Nuxx:MPG.268db3be17482c2a9897a8@news.zen.co.uk

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!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM: Yet Another Blatant Example of Double Standards Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:26:47 +0100 References:  Lines: 29 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100624-1, 24/06/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: b18fb988.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=0F1Tc1L45Y:ZSa:@4h=j4:YjZGX^207P;`=o8_MG3U3^4D?= X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 2682 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:31394

In article , guy.c@nothing.invalid says... > > I know we've all given up hope of getting any kind of explanation from > the "moderators" for things like this (leaving us with only one possible > conclusion: they're doing them for exactly the reasons we suspect), but > just for posterity (rather than discussion particularly), here's the > latest example of a post which is only "non-inflammatory" when aimed at > those who the URCM moderators dislike personally.

Again for posterity: unsurprisingly my response "Why?" was rejected as "meta" (with no explanation given).

I apologise if any non-psycholists are getting fed up with every discriminatory URCM rejection/approval being reported here: I know it happens a lot and (since it's much the same thing that keeps happening) there's little to add in terms of comments, since most relevant things have been said already. It's just that if all ludicrous rejections are publicised here then it means there's a large number of good examples which can be drawn upon in the RFD. I believe that already, no reasonable, hitherto uninvolved person could read about the rejections to date and not determine that URCM was being run in an unacceptably partisan, secretive and arrogant way.

Would it be better to have a single thread for that purpose, perhaps? Then the "moderators" can just bin the whole thread and keep pretending that everything's running fine. The trouble is that the thread may well run to thousands of posts relatively quickly. Maybe a monthly thread instead then...?