Of course it is, quite literally the point of my first post. So use your judgement.I don't know what trolling is and I reply on those posts I want to.
Who's trolling is highly subjective.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Of course it is, quite literally the point of my first post. So use your judgement.I don't know what trolling is and I reply on those posts I want to.
Who's trolling is highly subjective.
But what if your work didn't merit the praise? Negative feedback is not allowed because it is negative? Come on. The more firmly an opinion is voiced, the more firmly those that disagree will voice their counter-opinions. That's how debates get polarised.No they don't actually, that's just something you are telling yourself to ease your mind and to excuse your own behavior. There is no need to provide a counterweight because somebody else is positive about a person. Imagine working in a company where one of your bosses is praising your work, and that the other boss feels the need to put you down every chance he gets just to counter his colleague because "the two go together". This is not how things work and neither is it ok. It's even offputting when football fans do it, where you in fact do have a "them against us" culture. Imagine two parents showing this behavior towards their children.
What would go together, which is clearly what you are mistaking your own behavior for, is when the same person were both critical as well as positive, depending on the conditions. A boss praising you when you did a good job, and the same boss giving you crap when you made a mistake. THAT would be normal and THOSE TWO indeed go together. Not one parent doing all the praising and the other doing the opposite.
Please, tell me, do you think repeatedly calling a cyclist names like "the baby" among other things is reasonable, polite or humorous? It is none of those, trust me. And even if at one point it might have been considered funny, the joke died ages ago. This is also not "an opinion", and people don't get to hide behind that excuse. It's trolling, plain and simple. The fact that you have felt the need to do so for years now, shows that it is in fact personal to you, which ironically is exactly what you like to blame others of. If it weren't personal, it wouldn't be worth your trouble. So since it is in fact personal, the motive is to rile up other posters. Hence, trolling.
And i would like to believe most people would prefer to live in a positive world, and value positivity over constant criticism (and let's be real here, it's not being critical that is the problem). So people being positive should not be an alibi to be able to shitpost.
But what if your work didn't merit the praise? Negative feedback is not allowed because it is negative? Come on. The more firmly an opinion is voiced, the more firmly those that disagree will voice their counter-opinions. That's how debates get polarised.
It also doesn't help when you have a sub-set of fans of certain teams or riders who interpret everything other than blind, devotional praise as unwarranted tearing down, and also when double standards are applied. For example, you had people saying that it was totally wrong that I voice my (highly negative) opinions of Peter Sagan, but the forum back in 2015-16 was chocked full of posts about how wonderful the man was. But apparently one poster who disagrees was enough to be "spoiling" and "polluting" the forum by negativity. Yet at the same time as that was going on, stepping into the Valverde or Froome threads would see pages on pages of vitriol as bad as anything I was throwing at Sagan and more - but because those riders weren't so popular, that apparently wasn't "spoiling" or "polluting" the forum. Coincidentally, most of the trolling in that particular saga wasn't the "haters" trolling the fans, it was the other way round - Sagan fans continuing to needle me on the subject in order to provoke the expected negative reaction, so that they could shout at me for being negative. It works both ways.
I'm sorry that the polarised debate has come up about a subject you're passionate about, but 3000 posts of "this guy is the most wonderful thing in the world" adds nothing to the forum either, and lovebombing the forum while silencing those who disagree and labelling them as haters only serves to turn perceived "haters" into real ones.
The "3000 posts" was not about you, it was about the forum being lovebombed. During the peak of Sagan's success, there were countless posts to the effect of "Sagan is amazing I want to have his babies woo!" and "There is no possible way anybody in their right mind could not love Sagan". These are no better for discourse than hate comments because any actual discussion of the rider's achievements, tactics etc. are lost in the mire, and statements like the second one baits anybody who disagrees into commenting.The problem isn't being critical. The point is constant, recurring and incessant mocking, ridiculing, name calling etc. Maybe you should also read some of my posts before making assumptions. Feel free to quote my 3000 posts of any rider being the most wonderful thing in the world. I think you will be sorely disappointed. I think i have posted more critical posts about this guy than all the haters combined. Half my posts are about dumb tactical decisions, not having the right priorities and being overweight (relatively speaking) for instance.
