Nuxx:5a1b73f9-648a-416c-8827-a7324c894f5b@h38g2000yqn.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!h38g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <5a1b73f9-648a-416c-8827-a7324c894f5b@h38g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation,uk.net.news.config Subject: Re: uk.rec.cycling.moderated - RFD withdrawn Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:03:30 -0700 (PDT) References: <1jyl64f.nubaqy1t08018N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>   <8s1mo6hi13qn82o7f9v4fn929coqq6t9sq@4ax.com> <80d568bb-8f11-4a7f-8329-f60943d9fc1e@l14g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <83ipv7l903.fsf@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Lines: 30 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 1301072610 25931 127.0.0.1 (25 Mar 2011 17:03:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:03:30 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: h38g2000yqn.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: 3176 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39486 uk.net.news.config:66100

On Mar 25, 11:44=A0am, Owen Dunn  wrote: > Trollsworth LeTrole  writes: > > > > Given the tools available though, I'm at a loss to understand the > > unfocussed anger from URCM loyalists about the whole affair. Is it: > > (a) The specific criticisms were groundless and unreasonable > > > (b) An RFD is an inappropriate way to force changes to moderation > > policy, how very dare you?

It's that, of course. *Any* criticism of Jackson's regime is by definition unwarranted and grossly disrespectful.

> Well, it's the _only_ way to _force_ a change. =A0It would be very > lovely if everyone just worked things out quietly by mutual agreement, > but that's not always possible. =A0If you felt you were getting nowhere > by making suggestions to the URCM moderators or negotiating with them, > and still thought it important enough, an RFD was all you could do.

I think you've just summed it up very well. The "moderators" have brought this upon themselves by repeatedly and proudly puffing their chests and refusing to listen to their critics since the group was created nearly 2 years ago. It was either this or the (many) critics simply giving up and going away, and although it's quite possible that Jackson and co were arrogant enough to expect that, they would have been stupid to, and even they must now realise that the "big stick" of an RFD *will* be used if the "gentle persuasion" approach doesn't suddenly start working *very* soon. I'm not saying that will change their conduct in the slightest, but even they must now realise that all the talk of an RFD is not simply an empty threat.