Nuxx:1e3a3bbf-d070-4a82-81a9-8e7a218a657b@y17g2000yqn.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!y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <1e3a3bbf-d070-4a82-81a9-8e7a218a657b@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> 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 15:05:14 -0700 (PDT) References:      <1j1tf12.v44mld1vw287bN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> <3r4545tgik6hiie4r5nreb8uj5cr5nr04e@4ax.com>   <7aoirbF1vfd9gU1@mid.individual.net>  Lines: 35 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 1246226714 2964 127.0.0.1 (28 Jun 2009 22:05:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: y17g2000yqn.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: 3767 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:5882 uk.net.news.config:54363

On Jun 28, 9:41=A0am, Tom Crispin  wrote: > > Far better would be a process whereby posters self-nominate and a > ballot is held to elect moderators. =A0That way we would elect a team of > moderators who are truly representative of the group, and it would be > less likely that any institutional bullying would occur. =A0Elected > moderators could then be re-elected at pre-determined intervals.

Yes, that would clearly be the way to go if the "moderated" group were being created for the right reasons. However, as it's being created for all the wrong reasons (i.e. to censor certain points of view, whether or not the majority wants that), that approach would only work if the proponent could be sure that all the "moderators" were complicit enough and willing enough to toe the line, and he can only be sure of that if he picks the "moderators" himself.

Allow them to be chosen democratically and it's almost certain that at least one of the elected "moderators" would want to be fair, and moderate properly rather than just censoring certain opinions/people, and that would defeat the whole point of URCM: to banish those who insist on posting awkward truths that certain people would rather not read, because they'd rather pretend that things were a particular way, and they'd sooner censor the truth whenever it crops up than accept the way things are and deal with it.

This "moderated" group is a sham which is being created purely to censor certain opinions, the "trolling problem" being used as an excuse to create URCM is non-existent, and I object to the new group and the real reasons behind it in the strongest possible way. If certain people can't accept reality then that is their problem and they have no right to abuse legitimate usenet systems such as moderation in order to force those with the wrong opinions to shut their mouths. It's an absolute bloody disgrace and the new group has no right to exist. And with any luck it won't.