Log in:  

Register

Moderators

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

10 Jul 2012 14:25

The only person allowed to refer the 'wiggins words' is ol Muttonchops himself, it seems. While others can be censored, sanctioned or even arrested for using them, the man himself recieved widespread praise.

There may be a difference between courage and being a boor, but...

It's good to be tha king...
Image
With all the changes you've been through, seems the stranger's always you
User avatar Stingray34
Junior Member
 
Posts: 951
Joined: 16 Feb 2011 23:16

10 Jul 2012 14:28

pedaling squares wrote:A profane word written with a couple of asterisks replacing vowels. Shocking enough to peel paint. The word appeared in articles on the CN main page, but cannot appear in the same form in the CN forum. It is ok to show the word, well you cannot really call it a word, more like a few consonants and an asterisk, on the main page accessible to all, but it is an affront to repeat this partial word in the forum, accessible only to those who log in. Make sense? Probably not, but this is the CN forum, where we are treated like b*bies. Do as they say, not as they do.


Trusting you on the usage of the word on CN.com, that is a fair bit of hypocrisy to say the least.

Rhymes with tanker?
Ripley on fixing Aliens and Cycling - "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s1MspmfEwg

Alberto Contador will win the 100th edition of the Tour de France.

Alberto Contador will win the 101th edition of the Tour de France.
User avatar JRTinMA
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,288
Joined: 29 Jul 2010 11:27
Location: Philadelphia, PA

10 Jul 2012 14:29

pedaling squares wrote:A profane word written with a couple of asterisks replacing vowels. Shocking enough to peel paint. The word appeared in articles on the CN main page, but cannot appear in the same form in the CN forum. It is ok to show the word, well you cannot really call it a word, more like a few consonants and an asterisk, on the main page accessible to all, but it is an affront to repeat this partial word in the forum, accessible only to those who log in. Make sense? Probably not, but this is the CN forum, where we are treated like b*bies. Do as they say, not as they do.


The very polite PM I received for asking the same question explained it succinctly as 'the difference between the news and a forum.'

Good enough for me and all right-thinking people.
With all the changes you've been through, seems the stranger's always you
User avatar Stingray34
Junior Member
 
Posts: 951
Joined: 16 Feb 2011 23:16

10 Jul 2012 14:32

Ah yes, the peoples' right to know but not to discuss.
User avatar pedaling squares
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 03:29
Location: British Columbia

10 Jul 2012 14:36

pedaling squares wrote:Ah yes, the peoples' right to know but not to discuss.


...and all the news that's fit to print on cyclingnews.com. See you over at velorooms.
With all the changes you've been through, seems the stranger's always you
User avatar Stingray34
Junior Member
 
Posts: 951
Joined: 16 Feb 2011 23:16

10 Jul 2012 16:22

Surely I won't get banned for quoting CN forum leader Daniel Benson's article on the main page? After all, this is not news but rather an opinion piece on the first 10 days of the tour.

Cyclingnews checks in on the first rest day

1. Allez Wiggo, Allez the f**king w**kers


It's either right, or it's wrong. Which is it?
User avatar pedaling squares
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 03:29
Location: British Columbia

10 Jul 2012 16:57

The issue here is that Cyclingnews and Future Publishing do not want to be running a forum where those type of words are used as insults either directly or indirectly.

There is a big difference between reported speech in the context of a news story and littering what are meant to be community-based posts between members with foul and abusive language. That is the issue here. And those are the rules.

Mark Robinson
Deputy Editor, Cyclingnews
Mark Robinson
 

10 Jul 2012 18:22

That means we can quote the living daylights out of the world! Yes!

I knew there was a loophole in there, thanks!
CyclingNews Forum Member Number 1. (verified)
All my posts are of my own opinion.
October 10, 2012 The Reasoned Decision
Points: 10 CN Infraction Points
User avatar ElChingon
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5,919
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 03:19
Location: En el Internet, and Hiding from the UCI

10 Jul 2012 18:32

Don't worry, loopholes can be closed.....

Susan
I dream of a better world, where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.
User avatar Susan Westemeyer
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7,731
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 14:18
Location: Germany

10 Jul 2012 18:46

Mark Robinson wrote:The issue here is that Cyclingnews and Future Publishing do not want to be running a forum where those type of words are used as insults either directly or indirectly.

There is a big difference between reported speech in the context of a news story and littering what are meant to be community-based posts between members with foul and abusive language. That is the issue here. And those are the rules.

Mark Robinson
Deputy Editor, Cyclingnews

Thanks for the reply, Mark. I agree with your position, although I note that the speech has been used by staff outside of that context. Your interpretation eliminates the double standard. Insults between forum members have been forbidden, and dealt with by moderators, since the inception of the forum, whether or not they involved foul language, with or without asterisks. And they should continue to be dealt with in the interests of the community. Repeating a word, or partial word, that is repeatedly used by staff in the main body of the site, in the forum in a non-insulting manner is another matter, and is outside of those goal posts.
User avatar pedaling squares
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 03:29
Location: British Columbia

10 Jul 2012 18:52

It will not be allowed to use the words in any sense other than a relevant quoting of the news stories. They may not be used at all in any other way. That is how I understand it and how I will enforce it.

As far as I know, that is what I have done all along.

Susan
I dream of a better world, where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.
User avatar Susan Westemeyer
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7,731
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 14:18
Location: Germany

13 Jul 2012 22:41

Don't particularly want to bring it up here, but couldn't seem to PM the mod in question.

I got a 24h ban for clinic talk outside the clinic. I would say that I have trodden the line a little bit, but the post in question was, I thought, quite innocuous.

Without wanting to repeat it, someone asked about swimming coaches in a race thread, and whether it was to do with doping. I pretty much just repeated the Sky line on the coach in question, in what might be considered a sarcastic manner. Given my posting history and attitude towards Sky in general and Wiggins in particular possibly it looks bad, but coming from another poster perhaps not.

Is the ban a cumulative thing? Am I being made an example of? I am fine with either and probably deserve it as a cumulative thing, but I am curious as to exactly what about that post made it so bad.
User avatar Caruut
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,204
Joined: 30 Oct 2011 18:26

13 Jul 2012 23:05

the forum has been out of control since the tour started, we have just been more strict then we use to trying to keep stuff in check on the road racing section. just see the amount of people getting small bans for the same stuff as you :o
User avatar Parrulo
Senior Member
 
Posts: 10,216
Joined: 05 Aug 2010 01:42

13 Jul 2012 23:09

That's fair enough. Was a bit confused, as I had definitely made several worse posts, and I actually wrote that one trying to explain who the guy was without stepping over, but without sounding like I was totally convinced. Thanks for the reply, will be a good boy in future.
User avatar Caruut
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,204
Joined: 30 Oct 2011 18:26

14 Jul 2012 10:54

Mods, for clarity can you please give some insight on these subjects?

Why isn't Texpat banned for the below statement, threatening with physical confrontation?

That sounds like a threat there College. Would thoroughly enjoy you making that statement to my face


College gets banned for implying he will out people's identities if Mas tries to find out who he is, and College gets permanently banned. Texpat threatens with physical harm and nothing happens.

If anything College should be given a warning and Texpat be banned, permanently. I know he is a valuable member of the forum because LA was mean to him, but this double standard is beyond blatant.

Aphronesis is one of the best posters on the forum. His opinions are well thought out and provoking. I am not aware of any previous bans he has received. Why was he not given a short ban instead of a permanent one?

Doc started a good thread that needed to be addressed. I am sure anything he wrote about College was without malice, and saying something about LA's friend nicknamed "college" is an easy mistake to make under the circumstances. Yet here he is banned for that mistake days afterwards. Confusing.

Scott/patrick....never seen a rule in here against "bickering". Why not warnings?

Even so, Doc, scott and patrick have short bans. The crazy ban of aphronesis is just that, and Texpat gets a free pass for physically threatening somebody while College gets banned for threatening to out others if Mas outs him.

Strange set of occurences lately. Hopefully some light can be shed on this. Thanks.

Edit: After rereading the suspension thread, I see college was banned for "trolling". Once again the "troll" card is placed upon somebody with a different opinion and POV than the majority.
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,494
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

14 Jul 2012 13:37

Can the smaller races results thread be stickied? ...you could change the title by removing 2012, it's a pain having to search for it everytime.
User avatar Zam_Olyas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 8,118
Joined: 30 Sep 2011 10:17
Location: Rubber Plantation.

14 Jul 2012 13:49

Caruut wrote:Don't particularly want to bring it up here, but couldn't seem to PM the mod in question.

