On Saturday, August 17, 2013 10:26:01 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
In article ,

Adam Lea writes:

On 17/08/13 07:49, Col wrote:



Alternatively, are all posts 'screened' by a moderator beforehand and they

only appear if passed fit for publication?

If so that's no good for a weather group that needs to be 'real time' in

nature, especially during notable events.



From my understanding of the uk.rec.cycling.moderated

newsgroup, that is how it works.



And not very well, if one goes by all the complaints about biassed

moderators.

--

John Hall

"Sir, I have found you an argument;

but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

This is an interesting thread and it would be worthwhile as many as possible contributing. Thanks for starting it Paul.

John has highlighted the difficulty.

What happens in such forums is that the complaints of a group (it turns into a gang), that don't like what an individual is saying, influence moderators. Emails behind the scenes and comments on the forum, promulgate such feelings and in the end, the moderators exercise the power of the (usually small, most posters only have a passing interest) gang, because they view the gang members as their friends and because they share the same interests in cold weather as they do.

Usually, in weather forums, it's a desperate need to wish for cold weather, especially in winter, that drives the bulk of posters and the gang hates anyone who says that the cold weather is unlikely to arrive and asks them to stop posting hopeful and frankly stupid posts about it's unlikely arrival and instead concentrate on the facts. As a result, individuals who don't conform to that culture are ostracised until the moderators are ready to give into the baying gang members, who constantly whine that this person, or that person, should be banned.

The owners of the sites are very understanding, but they have a vested interest. They understand that interest and are open and honest. They know where their bread's buttered. John and Brian at Netweather, and TWO certainly recognise this (Metcheck's peadophile owner gets no recognition there) I still post, very occasionally, at UKww . John and Brian know (knew for John?? Dunno how involved he is these days) people that the bulk of their posters like cold weather and want it to happen. Thus, they have to support their moderators; they know what's good for their business. At that point, it's not worth staying. Believe me; There's no point.

What's left is anodyne (IMO, here).

As I say, these sites will welcome you with open arms, but they are a very limited church. COL is too. If that's and good luck. what you want; post there - but ask yourself why you don't post there already: chances are you've already tried them and run into the wealth of idiots they contain. Again, IMO, there are far less of them here.

PS Mike. No need to tell lies. You can't be "hounded off" an unmoderated site, or need to "sneak" back on. That's plainly silly.

In article ,
says...

I'm not sure how these things work on Usenet but presumably
you can post what you want but it could be deleted if deemed innapropriate.

No. This would be deemed post moderation, and is very much frowned upon.
Not allowed in uk.* groups.


Alternatively, are all posts 'screened' by a moderator beforehand and they
only appear if passed fit for publication?

It depends. You can use software to allow posts that meet a
predetermined criteria (poster, keywords etc) and refer all others for
manual moderation.


--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

In article ,
says...


This is an interesting thread and it would be worthwhile as many as possible contributing. Thanks for starting it Paul.

John has highlighted the difficulty.

What happens in such forums is that the complaints of a group (it turns into a gang), that don't like what an individual is saying, influence moderators.

Yes. The whole point of moderation is that individuals don't get to make
posts that the rest of the group don't want. That way, the group gets a
group that they are happy with.

Emails behind the scenes and comments on the forum, promulgate such
feelings and in the end, the moderators exercise the power of the
(usually small, most posters only have a passing interest) gang,
because they view the gang members as their friends and because they
share the same interests in cold weather as they do.

In my experience, most moderators resist such pressure on the grounds
that some would perceive it as an admission of poor judgement over
having allowed certain posts and/or also as a weakening or dilution of
their "power". Perfect moderators are hard to find I'm afraid.

However, it does bring us back to the point that moderated fora evolve.
Generally in the direction that the group consciousness wishes it to.



Usually, in weather forums, it's a desperate need to wish for cold
weather, especially in winter, that drives the bulk of posters and the
gang hates anyone who says that the cold weather is unlikely to arrive
and asks them to stop posting hopeful and frankly stupid posts about
it's unlikely arrival and instead concentrate on the facts.

Well this is certainly not a reflection on what has happened in this
group, or of your part in it Paul. The truth of the matter here is that
such posts annoy you, and us such you have embarked on a campaign to try
and stop them being made. One individual, trying to mold the group in
his image. I have no doubt that you would still be allowed to post such
"cold unlikely" posts to usw.moderated. I doubt however, that you would
be allowed to hound those posters who talked of cold weather when said
weather fails to materialize.


As a result, individuals who don't conform to that culture are
ostracised until the moderators are ready to give into the baying gang
members, who constantly whine that this person, or that person, should
be banned.

But again, that is not a reflection of what has happened in this group.
Others that do not "conform to that culture" have not been subjected to
the abuse that you have suffered.

I would not vote for any moderated group that would allow people to be
banned and I could not see usw.m being created with that power being
available to the moderators.



The owners of the sites are very understanding, but they have a vested
interest. They understand that interest and are open and honest. They
know where their bread's buttered. John and Brian at Netweather, and
TWO certainly recognise this (Metcheck's peadophile owner gets no
recognition there) I still post, very occasionally, at UKww . John and
Brian know (knew for John?? Dunno how involved he is these days)
people that the bulk of their posters like cold weather and want it to
happen. Thus, they have to support their moderators; they know what's
good for their business. At that point, it's not worth staying.
Believe me; There's no point.

So how would this affect usw.m which would have no owner? Of course, the
result would be almost the same as far as you are concerned. You would
not be allowed to hound the coldies with quite the same fervor as you
have done in the past. But. You would probably still be allowed to
reasonably dispute the likelihood of such weather. Whats more, you
yourself would not be hounded or insulted for doing so. All the
CC,GW,GC,AGW crap would probably go too.


