Pre-RFD: uk.politics.moderated

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread to
(i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.* community
and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation team.

With regards (i), previous discussions on this putative group have popped
up from time to time and there has been a level of apparent support for the
group's creation, primarily in terms of "uk.politics.misc is too busy/too
wild/too abuse-ridden to take part in" or
"uk.legal.moderated/uk.d-i-y/uk.rec.sheds/etc are often flooded with
politics threads that are wildly off-topic and/or irritating" and that it
would be a Good Idea to have a controlled forum for politics discussion to
take place in. Each of the times this idea has cropped up in one form or
another, there have been enough "I'd use that group if it existed" comments
to convince me that it's an idea with legs. We certainly are living through
bonkers political times and there is much to be discussed.

So, in terms of scope and aim, I think that it can be as simple as "A
newsgroup for the discussion of politics and policy, with an emphasis on
politics in the UK (although politics from around the globe is on-topic,
moderators may choose to more quickly curtail non-UK politics threads),
moderated to remove heavy abuse and/or thread drift".

In previous discussion, it was suggested that the moderation policy could
be based on the ulm modpol, and I'm pretty comfortable with that. I think
that the key thing to help keep the group tolerable would be to forbid
cross-posting, everything else can be relatively light-touch moderation,
with particularly strong personal abuse rejected (I say "particularly
strong" personal abuse as I do expect that an amount of "robust discussion"
should be expected in a political discussion forum, in the vein of "your
views towards the homeless are quite reprehensible and typical of the Tory
mindset", or "as always with you Loony Leftys you want to spend someone
else's money", for example).

That's currently what I'm drafting towards. I would welcome any input as to
scope and aim, and moderation policy.

With regards (ii), I would like to launch the group with a good-sized
moderation team, ideally 6 or 8 people or so, and preferably from a broad
range of political positions. I'm a pretty far-left socialist so would
consider having a bunch of centrists, Tories, and even UKIP and further
right representation as giving the moderation team a level of balance so as
to mitigate against any future accusations of bias. Food for thought. Email
in headers is genuine, so please do feel free to get in touch off-list if
you prefer.

[Gareth's Downstairs Computer]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread to
(i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.* community
and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation team.

Translation ...

Stephen Thomas Cole / Troll is getting short shrift in uk.radio.amateur
and taken with the abject failure of uk.radio.amateur.moderated he
is desperate for attention again so will annoy everyone in
the unn hierachy.

[Paul Cummins]

In article

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated

Unnecessary, and a dilution of the pool.

"Build it and they will come" has been a demonstrable failure in the case
of ukram, where only 15 of the individuals who apparently voted "yes"
have actually ever posted to the group.

A "yes" vote for a new group should indicate not only consent to creation,
but willingness to use.

I would vote against, but I have no doubt that Cole, Reay and the Usual
Suspects are already washing their socks

[Spike]

Post by Paul Cummins

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated

Unnecessary, and a dilution of the pool.

Take no notice - it's just another attention-seeking exercise.

Post by Paul Cummins
"Build it and they will come" has been a demonstrable failure in the case
of ukram, where only 15 of the individuals who apparently voted "yes"
have actually ever posted to the group.
A "yes" vote for a new group should indicate not only consent to creation,
but willingness to use.
I would vote against, but I have no doubt that Cole, Reay and the Usual
Suspects are already washing their socks

We've never been forgiven for getting him to scupper his own RFDs.

[Gareth's outhouse computer]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 14:04:31 +0000

Post by Spike

Post by Paul Cummins

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation
of uk.politics.moderated

Unnecessary, and a dilution of the pool.

Take no notice - it's just another attention-seeking exercise.

Post by Paul Cummins
"Build it and they will come" has been a demonstrable failure in
the case of ukram, where only 15 of the individuals who apparently
voted "yes" have actually ever posted to the group.
A "yes" vote for a new group should indicate not only consent to
creation, but willingness to use.
I would vote against, but I have no doubt that Cole, Reay and the
Usual Suspects are already washing their socks

We've never been forgiven for getting him to scupper his own RFDs.

Translation: "I've never been forgiven for being such a spiteful old
cunt."

[c***@mailserv.netunix.com]

Gareth's outhouse computer <***@privacy.net> wrote:

<garbage snipped>


You do not need a moderated newsgroup, you just need a killfile.
You have a bunch of argumentative fools each of whom always want
to have the last word.
Stop it, KF the participants and never feed a troll.
SIMPLE.

[Gareth's Downstairs Computer]

Post by c***@mailserv.netunix.com
<garbage snipped>
You do not need a moderated newsgroup, you just need a killfile.
You have a bunch of argumentative fools each of whom always want
to have the last word.
Stop it, KF the participants and never feed a troll.
SIMPLE.

You are responding to a sock puppet of Stephen Thomas Cole which
he wakes up when he has been caught out; an infantile device of
his trying to grab my attention with a rather silly and childish
parody of my posting ID.

