Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

Page 117 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
King Boonen said:
The easiest way to avoid a ban is to not break the rules, it really isn't hard. If you do break the rules, Rule #5 and take your ban, like The Hog always does.
Very true. Just like in life rules get broken.

Your post reads like the Fight Club rules.
The rules of life:

Know the rules.

If you break them be prepared to take your punishment and don't try to change rules by breaking them.

If you don't like the rules of a place, find somewhere with rules you do like.



the mods are actually pretty lenient. I reported someone for a blatant attack on another member. It was obviously dealt with as the post was deleted but the member remained. I'm guessing something went on behind the scenes, none of my business, but it could easily have been used to ban the person, a member who is well aware that personal attacks are not acceptable (to be honest EVERY member from their first post should know that rule, it's a rule of life).



I only mention The Hog because he's actually a great example in this case (He/She? No idea). He oversteps the line, gets a ban and takes it. He doesn't complain, he occasionally posts to put his point of view across once he's served the ban but as far as I know he doesn't moan or make sockpuppet accounts. He accepts that someone has to make the decision, takes the ban and moves on (at least in public). Whatever you think of his posts, you've got to respect him for that.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,821
0
0
Re:

l.Harm said:
Extending a ban is also a deterrence. I'm not saying it should not be punished at all, which Eshnar and you have both been implying. Look at the American prisons and you see how effective extreme deterrence is.

@hrotha, I'm not questioning Foxxy's ban specifically, I'm questioning the general policy that everyone who creates a second account always gets permabanned.
When a user comes back (this is especially true for the ones that have been on the forum for some time and are well aware of the rules) it is often not simply so they can keep posting thinking that they have cleverly circumvented their ban. It is often to rail on the moderation and/or moderators that delivered the ban. This was exactly the case with Foxxy.

When a poster does that it sends us the message that this is not a poster that is going to listen to reason or learn from their ban in the slightest. In this scenario the best solution is to permanently close the door on the chances of being able to post from their original account.

Doing so sends a message not only to them but to the rest of the forum, that creating a new account and partaking in that type of behavior is not acceptable in any way.

I'd say that this also creates a strong deterrence against other members creating sockpuppet accounts while serving a ban. Because they don't want to risk getting permanently barred from the forum.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
institutional belligerence? what does that even mean? I feel like I need to re-read 1984 to understand what the mods are doing around here.
 
Re: Re:

Afrank said:
When a user comes back (this is especially true for the ones that have been on the forum for some time and are well aware of the rules) it is often not simply so they can keep posting thinking that they have cleverly circumvented their ban. It is often to rail on the moderation and/or moderators that delivered the ban. This was exactly the case with Foxxy.

When a poster does that it sends us the message that this is not a poster that is going to listen to reason or learn from their ban in the slightest. In this scenario the best solution is to permanently close the door on the chances of being able to post from their original account.

Doing so sends a message not only to them but to the rest of the forum, that creating a new account and partaking in that type of behavior is not acceptable in any way.

I'd say that this also creates a strong deterrence against other members creating sockpuppet accounts while serving a ban. Because they don't want to risk getting permanently barred from the forum.
Good post.

Can I conclude then if the bolded part is the case, you will not give a permaban?

I do not agree completely on the deterrence. I think every punishment should be proportional to the offense. Then you could argue that every offense should result in a permaban.

If someone returns with a second account and behaves very badly on this account, I can understand you'll permaban him. If someone is opening another account and just posts some regular stuff, I would treat it completely different.

I got the feeling that you'd give permabans no matter what. If this is not the case, then this was kind of a useless discussion. If it is the case, well, I made my point ;)
 
Re: Re:

l.Harm said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Foxxy being permabanned also did not and does not feel right in my opinion. I saw some of what was going down and Foxxy felt cornered by some other members. Other ways to settle that I thought. He came back with another account yes, maybe something other than a permabannination would have settled things and yes I do realize some of us would be on here still complaining about that.
I agree with this. Just receiving a permaban because of creating a second account is way over the top imo, regardless of the user.
This rule is one of the things that keeps this forum readable. It should never be changed. It has kept more trolls out of here (eventually) than anything else.

I would however have to concede that some consideration or leeway should be given to long-time members who show contrition and promise to abide by forum rules.

Of course this will lead to accusations of unequal treatment and unfairness, but the fact is that not all posters have equal contributions.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Also, what exactly is the point of the 12 month ban? You expect the guy to sit around for 12 months and ponder how he can improve his forum posting?
 
