What is 'trolling' here?

[RedheadDane]

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 don't even remember what I did... are you sure I didn't just bail out of the conversation before I got angry?

 

[bNator]

I don't even remember what I did... are you sure I didn't just bail out of the conversation before I got angry?

Oh, that you did, yes… but that’s the whole point - before you got angry…

 

[Armchair cyclist]

@scribers , @Salvarani, @ManicJack
If you wish to have moderation re-examined, by all means contact @Eshnar (a more experienced mod), @SHaines (the supervising administrator on this forum) or community@futurenet.com.

However, discussion of moderation is not allowed, so no answer to your queries will be presented here. I am as bound by that rule as you are.

 

[Tim Cahill]

To be fair the training data images Mou posted ages back claiming to have an inside source were just from old Pogacar instagram stories, the image of him behind the motorbike was actually shown on a random GCN video way before it popped up here. I was a bit surprised nobody noticed, maybe some did, I just thought at the time it was a funny bit of trolling so didn't bring it up. Banned now so I suppose its irrelevant.

 

[scribers]

I don't recall him claiming those were proof of inside information. And maybe the DNA of the person posting here, or possibly even moderating, might look at these sorts of details as worthy of objection or actionable. You have tools to mute him for the former, worse for the later.

What he did say was he was going to mix in a range of things true and not to protect his source. So there's at least that. Figure out how much you care to embrace.

Alas, @mou spends more time not able to post here and a few of us are checking in as to why. The answer? Don't talk about it. Fine enough. It's right there in the rules. Maybe @mou should look at them and try to stay within the boundaries that are at least objective. And hope he doesn't run afoul of the subjective (which is a healthy dose of forum rules too).

without a doubt, the forum and that thread a little less interesting. Maybe we'll just have to wait for the actual racing to have something to talk about.

 

[RedheadDane]

Well, it appears he wrote a - now nuked - thread that was deemed too offensive.

Of course, I see no reason why the post couldn't simply have been removed, maybe replaced with a "Please don't write posts of this nature" message.

 

[bNator]

Well, it appears he wrote a - now nuked - thread that was deemed too offensive.

Of course, I see no reason why the post couldn't simply have been removed, maybe replaced with a "Please don't write posts of this nature" message.

You don't seem to understand the idea behind the concept of consequence. If there is no consequence, there is no negative stimulation to break the rules, which means rules get broken more frequently and this is not what we want. In an ideal society, we could rely on individuals to act responsibly and negative stimulation would not be necessary, but as proven many times on this forum, we are far from that kind of society.

I mean theoretically, we could probably go with your idea and just keep gently removing those kind of messages but that means a lot more work for the mods and it would have to be done quickly - not to derail discussions completely. And how is that fair? To allow posters to post trash at the expense of volunteers free time?

 

[RedheadDane]

You don't seem to understand the idea behind the concept of consequence. If there is no consequence, there is no negative stimulation to break the rules, which means rules get broken more frequently and this is not what we want. In an ideal society, we could rely on individuals to act responsibly and negative stimulation would not be necessary, but as proven many times on this forum, we are far from that kind of society.

I mean theoretically, we could probably go with your idea and just keep gently removing those kind of messages but that means a lot more work for the mods and it would have to be done quickly - not to derail discussions completely. And how is that fair? To allow posters to post trash at the expense of volunteers free time?

The consequence is "This post gets removed."
It would also show other people what the poster in question did wrong, instead of just making it look like the poster got randomly banned.

And it's not like it's less work for the mods to both remove those posts, and ban people...

Then, maybe as a last ditch consequence, banning could be considered. Perhaps if a poster has ten posts that a mod needs to remove...

Basically, the issue I have is that here, banning seems to be one of the first options taken. Whereas in other fora, it's the last thing considered.

 

[bNator]

The consequence is "This post gets removed."
It would also show other people what the poster in question did wrong, instead of just making it look like the poster got randomly banned.

And it's not like it's less work for the mods to both remove those posts, and ban people...

I understand that "This post gets removed." is the consequence, but it's much less stimulating than a ban. And since it's less stimulating -> more rule breaks -> more work for the mods.

Then, maybe as a last ditch consequence, banning could be considered. Perhaps if a poster has ten posts that a mod needs to remove...

I'm pretty sure it's already like that. I have gotten two warnings during my history as a poster and no direct ban. I'm guessing guys who get banned are the ones who just do not respond to mod's warnings.

 

[RedheadDane]

I understand that "This post gets removed." is the consequence, but it's much less stimulating than a ban. And since it's less stimulating -> more rule breaks -> more work for the mods.

But that doesn't change the fact that other posters won't be able to learn what was done wrong, so they can avoid repeating the same mistake in the future.
It seems in this case, mou really did do something wrong. However, given the various cases we've had of people banned for what seemed like a simple misunderstanding, it's no wonder people are questioning it.
I'm not even saying the forum is gonna miss a whole lot by him being unable to post, wasn't missing a whole lot when he voluntarily didn't post for a while. I'm just opposed to bannings on principle.

I'm pretty sure it's already like that. I have gotten two warnings during my history as a poster and no direct ban. I'm guessing guys who get banned are the ones who just do not respond to mod's warnings.

Unfortunately, we can't even check. It appears removed posts are removed entirely, rather than leaving a ghost of "Post Removed by Mod" behind.