Will he ever grow up? Not while his mind continues to wear
soiled nappies even though he might wear long trousers.

[Gareth's outhouse computer]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 21:25:38 +0100
Gareth's Downstairs Computer

Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer

Post by c***@mailserv.netunix.com
<garbage snipped>
You do not need a moderated newsgroup, you just need a killfile.
You have a bunch of argumentative fools each of whom always want
to have the last word.
Stop it, KF the participants and never feed a troll.
SIMPLE.

You are responding to a sock puppet of Stephen Thomas Cole which
he wakes up when he has been caught out; an infantile device of
his trying to grab my attention with a rather silly and childish
parody of my posting ID.
Will he ever grow up? Not while his mind continues to wear
soiled nappies even though he might wear long trousers.

Gareth, you're talking out of your arse, as usual.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Gareth's Downstairs Computer

Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer

Post by c***@mailserv.netunix.com
<garbage snipped>
You do not need a moderated newsgroup, you just need a killfile.
You have a bunch of argumentative fools each of whom always want
to have the last word.
Stop it, KF the participants and never feed a troll.
SIMPLE.

You are responding to a sock puppet of Stephen Thomas Cole which
he wakes up when he has been caught out; an infantile device of
his trying to grab my attention with a rather silly and childish
parody of my posting ID.
Will he ever grow up? Not while his mind continues to wear
soiled nappies even though he might wear long trousers.

For the record, I don't post as "Gareth's outhouse computer", or any other
posting-ID than my own name. That said, I do often find Gareth's outhouse
computer's posts to be deeply amusing, especially when they cause Gareth to
throw a public tantrum. Well done that man, whoever you are!

[Gareth's outhouse computer]

Post by Gareth's outhouse computer
Gareth's Downstairs Computer

Post by Gareth's Downstairs Computer

Post by c***@mailserv.netunix.com
<garbage snipped>
You do not need a moderated newsgroup, you just need a killfile.
You have a bunch of argumentative fools each of whom always want
to have the last word.
Stop it, KF the participants and never feed a troll.
SIMPLE.

You are responding to a sock puppet of Stephen Thomas Cole which
he wakes up when he has been caught out; an infantile device of
his trying to grab my attention with a rather silly and childish
parody of my posting ID.
Will he ever grow up? Not while his mind continues to wear
soiled nappies even though he might wear long trousers.

For the record, I don't post as "Gareth's outhouse computer", or any other
posting-ID than my own name. That said, I do often find Gareth's outhouse
computer's posts to be deeply amusing, especially when they cause Gareth to
throw a public tantrum. Well done that man, whoever you are!

The devil is in the detail.

[Brian Reay]

Post by c***@mailserv.netunix.com
<garbage snipped>
You do not need a moderated newsgroup, you just need a killfile.
You have a bunch of argumentative fools each of whom always want
to have the last word.
Stop it, KF the participants and never feed a troll.
SIMPLE.

That is one view.

However, in the real world it doesn't work.

Even with moderation, if you have the wrong moderators, you can get
abuse and see groups prove unpopular- look at ukram. Compare it to
RSGBTech- which continues to thrive, average 729 posts/mth so far this
year. No abuse etc.

[Brian Howie]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by c***@mailserv.netunix.com
<garbage snipped>
You do not need a moderated newsgroup, you just need a killfile.
You have a bunch of argumentative fools each of whom always want
to have the last word.
Stop it, KF the participants and never feed a troll.
SIMPLE.

That is one view.
However, in the real world it doesn't work.
Even with moderation, if you have the wrong moderators, you can get
abuse and see groups prove unpopular- look at ukram.

Best there is.

Compare it to

Post by Brian Reay
RSGBTech- which continues to thrive,  average 729 posts/mth so far this
year. No abuse etc.

So you keep saying.

Brian

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Brian Howie

Post by Brian Reay

Post by c***@mailserv.netunix.com
<garbage snipped>
You do not need a moderated newsgroup, you just need a killfile.
You have a bunch of argumentative fools each of whom always want
to have the last word.
Stop it, KF the participants and never feed a troll.
SIMPLE.

That is one view.
However, in the real world it doesn't work.
Even with moderation, if you have the wrong moderators, you can get
abuse and see groups prove unpopular- look at ukram.

Best there is.

Agreed.

[Gareth's outhouse computer]

Post by c***@mailserv.netunix.com
<garbage snipped>
You do not need a moderated newsgroup, you just need a killfile.
You have a bunch of argumentative fools each of whom always want
to have the last word.
Stop it, KF the participants and never feed a troll.
SIMPLE.

Current build of tin? Check!

Arch Linux ARM? Check!

Text editor formatting blocks correctly? Nope.

Kernel source tree locked and loaded? Check! Edinburgh here we come!

