Motoring and trolls



S

Simon Brooke

Guest
I've been using Usenet for more than twenty years. In that time, I've had
a number of 'home' groups, groups on which I've hung out and spent a
fair bit of time. All of them, except this one, have been destroyed by
trolls and are now moribund.

And no, this isn't 'just me'. I admit I do occasionally make deliberately
inflammatory posts, and much too often allow myself to get dragged into
off-topic flame fests. But across Usenet there are hundreds of once
useful, lively, vibrant groups which are now empty but for sporadic
postings of spam.

This group can go the same way, and it /will/ go the same way unless we
all get our act together.

* Children being killed by cars /is/ tragic/. We all agree. That the
legal system is dangerously lenient when dealing with motorists is
uncontroversial. But, unless the child was cycling, it is not on topic
on this group. Ever.

* Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.

* Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ. Could we
nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will post just
exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or helmet safety,
and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.

Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
fundamentally as trolls, with no serious interest in cycling and no good
will towards this group. I don't need to list them; you all know who I
mean. Please, everyone, just killfile them.

Yes, I /know/ a good argument is fun, particularly when you are
frustrated or bored. But this group is /not/ an appropriate place. It's
my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; my other religion is Emacs
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> All of them, except this one, have been destroyed by
> trolls and are now moribund.

Totally agree Simon. You need only look at a.r.b.r to see a once great
group on a sad decline, due to OT posting and Troll Wars.

It would be a tragedy if u.r.c was to go the same way.

--
Stuart


The Richard P Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm:
(1) write down the problem;
(2) think very hard;
(3) write down the answer.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

> * Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ.
> Could we nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will
> post just exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or
> helmet safety, and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.

I don't particularly agree with the idea of a FAQ if it means people no
longer post on a particular subject. It's handy to have the FAQ file for
reference, but it shouldn't supplant discussion/debate. Essentially, a FAQ
used in such a way is little more than the incumbents saying that they can't
be bothered reading or replying to certain subjects, therefore, they
shouldn't be discussed.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been using Usenet for more than twenty years. In that time, I've had
> a number of 'home' groups, groups on which I've hung out and spent a
> fair bit of time. All of them, except this one, have been destroyed by
> trolls and are now moribund.
>
> And no, this isn't 'just me'. I admit I do occasionally make deliberately
> inflammatory posts, and much too often allow myself to get dragged into
> off-topic flame fests. But across Usenet there are hundreds of once
> useful, lively, vibrant groups which are now empty but for sporadic
> postings of spam.
>
> This group can go the same way, and it /will/ go the same way unless we
> all get our act together.
>
> * Children being killed by cars /is/ tragic/. We all agree. That the
> legal system is dangerously lenient when dealing with motorists is
> uncontroversial. But, unless the child was cycling, it is not on topic
> on this group. Ever.
>
> * Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
> topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.
>
> * Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ. Could we
> nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will post just
> exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or helmet safety,
> and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.
>
> Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
> fundamentally as trolls, with no serious interest in cycling and no good
> will towards this group. I don't need to list them; you all know who I
> mean. Please, everyone, just killfile them.
>
> Yes, I /know/ a good argument is fun, particularly when you are
> frustrated or bored. But this group is /not/ an appropriate place. It's
> my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
> with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.
>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ;; my other religion is Emacs

Well put Simon...OK by me.

Colin N.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> I've been using Usenet for more than twenty years. In that time, I've had
> a number of 'home' groups, groups on which I've hung out and spent a
> fair bit of time. All of them, except this one, have been destroyed by
> trolls and are now moribund.
>
> And no, this isn't 'just me'. I admit I do occasionally make deliberately
> inflammatory posts, and much too often allow myself to get dragged into
> off-topic flame fests. But across Usenet there are hundreds of once
> useful, lively, vibrant groups which are now empty but for sporadic
> postings of spam.
>
> This group can go the same way, and it /will/ go the same way unless we
> all get our act together.
>
> * Children being killed by cars /is/ tragic/. We all agree. That the
> legal system is dangerously lenient when dealing with motorists is
> uncontroversial. But, unless the child was cycling, it is not on topic
> on this group. Ever.

Agreed

> * Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
> topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.

uk.transport et all are the place for this sort of chat. It's an
important topic of discussion and I'd encourage people to fight the good
fight. But I agree, not here.

> * Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ. Could we
> nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will post just
> exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or helmet safety,
> and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.

Not so sure on this one. Helmets are on topic and we shouldn't kill the
subject just because it's contentious. Anyone who doesn't want to play
can skip the thread.

> Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
> fundamentally as trolls, with no serious interest in cycling and no good
> will towards this group. I don't need to list them; you all know who I
> mean. Please, everyone, just killfile them.

I'd add an additional caution to Simon's list: avoid cross posting.

> Yes, I /know/ a good argument is fun, particularly when you are
> frustrated or bored. But this group is /not/ an appropriate place. It's
> my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
> with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.
>
 
in message <[email protected]>, Wally
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> * Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ.
>> Could we nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will
>> post just exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or
>> helmet safety, and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.
>
> I don't particularly agree with the idea of a FAQ if it means people no
> longer post on a particular subject. It's handy to have the FAQ file
> for reference, but it shouldn't supplant discussion/debate.
> Essentially, a FAQ used in such a way is little more than the
> incumbents saying that they can't be bothered reading or replying to
> certain subjects, therefore, they shouldn't be discussed.

Yup, but the helmet debate has been done to death, all the positions have
been advanced ad nauseam. No-one who has taken part is going to change
their opinion; far more heat than light has been generated. We don't
need to rehash it again, and again, and again.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
of copper roove nails.
 
Simon Brooke came up with the following;:

> * Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
> topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.

Surely speed limits are on topic? The speeds that vehicles and other road
users travel at has a major bearing on cyclists, cycling and the enjoyment
of such.

> Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
> fundamentally as trolls, with no serious interest in cycling and no good
> will towards this group.

I'd guess some people have me killfiled, but I post as a cyclist and as a
motorist, pedestrian, horse rider, rambler, hill-climber, train user, bus
passenger, airport user etc and speak out for what I believe or perceive. I
have _never_ trolled in URC, can't think where i might have elsewhere
either, and don't intend to. I may have opposing views and may not express
them as succinctly or as polarised towards cycling as some, but just because
I might be 'wrong' in their eyes doesn't mean I am trolling.

> I don't need to list them; you all know who I
> mean. Please, everyone, just killfile them.

If everyone 'knows' who these trolls are, why can't you post their names? I
dunno who's out just to troll, indeed compared to some groups I also use
this group has almost none. Maybe those you think are trolls simply have a
totally different viewpoint and you're too blinkered to see it.

> Yes, I /know/ a good argument is fun, particularly when you are
> frustrated or bored. But this group is /not/ an appropriate place.

Isn't argument what keeps groups alive?

> It's
> my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
> with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.

IMHO this smacks of trollishness itself ... I mean, who determines what's
useful? How do you know it's going to be useful, or not, if no-one posts
about it? Will there be a list of 'useful' subjects?

Why not just open a moderated group .....

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
ebay 8023391484
 
> I don't particularly agree with the idea of a FAQ if it means people no
> longer post on a particular subject. It's handy to have the FAQ file for
> reference, but it shouldn't supplant discussion/debate. Essentially, a FAQ
> used in such a way is little more than the incumbents saying that they
can't
> be bothered reading or replying to certain subjects, therefore, they
> shouldn't be discussed.
>
As far as helmets are concerned, there's liitle to add to the debate and the
FAQ would be a useful resources to point people to. All that seems to
happen when the topic arises is that the same folk trot out the same
prejudices, I mean opinions ;-) and statistics and is of little interest to
those who have frequented the environs of u.r.c for a fortnight or more as a
certain feeling of deja vu overcomes the need to read any further.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> * Children being killed by cars /is/ tragic/. We all agree. That the
> legal system is dangerously lenient when dealing with motorists is
> uncontroversial. But, unless the child was cycling, it is not on topic
> on this group. Ever.

As has been discussed before, there is no charter for urc, which makes
it difficult to determine /exactly/ what is and isn't on topic. Clearly
there are regulars here who feel that the subject /is/ on topic, as it
is about the treatment by motorists of other road users, which has an
enormous impact on the environment in which we cycle.

> * Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
> topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.

Again, the first two have an impact on the cycling environment and are
therefore worthy of (limited) discussion in a cycling ng. VED is
classically used by motorists as an excuse for anti-cycling sentiment,
so is again relevant to cyclists.

> * Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ. Could we
> nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will post just
> exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or helmet safety,
> and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.

Fantastic idea, I agree.

> Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
> fundamentally as trolls ... Please, everyone, just killfile them.

Ditto.

> It's
> my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
> with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.

