Nuxx:5f08f5c1-dae6-4905-a872-7e99cc76f3a4@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <5f08f5c1-dae6-4905-a872-7e99cc76f3a4@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: delete newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated - IMPORTANT STRAW POLL Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 17:42:39 -0700 (PDT) References: 7487aed2-86a3-44a6-963b-82f0ef1e4eca@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com Lines: 39 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 1278722559 6298 127.0.0.1 (10 Jul 2010 00:42:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 GTB7.1 GTBA,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3506 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:61468

On Jul 9, 4:18=A0pm, Trollsworth LeTrole  wrote: > If you believe that there was no good reason for the creation of of > uk.rec.cycling.moderated because there was no "trolling problem" in > uk.rec.cycling, or if you believe that users should have managed it > without anything so disruptive as a moderated group, then put your > hand up in a reply to this post. My opinion is that the set of people > that believe this include at the very least _Matt B_, _JMS_, _Nuxx Bar/ > St.Michael Chapman/Guy Cuthbertson/Dr. Tad Winslow_ and _Ian Smith_. I > am prepared for any of these people to say I've misrepresented their > views of course, but I don't think that I have.

As stated elsewhere, "St. Michael Chapman" was Nobby Anderson by his own admission. I hope you will not repeat the lie that it was me.

The main objection I had (and still have) to the group's creation was that it was obvious that the hand-picked moderation panel were extremely biased in favour of certain opinions, and also that at least some of them (including the Chief Moderator) were thoroughly unpleasant people with a very low (like, zero) tolerance of those who disagreed with them. I and others had fears about this translating into blatant favouritism towards those who shared the "correct" opinions, and that is *exactly* what has happened. It's spooky how correct some of the predictions in the creation RFD threads were.

The moderation panel needs replacing with those who have a wide range of opinions, are not a clique, are prepared to be open and honest, and who do not all think that it's vital to minimise restrictions on cyclists while maximising restrictions on motorists to force modal shift, and to hell with the consequences in terms of safety, the economy or anything else. Accountability and transparency need to increase dramatically.

Deleting the group is not necessary: the above changes will be sufficient. No-one would mind a moderated cycling group whose aims were genuinely what is stated in the charter. Please halt this RFD so that someone can write a better one where the intention really is to improve the group. This RFD emphatically does not have my support and it never will.