[Judith]

Post by Paul Cummins
In article
<44817309.557656738.246842.usenet-

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated

Unnecessary, and a dilution of the pool.
"Build it and they will come" has been a demonstrable failure in the
case of ukram, where only 15 of the individuals who apparently voted
"yes" have actually ever posted to the group.
A "yes" vote for a new group should indicate not only consent to creation,
but willingness to use.
I would vote against, but I have no doubt that Cole, Reay and the Usual
Suspects are already washing their socks

How to vote multiple times in the uk.* hierarchy - a step-by-step guide.

1. Prepare in advance.

You are going to set up multiple identities, and each one must have enough
substance that the vote-taker (hereinafter VT) will take them as coming
from a different person. It's possible that despite your precautions the
VT will rumble one or more of your votes as being invalid, so if you plan
on voting, say, ten times, set up a few extra identities.

Each identity must have an email address that is different, and it must be
one at which you can both send and receive email. Further, the emails you
send must NOT have anything in their headers which can be matched to
another address. The simplest way to achieve this is to use a web-based
email, but even so you must do a bit of checking first.

To check, what you do is send yourself an email from the new address. You
need to send all your test emails to an address which will show you ALL
the "headers" - this is where extra tracking information is added to your
email. You may need to figure out how to get your email client to show
them to you as they are usually hidden. The, open each one and look at
the headers (your web-based email provider should have a link or
preference setting that says something like "show headers" or "show
original"). You are looking for two Bad Things:

a) an IP address (something like 80.254.146.36) which matches what you are
using; and b) a path which is sufficiently detailed to show that the
emails came from the same computer (yours).

If a) shows, you can only get (safely) one ballot via that email address.

a) Is less of a worry if your IP changes (many dial-up accounts will be
like this - when you connect to the interweb, it can be through any of a
number of different IPs that your provider has available.
To find out what your IP is, there are many services on the web that will
tell you (just googling "whats my IP" works). Every time you start to set
up a new email address, check this first and write it down.

b) The path will be in the Received: header(s). Look at them ALL for your
IP, and if you are setting up more than one email from the same provider
at (about) the same time, copy the headers and compare them. It may be
that they are the same - if so, send yourself more email a
little later and check. Providers may have multiple possible paths
(multiple mail servers) and if you get a different path the next time that
is a Good Thing. Even if the path is the same, you can try using the
email, as of course if yours is the same many others from other legitimate
users could also have that path. In this case all you need do is avoid
being stupid (see below) when requesting ballots.

Once you have a set of working, untraceable emails you will need some
supporting usenet histories. For each email choose a few newsgroups,
groups in which you already post, or perhaps have some knowledge/interest,
and if possible close to but not necessarily matching the group for which
you expect a relevant vote.

For posting, get a free account at aioe.org or eternal-september.org or
any of a number of free newservers (google will help you find others). It
is ok to get multiple accounts at the same newserver, each tied to one of
your new email addresses - but if you like, spread them around a bit.
Check the privacy policy to make sure that the operator won't give out
your email or logs without a court order; although I happen to know this
can be done it is a tremendous amount of work and stress, and the VT is
very unlikely, perhaps even unable (for an off-shore based server) to want
to go through this even once.


Next you need a newsreader, preferably more than one. Many newsreaders
are free, or have free versions, and if you can have several it will help
cloak who you are. Good ones will allow "profiles" or something similar
in which you can set the name and reply-to email, and you can use those to
keep all the posting names and newsgroups matched up (but a sheet of A4
with notes made as you go is still probably a good idea). More than one
is a Good Thing because newsreaders add headers with various things -
version, organization, and so on, if these are all the same because you
use the same reader it could attract the attention of the VT.

MAKE A TEST POST FIRST. Pick an innocuous group (I use uk.rec.gardening)
and post something innocent and mildly worthy of reply (for example, do
not use "test" as your subject). Replying to an existing thread is better
than starting one - you'll be less noticeable. You want something to
which others can reply without a "who-the-hell-are-you" comment (a
dead-giveaway), and one which you can examine the headers. Your
newsreader will have some sort of option to "show all headers", and what
you are looking for is the same sort of identifying information that you
checked for in the email headers. If, for instance, there is an
"NNTP-Posting-Host" header and your IP (as determined above) does not
change you can only use this news-server for one identity.

If your test post shows no problems, go ahead and start posting - not too
much, and not all at once. What you want to to is simulate someone who is
new to usenet, getting involved gradually, and slowly getting closer to
the topic/newsgroup where you expect the vote to focus. It is not
actually necessary to post in order to get a ballot sent when the Call For
Votes occurs, but doing so is better because it will attract less
attention from the VT. Try to assume a different personality for each
identity - make some consistent speeling erorrs, or use different stock
phrases, or make a reference to different locales as being where you live,
and so on. Keep track or who says what in which way from where, and be
consistent within each identity.

