Nuxx:MPG.26f87ce12822a6dc9897e6@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eweka.nl!hq-usenetpeers.eweka.nl!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: How best to respond to an offensive post? Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:25:14 +0100 References: <8f717lF59oU1@mid.individual.net>   Lines: 50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 0004e833.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=Ofl7YGAT5Tl=5nNoc]7, tom.nospam@britsc.com.nospam says... > > It seems that infamatory remarks are allowed in the moderated group > if: > 1. They are directed at certain individuals; > 2. They are posted by certain (but different) individuals. > > [...] > > I think you are wrong. Such a post would be allowed from some posters > but not others. Recall that moderation policy is that posts are judged > for suitability by who is making the post as well as by content, and > the personality of the poster is more important than the post's > content in making a decision to block or allow.

Regrettably, that's all entirely correct, and I'm quite surprised that Sara is so wrong about this side of things. There have been countless occasions when I, JMS, Matt B and other "non-members" have been directly and blatantly insulted on URCM, and to make it worse, we are *never* allowed to respond. To make it worse still, the insults are often contacting the "moderators" about this through UNNM, but surprise surprise, they didn't deign to reply. (They dislike me so they don't have to, apparently.)
 * manually* approved (including several from Chapman). I twice tried

I think this phenomenon is probably the number one thing that pisses me off about the current state of affairs on URCM, and it also provides extremely good evidence that the group is indeed being run as a private club where people with the "right" opinions are given hugely favourable treatment. This discrimination has happened far too often for it to be anything but deliberate on the part of the "moderators". They know exactly what they're playing at. It's unforgivable, it has no place on uk.*, it doesn't help in any way to achieve pleasant, civil cycling discussion (the usual excuse offered for partisan moderation), and it who like to take advantage of the unequal treatment (Jim A even admitted it was unequal) might not want it to.
 * will* change sooner or later, however much Chapman, Jim A and others

Until insults from Chapman and friends are moderated in the same way as insults from anyone else, we will know that URCM is not being moderated correctly. Until the current "moderators" either apologise for this discrimination and pledge to end it, or step aside and let others moderate instead, we will know that the URCM moderation panel is not fit for purpose. Whatever contempt they may have for those who don't share their Communist hippie anti-motorist outlook, the bottom line is that if these people want to keep moderating a uk.* group then they *must* treat everyone equally. They have NO CHOICE. They need to buck their ideas up and stop letting their personal opinions of posters interfere with their duties. They now have very little time to do so.