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.