I got a 24h ban for clinic talk outside the clinic. I would say that I have trodden the line a little bit, but the post in question was, I thought, quite innocuous.

Without wanting to repeat it, someone asked about swimming coaches in a race thread, and whether it was to do with doping. I pretty much just repeated the Sky line on the coach in question, in what might be considered a sarcastic manner. Given my posting history and attitude towards Sky in general and Wiggins in particular possibly it looks bad, but coming from another poster perhaps not.

Is the ban a cumulative thing? Am I being made an example of? I am fine with either and probably deserve it as a cumulative thing, but I am curious as to exactly what about that post made it so bad.


I think I issued the 24hrs suspension. You weren't being made an example of, but it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I believe you had posted other similar, or worse posts before, either on that day or during other days. Adding all that up, it lead to a suspension.
User avatar Bala Verde
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7,119
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 02:32
Location: Chapel Hill, NC

14 Jul 2012 14:03

ChrisE wrote:Mods, for clarity can you please give some insight on these subjects?

Why isn't Texpat banned for the below statement, threatening with physical confrontation?



College gets banned for implying he will out people's identities if Mas tries to find out who he is, and College gets permanently banned. Texpat threatens with physical harm and nothing happens.

If anything College should be given a warning and Texpat be banned, permanently. I know he is a valuable member of the forum because LA was mean to him, but this double standard is beyond blatant.

Aphronesis is one of the best posters on the forum. His opinions are well thought out and provoking. I am not aware of any previous bans he has received. Why was he not given a short ban instead of a permanent one?

Doc started a good thread that needed to be addressed. I am sure anything he wrote about College was without malice, and saying something about LA's friend nicknamed "college" is an easy mistake to make under the circumstances. Yet here he is banned for that mistake days afterwards. Confusing.

Scott/patrick....never seen a rule in here against "bickering". Why not warnings?

Even so, Doc, scott and patrick have short bans. The crazy ban of aphronesis is just that, and Texpat gets a free pass for physically threatening somebody while College gets banned for threatening to out others if Mas outs him.

Strange set of occurences lately. Hopefully some light can be shed on this. Thanks.

Edit: After rereading the suspension thread, I see college was banned for "trolling". Once again the "troll" card is placed upon somebody with a different opinion and POV than the majority.


Bump. *crickets*
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,494
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

14 Jul 2012 16:42

Banned for arrogance. LOL.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 13,320
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

14 Jul 2012 17:45

ChrisE wrote:Mods, for clarity can you please give some insight on these subjects?

Why isn't Texpat banned for the below statement, threatening with physical confrontation?



College gets banned for implying he will out people's identities if Mas tries to find out who he is, and College gets permanently banned. Texpat threatens with physical harm and nothing happens.

If anything College should be given a warning and Texpat be banned, permanently. I know he is a valuable member of the forum because LA was mean to him, but this double standard is beyond blatant.

Aphronesis is one of the best posters on the forum. His opinions are well thought out and provoking. I am not aware of any previous bans he has received. Why was he not given a short ban instead of a permanent one?

Doc started a good thread that needed to be addressed. I am sure anything he wrote about College was without malice, and saying something about LA's friend nicknamed "college" is an easy mistake to make under the circumstances. Yet here he is banned for that mistake days afterwards. Confusing.

Scott/patrick....never seen a rule in here against "bickering". Why not warnings?

Even so, Doc, scott and patrick have short bans. The crazy ban of aphronesis is just that, and Texpat gets a free pass for physically threatening somebody while College gets banned for threatening to out others if Mas outs him.

Strange set of occurences lately. Hopefully some light can be shed on this. Thanks.

Edit: After rereading the suspension thread, I see college was banned for "trolling". Once again the "troll" card is placed upon somebody with a different opinion and POV than the majority.


The aphronesis perma ban is way, way over the top.

I call upon the members of CyclingNews' Grand Council and humbly beseech them to forgive this rare and impertinent outburst of arrogance from one of our fellow posters. I ask that you, oh, great Grand Council who have given us everything, please let this lost poster find his way back to the awaiting arms of your own Beneficence!

Seriously. Arrogance?
Elagabalus
Junior Member
 
Posts: 487
Joined: 21 May 2010 19:38

PreviousNext

Return to About the forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Back to top