Log in:  

Register

Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

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

Moderators: Daniel Benson, Susan Westemeyer, Irondan

Re: Re:

15 Aug 2017 22:52

Benotti69 wrote:
Irondan wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
Tienus wrote:
If you want to get mad at someone get mad at sniper for creating the mess that happened in the XC MTB thread.


There was no mess until Swart made his first post in the thread in which he told of the moderators and accused them of having an agenda. I'm not even going to start on the nazi and paedophile rubbish he came up with.


This^^^

Still dont get how calling any poster a 'nazi and paedophile' is not a permaban?

Maybe they should both be permabanned....


Sniper makes a good contribution to the clinic. He aint everyones cup of tea. I think a lot of posters don't want to see the wood for the trees. See sky fans and before that Armstrong fans. Both of snipers eyes are open. His contributions in the motor fraud thread are good and i feel he is right on the button with his stuff. Lots dont want to believe the levels that sport will descend to in order to win. Heck the sports uses the deaths of others for its own schemes and excuses. Swart is an idiot who thinks he can pull the wool over peoples eyes. But calling someone a 'nazi and paedophile' is a permaban in my book, but i aint a mod.


...yeah exactly what he said....

Cheers
User avatar blutto
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,573
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 19:27

Re:

16 Aug 2017 06:08

Benotti69 wrote:Swart gets one month for calling Sniper a paedophile( at least twice), and Sniper gets 2 months!!!

Something wrong there!!

I think he didn't call sniper a paedophile. Actually he showed how sniper's tin foil hat way to connect dots to show that Swart is a doper can as well use to show that sniper, or anyone else, is a paedophile.
User avatar miguelindurain111
Junior Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 26 Jun 2017 13:03

Re: Re:

16 Aug 2017 09:41

Irondan wrote:Maybe they should both be permabanned....
I think Swart was making a strong argument, using the same logic as sniper does, demonstrating by example not just the fundamental flaw in sniper's thought processes but also the damage he does, not just to individuals but to the whole of this forum. I can see how it might offend the sensibilities of some, and I can see how some would see it as Swart attacking sniper and not just making a strong point, but I still don't see it as being worth a month on the naughty step. But hey, I don't get to vote on these thing...
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,669
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

16 Aug 2017 10:07

miguelindurain111 wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:Swart gets one month for calling Sniper a paedophile( at least twice), and Sniper gets 2 months!!!

Something wrong there!!

I think he didn't call sniper a paedophile. Actually he showed how sniper's tin foil hat way to connect dots to show that Swart is a doper can as well use to show that sniper, or anyone else, is a paedophile.


fmk_RoI wrote:
[url=<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=2171268#p2171268</span>]Irondan[/url] wrote:Maybe they should both be permabanned....
I think Swart was making a strong argument, using the same logic as sniper does, demonstrating by example not just the fundamental flaw in sniper's thought processes but also the damage he does, not just to individuals but to the whole of this forum. I can see how it might offend the sensibilities of some, and I can see how some would see it as Swart attacking sniper and not just making a strong point, but I still don't see it as being worth a month on the naughty step. But hey, I don't get to vote on these thing...


This is, in essence, what happened. If Jeroen had chosen a less emotive comparison, only done it once and generalised it rather than point it at a member it would probably have been fine, but as soon as someone goes to the examples he did you know nothing good is going to come of it. To continue it makes it worse. Jeroen is smart enough to realise this, I'm sure his response came from frustration as attacks on him are also attacking his reputation and work/research, but it was felt by the mods that he went much too far, hence the ban.

The comment about mods leaving libellous posts up and having an agenda was a bit irritating as we had had no reports about the post in question. In general we seem to get accused of having an agenda by both sides of an argument fairly regularly. As far as I'm aware the only mod with any real ties to the website is Susan and she doesn't mod much anymore, the rest of us are just users who have volunteered. I don't think I've ever even had a conversation with someone from the website, other than a coder while trying to recover my password here.


