XPost: uk.net.news.config, free.uk.amateur-radio

On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:15:07 -0500, Burton Bradstock wrote:





H A P P Y B U R T D A Y, B U R T !

9 years ago today!

Doesn't time fly...

On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:26:06 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:

Are there any moderated groups that allow discussion of moderation
policy in that group? What are their experiences? If this has not been
tried before, why not now? These points are not addressed.

Noted. I agonised on this point, initially opting to allow discussion
of the moderation policy *in general terms* in the group. I could not
escape the conclusion, however, that this would be continually tested
by elements acting in bad faith. There exists a channel in the Uk.*
hierarchy for moderation issues to be discussed. The mod policy does
invite those who have had posts rejected to contact the moderation team
in the first instance to discuss it.

All well and good, but it doesn't address the questions I posed.
Further, you seem to be trying to head off a problem that a
properly-founded and properly-applied moderation policy would deal with.

But the RSGB mustn't be lampooned (see below). Since the RSGB believes
itself to be influential in Amateur Radio in the UK, this is
oversensitive and plays into the hands of those that see such a
restriction as being RSGB-influenced.

The issue is that the term "RSCB" is only ever used in a way that is
intended to imply certain insulting and unfair notions about the
Society, its employees and/or its members. The charter states that
discussion must be civil, making these implications is not civil.

For the sake of the discussion some would say that multi-band CB is what
has been created; the RSGB embraced the scheme that brought it about and
they must therefore be associated with the outcome that gave rise to the term. They might not like it, but it succinctly sums up their position.
One wonders why you feel sensitivity on their behalf over the issue, and
why you choose to build it into the moderation policy. The RSGB will
sink or swim without your help.

Of course, you may feel free to voice your concerns and doubts about
the RSGB in the moderated group, but just choose your language and
remain civil. I know that you, and many others, have deeply-held issues
with the Society. I also know that you are all articulate enough to
voice them without being insulting, if only you'd try.

I don't need to be patronised.

This is clearly a perversion of the truth. While ukra currently enjoys
a crapflood, it is not its first and it has survived despite them.
There is plenty of technical and other discussion of subjects of
interest to Amateur Radio and Radio Amateurs. The current crapflood
has not been shown to diminish these discussions in any way.
Merely making such an assertion as that above does not make it true,
and is to be rejected without proof.

The crapflood is a part of the problem. The engrained enmity between
the various factions of the group is quite another and dates back
multiple years, suggesting that it is unresolvable.

Again, you fail to address the points I raised.

You cannot keep saying that 'the current crapflood has done (this or
that)' without some evidence. You have to show that the current
crapflood has made the decline of Usenet worse than it would otherwise
have been.
Frankly, it could be said that the group has held up over the years
rather well. I have sixty or seventy names in my WF list, that's more
than there were ukra posters at the height of Usenet's popularity. I
believe one person,
with the groups knowledge, surveyed the groups use some years ago and
found there were about 50 regular posters and some 150 lurkers. Now, if
you want to counter this evidence of stability in ukra against the
general trend, provide some hard facts rather than talking generally
about hopes, aspirations, particular cases, what someone told you, or personal opinions.

Here is a list of those topics posted in the last seven days, that
have a direct AR interest, not including the daily news roundup from
the Southgate club and some topics of more general interest:

<snipped for brevity>

Additionally, other AR-related topics were raised as threads
'drifted'.

This could easily be said to be a good and varied list of topics for a
group with such a minor interest, and clearly refutes the claim of
'... stifl(ing) on-topic discussion of amateur radio matters'.

A lot of these threads contained abusive posts, Spike.

Only for the thin-skinned. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The discourse was often incredibly robust and only rarely civil. I'm
not necessarily saying that this represents the worst of ukra (indeed,
I enjoyed this week's postings, having participated in quite a few both
with good conduct and bad conduct on my part!) but it certainly does
not suggest any great recovery of the group.