The thing is, you think you are critical. Others think you are posting excuses why the rider didn't perform.The problem isn't being critical. The point is constant, recurring and incessant mocking, ridiculing, name calling etc. Maybe you should also read some of my posts before making assumptions. Feel free to quote my 3000 posts of any rider being the most wonderful thing in the world. I think you will be sorely disappointed. I think i have posted more critical posts about this guy than all the haters combined. Half my posts are about dumb tactical decisions, not having the right priorities and being overweight (relatively speaking) for instance.
I don't think so. That's why you think every trolling is subjective... Because you understand trolling from recipient's perspective rather than focusing on poster's intent. I mean theoretically, it could probably even really be trolling, but it's not very likely - certainly well within the limits of reasonable doubt.The thing is, you think you are critical. Others think you are posting excuses why the rider didn't perform.
"He could've won the race if...but...or....when....".
"He didn't won becasse he hasn't......"
.
Thats' trolling.
Well, I report the very obviously spammers.
You know the ones? Posts really long walls-of-text, Latin letters optional.
Nope, my last sentence was irony. I still don't have an opinion on what is a trolling post.I don't think so. That's why you think every trolling is subjective... Because you understand trolling from recipient's perspective rather than focusing on poster's intent. I mean theoretically, it could probably even really be trolling, but it's not very likely - certainly well within the limits of reasonable doubt.
Neither is that trolling, nor is it what i do.The thing is, you think you are critical. Others think you are posting excuses why the rider didn't perform.
"He could've won the race if...but...or....when....".
"He didn't won becasse he hasn't......"
.
Thats' trolling.
President and Dictator for life of Club GRORE?When a poster has a signature that blatantly wishes to "Get Rid" of a rider whom they incessantly talk about their hatred of, how could you not consider that trolling? If I posted that I wanted to "Get Rid" of Remco, I'd get banned and rightly so.
When a poster has a signature that blatantly wishes to "Get Rid" of a rider whom they incessantly talk about their hatred of, how could you not consider that trolling? If I posted that I wanted to "Get Rid" of Remco, I'd get banned and rightly so.
So your admitting that your purpose is to annoy people. Got itCalvin and Hobbes - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Or I might just be making a reference to a beloved cartoon strip.So your admitting that your purpose is to annoy people. Got it
I purposely did not mention you or the quote on purpose, in an attempt to not make it personal, just conceptual. We can move on. I will admit it that I didn't catch the Slimy Girls reference until you posted the C&H link. Cheers.Or I might just be making a reference to a beloved cartoon strip.
But you seem to have made it your mission to get upset with everything I do or say. It's strange how far some people are determined to go in order to take offence.
Dude.Neither is that trolling, nor is it what i do.
Ok.Dude.
Your very username is trolling.
Clear as day that someone got it out for him. Hope he will be back soon.In here searching for clues on why mou is continuously banned. His posts contain more newsworthy declarations than 99% of the rest of the board. The hyperbolic delivery doesn’t rise to a bannable offense imo. It just makes the moderation team look like they don’t like the facts he’s presenting, bearing out in the races.
Isn't there only one mod currently? 🤔Clear as day that someone got it out for him. Hope he will be back soon.
He is continuously looking to provoke - but that (as we have discussed in this thread) is not that easily proven and I doubt it is the reason for his bans. I suspect it's about the way he communicates which is unbelievably rude, ignorant and offensive. Just take a look at how he labelled Scandinavians, for instance. Completely unacceptable in this day and age and I'm far from promoting all that woke crap we have to deal with on the internet in recent years. However, there are some boundaries of decent communication and I have seen this poster overstep them many times.In here searching for clues on why mou is continuously banned. His posts contain more newsworthy declarations than 99% of the rest of the board. The hyperbolic delivery doesn’t rise to a bannable offense imo. It just makes the moderation team look like they don’t like the facts he’s presenting, bearing out in the races.
You certainly dealt very gracefully with his remarks about the Danish. I would’ve been banned for sure if I were in your place😁I've just been wondering what's up that weird inside-joke of acting as if he's somehow the Bearer of all Truth.
And, yeah, I'm still amused by the fact that he apparently thought there was anything unusual about Vingegaard taking his wife's last name...