People also need to remember that Jeroen is a member here and is afforded the same courtesies everyone else is. You can criticise his work and question it (as long as it's not trolling/baiting) but to accuse him of being tied to doping/motor doping/cover ups etc. requires proof. Anything else will be consider baiting and personal attacks and will result in a ban.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,183
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

16 Aug 2017 16:52

This line of snarky, baiting with the personal attacks in response must unfortunately come to an end.

Please choose words that fit well within forum rules and posting decorum and post them accordingly.

The fact that mods have not dealt with the petty insults and personal attacks does not mean that they've been approved as acceptable, it only means that we're busy with other stuff and will get to them in a timely manner.

Cheers
Darryl Webster wrote:
"Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"
User avatar Irondan
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,540
Joined: 30 Apr 2014 02:13
Location: Seattle, WA

20 Aug 2017 18:10

Wait, a member was banned for a week just because he said that a moderator was touchy?
I think that 'huge' shouldn't have been banned.
I think it's the sign of a clean rider and a real sportsman to be attracted to the bigger challenge over the ultimate result. Good luck with the Giro/Tour double, Chris Froome. -Phil Gaimon
Forever The Best
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,057
Joined: 15 Apr 2016 16:10

Re:

20 Aug 2017 18:14

Forever The Best wrote:Wait, a member was banned for a week just because he said that a moderator was touchy?
I think that 'huge' shouldn't have been banned.

That post was the definition of trolling (and baiting), not to mention completely off topic and not very cooperative with moderators. If huge had a problem with moderation of that thread then they should have went through the proper channels to air their grievances. Instead, they decided to post a comment that was meant to illicit a negative reaction from a mod while the mod was performing moderation duties.
Darryl Webster wrote:
"Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"
User avatar Irondan
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,540
Joined: 30 Apr 2014 02:13
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Re:

20 Aug 2017 18:39

Irondan wrote:
Forever The Best wrote:Wait, a member was banned for a week just because he said that a moderator was touchy?
I think that 'huge' shouldn't have been banned.

That post was the definition of trolling (and baiting), not to mention completely off topic and not very cooperative with moderators. If huge had a problem with moderation of that thread then they should have went through the proper channels to air their grievances. Instead, they decided to post a comment that was meant to illicit a negative reaction from a mod while the mod was performing moderation duties.

Ah, understood. Though I still think a week is too harsh, 3 days perhaps?
I think it's the sign of a clean rider and a real sportsman to be attracted to the bigger challenge over the ultimate result. Good luck with the Giro/Tour double, Chris Froome. -Phil Gaimon
Forever The Best
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,057
Joined: 15 Apr 2016 16:10

Re: Re:

20 Aug 2017 18:48

Forever The Best wrote:
Irondan wrote:
Forever The Best wrote:Wait, a member was banned for a week just because he said that a moderator was touchy?
I think that 'huge' shouldn't have been banned.

That post was the definition of trolling (and baiting), not to mention completely off topic and not very cooperative with moderators. If huge had a problem with moderation of that thread then they should have went through the proper channels to air their grievances. Instead, they decided to post a comment that was meant to illicit a negative reaction from a mod while the mod was performing moderation duties.

Ah, understood. Though I still think a week is too harsh, 3 days perhaps?

The forum standard ban for trolling is one week for a first offence.
Darryl Webster wrote:
"Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"
User avatar Irondan
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,540
Joined: 30 Apr 2014 02:13
Location: Seattle, WA

20 Aug 2017 21:56

Boom shacka lacka. I trust sniper is well.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,404
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re:

20 Aug 2017 22:05

aphronesis wrote:Boom shacka lacka. I trust sniper is well.