2. The RFD.

There will be an Request For Discussion (RDF) first, perhaps more than
one. This part of the process starts in uk.net.news.announce, so monitor
that. When the discussion starts, don't join in all at once with all of
your identities. If you have an identity that has shown absolutely no
interest in the group/topic before, you may be better off not contributing
at all with that identity. With those identities who do participate, feel
free to disagree with others, each other, and even about which way you
intend to vote. Carried well, you can even announce that you've changed
you mind as a result of some particularly (un)persuasive point another
poster (yourself? who knows?) has made.

3. The CFV.

After a while there will be a Call For Votes - actually two. When that
happens, start asking for ballots. Do this gradually, the CFV takes some
time and if you spread your requests over this period it will be less
noticeable. The requests likely follow a U-shaped curve,
so a few early, some in the middle and the remainder nearer the end of the
period will blend in better. If the VT emails you asking for extra
details, DO NOT REPLY. You've been rumbled, and trying to fix it is not
worth it. The VT will probably expect a few to try it on, so let him
think he has found one. A cat with a dead mouse may not be so eager to try
to catch another, and you will have allowed for this eventuality by making
extra identities, no?

After you get your ballot, don't always send it right back. If possible,
make your response time match your assumed identity's personality -
strident campaigners know right away how they will vote, and lurkers may
leave it until the last minute.

4. The results.

Be patient. The calculation of the results of one recent vote took from
early August to late September, so do not expect anything to happen
quickly. There is nothing you can do at this point anyway to affect the
results directly, but it is probably a good idea to keep posting from the
various identities (excepting any that the VT has spotted) so that
questions from others of the form "Who is <name>" when they see the
results can be avoided.


5. Should you worry?

No.

There is nothing legally wrong with doing any of the above.

There is nothing the VT can easily (or even likely) do (assuming you have
been sufficiently careful) to be sure any email is not genuine; although
they mutter sometimes about secret ways to check it's all just
TV-detector-van mumbo-jumbo - they have no extra powers to demand logs
etcetera from ISP or news-servers and all they have to go on is the same
stuff you check for.

There is nothing morally wrong with any of the above either - after all,
it's only Usenet, no-one dies; you want what you want, and...

...rest assured, the other side *is* doing this already.

[Brian Howie]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread to
(i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.* community
and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation team.

I think you need buy-in from the exisiting uk.politics miscers. I was
surprised not to see the post copied there. Moderators would have to be
some pretty thick skinned individuals.

Brian

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Brian Howie

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread to
(i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.* community
and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation team.

I think you need buy-in from the exisiting uk.politics miscers. I was
surprised not to see the post copied there.

Yeah, that occurred to me a couple of hours after starting this thread...
I'll make a post now, thanks for the reminder.

Post by Brian Howie
Moderators would have to be
some pretty thick skinned individuals.

You in, then?

[Brian Reay]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Howie

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread to
(i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.* community
and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation team.

I think you need buy-in from the exisiting uk.politics miscers. I was
surprised not to see the post copied there.

Yeah, that occurred to me a couple of hours after starting this thread...
I'll make a post now, thanks for the reminder.

Post by Brian Howie
Moderators would have to be
some pretty thick skinned individuals.

You in, then?

Oh dear, there is your first mistake.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Howie

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread to
(i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.* community
and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation team.

I think you need buy-in from the exisiting uk.politics miscers. I was
surprised not to see the post copied there.

Yeah, that occurred to me a couple of hours after starting this thread...
I'll make a post now, thanks for the reminder.

Post by Brian Howie
Moderators would have to be
some pretty thick skinned individuals.

You in, then?

Oh dear, there is your first mistake.

What's your beef with Brian, Brian?

[Brian Reay]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Howie

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread to
(i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.* community
and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation team.

I think you need buy-in from the exisiting uk.politics miscers. I was
surprised not to see the post copied there.

Yeah, that occurred to me a couple of hours after starting this thread...
I'll make a post now, thanks for the reminder.

Post by Brian Howie
Moderators would have to be
some pretty thick skinned individuals.

You in, then?

Oh dear, there is your first mistake.

What's your beef with Brian, Brian?

Ukram mod behaviour.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Howie

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread to
(i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.* community
and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation team.

I think you need buy-in from the exisiting uk.politics miscers. I was
surprised not to see the post copied there.

Yeah, that occurred to me a couple of hours after starting this thread...
I'll make a post now, thanks for the reminder.

Post by Brian Howie
Moderators would have to be
some pretty thick skinned individuals.

You in, then?

Oh dear, there is your first mistake.

What's your beef with Brian, Brian?

Ukram mod behaviour.

Are you able to identify any specific rogue behaviour with Brian, then,
Brian?

[Brian Howie]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Howie

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread to
(i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.* community
and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation team.

I think you need buy-in from the exisiting uk.politics miscers. I was
surprised not to see the post copied there.

Yeah, that occurred to me a couple of hours after starting this thread...
I'll make a post now, thanks for the reminder.

Post by Brian Howie
Moderators would have to be
some pretty thick skinned individuals.

You in, then?

No chance. I'm sure young Brian, with his moderating experience would
step up to the plate to show us how it should be done.

Brian

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Brian Howie

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Howie

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread to
(i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.* community
and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation team.

I think you need buy-in from the exisiting uk.politics miscers. I was
surprised not to see the post copied there.

Yeah, that occurred to me a couple of hours after starting this thread...
I'll make a post now, thanks for the reminder.

Post by Brian Howie
Moderators would have to be
some pretty thick skinned individuals.

You in, then?

No chance.

Bottled. It'll be a right laugh, and there'll be local interest for you,
too, what with the inevitable IndyRef2 and Scotland rejoining EU should
Brexit actually happen. :-D

Post by Brian Howie
I'm sure young Brian, with his moderating experience would
step up to the plate to show us how it should be done.

I'll take his application, should it be forthcoming, under advisement.

[Brian Howie]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Howie

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Howie

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread to
(i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.* community
and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation team.

I think you need buy-in from the exisiting uk.politics miscers. I was
surprised not to see the post copied there.

Yeah, that occurred to me a couple of hours after starting this thread...
I'll make a post now, thanks for the reminder.

Post by Brian Howie
Moderators would have to be
some pretty thick skinned individuals.

You in, then?

No chance.

Bottled. It'll be a right laugh, and there'll be local interest for you,
too, what with the inevitable IndyRef2 and Scotland rejoining EU should
Brexit actually happen. :-D

There's enough fun and games on scot.politics "Vote No and you'll get
to stay in the EU" What a laugh.

B

[Brian Reay]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Howie

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread to
(i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.* community
and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation team.

I think you need buy-in from the exisiting uk.politics miscers. I was
surprised not to see the post copied there.

Yeah, that occurred to me a couple of hours after starting this thread...
I'll make a post now, thanks for the reminder.

Post by Brian Howie
Moderators would have to be
some pretty thick skinned individuals.

You in, then?

No chance. I'm sure young Brian, with his  moderating experience would
step up to the plate to show us how it should be done.

Not interested. I already mod several groups which is quite enough.

[gareth evans]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread
to (i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.*
community and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation
team.
With regards (i), previous discussions on this putative group have
popped up from time to time and there has been a level of apparent
support for the group's creation, primarily in terms of
"uk.politics.misc is too busy/too wild/too abuse-ridden to take part in"
or "uk.legal.moderated/uk.d-i-y/uk.rec.sheds/etc are often flooded with
politics threads that are wildly off-topic and/or irritating" and that
it would be a Good Idea to have a controlled forum for politics
discussion to take place in. Each of the times this idea has cropped up
in one form or another, there have been enough "I'd use that group if it
existed" comments to convince me that it's an idea with legs. We
certainly are living through bonkers political times and there is much
to be discussed.
So, in terms of scope and aim, I think that it can be as simple as "A
newsgroup for the discussion of politics and policy, with an emphasis on
politics in the UK (although politics from around the globe is on-topic,
moderators may choose to more quickly curtail non-UK politics threads),
moderated to remove heavy abuse and/or thread drift".
In previous discussion, it was suggested that the moderation policy
could be based on the ulm modpol, and I'm pretty comfortable with that.
I think that the key thing to help keep the group tolerable would be to
forbid cross-posting, everything else can be relatively light-touch
moderation, with particularly strong personal abuse rejected (I say
"particularly strong" personal abuse as I do expect that an amount of
"robust discussion"
should be expected in a political discussion forum, in the vein of "your
views towards the homeless are quite reprehensible and typical of the
Tory mindset", or "as always with you Loony Leftys you want to spend
someone else's money", for example).
That's currently what I'm drafting towards. I would welcome any input as
to scope and aim, and moderation policy.
With regards (ii), I would like to launch the group with a good-sized
moderation team, ideally 6 or 8 people or so, and preferably from a
broad range of political positions. I'm a pretty far-left socialist so
would consider having a bunch of centrists, Tories, and even UKIP and
further right representation as giving the moderation team a level of
balance so as to mitigate against any future accusations of bias. Food
for thought. Email in headers is genuine, so please do feel free to get
in touch off-list if you prefer.

