This is a cautionary tale which shows how good intentions can be subverted by net nannies.

The story begins with a Usenet newsgroup that was being overrun by trolls. A couple of people volunteered to set up a moderated version of the group and I was one of the people who promised to do a bit of moderating. For those of you unfamiliar with this, all it means is that posts to the newsgroup have to be approved by someone trusted before it appears in public. In this way the off-topic and obnoxiously provocative posters are denied an opportunity to make a nuisance of themselves; leaving the rest of us to discuss matters and ask questions without being abused, shouted at and interrupted by obnoxious people who’s only enjoyment in life seems to be being a pain in the arse for others.

Anyone can set up a newsgroup in the usenet hierarchy provided they say what the subject discussion should be focussed on and other ground rules.1 Typically a self-appointed group cobble together some fine words that attempts to be a watertight definition of what is and isn’t allowed. This is called a charter.

Lesson one was that even though the hoards were at the gates there was still room for an enormous amount of dispute over the exact form of words. The basics were understood but then somebody would point out a potential loophole or disagreed with a particular nuance of a particular word. Strewth! Why don’t you guys (and they were all men) just get on with it. I was paxed.2 Whatever happened to “the ends justify the means”.

There was now a hiatus as the rusty and decayed Usenet machinery creaked into action. This was beyond our control. The moderation software turned out to be buggy and not very well presented. I could fix some of those things so I found out how to do it and passed on my detailed suggested fixes to the bods in charge of the engine room. It turned out that the bod I passed this on to was using a text-based web browser – something that is completely inappropriate to modern use of the web by 99.9999% of the rest of us. So that didn’t get too far – A bit like taking your car to a blacksmith to get it serviced. On the other hand when we started running the system for real we were able to adapt various aspects quickly.The open source software paradigm is brilliant in that it allows fast fixes and multiple strands of development.

Lesson two was that although the Internet is pretty good at evolving, improving and adapting, sometimes this is at the price of bumbling amateurism.

At last we had a live working newsgroup and the fun really started. At the charter definition stage people had been suggesting all sorts of scenarios so they were well fired-up to pounce on malefactors. Once again there has been a huge amount of missing the point going on. The object is to keep out the mischief makers not to sanitize and suffocate debate. What amazes me is that some moderators are so sure of their right to reject posts on trivial grounds yet show the greatest nervousness when there might be the very slightest whiff of impropriety on their behalf. One post was rejected on the grounds of misuse of punctuation and I’ve researched this poster on Google and they are provocative! Really that’s true and was meant seriously.

Lesson three is that there are some people that shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a censorship role as they have a passion for the job that exceeds their discriminatory abilities many times over.

Lesson four is that just because people appear to be ‘good eggs’ doesn’t mean they can be trusted to exercise judgement.

I wonder if there is some personality test that could be applied here to get the right combination of abilities to see the wood for the trees?

1. And they have to show some level of support.
2. See blog entry for 16 Oct 2009.

The other day I was asked what my personal philosophy was.
Discriminating in that I’ll weigh people and things up and leave well alone or find out more.
Accommodating follows-on. Once you’re talking to someone who hasn’t been ruled-out then at least give them enough rope to hang themselves.

This combination works well in pubs where in my opinion there are people best left well alone, while the rest have all sorts of weird ideas and mis-conceptions. If you believe in organised religion then you won’t get a moment of accommodation from me.

Something that gets forgotten all too often is that the practical effects of a health problem can be magnified by losing ones confidence.

Yesterday Dame Maggie Smith was quoted as saying It leaves you so flattened. I’m not sure I could go back to theatre work, although film work is more tiring. I’m frightened to work in theatre now. I feel very uncertain. I haven’t done it for a while.

My mum, 82, broke her wrist 10 days ago and has coped very well with it… but although she’s of that generation who grew up with bombs falling on them and getting on with things, the ‘give-up-its-impossible’ demon is getting a say.

