Nuxx:5257fb34-bf63-45c4-9d83-b963e9456837@r12g2000vbd.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!r12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <5257fb34-bf63-45c4-9d83-b963e9456837@r12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Address needed before posting Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:07:42 -0800 (PST) References:    <1jwzqeb.hwcyez6jleb1N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>  <8sd6d8F4moU1@mid.individual.net> <68abf5f1-00c5-42b9-b14e-b15a50b43c23@w7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 48 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 1298250462 15128 127.0.0.1 (21 Feb 2011 01:07:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 01:07:42 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.01,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3915 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:37697

On Feb 21, 12:21=A0am, Tony  wrote: > In uk.net.news.moderation, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > >After this thread there can't be anyone left who doesn't see that the > >"moderators" are determined to moderate by personality and opinion > >rather than content, and that was always the real reason for URCM's > >formation. > > I disagree. =A0I think you're stoking the flames and if you want to see > constructive progress would avoid that.

I think the house has already burnt down but I hear what you're saying.

> >No amount of reasoning or criticism will persuade them to > >change the way they do things because they're already well aware of > >the problem, they just don't see it as a problem, they see it as a > >successful implementation of their plan to set up a private club where > >they can hide from inconvenient truths. > > I disagree with that as well - I would classify the moderation team as > misguided and backed into a corner.

In a way I admire your optimism but just how patient are you? If we are still having exactly the same problems in a year then will you still dismiss the possibility of malicious intent and deliberate stubbornness on behalf of the "moderators"? If not then just how long are you prepared to give them?

Do you feel that you're being listened to any more than anyone else? Why would they ignore concerns from the likes of you and Geoff Berrow when neither of you post anything to do with cycling and so can't be accused of having an axe to grind? It all seems very "We know what we're doing, we're happy with the results, our methods suit our little club and its 'members' even if outsiders like you don't understand them, and we don't need you interfering with your 'fairness' nonsense thank you very much" to me. I think they only pretend (halfheartedly) to listen to concerns on UNNM in order to make an RFD less likely.

> >The problem will not go away until change is forced or a large number > >of the current shower resign. =A0Surely even the most charitable of us > >can see by now that the "moderators" (apart from Eleanor Blair at any > >rate) simply don't have the will to run a fairly moderated newsgroup. > >What other possible explanation even remotely fits the behaviour we've > >seen from them again and again? > > Groupthink.

Unlikely that it's just that IMO.