I would like register my support for this proposal and nominate Spike as
a moderator. Although we have crossed swords in the past, there is no
doubt that Spike shines as a lighthouse of logic and acuity against those
who present themselves as escapees from the kindergarten when they spit
feathers.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by gareth evans

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread
to (i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.*
community and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation
team.
With regards (i), previous discussions on this putative group have
popped up from time to time and there has been a level of apparent
support for the group's creation, primarily in terms of
"uk.politics.misc is too busy/too wild/too abuse-ridden to take part in"
or "uk.legal.moderated/uk.d-i-y/uk.rec.sheds/etc are often flooded with
politics threads that are wildly off-topic and/or irritating" and that
it would be a Good Idea to have a controlled forum for politics
discussion to take place in. Each of the times this idea has cropped up
in one form or another, there have been enough "I'd use that group if it
existed" comments to convince me that it's an idea with legs. We
certainly are living through bonkers political times and there is much
to be discussed.
So, in terms of scope and aim, I think that it can be as simple as "A
newsgroup for the discussion of politics and policy, with an emphasis on
politics in the UK (although politics from around the globe is on-topic,
moderators may choose to more quickly curtail non-UK politics threads),
moderated to remove heavy abuse and/or thread drift".
In previous discussion, it was suggested that the moderation policy
could be based on the ulm modpol, and I'm pretty comfortable with that.
I think that the key thing to help keep the group tolerable would be to
forbid cross-posting, everything else can be relatively light-touch
moderation, with particularly strong personal abuse rejected (I say
"particularly strong" personal abuse as I do expect that an amount of
"robust discussion"
should be expected in a political discussion forum, in the vein of "your
views towards the homeless are quite reprehensible and typical of the
Tory mindset", or "as always with you Loony Leftys you want to spend
someone else's money", for example).
That's currently what I'm drafting towards. I would welcome any input as
to scope and aim, and moderation policy.
With regards (ii), I would like to launch the group with a good-sized
moderation team, ideally 6 or 8 people or so, and preferably from a
broad range of political positions. I'm a pretty far-left socialist so
would consider having a bunch of centrists, Tories, and even UKIP and
further right representation as giving the moderation team a level of
balance so as to mitigate against any future accusations of bias. Food
for thought. Email in headers is genuine, so please do feel free to get
in touch off-list if you prefer.

I would like register my support for this proposal and nominate Spike as
a moderator. Although we have crossed swords in the past, there is no
doubt that Spike shines as a lighthouse of logic and acuity against those
who present themselves as escapees from the kindergarten when they spit
feathers.

And I'd like to nominate Mussolini and Lord Haw-haw for exactly the same
reasons.

[Bernie]

On 9 Jan 2021 16:04:08 GMT

On 9 Jan 2021 at 14:01:20 GMT, "gareth evans"

Post by gareth evans

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation
of uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal
pre-RFD thread to (i) solicit input to the group's aims and
charter from the uk.* community and (ii) to invite volunteers to
join the initial moderation team.
With regards (i), previous discussions on this putative group have
popped up from time to time and there has been a level of apparent
support for the group's creation, primarily in terms of
"uk.politics.misc is too busy/too wild/too abuse-ridden to take
part in" or "uk.legal.moderated/uk.d-i-y/uk.rec.sheds/etc are
often flooded with politics threads that are wildly off-topic
and/or irritating" and that it would be a Good Idea to have a
controlled forum for politics discussion to take place in. Each of
the times this idea has cropped up in one form or another, there
have been enough "I'd use that group if it existed" comments to
convince me that it's an idea with legs. We certainly are living
through bonkers political times and there is much to be discussed.
So, in terms of scope and aim, I think that it can be as simple
as "A newsgroup for the discussion of politics and policy, with an
emphasis on politics in the UK (although politics from around the
globe is on-topic, moderators may choose to more quickly curtail
non-UK politics threads), moderated to remove heavy abuse and/or
thread drift".
In previous discussion, it was suggested that the moderation
policy could be based on the ulm modpol, and I'm pretty
comfortable with that. I think that the key thing to help keep the
group tolerable would be to forbid cross-posting, everything else
can be relatively light-touch moderation, with particularly strong
personal abuse rejected (I say "particularly strong" personal
abuse as I do expect that an amount of "robust discussion"
should be expected in a political discussion forum, in the vein
of "your views towards the homeless are quite reprehensible and
typical of the Tory mindset", or "as always with you Loony Leftys
you want to spend someone else's money", for example).
That's currently what I'm drafting towards. I would welcome any
input as to scope and aim, and moderation policy.
With regards (ii), I would like to launch the group with a
good-sized moderation team, ideally 6 or 8 people or so, and
preferably from a broad range of political positions. I'm a pretty
far-left socialist so would consider having a bunch of centrists,
Tories, and even UKIP and further right representation as giving
the moderation team a level of balance so as to mitigate against
any future accusations of bias. Food for thought. Email in headers
is genuine, so please do feel free to get in touch off-list if you
prefer.

I would like register my support for this proposal and nominate
Spike as a moderator. Although we have crossed swords in the past,
there is no doubt that Spike shines as a lighthouse of logic and
acuity against those who present themselves as escapees from the
kindergarten when they spit feathers.

And I'd like to nominate Mussolini and Lord Haw-haw for exactly the
same reasons.

