Nuxx:Cc69fc72-2839-4dcd-b13e-e44dea4af81e@a5g2000vbs.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!a5g2000vbs.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM - is this more thinly veiled censorship? Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 07:25:17 -0800 (PST) References: <8t9dduF8olU1@mid.individual.net>   <1jxk0m1.1p5rwcv1jsfs96N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>  <6aa3724d-d551-43fc-a388-038944d2115e@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com> Lines: 40 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 1299165917 32126 127.0.0.1 (3 Mar 2011 15:25:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 15:25:17 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: a5g2000vbs.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 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3180 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38423

On Mar 3, 3:00=A0pm, Trollsworth LeTrole  wrote: > On Mar 3, 2:16=A0pm, Judith  wrote:> On Thu, 3= Mar 2011 12:49:37 +0000, real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M= . Procida) > > wrote: > > > > > > >I could have gone either way on those. If they had been from a known > > >antagonist of Matt's, they'd have been rejected, but BugBear is a fair= ly > > >friendly presence. > > > >Daniele > > > Indeed - I had forgotten that in URCM -and in ULM- it was relevant as t= o whom the post was from as to whether if > > was rejected or not. > > ^ There, I fixed it for you. > > Judith, what you're describing isn't actually that controversial, and > isn't exclusive to URCM. Using the 'From:' as one factor in a > moderation decision is quite sensible in some appropriate situations. > It's allegations of inappropriate use that have resulted in previous > controversy, not the use of From: itself.

Far, far, FAR too much weight is applied to who a post is from on URCM. It's not just done to see if a post is inflammatory or not, it's done so that perfectly reasonable posts (whoever they're from) can be rejected when they're from unfavoured posters, and clearly abusive or inflammatory posts can be waved through when they're from "members". You know this, of course, and like Chapman and others, you rather want it to continue, and only feign ignorance of it going on because you know that it's against the charter and uk.* rules.

And editing other people's posts is just what I'd expect from you. Your friend Alan Braggins does that as well...but he's not who you used to post as on URC, is he?