Nuxx:A2d301aa-fe72-4867-a904-0fff2b1af8ee@v16g2000vbq.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!v16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:56:17 -0800 (PST) References: <4_ydnZpOJKf8keXQnZ2dnUVZ8jKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> Lines: 43 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 1299718577 1117 127.0.0.1 (10 Mar 2011 00:56:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:56:17 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: v16g2000vbq.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: 3624 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38635

On Mar 9, 11:26=A0pm, Clive George  wrote: > To me, it seems like the moderation in URCM has changed towards that > which the noisy people in here would like. The mods then asked if that > was wanted via a poll, and they were told yes, that's what was wanted, > and so it has continued. > > So why the increased rancour? Surely people ought to be saying "yay, > things are better"?

The wrong person is still in charge, despite many calls for him to go, and he still unashamedly advocates (and practises when he can) a draconian, despicable and opinion-based "moderation" policy. He is not there for the benefit of UK cyclists, or Usenet; he's there for himself and the very small number of people who think like him, one of whom is Chapman, so it's no surprise that Chapman is all for what he's doing. Chapman likes having a place where he's safe from inconvenient truths like "It's not necessarily to bully motorists to achieve safer roads".

Also, Judith and I are still banned. You can hardly expect us to be satisfied with that, especially when the "reasons" for the bans are so flimsy.

Once those two things change, I for one will be much happier with URCM, though there will still be room for improvement. The moderation panel should have a much better spread of opinions about matters such as helmets and anti-car measures, for example, and the moderators should be a lot more transparent and willing to answer questions (but I think that will follow naturally once they are no longer pursuing the kind of irrational and indefensible "moderation" policy currently enforced by Jackson, which is bound to result in secrecy...it's not a good idea to be open about things that you know you're doing wrong).

Once the bad apples in the moderation panel have been removed, and a genuine effort is being made by all moderators to moderate on content rather than personality or opinion, then the pieces should all fall into place pretty easily. Once all the moderators are sincerely trying to achieve "a pleasant, civil place to discuss cycling in the UK", and nothing more or less than that, every reasonable person will be happy. It really shouldn't be hard if the will is there. Those who want a private club where certain opinions and/or political discussion are banned can have it, they just can't have it on UK Usenet, and they should have the grace to accept that.