A whole slew of new mods!

[Netserk]

Good luck to them all, what I have read from them they are fair and balanced.

But, do not let your moderation tasks get in to the way of posting people, seen that before, time after time.

If you all behave we won't have to use any time moderating

 

[Havetts]

If you all behave we won't have to use any time moderating

how cute

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Are they glad to be working with you?

Mustn't laugh too hard.

 

[Granville57]

My money is on Berzin to finally get to the bottom of this Joe **** fiasco.

[Edited by Mod]

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Mustn't laugh too hard.

Just because you dislike me doesn't mean everyone does.

Susan

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

Just because you dislike me doesn't mean everyone does.

Susan

Susan you are good.

 

[Hugh Januss]

*edited by mod*

OK don't over do it.

 

[ElChingon]

Mustn't laugh too hard.

Thanks , just spit out my coffee

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Just because you dislike me doesn't mean everyone does.

Susan

No, I don't dislike you. I just think you are not very good at your jobs. There is a difference.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

No, I don't dislike you. I just think you are not very good at your jobs. There is a difference.

For what little it is worth, in my dealings with Susan I have found her to be very helpful and not incompetent. I respect Susan and I am grateful for the help she has given. My experience with some other ex-moderators has been completely different. I have not had direct dealings with a lot of the moderators so have no opinion on them. Hopefully I will cause no reason to deal with them.

Dr. Horrible the Mad Elephant Man

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

No, I don't dislike you. I just think you are not very good at your jobs. There is a difference.

Fortunately for me my bosses feel otherwise.

Susan

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

not incompetent.

I don't think I can agree with that view.

Fortunately for me my bosses feel otherwise.

Susan

They are not very good at their jobs either.

 

[aphronesis]

I don't think I can agree with that view.




They are not very good at their jobs either.

More of a structural problem you're having.

 

[jamiephillips]

Give Susan a break. Do you even have a job?

 

[TheGame]

Mrs M banned in, 3, 2,

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

More of a structural problem you're having.

If you pay peanuts then you get monkeys.

Give Susan a break. Do you even have a job?

No and Yes.

Do you want to give Pat McQuaid a break despite him being woefully incompetent?

 

[ferryman]

If you pay peanuts then you get monkeys.




No and Yes.

Do you want to give Pat McQuaid a break despite him being woefully incompetent?

MJM, a wee bit of advice for you if you want to keep posting on here. And please don't take it tooo personally, but it is. If you keep up the direct or indirect attacks on Susan you will be very soon heading for a lengthy ban, if not sine die. Your call.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Thou shalt not criticise the job CN staff do?

If you take a job with a public role then you surely have to accept criticism for the job you do.

As I said in response to Susan's characterisation that it was personal animosity, it isn't. My response to Susan's comment is and was that I merely think that she is not very good at her jobs. Nothing more and nothing less. Just like I think (and say that) Pat McQuaid, Phil Liggett, Dan Benson, Andrew Birotte and many other people are not very good at their jobs.

 

[Froome19]

Sorry but you having a go at Susan in all these mod threads looks pretty much like a personal vendetta to me. Every time there is a chance you call her out.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Sorry but you having a go at Susan in all these mod threads looks pretty much like a personal vendetta to me. Every time there is a chance you call her out.

If I call out or criticise Pat McQuaid do I have a personal vendetta against him as well? Do I have a personal vendetta against Armstrong having criticised him in all those threads about him? It's about the job they do not the person. By this reckoning my copy of this

must be full to overflowing.

And if someone does a bad job surely they should be called for it.

However, this is just going to go in circles and you and others are clearly not going to believe that it isn't personal so there isn't much more to add. (Till next time obviously )

 

[ferryman]

Thou shalt not criticise the job CN staff do?

If you take a job with a public role then you surely have to accept criticism for the job you do.

As I said in response to Susan's characterisation that it was personal animosity, it isn't. My response to Susan's comment is and was that I merely think that she is not very good at her jobs. Nothing more and nothing less. Just like I think (and say that) Pat McQuaid, Phil Liggett, Dan Benson, Andrew Birotte and many other people are not very good at their jobs.