+

Cheers
User avatar blutto
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,573
Joined: 04 Jul 2009 19:27

Re: Re:

21 Aug 2017 16:31

fmk_RoI wrote:
Irondan wrote:Maybe they should both be permabanned....
I think Swart was making a strong argument, using the same logic as sniper does, demonstrating by example not just the fundamental flaw in sniper's thought processes but also the damage he does, not just to individuals but to the whole of this forum. I can see how it might offend the sensibilities of some, and I can see how some would see it as Swart attacking sniper and not just making a strong point, but I still don't see it as being worth a month on the naughty step. But hey, I don't get to vote on these thing...


I didn't see the thread, but I was banned for 6 weeks for making a similar if not identical kind of argument. I tried to give an example of an egregiously false argument by using the example of a child molester (or some such thing, can't recall exactly and the post was deleted) to show how easy it is to tar someone with false assumptions about who they are and how they behave. I was making a point about false forms of argument. I called no one a child molester. Never had a ban before or since. Apparently the moderator to whom the post was aimed took extreme offense. 6 weeks, no warning, no explanation, even after repeated queries. Ridiculous.

Bans are used a bit too freely here sometimes. Seems to be an artifact of lack of time, effort, or imagination. The first one is a legit issue for mods. The last two are fixable.

I would say that for repeat offenders, perma-bans are often used too infrequently. If someone has 10 (or in some cases scores of) bans, it's not going to stop. A pattern has been established long ago.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,054
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

21 Aug 2017 16:48

red_flanders wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
Irondan wrote:Maybe they should both be permabanned....
I think Swart was making a strong argument, using the same logic as sniper does, demonstrating by example not just the fundamental flaw in sniper's thought processes but also the damage he does, not just to individuals but to the whole of this forum. I can see how it might offend the sensibilities of some, and I can see how some would see it as Swart attacking sniper and not just making a strong point, but I still don't see it as being worth a month on the naughty step. But hey, I don't get to vote on these thing...


I didn't see the thread, but I was banned for 6 weeks for making a similar if not identical kind of argument. I tried to give an example of an egregiously false argument by using the example of a child molester (or some such thing, can't recall exactly and the post was deleted) to show how easy it is to tar someone with false assumptions about who they are and how they behave. I was making a point about false forms of argument. I called no one a child molester. Never had a ban before or since. Apparently the moderator to whom the post was aimed took extreme offense. 6 weeks, no warning, no explanation, even after repeated queries. Ridiculous.

Bans are used a bit too freely here sometimes. Seems to be an artifact of lack of time, effort, or imagination. The first one is a legit issue for mods. The last two are fixable.

I would say that for repeat offenders, perma-bans are often used too infrequently. If someone has 10 (or in some cases scores of) bans, it's not going to stop. A pattern has been established long ago.

Regrettably the moderator in question had an agenda that the rest of us mods didn't recognize until the damage was already done. You're ban was too long and should have been a month, the same as what Swart just got.

We (mods) have to draw the line somewhere and making comparisons with pedophiles or other shameful labels is crossing the line and not tolerated. If a member knows the rules they know that making comparisons such as what you and Jereon Swart made runs the risk of being banned from the forum without warning. It's not arbitrary, and there has to be a point in which we say that a comment crosses the line. I've been doing this for quite some time now and can say that during this time, there's only been a handful of comments that have crossed that line and they've all been met with pretty much the same fate. As I said above, perhaps your ban was longer than necessary but we only know that after the fact and can't really do anything else to fix it.

Cheers
Darryl Webster wrote:
"Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"
User avatar Irondan
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,540
Joined: 30 Apr 2014 02:13
Location: Seattle, WA

21 Aug 2017 16:58

A simple warning and post deletion would have sufficed for someone who has never been banned or warned before. Somewhere some judgement needs to enter into things. If the goal is to improve posting behavior, it's much more effective to engage and explain than throw out bans for rare posts which cross the line. It's a simple matter of respect and assumption of general good will. This certainly isn't always in play, but members in good standing who post in good faith are extremely put off by the ham-handed behavior which happens all too often here. In my considered view.

