Nuxx:MPG.27945d8cd139958e989853@news.zen.co.uk

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!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news2.arglkargh.de!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: What Do You Want to See in a URCM RFD? Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 00:05:52 -0000 Lines: 39 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: b713ecb2.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=mged`JHWYCdn:A2G\9[PMg0g@SS;SF6ngRiiCXJE[K>gb^f7@N:5[Rc`:ITG5aA:cgJ:[eb>CKD[h X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 3307 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:36015

As most of us already know, so far, two URCM-related RFDs have been raised since the group's formation. Both of those were weak and have come to nothing, which is not too surprising when you consider that their authors are on record as sharing the anti-motorist/anti-helmet/etc views of the URCM "collective", as well as their rather brutal and hardline intolerance towards anyone who opposes those views (especially those who do it well and show them to be incorrect). There is a suspicion that to one extent or another, those RFDs were "decoys" which were designed to stop any genuine improvements to the substandard, discriminatory and staggeringly arrogant URCM "moderation" that we have all become far too used to.

So it is obvious that a third RFD needs to be created, which will hopefully hit the spot, pass a CFV and finally stop Jackson and co from thumbing their noses at the system by knowingly running a uk.* newsgroup as a private club with certain viewpoints prohibited when they know perfectly well that they're not allowed to do so. Their behaviour says "We don't care what the rules are, we're going to do as we see fit so that we have a refuge from inconvenient truths, and we're not going to listen to anyone who dissents in any way. What are you going to do about it?" Well, "raise a proper RFD with the correct motives" ought to be the answer to that, and it's high time that's what happened. They're obviously hoping that no-one will ever actually bother to carry such an exercise through to its conclusion, and so far they've been right, but with any luck 2011 will be the year of badly needed change as far as URCM is concerned.

So, what do you want to see in a URCM RFD? What specific workable improvements do you want to see that you think would pass a CFV? In theory, if most people make their suggestions here, and we filter out any guff that emerges from the likes of Chapman, Phil Lee and URCM's other one or two intolerant advocates (who are very happy to have a place on uk.* where their unpleasant nonsense isn't challenged by reason, and are prepared to be as deceitful as they need to be to retain it), then putting what's left into an RFD ought to pass a CFV easily. There's no doubt that the vast majority of people have broadly the same opinions about URCM and want it to improve: it's just a matter of pulling together and coordinating that desire. Please let's start that process here.