You are shifting the goalposts again. 'Recovery' wasn't part of the
proposed charter or moderation policy.

Postings to text-based usergroups have fallen by 50 percent in the
last three years. There are less than 1500 posters in the whole uk.
heirarchy, and these are decreasing in number.

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

This decline, which extends well beyond the last three years, has not
been as a result of any crapfloods. People are being dissuaded from
posting - should they even discover Usenet in the first place - for
other reasons.
Therefore, this alleged reason for the founding of a moderated group
is unfounded.

Individuals have stated that they have been driven away from the group.
I, personally, often feel discinclined from starting new threads as I
know that they will likely attract bother.

So what? Try a different approach; but you have found few friends there, perhaps due to your insufferable know- it-all attitude. 'Killfile the wazzock, Spike' is the advice I got. I like to help people, but you're
an objectionable person to deal with.

Look at the group via Google and you will only see a wall of
accusations of paedophilia, posted by the Scots contingent. Not
attractive.

Simply dealt with.

All matters relating to the hobby of amateur radio are to be
considered on-topic and will be authorised.

This is not true. A list of banned topics follows:

A little petty, but I suppose linguistically correct. Perhaps I should
insert a caveat that pots must adhere to the charter, although I rather
think that it is obvious.

Matters that will be regarded as STRICTLY forbidden and always
liable to be rejected are:

1 - Personal attacks and derogatory statements against individuals,
communities, organizations or races. This will include derogatory
references to individuals holding perceived 'inferior' amateur radio
qualifications.

Since in the progressive licensing system that the UK currently
enjoys,
some licences hold privileges that others don't; this is the nature of
a progressive system. It necessarily follows that some licences are
'inferior' because they are not 'superior' and not equal to some
others. Other licences have qualification criteria that have been
eased, over the passage of time, and in that sense some are 'superior'
and some are not. This restriction is a mere sop to those who are
over-sensitive.

Note that I use the term "derogatory". Merely referring to a foundation
licence as a "lower qualification" or even an "inferior qualification"
is not derogatory. Referring to a foundation licencee as an inferior
person, would be.

Then you need to reword the paragraph.

One is given the strong impression of pro-RSGB bias, despite all
mention previously of even-handedness and balance. This does the
argument for the formation of the group no favours at all.

That may be your perception, but it is not the truth.

And I can say with equal foundation, that there is a pro-RSGB bias in
your proposal, and your claim is not true.

What is 'borderline'? Where are the guidelines for this?

Individual moderator discretion. If a post is edging towards being
insulting or goading, it could be looked at as being a borderline case,
could it not? In such instances, the moderator may decideto approve the
message, or reject it, or perhaps drop a quick email to the contributor
asking if they would like to reconsider their submission. I'm trying to
craft a moderation policy that is fluid enough to allow for the
moderators to work with the group's contributors in more than just a
black and white fashion. If this is no good, then perhaps it simply
must be yes/no, black/white?

Why ask me? You are the one with the proposal, so propose something more suitable.

Saving moderators faces is as appropriate as saving the RSGB's face,
that is, it is unreasonable. One would hope for more robust
moderators, if they feel sensitive over this issue, and the same goes
for the self-proclaimed 'national society'.

The idea here is less about saving face and more about working amicably
with the contributors.

It didn't come across as that.

Advertising of commercial services, events and private classified
posts (all relating strictly to amateur radio) is permitted.

In the manner of RadCom(ic), it is to be noted.

I see no problem in allowing advertising, as long as its radio related.
It's not as if the moderators are profiting from it.

This policy will be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit
in order to better serve the charter and to allow the smooth running
of the group.

A recipe for self-serving and self-interest. Openness is clearly not a

requirement.

I'd like to think that, eventually, there will be a community of radio
amateurs who use the group and will enjoy giving their input into the
running of it, and that the moderators will listen to this and respond.

Pious hopes.

You have more work to do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)