Complete rubbish. I shouldn't have got in to this as I've a big day at work tomorrow. I've made the points please respect them, so you are at least on the same page so we can continue tomorrow (if you are still around)

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

So what are you saying then?

Four things - firstly it is cycling defensive reaction 101 that whenever anyone criticises anyone to accuse the critic of having a personal motive for the criticism.

Secondly - I do think CN has handled and behaved appallingly over the Joe Papp affair and it has covered Armstrong and doping appallingly, and it continues to do so. I am not going to pretend that I think that CN does a good job when I clearly don't. It's not my country right or wrong. That would make me as bad as someone who knew that Armstrong was doping for years and chose to say nothing and jumped on the bandwagon instead. If saying CN staff are incompetent warrants a ban then that says more about CN and how it handles criticism than it does about fairness/unfairness of the criticism.

You seem to be seeing what you want to see in my posts. I explicitly pointed out that I don't think CN's management are any good at their jobs either. Neither the organ grinder, or his assistant are very good at their jobs at any level. Again, this is not about one individual.

Finally, I think that heavy-handed threat-laden moderation 'do this or I'll ban you' is a completely counter-productive way to moderate, and this I base on having moderated on a board with a similar number of active users for several years. Time and time again, when there was an issue, taking a hardline approach simply didn't work and was counter-productive in the short, medium and long term. We found that what did work was a more low-key approach - and only intervening if things got out of control - and to give you an example I was moderating that board on 9/11 and the following days when emotions were running very high, and we got through it without having to resort to threats, or shutting down threads or banning anyone, and without the board imploding, without posters leaving because of what was said. Moderating as a last resort not first choice.

Did I get criticised for my moderating? All the time. Was the criticism justified? Often yes. Did I hold my hands up when I ****ed up - yes I did. Did people think I was terrible at my job - yes. Did I think that the people who picked up on every decision I made were motivated by personal malice? Nope. It is part of the territory.

Criticism is central in learning from mistakes to get it right next time, even if you think your critic is motivated by a vendetta, they still have a point and you take it on board and try to evolve as a moderator to moderate better in future, or to write better as a writer, or whatever the job maybe.

You're saying 'don't criticise in the way your criticising or we'll ban you' so how would you prefer criticism (assuming we're allowed to criticise) to be expressed?

 

[Amsterhammer]

My two cents, fwiw.

I have had more dealings with Susan since day one than with any other member of the admin/mod staff. I have not always agreed with her, and I have seen her take actions that I (with my own pretty long and broad experience as both mod and admin,) might not have taken. Nevertheless, I have always found her to be approachable, straight, honest, and someone who is clearly doing her utmost to be as fair as possible in situations that are often impossible, and sometimes bordering on the downright insane. I have had public disagreements with others on the staff, so I'm certainly not someone who thinks that mods or admins should be above any criticism.

But, I use the word 'insane' advisedly, because quite frankly, in all my experience of forums going back to 1999, I have never come across so many thoroughly obnoxious posters/trolls/sockpuppets who think that they know every damn thing better, and who believe that only they have tapped into the well of universal wisdom, as I have here on CN.

You're one of those MJM, so I would seriously counsel some self-reflection on your part before you continue to direct your barbs at others.

 

[Daniel Benson]

MJM,

You're well within your rights to have an opinion but if anything it's boiled over now. Take this thread for an example, Susan posts a note to say we have new mods and there are a number of positive posts that come. Then you jump in saying she can't do her job. Sure, that's an opinion, but it's a move so telegraphed and repetitive that it's essentially becoming bullying. If you don't like CN, that's fine, me, that's fine too, I'm just asking that you lay off the mods and Susan especially.

Daniel

 

[ebandit]

for the new mods

hooking up to the forum i noticed daniel's post........i thought 'that's good
.......a word of thank's encouragement for the new mods'

but no he is wasting his time replying to a member trolling this thread

for sure i'm not the brightest spark in the fire but MJM.......................
if CN is so bad why are you so often posting?

why not create the 'perfect' cycling website