What's left is anodyne (IMO, here).

As I say, these sites will welcome you with open arms, but they are a
very limited church. COL is too. If that's and good luck. what you
want; post there - but ask yourself why you don't post there already:
chances are you've already tried them and run into the wealth of
idiots they contain. Again, IMO, there are far less of them here.

There are far less of anybody here these days. Presumably because the
moderated fora are a more pleasant place in which to discuss. And I have
to say that those sites do not sound like "a very limited church" to me.
Indeed they sound a lot like usw before you arrived. (You are of course,
not the only problem here. There are others, myself included).


As for usw.m, it would be a gamble. It may produce a group that would be
pleasant enough for all and still allow reasoned debate from /all/ pov's
and could well prosper. There is a danger though in that if it sinks, it
may well take usw down with it.

And as for you Paul, I would not feel too threatened should such a group
be created. You would not be banned or blacklisted, you would still be
able to make your quarterly 10day forecasts, and you would probably
still get away with the occasional point scoring post too. You would
even be able to post of the ridiculously low odds of any impending cold
weather and I dare say you would be allowed one "I told you so" post per
non-event. For everything else, you would still have a.gw. I'm sure
larry would be all too happy to engage with you there.


--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 12:41:25 PM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,

says...

This is an interesting thread and it would be worthwhile as many as possible contributing. Thanks for starting it Paul.

John has highlighted the difficulty.

What happens in such forums is that the complaints of a group (it turns into a gang), that don't like what an individual is saying, influence moderators.

Yes. The whole point of moderation is that individuals don't get to make

posts that the rest of the group don't want. That way, the group gets a

group that they are happy with.

rest snipped, as here is the crux, but I do appreciate the time and effort that went into this

How can any individual know what a "group" wants on usenet, where almost no-one knows each other? Via moderation and thus filtering, a group would get a group where they only talk to people they want in the group. That's not a group; its a cabal. That's why a broad church is best. That's why moderation is anathema.

There are a proportion of people I really don't like on here. They don't like me. However, sometimes they post things of interest, even though I don't like them and I reply with reciprocal interest. That's why I would never employ a killfile (google groups doesn't let you anyway). Sometimes they post what I don't agree with and I'll challenge that. However, I'd never seek to get rid of anyone and I never have - though people like hughes and others have actively sought to get rid of me, by canvassing others. It's all a part of the wide church for me and I would vigorously defend anyone's right to put their point of view, even if I don't like them (and have done to my cost in forums before).

I detest a "group" mentality. It leads places where my sense of fairness and moral base won't let me go.

For once I agree with Dawlish - the beauty of this group is that it is open to anyone who cares to post or read it. The minute you start moderating it it becomes a club and I wouldn't want to join a club that would have someone like me as a member. Joking aside perhaps the ones who like to disagree for the hell of it could set up uk.sci.insults?

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 12:41:25 +0100
Alan LeHun wrote:

I would not vote for any moderated group that would allow people to
be banned and I could not see usw.m being created with that power
being available to the moderators.

If nobody could be banned, what would be the point?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
'To do is to be' - Nietzsche
'To be is to do' - Kant
'Do be do be do' - Sinatra

In article 20130817142248.478aeb0f@home-1,
says...
I would not vote for any moderated group that would allow people to
be banned and I could not see usw.m being created with that power
being available to the moderators.

If nobody could be banned, what would be the point?


The point is to keep the group on-topic. Posts are moderated, not
posters.

--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 00:41:51 -0700 (PDT), Mike McMillan
wrote:

A very dry Osborne Bay

Do you (I guess) live on the Island? I had many interesting years
living in Ryde ( 1975-1989).

Back to the thread - I am up for moderation if someone could just get
on with it! I bitterly regret the passing of the 3rd regular
contributor in Dorset - there is just Hugh Newbury and I

R

Hilton

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 14:30:33 +0100
Alan LeHun wrote:

In article 20130817142248.478aeb0f@home-1,
says...
I would not vote for any moderated group that would allow people
to be banned and I could not see usw.m being created with that
power being available to the moderators.

If nobody could be banned, what would be the point?


The point is to keep the group on-topic. Posts are moderated, not
posters.


And yet, in another reply, you say post-moderation is frowned upon and
not allowed in uk.* newsgroups. I'm sorry, Alan, but you've left me a
little confused.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
'To do is to be' - Nietzsche
'To be is to do' - Kant
'Do be do be do' - Sinatra

In article 20130817145005.532e0112@home-1,
says...
The point is to keep the group on-topic. Posts are moderated, not
posters.


And yet, in another reply, you say post-moderation is frowned upon and
not allowed in uk.* newsgroups. I'm sorry, Alan, but you've left me a
little confused.


Ahh. Ok.

Post(after) moderation is where the post is allowed through by default
but can then be subsequently canceled by the moderation team.
Unfortunately, this means that it is possible for some subscribers to
see the post and not others. Those first subscribers may reply to the
post and things get complicated.

Moderation in the uk.* groups is something that is applied on a post-by-
post basis before it is allowed to get through. This can be by software,
or by manual moderation or, more usually, a combination of both. Once a
post gets past moderation and ends up in the group, if can not be
canceled/deleted, even if it is subsequently determined to be a post
that should not have passed moderation. Moderation is (should be)
applied in accordance with a moderation policy which specifies the
criteria that determine if a post should not be allowed through.

Post moderation (canceling of already active articles) is an ambiguous
term and I shall stop using it.

--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.