I've followed urc continuously for the last 7 years, and it is certainly
my favourite ng. I agree, I'd hate to see it lose its usefulness. The
two rules that I would encourage people to follow are:

1. Don't feed the trolls.

2. Don't crosspost (especially to uk.transport)

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
Brooke said: <snippity>

Perhaps we should consider a charter for the group?
 
"Mark Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Brooke said: <snippity>
>
> Perhaps we should consider a charter for the group?

I'm not clear how a charter will alter the nature of the postings. Trolls
will still troll, car haters will still post anti-car sentiments,
non-cycling-car-caused-deaths will still be reported and folk will still
post OT material.
 
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:32:33 +0000, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> * Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
> topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.

I disagree. Speed cameras would be on topic, for example, should they
be installed in a royal park and set to teh park limit.

Highway and traffic law more generally ('related topics') are on
topic.

If you think otherwise, you're welcome to propose a charter through
teh appropriate channels. I am likley to vote against it, if it
contains restrictions such as those you imply above.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:32:33 +0000, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> * Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other
>> related topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.
>
> I disagree. Speed cameras would be on topic, for example, should they
> be installed in a royal park and set to teh park limit.


On topic as cyclists would be caught and prosecuted for speeding!

pk
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been using Usenet for more than twenty years. In that time, I've had
> a number of 'home' groups, groups on which I've hung out and spent a
> fair bit of time. All of them, except this one, have been destroyed by
> trolls and are now moribund.
>

The easiest way not to allow trolls to destroy a group is to *ignore* the
trolls. Indeed I am surprised that so many regulars on the group have not
cottoned-on to the fact that *any* response at all is what a troll is
looking for. Trolls simply are not interested in logical, reasoned
discussion. Trolls just want a response, any response and they will keep
posting. The best way to keep the trolls at bay is to *ignore them* Do not
respond to them, kill-file them.

> And no, this isn't 'just me'. I admit I do occasionally make deliberately
> inflammatory posts, and much too often allow myself to get dragged into
> off-topic flame fests. But across Usenet there are hundreds of once
> useful, lively, vibrant groups which are now empty but for sporadic
> postings of spam.
>
> This group can go the same way, and it /will/ go the same way unless we
> all get our act together.
>

The answer is easy - *ignore* the trolls - do not respond to them.


> * Children being killed by cars /is/ tragic/. We all agree. That the
> legal system is dangerously lenient when dealing with motorists is
> uncontroversial. But, unless the child was cycling, it is not on topic
> on this group. Ever.
>

I disagree.


> * Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
> topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.
>
> * Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ. Could we
> nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will post just
> exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or helmet safety,
> and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.
>


Sorry, Simon, but the newsgroup is unmoderated. That's the joy and the curse
of Usenet. Simply put, a moderator, which is effectively what you are asking
for will not work.


> Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
> fundamentally as trolls, with no serious interest in cycling and no good
> will towards this group. I don't need to list them; you all know who I
> mean. Please, everyone, just killfile them.
>

That's the best bit of advice and the one that does work. I've seen it used
to great effect on other groups.

Cheers, helen s



> Yes, I /know/ a good argument is fun, particularly when you are
> frustrated or bored. But this group is /not/ an appropriate place. It's
> my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
> with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.
>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ;; my other religion is Emacs
 
"Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I've followed urc continuously for the last 7 years, and it is certainly
> my favourite ng. I agree, I'd hate to see it lose its usefulness. The
> two rules that I would encourage people to follow are:
>
> 1. Don't feed the trolls.
>
> 2. Don't crosspost (especially to uk.transport)
>

Excellent practises for any newsgroup.

Cheers, helen s
 
> > I disagree. Speed cameras would be on topic, for example, should they
> > be installed in a royal park and set to teh park limit.
>
>
> On topic as cyclists would be caught and prosecuted for speeding!
>
Not until they carry number plates and the law is re-written ;-)
 
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:32:33 +0000, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>I've been using Usenet for more than twenty years. In that time, I've had
>a number of 'home' groups, groups on which I've hung out and spent a
>fair bit of time. All of them, except this one, have been destroyed by
>trolls and are now moribund.

Up to a point. A couple of the wreck.bikes groups are now dead, but
in at least one case the troll is not formally a troll, he is a cranky
and disputatious old man who has too much time on his hands, some of
his posts are on topic and others not. Essentially he hijacked the
group, often posting two or three replies to a single message and
replying to his own messages. And I've done that, too, in my time, so
it's not too easy to take the moral high ground here. It's trolling,
Jim, but not as we know it...