 

[bNator]

But that doesn't change the fact that other posters won't be able to learn what was done wrong, so they can avoid repeating the same mistake in the future.
It seems in this case, mou really did do something wrong. However, given the various cases we've had of people banned for what seemed like a simple misunderstanding, it's no wonder people are questioning it.
I'm not even saying the forum is gonna miss a whole lot by him being unable to post, wasn't missing a whole lot when he voluntarily didn't post for a while. I'm just opposed to bannings on principle.

Unfortunately, we can't even check. It appears removed posts are removed entirely, rather than leaving a ghost of "Post Removed by Mod" behind.

I support the idea of more transparency when it comes to banning - both from the perspective of being able to evaluate the actions of a mod and being able to learn what not to do. If nothing else, it just seems more democratic.

But I fear there's a reason it doesn't work the way we think it would - it has probably been tried and not succeeded (on other forums, at least). We must remember we're all anonymous here and hold absolutely zero responsibility/accountability for our actions, so it's very possible that the same democratic ideas that work (to an extent) in real life, just don't work in this environment.

 

[RedheadDane]

But I fear there's a reason it doesn't work the way we think it would - it has probably been tried and not succeeded (on other forums, at least).

We had that, before the Forum-takeover in 2019. A simple locked threads in which mods would post simple messages about which sanctions had been given to whom, it worked fine.
What didn't work was the fact that we also had a separate thread in which people would post their opinion on various bans. Unfortunately, it seems some people have gotten those two threads conflated.

 

[red_flanders]

I support the idea of more transparency when it comes to banning - both from the perspective of being able to evaluate the actions of a mod and being able to learn what not to do. If nothing else, it just seems more democratic.

But I fear there's a reason it doesn't work the way we think it would - it has probably been tried and not succeeded (on other forums, at least). We must remember we're all anonymous here and hold absolutely zero responsibility/accountability for our actions, so it's very possible that the same democratic ideas that work (to an extent) in real life, just don't work in this environment.

It's been tried here. I've seen it from the user and the mod perspective.

It's a total waste of time. It generates antipathy and arguments, and it takes a lot of mod time to deal with. And it breeds a culture of "argue with every mod action", which is tedious, pointless, unproductive, and a waste of mod time.

It feels right, but it's not worth the effort. I've never seen it work on any forum.

 

[scribers]

It isn’t that hard. You just say “he wouldn’t stop complaining about the moderation openly in spite of 15 warnings and as many time outs so we had to remove him. He can’t read rules.” Or whatever the hell else happened.

You don’t like that? Go start your own damn forum

Forum members can generate some empathy for a volunteer whose time is being wasted by people who can’t follow simple rules.

 

[RedheadDane]

Is it "trolling" to clearly just misunderstand what a rider was saying?
Or not knowing what sources your national media translated their articles from?

 

[AmRacer]

Is it "trolling" to clearly just misunderstand what a rider was saying?
Or not knowing what sources your national media translated their articles from?

Yes.

 

[RedheadDane]

Yes.

Why?
We can all misunderstand.
Especially when reading something that has been translated.

 

[AmRacer]

Why?
We can all misunderstand.
Especially when reading something that has been translated.

Yes 😉

 

[RedheadDane]

Yes 😉

We'd all be constantly banned if that was true.
Especially considering how often people get banned around here.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

They see me trollin', they hatin',
Patrollin' and tryna catch me writin' dirty

 

[Rackham]

I'm seeing a few 'banned' regulars now. Including one of my favorite posters here (Krzysztof).

Straight off the bat I have no idea why any of these people were banned (or for how long).... but I'll reiterate a simple point on the issue of 'trolling': one person's definition of a 'troll' can be nothing more than a harmless joke to the silent majority.

So just because someone starts screaming (which in my experience generally speaking comes from fanboys who take their fanboyism of a particular rider to such a degree whereby anything perceived as slightly irreverent = trolling in their mind), I don't think the ban hammer should drop quite so liberally.

I come here for the good mood & laughs. It'll be a shame if posters start treading on eggshells & 'fearing' reprisals for some light-hearted fun.

​

 

[Lequack]

It's hard to have a conversation when everyone is banned.

 

[AmRacer]

Maybe the mods are trolling us🤔

 

[Netserk]

I'm seeing a few 'banned' regulars now. Including one of my favorite posters here (Krzysztof).

Straight off the bat I have no idea why any of these people were banned (or for how long).... but I'll reiterate a simple point on the issue of 'trolling': one person's definition of a 'troll' can be nothing more than a harmless joke to the silent majority.

So just because someone starts screaming (which in my experience generally speaking comes from fanboys who take their fanboyism of a particular rider to such a degree whereby anything perceived as slightly irreverent = trolling in their mind), I don't think the ban hammer should drop quite so liberally.

I come here for the good mood & laughs. It'll be a shame if posters start treading on eggshells & 'fearing' reprisals for some light-hearted fun.

Aye.

It seems that even good faith use of “belittling” nicknames is considered as trolling. E.g. if I call Vingegaard “skeletor”.

 

[Rackham]

Aye.

It seems that even good faith use of “belittling” nicknames is considered as trolling. E.g. if I call Vingegaard “skeletor”.

Geraint Thomas would get insta banned in that case, i.e. calling Evenepoel a little bastard. But it's funny, right? No harm done. It's just good banter.

Also, Skeletor has no feelings (anyone who's seen He-Man knows this), so he doesn't care either!