Just a thought - then we could include posts by those of us only
interested in talking about the weather, rather than allowing the trolls
free rein...

--
Regards,

Paul Hyett

"Vidcapper" wrote in message
...
Just a thought - then we could include posts by those of us only
interested in talking about the weather, rather than allowing the trolls
free rein...

The hillfile is your friend.
Just this morning I have dumped 6 people in there, the 3 main protagonists
and 3 others who have allowed themselves to become embroiled in this.
I know I have waded in myself on occaison but enough is enough!

I got sick of seeing thread after thread descend into absuse, debate,
even heated debate is one thing but this isn't that. It's not even witty
or amusing.

And the most pathetic thing of all is that it's not kids or teenagers doing
this, it's grown men in their 50s/60s/70s, screaming obscenities at one
another. I don't even care who started it, they should all be ashamed of
themselves.

OK, you've given me the excuse to get that off my chest, time for
something a bit more constructive.

A moderated group?
Perhaps, thing is somebody has to moderate it.
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.

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.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

On 17/08/13 07:49, Col wrote:
wrote in message
...
Just a thought - then we could include posts by those of us only
interested in talking about the weather, rather than allowing the trolls
free rein...

The hillfile is your friend.

What is that then, a file containing your favourite hill walks? :-)

(Sorry, couldn't resist).

Just this morning I have dumped 6 people in there, the 3 main protagonists
and 3 others who have allowed themselves to become embroiled in this.
I know I have waded in myself on occaison but enough is enough!

I got sick of seeing thread after thread descend into absuse, debate,
even heated debate is one thing but this isn't that. It's not even witty
or amusing.

And the most pathetic thing of all is that it's not kids or teenagers doing
this, it's grown men in their 50s/60s/70s, screaming obscenities at one
another. I don't even care who started it, they should all be ashamed of
themselves.

Well said.

*applause*


OK, you've given me the excuse to get that off my chest, time for
something a bit more constructive.

A moderated group?
Perhaps, thing is somebody has to moderate it.
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.

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.

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 8:37:45 AM UTC+1, Adam Lea wrote:
On 17/08/13 07:49, Col wrote:

wrote in message

...

Just a thought - then we could include posts by those of us only

interested in talking about the weather, rather than allowing the trolls

free rein...



The hillfile is your friend.



What is that then, a file containing your favourite hill walks? :-)



(Sorry, couldn't resist).



Just this morning I have dumped 6 people in there, the 3 main protagonists

and 3 others who have allowed themselves to become embroiled in this.

I know I have waded in myself on occaison but enough is enough!



I got sick of seeing thread after thread descend into absuse, debate,

even heated debate is one thing but this isn't that. It's not even witty

or amusing.



And the most pathetic thing of all is that it's not kids or teenagers doing

this, it's grown men in their 50s/60s/70s, screaming obscenities at one

another. I don't even care who started it, they should all be ashamed of

themselves.



Well said.



*applause*





OK, you've given me the excuse to get that off my chest, time for

something a bit more constructive.



A moderated group?

Perhaps, thing is somebody has to moderate it.

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.



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.

See the above post. "Well said"?

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)

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...


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.

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes indeed, I appreciate this is one of the problems.
Endless arguments over 'you deleted my post yet so and so
did something similar and it was allowed', and it may well end
up creating just as many problems as those it was trying to solve.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:44:33 PM UTC+1, Col wrote:
"John Hall" wrote in message

...

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.



Yes indeed, I appreciate this is one of the problems.

Endless arguments over 'you deleted my post yet so and so

did something similar and it was allowed', and it may well end

up creating just as many problems as those it was trying to solve.

--

Col



Bolton, Lancashire

160m asl

Snow videos:

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

Very true. It happens.

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...
On 17/08/13 07:49, Col wrote:
wrote in message
...
Just a thought - then we could include posts by those of us only
interested in talking about the weather, rather than allowing the trolls
free rein...

The hillfile is your friend.

What is that then, a file containing your favourite hill walks? :-)

(Sorry, couldn't resist).

Thought I might have gotten away with that, I should have
known better

Just this morning I have dumped 6 people in there, the 3 main
protagonists
and 3 others who have allowed themselves to become embroiled in this.
I know I have waded in myself on occaison but enough is enough!

I got sick of seeing thread after thread descend into absuse, debate,
even heated debate is one thing but this isn't that. It's not even witty
or amusing.

And the most pathetic thing of all is that it's not kids or teenagers
doing
this, it's grown men in their 50s/60s/70s, screaming obscenities at one
another. I don't even care who started it, they should all be ashamed of
themselves.

Well said.

*applause*

Just letting off steam at the state this group has reached.
The killfile is a pretty crude instrument of course as I know that there
are many posts by these individuals that are interesting and informative
and I use it with a heavy heart and as a last resort but there is no other
way besides moderation, with which has already been discussed comes
with a whole set of other issues.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg