Nuxx:B174ece2-8d23-4308-821f-5ea87d9e856e@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: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:52:17 -0800 (PST) References: <4_ydnZpOJKf8keXQnZ2dnUVZ8jKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>    Lines: 82 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 1299790337 24721 127.0.0.1 (10 Mar 2011 20:52:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:52:17 +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: 5445 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38714

On Mar 10, 8:02=A0pm, Tom Crispin  wrote: > > If you hold a straw poll I would assume that you want to know what > others think. =A0I find it odd that you and the other moderators feel it > necessary to respond to your straw poll.

Yes, same here. I had assumed that the "moderators" hadn't taken part and that the results therefore didn't include their votes. The fact that they did take part just means that even fewer non-"moderators" support the deplorable treatment of Matt B. It could not possibly be clearer what the users want, yet we *still* have Jackson doing what
 * he* wants instead, despite protests to the contrary.

> What would the results of the moderators' straw poll be if the votes > and comments of the moderators are excluded?

Very good question. We won't be told of course. But then Clive George "doesn't care" so we're not allowed to either.

> Some voters were disenfranchised.

FWIW, I didn't respond, in case people thought I was one of the disallowed lot.

> How different would the poll look if the poll's proponents were > excluded from the result? > > In the absence of an answer I think it would be safe to assume this: > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 Q1. =A0 =A0 Q2. Transport, > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 Matt =A0 =A0 other posters > > =A0 =A0 =A0 FTS =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (a) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A02 =A0| =A00 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 between (a) and (b) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00 =A0| =A0= 0 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0TS =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (b) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A06 =A0| =A05 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 between (b) and (c) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00 =A0| =A0= 1 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0AR =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (c) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A04 =A0| =A07 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 between (c) and (d) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01 =A0| =A0= 0 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0TL =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (d) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A00 =A0| =A00 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 between (d) and (e) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00 =A0| =A0= 0 > =A0 =A0 =A0 FTL =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (e) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A00 =A0| =A00

I'm sure that's not far off, though in my mind, Chapman and Lee probably answered (e) to Q1. Chapman in particular would not have missed an opportunity to put the boot in to one of his least favourite inconvenient truth-tellers, especially behind his back. Still, that Chapman and Lee would vote that way is hardly surprising given how notoriously intolerant they are (Matt B's words not mine), so in isolation, their opinions can pretty much be dismissed as those of a couple of unrepresentative, unpleasant car-hating nutcases when ascertaining what URCM users as a whole want.

Another way of looking at it is that assuming that all 10 "moderators" responded, and that Chapman and Lee did indeed vote as above, then only a maximum of 3 "moderators" (presumably including Jackson) voted (e), only a maximum of 2 voted (d), and the other 5 "moderators" (i.e. half of them) all disagreed with Jackson that there was a problem at all. Perhaps this is why Jackson felt the need for this "straw poll" in the first place: maybe he initiated an internal "moderator" ballot for some anti-Matt B measure or other, but couldn't get enough people to vote with him.

This does pose the question as to who the 5 "moderators" who disagree with Jackson are, other than (presumably) Eleanor Blair: they haven't exactly been making themselves known much, which is frustrating, but understandable when you consider the ever-present threat that Jackson will withdraw chiark if people piss him off too much (and I would guess that public dissent against his holy crusade to keep URCM free of Matt B's difficult-to-argue-with points is one way of *really* pissing Jackson off...dictators don't much care for resistance). It may be easier to work out which "moderators" definitely do agree with Jackson: Braggins is bound to, for example. Probably Damerell as well.