>And no, this isn't 'just me'. I admit I do occasionally make deliberately
>inflammatory posts, and much too often allow myself to get dragged into
>off-topic flame fests. But across Usenet there are hundreds of once
>useful, lively, vibrant groups which are now empty but for sporadic
>postings of spam.

That's not entirely the fault of the spammers and trolls, in some
cases web forums have supplanted them; lots of people don't know about
Usenet. We're a dinosaur. Or at least a living fossil.

I think the presence of at least some argument is a sign of health in
a group, actually. If we all agreed all the time it would probably
indicate that we'd driven off everybody else, which is no better than
what Dolan has done to arbr.

>This group can go the same way, and it /will/ go the same way unless we
>all get our act together.

Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes it's fun to poke clueless trolls with a
stick. Cruel, but fun :)

It's also the case that in defending our point of view against trolls,
we refine our understanding of the arguments as they are seen both by
us and by others. There is no doubt that Martlew did us (FSVO) a
favour with his Bill, in that many of us learned an enormous amount
about the political process, lobbying legislatures, the persuasive vs.
non-persuasive arguments, and how to network with MPs and such. A few
words dropped in the right ears did seem to sideline the Lords'
amendment to the RS bill recently. We've also now learned that the
BMA is just another talking shop, which was useful to learn (in a bad
way).

>* Children being killed by cars /is/ tragic/. We all agree. That the
> legal system is dangerously lenient when dealing with motorists is
> uncontroversial. But, unless the child was cycling, it is not on topic
> on this group. Ever.

A motorist killing someone on a pavement /is/ relevant, because we are
forever being lambasted for cyclists being on the pavement. Relative
danger is a key part of that debate.

>* Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
> topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.

As others have pointed out, there is a strong overlap between cyclists
and road safety activists. Not just the Bill Boaks types, but CTC is
a member of Safer Streets Coalition and supports T2000 and Sustrans
(although they seem to have forgotten the "trans" part of late).
Slower motor traffic speeds are a benefit to cyclists and discussing
urban speeding (and its apologists) is entirely relevant in that
context.

And let's not forget that most of us are also drivers.

>* Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ. Could we
> nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will post just
> exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or helmet safety,
> and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.

LOL! Tony Raven does it so much better, though :)

>Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
>fundamentally as trolls, with no serious interest in cycling and no good
>will towards this group. I don't need to list them; you all know who I
>mean. Please, everyone, just killfile them.

Done long ago.

>Yes, I /know/ a good argument is fun, particularly when you are
>frustrated or bored. But this group is /not/ an appropriate place. It's
>my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
>with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.

Kill the thread, then. It's not much effort. Not that I'd miss them,
but it is not really too hard to avoid these people (as opposed to
just ignoring them).

The major exception here is x-posts to/from uk.tosspot. I cannot
recall a single thread crossposted with that group which was anything
other than a shouting match between entrenched and opposing
viewpoints; crossposted threads should be shot on sight and the bodies
burned.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:38 +0000, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>Yup, but the helmet debate has been done to death, all the positions have
>been advanced ad nauseam. No-one who has taken part is going to change
>their opinion

That is provably false. Ask anyone who remembers my first helmet
thread on here.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:

[...]
> not on topic on this group. Ever.

Threads drift. It's the beauty of Usenet. If you want to argue that
starting off-topic threads is bad, then I'll agree. If you want to argue
that threads that drift off-topic are always bad, then I'm going to have
to strongly disagree.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Boo.
 
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:31:57 -0000, "Paul - ***"
<[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:

>If everyone 'knows' who these trolls are, why can't you post their names?

Checking my killfile for this group: MattB, John D'oh, mm, and various
nyms of the Monkeypoxers. Plus uk.tosspot crossposters: the Nugentoid
of Kager IV and "Mr Bitsy", for example.

But most of them are on "mark read" rather than delete (that's
reserved for the likes of JPoulos and F.Golightly, who I don't think
came here). Plus any thread initiated by Mike Corley reposting his
asinine nonsense (also not seen here).

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
[OT] motoring **** looses money from identity fraud bet.
Replies
55
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Kenneth MacKenzie
K
J
Telegraph motoring section
Replies
12
Views
434
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
T
the future of motoring
Replies
2
Views
348
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
M
Praise for the Brompton from a motoring journalist
Replies
3
Views
375
UK and Europe
David Martin
D
G
a little bit of drizzle and the motoring world goes mad(der than usual) :-(
Replies
17
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Danny Colyer
D
Top Bottom Back