current lot of "moderators", and an acceptance that moderating it is (or should be) much like moderating any other newsgroup (it doesn't really have any "specific problems", that's just a red herring from those who are keen to keep opposing opinions out), there's hope for URCM yet.