I've not publicly commented about it before, since yes, nothing can be done about it. But seeing it happen again I felt compelled to share the story in hope that something can be adjusted.

It is my view that it was not a problem with that mod as much as it is tone set from others who historically set the tone for the mods. It has gotten WAY better of late, thank you for that.

For your consideration.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,054
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

21 Aug 2017 17:28

I can't comment on your ban Red. In this case it wasn't a single post, it continued through a conversation and there is a history there apparently, that's before my time. The comparison used is only going to inflame the discussion, the point could have be made with a much less inflammatory example.

A lot of the time people see the one post that gets a user banned and thinks that is the sole cause but there is almost always a discussion, either at the time or beforehand where these things are decided and then acted on.

I do feel a lot of sympathy for Jeroen. His professional standing gets attacked and I will be keeping a close eye on that as he is a member here and is given the same courtesy as everyone else. However, the comparison was completely unnecesary.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,183
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

22 Aug 2017 21:01

blutto wrote:
aphronesis wrote:Boom shacka lacka. I trust sniper is well.


+

Cheers

Must have been the walkie talkies? :rolleyes:
"disc brake enlightenment"
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,307
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

22 Aug 2017 21:03

fmk_RoI wrote:
Irondan wrote:Maybe they should both be permabanned....
I think Swart was making a strong argument, using the same logic as sniper does, demonstrating by example not just the fundamental flaw in sniper's thought processes but also the damage he does, not just to individuals but to the whole of this forum. I can see how it might offend the sensibilities of some, and I can see how some would see it as Swart attacking sniper and not just making a strong point, but I still don't see it as being worth a month on the naughty step. But hey, I don't get to vote on these thing...

Swarts can be a jerk sometimes with his condescending tone. As I don't like for anyone to get banninated then I have to stay consistent and say that I don't much like that Sworts and Sniper are not around.
"disc brake enlightenment"
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,307
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

30 Aug 2017 07:58

Bit late to the party, but two posts in the Member Suspensions info-thread kinda got my attention...

29 Jul 2017 15:47
France_En_Marche has been banned for a week for a sexist post.


Immediately followed by:

06 Aug 2017 14:21
France_En_Marche is banned 2 months for obvious trolling and racial posts, after previously also have been ignoring forum rules

EDIT: After further discussions thats changed to a perma-ban.


Yeah... if (one of?) your first acts after returning from a ban is to continue breaking the rules, then I'd say a perma-ban is probably in order.
Aka The Ginger One.
User avatar RedheadDane
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,293
Joined: 05 May 2010 13:47
Location: Viking Land! (Aros)

Re:

30 Aug 2017 08:18

RedheadDane wrote:Bit late to the party, but two posts in the Member Suspensions info-thread kinda got my attention...

29 Jul 2017 15:47
France_En_Marche has been banned for a week for a sexist post.


Immediately followed by:

06 Aug 2017 14:21
France_En_Marche is banned 2 months for obvious trolling and racial posts, after previously also have been ignoring forum rules

EDIT: After further discussions thats changed to a perma-ban.


Yeah... if (one of?) your first acts after returning from a ban is to continue breaking the rules, then I'd say a perma-ban is probably in order.



We will frequently give someone a shorter ban, as an emergency measure, so to speak, just to get the user out of circulation. Perma-bans are almost always discussed before action is taken.
User avatar Susan Westemeyer
Administrator
 
Posts: 8,422
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 14:18
Location: Germany

30 Aug 2017 08:36

Of course. I fully understand why the second ban wasn't instantly a perma-ban, but I also agree with it eventually becoming thus.
Just pretty striking that he was given a week-long ban on July 29, then - on August 6 - was given a new ban. Like, that's literally a week! Dude... you're not even trying to respect the rules.
Aka The Ginger One.
User avatar RedheadDane
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,293
Joined: 05 May 2010 13:47
Location: Viking Land! (Aros)

PreviousNext

Return to About the forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Back to top