Nuxx:87477cad-1507-42ef-83f6-8d3db103cbfa@e21g2000yqe.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!e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <87477cad-1507-42ef-83f6-8d3db103cbfa@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Double 'meta' reject Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT) References:  <20110318222044.7ca13dd5@bluemoon>    Lines: 46 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 1300547437 25531 127.0.0.1 (19 Mar 2011 15:10:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:10:37 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 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: 3331 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39060

On Mar 19, 12:17=A0pm, Tom Crispin  wrote: > On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 01:46:37 +0000, Geoff Berrow > >  wrote: > >On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:18:46 +0000, Tom Crispin > > wrote: > > >>How do the moderators determine if authentication is important? > > >I had a hand in writing the original and I think the idea was to allow > >official messages to be posted such as announcements from control or > >the moderation team. > > Again, that sounds like a very sensible policy.

Certainly more sensible than "We'll allow PGP on unimportant posts as long as it's someone we like".

> It is interesting that three of my recent posts to urcm seem to be > held on some sort of delay list. =A0The delay at the moment isn't too > bad, at about 13 hours, but other posts seem to have been manually > approved while my posts have been ignored or simply left.

They don't like you anymore because you haven't "apologised". Quite what you should have apologised for is anyone's guess.

Presumably they're discussing whether to allow your posts (or rather, Jackson and co don't like your posts, but can't think of excuses to reject them, so they're trying to come up with some). One gets the impression that they are hardly trying to reach a conclusion quickly, which of course means that whether or not your posts are eventually allowed, you've been "punished" with the delay. The usual patheticness in other words.

It would be good if they had a fit of honesty and came up with some new rejection categories:

- "reject opinion" (for posts defending helmets etc); - "reject disrespect" (for posts which make the "moderators" look stupid in some way); - "reject dislike" (for posts from people who the Chief Moderator doesn't like).

I think that were those categories to be created and used honestly, almost all of the rejections that people currently get would fall into one (or more) of them.