I'll nominate you, Evans, and Reay. And propose a rule that all
moderation decisions must be unanimous.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Bernie
On 9 Jan 2021 16:04:08 GMT

On 9 Jan 2021 at 14:01:20 GMT, "gareth evans"

Post by gareth evans

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation
of uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal
pre-RFD thread to (i) solicit input to the group's aims and
charter from the uk.* community and (ii) to invite volunteers to
join the initial moderation team.
With regards (i), previous discussions on this putative group have
popped up from time to time and there has been a level of apparent
support for the group's creation, primarily in terms of
"uk.politics.misc is too busy/too wild/too abuse-ridden to take
part in" or "uk.legal.moderated/uk.d-i-y/uk.rec.sheds/etc are
often flooded with politics threads that are wildly off-topic
and/or irritating" and that it would be a Good Idea to have a
controlled forum for politics discussion to take place in. Each of
the times this idea has cropped up in one form or another, there
have been enough "I'd use that group if it existed" comments to
convince me that it's an idea with legs. We certainly are living
through bonkers political times and there is much to be discussed.
So, in terms of scope and aim, I think that it can be as simple
as "A newsgroup for the discussion of politics and policy, with an
emphasis on politics in the UK (although politics from around the
globe is on-topic, moderators may choose to more quickly curtail
non-UK politics threads), moderated to remove heavy abuse and/or
thread drift".
In previous discussion, it was suggested that the moderation
policy could be based on the ulm modpol, and I'm pretty
comfortable with that. I think that the key thing to help keep the
group tolerable would be to forbid cross-posting, everything else
can be relatively light-touch moderation, with particularly strong
personal abuse rejected (I say "particularly strong" personal
abuse as I do expect that an amount of "robust discussion"
should be expected in a political discussion forum, in the vein
of "your views towards the homeless are quite reprehensible and
typical of the Tory mindset", or "as always with you Loony Leftys
you want to spend someone else's money", for example).
That's currently what I'm drafting towards. I would welcome any
input as to scope and aim, and moderation policy.
With regards (ii), I would like to launch the group with a
good-sized moderation team, ideally 6 or 8 people or so, and
preferably from a broad range of political positions. I'm a pretty
far-left socialist so would consider having a bunch of centrists,
Tories, and even UKIP and further right representation as giving
the moderation team a level of balance so as to mitigate against
any future accusations of bias. Food for thought. Email in headers
is genuine, so please do feel free to get in touch off-list if you
prefer.

I would like register my support for this proposal and nominate
Spike as a moderator. Although we have crossed swords in the past,
there is no doubt that Spike shines as a lighthouse of logic and
acuity against those who present themselves as escapees from the
kindergarten when they spit feathers.

And I'd like to nominate Mussolini and Lord Haw-haw for exactly the
same reasons.

I'll nominate you, Evans, and Reay. And propose a rule that all
moderation decisions must be unanimous.

And made in a locked room?

[Stephen Cole]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Bernie
On 9 Jan 2021 16:04:08 GMT

On 9 Jan 2021 at 14:01:20 GMT, "gareth evans"

Post by gareth evans

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation
of uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal
pre-RFD thread to (i) solicit input to the group's aims and
charter from the uk.* community and (ii) to invite volunteers to
join the initial moderation team.
With regards (i), previous discussions on this putative group have
popped up from time to time and there has been a level of apparent
support for the group's creation, primarily in terms of
"uk.politics.misc is too busy/too wild/too abuse-ridden to take
part in" or "uk.legal.moderated/uk.d-i-y/uk.rec.sheds/etc are
often flooded with politics threads that are wildly off-topic
and/or irritating" and that it would be a Good Idea to have a
controlled forum for politics discussion to take place in. Each of
the times this idea has cropped up in one form or another, there
have been enough "I'd use that group if it existed" comments to
convince me that it's an idea with legs. We certainly are living
through bonkers political times and there is much to be discussed.
So, in terms of scope and aim, I think that it can be as simple
as "A newsgroup for the discussion of politics and policy, with an
emphasis on politics in the UK (although politics from around the
globe is on-topic, moderators may choose to more quickly curtail
non-UK politics threads), moderated to remove heavy abuse and/or
thread drift".
In previous discussion, it was suggested that the moderation
policy could be based on the ulm modpol, and I'm pretty
comfortable with that. I think that the key thing to help keep the
group tolerable would be to forbid cross-posting, everything else
can be relatively light-touch moderation, with particularly strong
personal abuse rejected (I say "particularly strong" personal
abuse as I do expect that an amount of "robust discussion"
should be expected in a political discussion forum, in the vein
of "your views towards the homeless are quite reprehensible and
typical of the Tory mindset", or "as always with you Loony Leftys
you want to spend someone else's money", for example).
That's currently what I'm drafting towards. I would welcome any
input as to scope and aim, and moderation policy.
With regards (ii), I would like to launch the group with a
good-sized moderation team, ideally 6 or 8 people or so, and
preferably from a broad range of political positions. I'm a pretty
far-left socialist so would consider having a bunch of centrists,
Tories, and even UKIP and further right representation as giving
the moderation team a level of balance so as to mitigate against
any future accusations of bias. Food for thought. Email in headers
is genuine, so please do feel free to get in touch off-list if you
prefer.

