Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Feedback > About the forum

About the forum Drop in, give us some feedback and talk to the team

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3311  
Old 02-12-13, 13:07
Mrs John Murphy's Avatar
Mrs John Murphy Mrs John Murphy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Stamping on Cadel's dog
Posts: 2,167
Default

All of which has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
__________________
Justcycling

...girls and ****ed 'em at school. All I know is that there were rumours he was into field hockey players

"the only thing worse than reading Cycling News is talking to them" Paul Kimmage

"The four most beautiful words in our common language: I told you so." Gore Vidal
Reply With Quote
  #3312  
Old 02-12-13, 13:20
Mrs John Murphy's Avatar
Mrs John Murphy Mrs John Murphy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Stamping on Cadel's dog
Posts: 2,167
Default

The debate is about expressing criticism.

I am not sure what you are discussing, other than trying to obscure that debate. Anyone would think you were trolling/derailing the thread.

If you have something to say about how criticism should be expressed then go for it. If you're merely disputing that the work of person X or Y has been poor over a number of years, or how we measure 'poor' then that is not really relevant to the central point of the discussion. (IMHO)
__________________
Justcycling

...girls and ****ed 'em at school. All I know is that there were rumours he was into field hockey players

"the only thing worse than reading Cycling News is talking to them" Paul Kimmage

"The four most beautiful words in our common language: I told you so." Gore Vidal

Last edited by Mrs John Murphy; 02-12-13 at 13:35.
Reply With Quote
  #3313  
Old 02-13-13, 17:51
Glenn_Wilson's Avatar
Glenn_Wilson Glenn_Wilson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Newfoundland
Posts: 2,451
Default

Apparently saying that Someone...A.G. looks like a man and not a woman is offensive to the moderators? I had no idea that you can't insult a public person around here.

Here is a quote from a post that is in this thread. This post was made by a moderator hiero2
"Sarcasm, snark, slams - are difficult to use. They are generally tolerated on this forum, when aimed at public figures who are not a known participant in the discussion."

I have to wonder was this some type of retaliation?
__________________
something less offensive
Reply With Quote
  #3314  
Old 02-13-13, 18:06
Susan Westemeyer's Avatar
Susan Westemeyer Susan Westemeyer is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 7,101
Default

Not retaliation at all. It was off-topic and totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Susan
__________________
I dream of a better world, where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.
Reply With Quote
  #3315  
Old 02-20-13, 16:54
hiero2's Avatar
hiero2 hiero2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In Descartes' reality
Posts: 2,376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElChingon View Post
Here below.


That was why I labeled the two versions. Quick and dirty if you wanted that, and in greater detail if you felt that could be helpful. Sheesh, I even put in spoiler alerts to warn you when you were crossing the line into the long diatribe version!
__________________
It is of great use to the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean. ~ John Locke
Reply With Quote
  #3316  
Old 02-20-13, 17:22
hiero2's Avatar
hiero2 hiero2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In Descartes' reality
Posts: 2,376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs John Murphy View Post
This is interesting but two things strike me. You seem to be quoting out of context. You've cited things I've said but ignored what they were in response to. Whether something is a personal attack surely depends upon what is being said to whom and about what. Devoid of context anything can be read as saying anything.

For example you characterised my comment 'you pay peanuts you get monkeys' as a personal attack, and yet you ignored that it was in response to someone suggesting that my issue with CN is more structural than personal. My comment was to confirm that I agree with the previous comment. CN pays its staff badly so it ends up with poor staff - at every level. (This merely reiterates an early point made in a discussion about Kimmage where I said to the effect that if in order to hire a quality journalist like Kimmage, CN had to sack 5 of its current staff, I would shed no tears because it would mark an improvement in quality). Again, not a personal attack but a comment on CN's business and journalistic model.

Now, I would point out that by your initial definition of 'personal attack' Susan's first post in that thread was a personal attack. It attacked the poster not the post, it accused me of being motivated by personal dislike.

Is this paragraph here:



A personal attack? Built around a discussion of the posters' style. Why is unacceptable to accuse someone of writing in a deliberately obtuse manner, but it is ok to accuse a poster of being only interested in 'winning' or using 'fallacious arguments'.

Someone can be trolling but if they are accused of trolling then it is deemed to be a personal attack. However, guess what, it is also true that people do troll.

Finally, I fail to see how having a critical opinion on someone's job performance can be a personal attack if I say 'Pat McQuaid is not very good at his job' is this a personal attack on him? If I say 'Vaughters sucks as a DS' is that a personal attack. If I were to say 'Vaughters sucks as a DS because he is more interested in tending his sideburns and posing', then you might have a point. Why? Because the first is about the job the person is doing which is separate from any views about the person as a person, in the second, the view of the job the person is doing is characterised by the view the commentator has of the person.

You might as well say that any post that is critical and is addressed to another poster is a personal attack.

You've not really told us how we can tell Benson and anyone else when we think that they are doing a bad job.

Take for example the recent interview between Benson and Armstrong, which was panned by an number of posters. How would you tell Benson that the interview was terrible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs John Murphy View Post
However, what happens when we are discussing a body of work over a number of years?

If someone is always producing ****-poor work then they are always going to be called on it. Which can in turn then be considered to be 'unrelenting' criticism and hence 'personal' when in fact its actually a reflection of their person's poor work and inability to do their job properly over a period of time. If someone is always ****ing up then they'll always be called on it - as is only right and proper.

A further point - let's say that we suspect that the reasons why that person isn't doing their job well is because they have a material interest in not doing it properly, or because they have lost all sense of what is right or wrong and instead seek to protect their own interests and jobs.

ie Pat McQuaid is devoid of any moral compass or Pat McQuaid is corrupt.

Now, is that a personal attack or an opinion explaining in the poster's eyes why the person involved in so bad at their job?
Ok - yes - I took comments out of context. In each case, the context made no difference. Each of those sentences was a direct ad hominem attack. Mixing them in with valid commentary does not change that. In the case of the "monkeys / peanuts" comment - that was directed at a specific group of individuals, but was still ad hominem.

Pat McQuaid is not a participant in these forums, to my knowledge. Therefore, such an attack as you suggest, is not personal. JV and CN staff ARE participants in the forum, and such attacks are then personal. Simple difference.

Next, we are NOT discussing a body of work, over a period of years, for the CN staff or the mods. If you have an issue - address each issue specifically. If you don't like the Armstrong interview, you are free to say so. You will be better tolerated if you include specific comments. A comment, as an example, that is not allowed would be "the CN editor is too stupid to ask Armstrong about drugs, or he is too corrupt or too biased". You don't know any of those things - they are conjecture, and they are a personal attack. You CAN say "I think the interview should have gone deeper or pushed harder on the whole doping issue". You can say "The interview looked pretty lightweight to me". I think you know the difference. In the original set of quotes, I gave you examples of stuff that passed the "personal attack" sniff test, as well as examples that didn't.

I strongly suggest you read the posts I linked to, and some of the material they link to. If you feel that you have no need to do this, then you should already understand exactly what I am saying, and the fact that I am writing this is not really something you need - which means I am responding to an artful troll on your part - IF you already understand this topic. If you are honestly raising this question - then reading those links will be useful to you. You have asked for "how to", and now you've been given it.

Sittingbison has also restated what I have said, and he has done it well. If my words do not "speak" to a person, his might. No personal attacks. If you don't like an article or an action, comment on that article or that action. You can do that as often as you like - every day if you like.
__________________
It is of great use to the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean. ~ John Locke

Last edited by hiero2; 02-20-13 at 17:25.
Reply With Quote
  #3317  
Old 02-21-13, 13:40
hiero2's Avatar
hiero2 hiero2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In Descartes' reality
Posts: 2,376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Granville57 View Post
Francois The Postman has a sockpuppet!
I am honored to be seen in that company! Now, should I do like ASF, and include this in my sig?

