Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: JMS judith.m.smith on 27 Mar 2010 19:02 On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:27:14 +0000, A Fresh Start <afreshstart(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > I wish to raise a formal notice of no confidence in the moderation of > uk.rec.cycling.moderated to be dealt with and voted upon as quickly as > possible. > > If there is a majority vote in favour of that vote of no confidence, I > would like to propose that Ian Jackson and the moderator responsible > for the recent rejection of Tom Crispin's post (Subject: REJECTION: > I'm just fed up with you) resign with immediate effect; the current > moderation team continue to act as moderators until a new team of > moderators is elected by an open election. > > I would like the suggestion to be part of the proposal that the new > moderators, once elected, nominate from themselves a single person who > may act in a leadership capacity of the moderation team. I would hope > that the moderation team could draw up a brief ToR for that role which > would be published. > > I would also like to suggest as part of the proposal that the new > moderation team also consider alternative moderation systems for the > hosting of URCM in the future. > > None of this should be necessary - but it seems to me that the current > moderators lack many required attributes of a moderation team. > > I am not too sure how to formally pursue this suggestion and > I have not gone in to the full details of my proposals here - but I > would like advice on how to follow up this matter and get things > moving. > > Also please advise of appropriate groups to continue this > discussion/proposal in, Looks like Jackson's censored psycholist group is going to get its come-uppance (Snigger). It beggars belief that the abuse of uk usenet has been allowed to go on for this long. He is despicable. No doubt there will shortly be a vote in uk.net.news.management to determine what will happen to the group. I would expect that a group in which even the Chief Moderator gets to post abuse about motorists (sorry, "cagers") is of legitimate interest. Here are a few gems from Jackson and his moderators about the continued abuse of anybody outside of the clique. They speak volumes about his competence as a leader - Wacko at his best. "Tom, I am spending more time readin UNNM than URCM because you are complaining anything and everything, and I am just fed up with you." - a rejection message based on somebody's postings in another group, from a moderator that Jackson is refusing to identify "It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and every moderation decision is unexplained and final. " - Simon Brooke, on moderation "Had he had a rather different attitude over the last several months then it almost certainly wouldn't have happened." - Peter Clinch, trying to justify moderator bullying "I don't have it in me to make an apology to Tom" - Ian Jackson "I think it would be far more appropriate for Tom to apologise to the mods" - Anchor Lee "They'll do what they like, and you have to lump it. " - Ian Smith "I don't think that he should be dropped" - Danny Colyer, on the bullying moderator
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 28 Mar 2010 13:47 The following post is not from me. Note the senders' address is given as JMS <judith.m.smith(a)live.co.uk which is not my address - but it is an obvious attempt to appear to be from me. ===================================================================== On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:02:44 +0000 (UTC), JMS <judith.m.smith(a)live.co.uk > wrote: <snip> >Looks like Jackson's censored psycholist group is going to get its >come-uppance (Snigger). It beggars belief that the abuse of uk usenet has >been allowed to go on for this long. He is despicable. > >No doubt there will shortly be a vote in uk.net.news.management to determine >what will happen to the group. > >I would expect that a group in which even the Chief Moderator gets to post >abuse about motorists (sorry, "cagers") is of legitimate interest. > >Here are a few gems from Jackson and his moderators about the continued >abuse of anybody outside of the clique. They speak volumes about his >competence as a leader - Wacko at his best. > > >"Tom, I am spending more time readin UNNM than URCM because you are >complaining anything and everything, and I am just fed up with you." - a >rejection message based on somebody's postings in another group, from a >moderator that Jackson is refusing to identify > >"It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and every >moderation decision is unexplained and final. " - Simon Brooke, on >moderation > >"Had he had a rather different attitude over the last several months then it >almost certainly wouldn't have happened." - Peter Clinch, trying to justify >moderator bullying > >"I don't have it in me to make an apology to Tom" - Ian Jackson > >"I think it would be far more appropriate for Tom to apologise to the mods" - Anchor Lee > >"They'll do what they like, and you have to lump it. " - Ian Smith > >"I don't think that he should be dropped" - Danny Colyer, on the bullying >moderator -- "wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being involved in an accident." That august body The CTC (They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)
From: Richard Thrippleton on 29 Mar 2010 06:06 On Mar 28, 12:02 am, JMS <judith.m.sm...(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:27:14 +0000, A Fresh Start > > > > <afreshst...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > I wish to raise a formal notice of no confidence in the moderation of > > uk.rec.cycling.moderated to be dealt with and voted upon as quickly as > > possible. *boggle* You're still going on about uk.rec.cycling? I sort of assumed you'd have given up the tantrums after the moderated version got created. Thank you for, err, bringing this to my attention ... time to start lurking on even more groups for fun and profit! (also, Mr.Google Groups has kindly informed me that there is no such usenet group as "uk.net.new.moderation" - a typo?) Richard
From: Brian Morrison on 29 Mar 2010 06:12 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 03:06:59 -0700 (PDT) Richard Thrippleton <rthrippleton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "uk.net.new.moderation" - a typo? /s/new/news/ -- Brian Morrison
From: Derek C on 29 Mar 2010 06:40
On Mar 28, 6:47 pm, JMS <jmsmith2...(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > The following post is not from me. > Note the senders' address is given as JMS <judith.m.sm...(a)live.co.uk > which is not my address - but it is an obvious attempt to appear to be > from me. > > ===================================================================== > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:02:44 +0000 (UTC), JMS > > <judith.m.sm...(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > >Looks like Jackson's censored psycholist group is going to get its > >come-uppance (Snigger). It beggars belief that the abuse of uk usenet has > >been allowed to go on for this long. He is despicable. > > >No doubt there will shortly be a vote in uk.net.news.management to determine > >what will happen to the group. > > >I would expect that a group in which even the Chief Moderator gets to post > >abuse about motorists (sorry, "cagers") is of legitimate interest. > > >Here are a few gems from Jackson and his moderators about the continued > >abuse of anybody outside of the clique. They speak volumes about his > >competence as a leader - Wacko at his best. > > >"Tom, I am spending more time readin UNNM than URCM because you are > >complaining anything and everything, and I am just fed up with you." - a > >rejection message based on somebody's postings in another group, from a > >moderator that Jackson is refusing to identify > > >"It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and every > >moderation decision is unexplained and final. " - Simon Brooke, on > >moderation > > >"Had he had a rather different attitude over the last several months then it > >almost certainly wouldn't have happened." - Peter Clinch, trying to justify > >moderator bullying > > >"I don't have it in me to make an apology to Tom" - Ian Jackson > > >"I think it would be far more appropriate for Tom to apologise to the mods" - Anchor Lee > > >"They'll do what they like, and you have to lump it. " - Ian Smith > > >"I don't think that he should be dropped" - Danny Colyer, on the bullying > >moderator > > -- > > "wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being > involved in an accident." > > That august body The CTC > > (They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have had several postings to URCM rejected by the moderators. You are OK as long as you don't suggest that wearing cycle helmets might be a good idea, or that cyclists should obey the laws and rules of the road. Derek C |