Nuxx:Fea8df6d-996b-461b-b434-91a3e48c8904@j32g2000yqh.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!j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,uk.net.news.config Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:06:59 -0700 (PDT) References:   <7aoirbF1vfd9gU1@mid.individual.net>   Lines: 72 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 1246230419 28883 127.0.0.1 (28 Jun 2009 23:06:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:06:59 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j32g2000yqh.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: 5151 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:5893 uk.net.news.config:54374

On Jun 28, 12:16=A0pm, Ian Jackson  wrote: > In article , > Tom Crispin =A0 wrote: > > >The proposed moderation team has been selected by a single person, > >albeit with well-meaning intent. =A0Some of those selected have not even > >been regular posters to the group for several years, so I suspect that > >they were sent private emails inviting them to join the moderation > >team as they are personal friends of the proponent. > > This is not the case. =A0The starting point for the list of moderators > was the set of people who volunteered, or were suggested, in the > pre-RFD discussion in uk.rec.cycling. =A0Whether they were my personal > friends didn't come into it. > > As I have now posted a number of times already: > > =A0 I went through the discussion [this refers to the informal pre-RFD > =A0 discussion in urc] (about two to three times, but by hand so I may > =A0 have overlooked a message or two) looking for proposals, > =A0 endorsements, and objections, and making notes of the supporters and > =A0 objectors for each possible candidate. > > =A0 Based on that information I had a large list of potential moderators. > > =A0 I [eliminated] moderators from that list against whom there were > =A0 reasoned objections; some suggestions were made for contacting > =A0 departed posters but I thought that at this stage we needed people > =A0 who still felt a commitment to the usenet approach. > > =A0 I then went through the posting history of each such moderator as > =A0 stored on my local server and looked to see what kind of messages the > =A0 potential moderators had sent. =A0I eliminated potential moderators w= ho > =A0 hadn't posted recently, or who seemed to have [a] particularly bad > =A0 troll-feeding habit. > > =A0 Pleasingly, there was a lot of similarity between these measures and = I > =A0 was not called upon to make too many difficult judgement calls. > > =A0 >Some of [these moderators] were objected to in the pre-RFD and there > =A0 >seem to be some unopposed volunteers missing. > > =A0 I will freely admit to having disregarded some objections, and some > =A0 proposals. =A0The moderation proposal is intended primarily to deal w= ith > =A0 the problem caused by a very small number of very noisy and disruptiv= e > =A0 people. =A0I deliberately disregarded the suggestions and objections > =A0 made by those people. > > =A0 I have reviewed my notes, and unless I have missed a message or two, > =A0 of the 11 people on my proposed panel most were entirely unopposed by > =A0 anyone - even by the problem posters - during the pre-RFD phase. > > =A0Of course since then the problem posters have found reasons to attack > =A0some of the proposed moderators. =A0I see no reason to expect that > =A0removing those people from the proposal would quieten their > =A0objections, and it would in my view weaken the moderation panel - and > =A0indeed, increase the risk of the moderation panel developing into a > =A0clique.

Of course, it's very convenient for you to ignore the objections of the "problem posters" when those who you so refer to specifically objected to you, and only a handful of others (2 in my case, and Simon Brooke has just been added thanks to what he has posted in this thread and others). It wouldn't do to ask yourself *why* they objected to you in particular, would it? Obviously they're just stirring it. It couldn't possibly be anything to do with you being totally unsuitable as a proponent of a new newsgroup, or even a "moderator".