Nuxx:MPG.262a7cab52c06230989734@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!83.128.0.12.MISMATCH!news-out2.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!bandi.nntp.kabelfoon.nl!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: A comment from an URCM moderator sought please. Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:17:40 +0100 References:   Lines: 28 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100409-1, 09/04/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: f6fcc756.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=6l;i]O`nj1eRAS5E5QY7R`nok4Z\f?JbkhEn, andyl@azaal.plus.com says... > > On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:22:55 +0100, JMS  wrote: > > > > > > Post from a "non-member" rejected in URCM > > Now that this is detailed on the rejects web page is there any need for > a full recitation of the rejected post here? Surely those who are > interested will go and look it up. Those who do will find it rejected > due to meta-discussion.

Odd, since when I looked it had been rejected because it was "unconstructive". If you lot are going to make up excuses to reject posts from people you don't like then you should remember what excuse was used in each case, otherwise it becomes even more obvious that they are indeed just excuses.

Say you did just come clean and say "We won't allow the following opinions, and we would prefer those who have those opinions never to post *anything*, whether they express the banned opinions or not. If they do post then we reserve the right to randomly reject their posts just because we don't like them.  Also post history on other newsgroups is taken into account." How exactly would admitting all those things make URCM any worse or more unpopular than it currently is? Surely if anything it would improve matters because then at least moderation policy would be transparent?