Re: Re:

blutto said:
l.Harm said:
AFAIK, Amster went crazy about a post that had been edited by mods, had not much to do with Foxxy tbh. He complained in several treads and kept pushing it although mods repeatedly told him to stop. I won't make any judgement to what extent the ban was justified, but I can understand that the mods got crazy about it, and he did not listen at all to their responses.
....when I saw this post the bolded bit really caught my attention....for various reasons I didn't comment on it at the time but this may be a good time to speak my mind....

....thru my longish life ( yeah I'm approaching old-fart-hood ) I've had job experiences that taught me some very valuable life lessons....at one point I was concurrently a basketball referee and a bouncer ( both activities require one to handle situations where high levels of stress and adrenaline are present....and of course alcohol and testosterone in the case of my bouncing duties...)....

....those two experiences had this very important commonality.....when the situation in front of you is going crazy, which it often did, the minute you go crazy you become part of the problem ( read, at the very least your ability to control the situation has been greatly diminished )....and this is the most important bit....because you have been given the job to control the situation and once you join the frenzy everything that happens beyond that point is on you....

....and here is a little trick that got me thru several really tough times....never stop smiling, which means never drop the hammer or be heavy handed ( figuratively and especially literally ), be firm, be accommodating, always give the other party a reasonable way out, but never ever stop smiling....because once you stop smiling it is now officially a confrontation and all hell can break loose, and it will, guaranteed...and you don't want to end the night bragging about how you won the fight, but rather how you prevented one ( the former is usually a major fail, because you don't ever "win" fights clean, rather you survive them better than the other guy, and latter is the big win, no blood to clean up, no beer got spilled, and no interruption of sales... )...

...now I realize that being a mod is different from being a bouncer but there are similarities....and from the peanut gallery where I'm sitting it seems that what we have here is a budding confrontation, like youse guys vs us guys....and the worse thing is, nobody is smiling....yeah youse guys have won some fights, but, nobody is smiling.....

....so in trying to summarize my thoughts here I'll use a bar analogy....the bouncers have won some big fights with some kinda sorta unruly clients, which seems ok on the face of it....but unfortunately these clients were sorta kinda the life of the party guys who helped bring life to the place and helped draw repeat customers, who are really the life-blood of any bar....so where does that leave us, well, a nicely policed place, that is, uhhh, nicely policed ( read, potentially diving headlong into boring ).....this forum, errr, bar has been a huge success not because it was very tightly moderated but because it had a vibrant crazy vibe to it....it has often gone against the accepted grain, heck, it helped bring down DopeStrong ( and that wasn't done by being mamby pamby and sweet ....it took some confrontation and screaming and raising hell... )...it was a great bar now it seems McD's is moving in...

Cheers
Very well said.
Thank you.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Institutional belligerence? Nailed it.

Anyone thinking otherwise needs to open their eyes.
....ok ....got my eyes wide open....and still see gobbledygook ....so, please, please explain what you think the term means and how it pertains to the situation we are discussing....

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

Afrank said:
l.Harm said:
Extending a ban is also a deterrence. I'm not saying it should not be punished at all, which Eshnar and you have both been implying. Look at the American prisons and you see how effective extreme deterrence is.

@hrotha, I'm not questioning Foxxy's ban specifically, I'm questioning the general policy that everyone who creates a second account always gets permabanned.
When a user comes back (this is especially true for the ones that have been on the forum for some time and are well aware of the rules) it is often not simply so they can keep posting thinking that they have cleverly circumvented their ban. It is often to rail on the moderation and/or moderators that delivered the ban. This was exactly the case with Foxxy.

When a poster does that it sends us the message that this is not a poster that is going to listen to reason or learn from their ban in the slightest. In this scenario the best solution is to permanently close the door on the chances of being able to post from their original account.

Doing so sends a message not only to them but to the rest of the forum, that creating a new account and partaking in that type of behavior is not acceptable in any way.

I'd say that this also creates a strong deterrence against other members creating sockpuppet accounts while serving a ban. Because they don't want to risk getting permanently barred from the forum.
Even I knew not to be a socketpuppet during my ban. Sometimes having a break is good, breaks the posting cycle obsession :)
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

blutto said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Institutional belligerence? Nailed it.

Anyone thinking otherwise needs to open their eyes.
....ok ....got my eyes wide open....and still see gobbledygook ....so, please, please explain what you think the term means and how it pertains to the situation we are discussing....