I would like register my support for this proposal and nominate
Spike as a moderator. Although we have crossed swords in the past,
there is no doubt that Spike shines as a lighthouse of logic and
acuity against those who present themselves as escapees from the
kindergarten when they spit feathers.

And I'd like to nominate Mussolini and Lord Haw-haw for exactly the
same reasons.

I'll nominate you, Evans, and Reay. And propose a rule that all
moderation decisions must be unanimous.

And made in a locked room?

Padded cell?

[gareth evans]

That was not posted by me, even though it quotes verbatim my
previous comments regarding Spike.

Looks like Stephen Thomas Cole is desperate for attention again
which raises the wuestion as to whether his children need to
be monitored by Social Services in view of such a blatantly
infantile attitude on the part of this father?

Post by gareth evans

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
I am currently in the process of drafting an RFD for the creation of
uk.politics.moderated and would like to open an informal pre-RFD thread
to (i) solicit input to the group's aims and charter from the uk.*
community and (ii) to invite volunteers to join the initial moderation
team.
With regards (i), previous discussions on this putative group have
popped up from time to time and there has been a level of apparent
support for the group's creation, primarily in terms of
"uk.politics.misc is too busy/too wild/too abuse-ridden to take part in"
or "uk.legal.moderated/uk.d-i-y/uk.rec.sheds/etc are often flooded with
politics threads that are wildly off-topic and/or irritating" and that
it would be a Good Idea to have a controlled forum for politics
discussion to take place in. Each of the times this idea has cropped up
in one form or another, there have been enough "I'd use that group if it
existed" comments to convince me that it's an idea with legs. We
certainly are living through bonkers political times and there is much
to be discussed.
So, in terms of scope and aim, I think that it can be as simple as "A
newsgroup for the discussion of politics and policy, with an emphasis on
politics in the UK (although politics from around the globe is on-topic,
moderators may choose to more quickly curtail non-UK politics threads),
moderated to remove heavy abuse and/or thread drift".
In previous discussion, it was suggested that the moderation policy
could be based on the ulm modpol, and I'm pretty comfortable with that.
I think that the key thing to help keep the group tolerable would be to
forbid cross-posting, everything else can be relatively light-touch
moderation, with particularly strong personal abuse rejected (I say
"particularly strong" personal abuse as I do expect that an amount of
"robust discussion"
should be expected in a political discussion forum, in the vein of "your
views towards the homeless are quite reprehensible and typical of the
Tory mindset", or "as always with you Loony Leftys you want to spend
someone else's money", for example).
That's currently what I'm drafting towards. I would welcome any input as
to scope and aim, and moderation policy.
With regards (ii), I would like to launch the group with a good-sized
moderation team, ideally 6 or 8 people or so, and preferably from a
broad range of political positions. I'm a pretty far-left socialist so
would consider having a bunch of centrists, Tories, and even UKIP and
further right representation as giving the moderation team a level of
balance so as to mitigate against any future accusations of bias. Food
for thought. Email in headers is genuine, so please do feel free to get
in touch off-list if you prefer.

I would like register my support for this proposal and nominate Spike as
a moderator. Although we have crossed swords in the past, there is no
doubt that Spike shines as a lighthouse of logic and acuity against those
who present themselves as escapees from the kindergarten when they spit
feathers.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by gareth evans
That was not posted by me, even though it quotes verbatim my
previous comments regarding Spike.
Looks like Stephen Thomas Cole is desperate for attention again
which raises the wuestion as to whether his children need to
be monitored by Social Services in view of such a blatantly
infantile attitude on the part of this father?

Clearly this post cannot possibly be by you either; because we are told you
are a reasonable and pleasant person. And it would take a really twisted and
unpleasant person to make such a sly veiled threat on no discernible grounds
at all.

[Bernie]

On 9 Jan 2021 23:30:22 GMT

On 9 Jan 2021 at 22:20:03 GMT, "gareth evans"

Post by gareth evans
That was not posted by me, even though it quotes verbatim my
previous comments regarding Spike.
Looks like Stephen Thomas Cole is desperate for attention again
which raises the wuestion as to whether his children need to
be monitored by Social Services in view of such a blatantly
infantile attitude on the part of this father?

Clearly this post cannot possibly be by you either; because we are
told you are a reasonable and pleasant person. And it would take a
really twisted and unpleasant person to make such a sly veiled threat
on no discernible grounds at all.

It really isn't like Evans to be so menacing and hysterical.

shocking...