These made me think that although when these sorts of things happen we know there’s likely to be various amounts of frustration, anger, disappointment and other emotional fall-out we may not be so clued-up to basic confidence.1 For example somebody might postpone a holiday whilst awaiting ‘results of tests’. The possibility of actual trouble is being turned into actual trouble.

The challenge is to work out how to be a confidence coach. It’s one of those things like giving advice. I expect there are techniques2 but this is all new to me.

1. There may be a name for this. If not I’ll call it The Fox effect and be done with it.
2. Be warned! The obvious ones may be temporary and have a backlash.

When composing a message for your answering machine please have a think about some basics:

• Can people identify it is you properly. They expect a surreal message on mine. Some people are known by different names to different people. In this case you have to be very careful that the timbre of your voice and style of speaking comes through.
• If you’re suggesting another phone number then give it out once but VERY SLOWLY. It is no good rattling it off quickly twice. My mum has just had this – she can’t write very fast so it was useless.
• How many people continue to fail at basic communication! Speak clearly and don’t record your message with lots of background noise.

When leaving a message please remember these very simple rules

• Say who you are. Make it clear. Time after time mystery people say things like “it’s me …” or “Brian here” when it could be one of five Brians. Only yesterday ????? called from ???? Duh!
• Say what time, and possibly day, you called. This saves a lot of unnecessary chasing when the issue has already been solved via another channel.
• If leaving a phone number speak it very slowly once. The listener can always rewind the tape.
• Say what action you want me to take.

Come on people. This level of communication skill is very simple to master – and very annoying when you don’t.

There are few things so satisfying as hearing how the roads are jammed and the trains are cancelled when you work at home. Oh dear how very sad. Shall I have another coffee before strolling upstairs? The small bedroom still has nursery wallpaper from over 20 years ago but so what – it’s as good as any other. In that 20 years I’ve made my self at home if you like with various experiments to improve that bit of life that others call work.
Read more

Today’s post is short because it sums up something that is obvious in a nutshell.

Police forces and politicians like to go on about zero tolerance. What I think they mean by this is that miscreants will always be apprehended and always ‘dealt with’. Hooray – that’s that problem solved and we can all sleep soundly in our beds. What would we do without such fearless fighters against crime who work tirelessly to bring all criminals to justice?

Yes, well, that’s a bit of a busted-flush then as even the dimmest reality checker can fathom.

The answer is of course zero incidence. People decide to commit crime.1 From MPs defrauding the taxpayer, police lying on oath, through to street crime and domestic violence – crime doesn’t have to happen. The only reason we have punishment as part of the justice system is to try to discourage repeat offending. In my neighbourhood we don’t have much street crime or history of scotes breaking into houses and stealing cars. More than none but streets ahead of some places. If low crime can happen here then it could happen in other areas.

Next time you hear zero tolerance fight back with zero incidence. Remember there’s a huge industry involved in ‘the justice system’, so replacing bobbies on the beat or prisons with (say) community regeneration projects2 will upset a lot of vested commercial interests.

1. Of course the Government sees its role and criminalising everyone with a never ending stream of legislative diarrhoea – so this isn’t completely true.
2. But to be truthful there’s also an industry of unauditable, unaccountable and often useless agencies engaged in community support projects.

Local community culture is being extinguished by government.

Read more

Now here is something I want you to keep to yourself. It’s not for general release – do you understand? That is the lead-in to a confidence which, somehow, by the nature of being ‘secret’ acquires extra importance. Why should this be? Can we use it for our own purposes? What are the negative implications?
Read more

All well-behaved little boys and girls are brought up to say thank you. That’s just politeness. So far so good: Saying “thank you” when somebody holds the door open for you or tells you when the next train leaves is good manners.

Don’t do that. Instead say I appreciate that or That was most helpful.

Read more

Talcum powder: Where has it gone?
Plenty of fancy things to clutter-up bathrooms but no talc.
Read more