<thinking, thinking> I might just do that. I might.
__________________
It is of great use to the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean. ~ John Locke
Reply With Quote
  #3318  
Old 02-21-13, 13:47
hiero2's Avatar
hiero2 hiero2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In Descartes' reality
Posts: 2,376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amsterhammer View Post
Kudos to you for finding probably the single most sensible thing BD has ever posted.



I'm apparently becoming even more senile than I had feared - I started this thread?



When the highway patrol gives everyone a ticket on one day, and a pass on the next day, for the same speeding infraction on the same stretch of road (to continue your analogy,) it tends to bring the system into some disrepute, and simply leads to more motorists ignoring the speed limit.
Amsterhammer, I apologize. I meant to link that to a thread where you were complaining as in the example. Obviously I didn't, and now I don't know where it was!

You have a point about the analogy, but it is just an analogy!
__________________
It is of great use to the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean. ~ John Locke
Reply With Quote
  #3319  
Old 02-22-13, 10:06
RownhamHill RownhamHill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 597
Default

Hi All. Just reading the car crash of the Wiggins, Clinic Respect thread over the last couple of days.

I don't want to be overly aggressive, or go over the same ground covered by the thread over the last day or so, but can I suggest there is some reflection on the part of all the moderators over that thread?

From my point of view (and apologies as I'm about to paraphrase. . .) Sitting Bison position seems to be:

- Paraphrase a fairly harsh position on someone that many people don't recognise.
- When first asked for some kind of back up tell questioners to go look on google
- Subsequently, when pushed, give another list of paraphrased comments from 'interviews', but no links
- Then heavily imply that the fact he can't find any links to these interviews on the internet is because Sky or someone have been scouring the internet, deleting all trace of the comments. (Not that they might not actually exist.)
- Then, when people continue to question his position, threaten to close the thread in BIG LETTERS!

My particular favourite bit being the rabbit punch thrown in along the way about other posters not having English as a first language, hence why they don't understand his own unique take on 'paraphrasing'.

As I say, can I suggest that there might be a case for some internal moderator reflection/discussion on that thread? I'll leave it with you guys to do as you see fit!

Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #3320  
Old 02-22-13, 10:59
Netserk's Avatar
Netserk Netserk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Denmark
Posts: 9,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RownhamHill View Post
Hi All. Just reading the car crash of the Wiggins, Clinic Respect thread over the last couple of days.

I don't want to be overly aggressive, or go over the same ground covered by the thread over the last day or so, but can I suggest there is some reflection on the part of all the moderators over that thread?

From my point of view (and apologies as I'm about to paraphrase. . .) Sitting Bison position seems to be:

- Paraphrase a fairly harsh position on someone that many people don't recognise.
- When first asked for some kind of back up tell questioners to go look on google
- Subsequently, when pushed, give another list of paraphrased comments from 'interviews', but no links
- Then heavily imply that the fact he can't find any links to these interviews on the internet is because Sky or someone have been scouring the internet, deleting all trace of the comments. (Not that they might not actually exist.)
- Then, when people continue to question his position, threaten to close the thread in BIG LETTERS!

My particular favourite bit being the rabbit punch thrown in along the way about other posters not having English as a first language, hence why they don't understand his own unique take on 'paraphrasing'.

As I say, can I suggest that there might be a case for some internal moderator reflection/discussion on that thread? I'll leave it with you guys to do as you see fit!

Thank you.
You do know that it is impossible to link to a quote that isn't a quote, right?
__________________
Cancellara is like The Black Album. Really good but way overrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Landis
Take Bradley Wiggins for example, and his claim that he thought Lance Armstrong was clean up until the reasoned decision. I do have a little sympathy for him. While he's not particularly bright or articulate, if you read between his curse words it's clear that he has insecurities resulting from the fact that despite all the measures he took to win the Tour he wasn't even the strongest rider.
Change my pitch up/Smack my bitch up
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.