Nuxx:38ab3068-f5f1-4deb-af13-1af706d065a8@l28g2000vba.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!l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <38ab3068-f5f1-4deb-af13-1af706d065a8@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 01:36:03 -0700 (PDT) References: <5c210d41-6589-4556-87a1-a8d0cc1e29fb@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 105 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.145.66.20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1241944564 28607 127.0.0.1 (10 May 2009 08:36:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 08:36:04 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.145.66.20; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 5632 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:829166

On May 8, 11:34=A0pm, Julian  wrote: > On 08 May 2009 15:14:39 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson > >  wrote: > > > > =A0> > =A0> * Require posters (of some kinds of articles?) to give and use > =A0> =A0 their real name (eg, to avoid nym-shifting). > > Oh yes, we must be able to weed out those people who we don't want > posting here, even if everything they say conforms to the moderation > policy.

Yep. A moderation policy will hopefully provide the excuse(s) needed to boot someone who has the wrong POVs, but if not, we need to reserve the right to do it anyway. We can't have people waltzing in and embarrassing us by stating true POVs which we know we have no argument against.

> =A0> * More severe restrictions on articles about controversial topics. > =A0> =A0 (We could make a list of the subjects, or have the moderators > =A0> =A0 maintain a list.) > > More bollocks, =A0 we will not allow discussion of those topics, where > no matter how sensible the post, there is an implied criticism of > cycling, or the benefits of cycling. > > We want nothing objective stating in this moderated group.

Quite.

> =A0> * Maintain a list of approved posters of some kind and impose > =A0> =A0 draconian restrictions even as to subject matter of un-approved > =A0> =A0 posters. > =A0> > > We cannot allow an individual to contradict the views of those who > really know.

Exactly. No-one should be allowed to criticise speed cameras, advocate helmets, etc. It doesn't matter whether they're right or not: we find it inconvenient to deal with such arguments, so we're just going to ban them altogether, and then we can pretend that such nasty, annoying arguments don't really exist at all.

> =A0> * Prohibit postings about `road politics' from any previously-unknow= n > =A0> =A0 poster. > =A0> > =A0> * Prohibit postings about `road poltiics' from pseudonymous posters. > > We don't want anyone coming in to *our* moderated group and raising > controversial issues.

...except if they've shown that they have the "right" (actually, the wrong) POVs.

> =A0> * Reject postings from posters who cherry-pick the articles to reply > =A0> =A0 to, to ones they have an answer for. > > You must discuss those threads you know nothing about.

Actually, this is the only one that I agree with in principle, though he expressed it so poorly that no-one else seems to have grasped what he was on about. Some posters make a point, have that point demolished by another poster, then don't answer that poster, despite answering other postings in the thread (and possibly even other points by the same poster in the same post). They then make that same, demolished point in another thread, and do the same thing all over again. This blatantly shows that they are making a point despite knowing that they can't defend it, thereby showing that they have some hidden agenda or other (because otherwise why keep making that point?)

Of course, in this group, the posters that do that are usually the car- haters, and I'm sure Twatson wasn't referring to them, as it's pretty obvious that this whole "moderation" idea is designed to ensure that the car-haters' opponents, rather than the car-haters themselves, are kept out.

> =A0> * Reject postings from posters who have frequently posted things > =A0> =A0 which can be objectively determined to be wrong. > > "Objectively"?

Highly amusing, isn't it? Members of the clique invariably show that there is nothing objective about their assessment of anything. I can just see it now: "You defended motorists/said that cycling was dangerous/said that socialism wasn't the best thing ever. You are, quite clearly, objectively wrong.  Goodbye."

> =A0>There is no technical difficulty with running a moderated group. =A0I= 'd > =A0>be happy to host and run moderation software on my own colo machine. > > An excellent post by the way. > > The only debatable point was who would make it.

I quite agree once again.

A wonderful, stingingly accurate post by Julian there. It sums up the attitude of the worst posters in this group and their determination to censor their opponents' POVs better than anything before it.