Cheers
I realise your request is most likely rhetorical, I've seen the lack of respect you hold for me. But I'll take the bait.

I am working backwards from institutionalised as a convention or norm in an organization or culture and making it a singular form of the word as a convention or norm for a poster.

You can look up belligerent if you do not know its meaning.

ie pretty consistently the poster in question jumps into threads to have a go at someone. My limited contact with this individual reinforces that perception. Well wishes to those who experienced otherwise, but I am guessing that is what he got banned for.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
blutto said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Institutional belligerence? Nailed it.

Anyone thinking otherwise needs to open their eyes.
....ok ....got my eyes wide open....and still see gobbledygook ....so, please, please explain what you think the term means and how it pertains to the situation we are discussing....

Cheers
I realise your request is most likely rhetorical, I've seen the lack of respect you hold for me. But I'll take the bait.

I am working backwards from institutionalised as a convention or norm in an organization or culture and making it a singular form of the word as a convention or norm for a poster.

You can look up belligerent if you do not know its meaning.

ie pretty consistently the poster in question jumps into threads to have a go at someone. My limited contact with this individual reinforces that perception. Well wishes to those who experienced otherwise, but I am guessing that is what he got banned for.
....wow that was a picture perfect channeling of the The Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland....brilliant, just brilliant...soooo, the good news is, it may not be 1984 after all ....but the bad news is, its still gobbledegook....

...and btw, as for the respect that you indicated I owe you ...I'll just tally that up with the respect you just earned for the response above and throw it in the mail box first thing tomorrow....

Cheers
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
To turn " I've seen the lack of respect you hold for me" into "the respect that you indicated I owe you" is truly the skill of a contortionist.

Chapeau. I hope you didn't break your back!
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

blutto said:
Dear Wiggo said:
blutto said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Institutional belligerence? Nailed it.

Anyone thinking otherwise needs to open their eyes.
....ok ....got my eyes wide open....and still see gobbledygook ....so, please, please explain what you think the term means and how it pertains to the situation we are discussing....

Cheers
I realise your request is most likely rhetorical, I've seen the lack of respect you hold for me. But I'll take the bait.

I am working backwards from institutionalised as a convention or norm in an organization or culture and making it a singular form of the word as a convention or norm for a poster.

You can look up belligerent if you do not know its meaning.

ie pretty consistently the poster in question jumps into threads to have a go at someone. My limited contact with this individual reinforces that perception. Well wishes to those who experienced otherwise, but I am guessing that is what he got banned for.
....wow that was a picture perfect channeling of the The Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland....brilliant, just brilliant...soooo, the good news it may not be 1984 after all ....but the bad news is its still gobbledegook....

...and btw, as for the respect that you indicated I owe you ...I'll just tally that up with the respect you just earned for the response above and throw it in the mail box first thing tomorrow....

Cheers
Come to think of it. Your response to me is a flat out personal attack.

So no, you don't owe me respect, in no way did I suggest that in my post, nor would I ever do so, but common decency would suggest you'd at least respond to the point / explanation I presented, and perhaps sprinkle the attack over that response.

The bouncer reveal fits you to a T.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
To turn " I've seen the lack of respect you hold for me" into "the respect that you indicated I owe you" is truly the skill of a contortionist.

Chapeau. I hope you didn't break your back!
....wow that was quick....just waiting for the bait to take were we ?....

...as for that wonderful compliment ....awww shucks you shouldn't have....I'm blushing. :eek:

...and I really wouldn't worry about my back, its nothing really....or rather, really nothing....

Cheers
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Be interested to know if the mods would be inclined to expand on the ban reason handed out to everyone's best buddy ChewbaccaD. How about it mods?
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,821
0
0
Re: Re:

l.Harm said:
Afrank said:
When a user comes back (this is especially true for the ones that have been on the forum for some time and are well aware of the rules) it is often not simply so they can keep posting thinking that they have cleverly circumvented their ban. It is often to rail on the moderation and/or moderators that delivered the ban. This was exactly the case with Foxxy.

When a poster does that it sends us the message that this is not a poster that is going to listen to reason or learn from their ban in the slightest. In this scenario the best solution is to permanently close the door on the chances of being able to post from their original account.

Doing so sends a message not only to them but to the rest of the forum, that creating a new account and partaking in that type of behavior is not acceptable in any way.

I'd say that this also creates a strong deterrence against other members creating sockpuppet accounts while serving a ban. Because they don't want to risk getting permanently barred from the forum.
Good post.

