Nuxx:D1a1f20a-d0e6-4551-a3e8-263410cf30a3@h11g2000yqb.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!h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  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 04:34:06 -0700 (PDT) References: <55f445ldk632fvtt13d12qj8tp9h3sdho1@4ax.com>  <83q1m.48458$OO7.960@text.news.virginmedia.com> <5ff84f45-f140-4d92-a6c8-e633fb24963f@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <6Cs1m.48526$OO7.48090@text.news.virginmedia.com>   <909685a8-f165-493e-a21d-5f2259b1ede9@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>  <161d0f07-c3eb-4922-bc4a-12dc2ed908dc@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 42 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 1246188846 6166 127.0.0.1 (28 Jun 2009 11:34:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:34:06 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: h11g2000yqb.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: 3790 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:54276 uk.rec.cycling:5817

On Jun 27, 11:47=A0pm, Marc  wrote: > Simon Brooke wrote: > > On 27 June, 21:14, Marc  wrote: > >> Simon Brooke wrote: > > >>> * Posts containing offensive language - not allowed > >> "offensive" to who and by who's standards? > > > The individual moderator's - who may act in concert with the other > > moderators or may not, but in any case it's not open to discussion. > > Then it is just basic raw censorship, a secret list of words that can't > be used...

Oh dear. Looks like quite a lot of people who can't be dismissed as "trolls" (however erroneously) are now cottoning on to the real purpose of URCM.

> >>> * Posts repeating points frequently made before (like this one) - not > >>> allowed > >> "frequently"? How frequent is frequently? > > > As frequently as the individual moderator thinks is too frequently. > > >>> And having passed all those tests > >> Tests need standards, where are the standards? > > > There aren't any, that's the point. The moderators should neither > > discuss nor defend. They should just block or not block. Consider that > > the moderators throw the I Ching, or toss a coin, or anything you > > like. It doesn't matter what the standards are, because there can be > > no appeal. > > or any consistency, or even any proof that you are acting in a even > handed manner.

Quite. It is blatantly obvious that URCM is going to be "moderated" in a biased fashion, and that that is why it's being proposed. Let's vote it out of existence before it's too late. The real solution to URC's problems isn't moderation (even proper, even-handed moderation) anyway, since there isn't a genuine trolling problem in the first place.