Can I conclude then if the bolded part is the case, you will not give a permaban?

I do not agree completely on the deterrence. I think every punishment should be proportional to the offense. Then you could argue that every offense should result in a permaban.

If someone returns with a second account and behaves very badly on this account, I can understand you'll permaban him. If someone is opening another account and just posts some regular stuff, I would treat it completely different.

I got the feeling that you'd give permabans no matter what. If this is not the case, then this was kind of a useless discussion. If it is the case, well, I made my point ;)
I'd say it all depends on the context from which the original ban was issued. Sometimes users will create one account after another with the sole purpose of trolling and we just have to keep banning the accounts. Sometimes it will be to complain about being banned. And then every now and then we see users that we suspect to be sockpuppets but hold off on taking action because they are obeying themselves.

I agree with you on punishments being proportional to the offense. There are often many factors that must be considered in addition to the offense. The reasoning behind a ban goes much deeper than what regular posters on the forum are privy to.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
blutto said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Institutional belligerence? Nailed it.

Anyone thinking otherwise needs to open their eyes.
....ok ....got my eyes wide open....and still see gobbledygook ....so, please, please explain what you think the term means and how it pertains to the situation we are discussing....

Cheers
I realise your request is most likely rhetorical, I've seen the lack of respect you hold for me. But I'll take the bait.

I am working backwards from institutionalised as a convention or norm in an organization or culture and making it a singular form of the word as a convention or norm for a poster.

You can look up belligerent if you do not know its meaning.

ie pretty consistently the poster in question jumps into threads to have a go at someone. My limited contact with this individual reinforces that perception. Well wishes to those who experienced otherwise, but I am guessing that is what he got banned for.
You are obviously right. They must have meant something like "ceaseless belligerence."
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re:

irondan said:
Okay guys, the back and forth between the two of you has gone on long enough.

Please get back to the thread topic.
....point taken....that was quite silly wasn't it ?.....sorry...now, as suggested, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Cheers
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
BigMac said:
For the record, bans are issued as a team - they aren't the sole initiative of the mod who announces them, so they (mod) shouldn't receive individual criticism nor be personally attacked. Letting you know in advance, as a post here has been deleted for insults aimed at a mod. We don't like giving warnings nor banning people. So, by all means, appreciate and depreciate, but in a respectful way.

Cheers.
Apparently there are active mods that aren't part of the "team." Alpe says he wasn't consulted on the Chewie ban nonsense. Chewie was fairly prolific in the Cafe so I'd imagine - if the mod team was trying to get all sides - you all might have considered what Alpe had to say.

But you didn't.

Again, banning folks like Chewie and HJ is the forums loss.
Ok, so the the silence is deafening.

I'm only to assume the mod "team" is going to stick to their decision without reconsideration. There was a time when the likes of Race Radio, TFF/Chewie, Dr Maserati, BroDeal, 131313 and hosts of other major contributors here made this forum worthwhile. Those days are over and it's pretty obvious why.

Too bad.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
Scott SoCal said:
BigMac said:
For the record, bans are issued as a team - they aren't the sole initiative of the mod who announces them, so they (mod) shouldn't receive individual criticism nor be personally attacked. Letting you know in advance, as a post here has been deleted for insults aimed at a mod. We don't like giving warnings nor banning people. So, by all means, appreciate and depreciate, but in a respectful way.

Cheers.
Apparently there are active mods that aren't part of the "team." Alpe says he wasn't consulted on the Chewie ban nonsense. Chewie was fairly prolific in the Cafe so I'd imagine - if the mod team was trying to get all sides - you all might have considered what Alpe had to say.

But you didn't.

Again, banning folks like Chewie and HJ is the forums loss.
Ok, so the the silence is deafening.

I'm only to assume the mod "team" is going to stick to their decision without reconsideration. There was a time when the likes of Race Radio, TFF/Chewie, Dr Maserati, BroDeal, 131313 and hosts of other major contributors here made this forum worthwhile. Those days are over and it's pretty obvious why.

Too bad.
Don't forget that a lot of the older posters from 09-13 kind of turned on each other a little bit when WonderBoy finally faced the music. This brought a fair bit of unsettling infighting and changes in posting. Dr Mas became Dr Vortex, BroDeal turned sour, Race Radio started backing JV/Sky, Chewie started posting less outside the café, WonderLance shifted his attention (somewhat prophetically) to Sky but wasn't quite the same - these are just a few examples...

There's a few different reasons the forum has turned over a lot of members.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY