Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[dusty red roads]

Interesting, Merckx, thanks for explaining. I had the feeling that people here have different definitions of it, since some people are so charged up that this equals 'rape'.
It could well have been intended as you say if the poster subscribes to this point of view as well. Of that I have no idea.
That being said, when I hear being 'punished' in 'my bedroom' - it still reminds me of (perhaps older generation) fantasies of - say 'spanking' - where both parties mutally enjoy the 'punishment' - thus, without knowing the original posters intent, it still reads to me as a light S&M/kinky personal fantasy.

What is shocking to me (off topic) is how rape culture has grown over the years in the west and there's a growing population of men (in general, thankfully far from all!) that seem to believe sex is owed to them and that the best sex is non-consensual. So it's a highly charged subject for me as well. But - I digress..... back to cycling....!

 

[GJB123]

Red being banned for 6 weeks and mods who are still trying to convince people their modding in certain threads is neutral and even-handed. Who are they kidding?

 

[ebandit]

...not me........red had presented a good case as requested......they did so in a

forthright logical manner....how hard must they have been pushed to result in

insult 'worthy'' of a 6 week break.........?

Mark L

 

[djpbaltimore]

Agreed with the perceived lack of neutrality. It is great that a mod says that everyone will be treated equally, but so far in the wake of the persuasive evidence presented by red_flanders and his subsequent long ban, I am not seeing that actions are meeting this promise. That is just my personal opinion and all I can do as a poster in this forum is report infractions when they occur and let the mods handle the rest.

 

[sniper]

Question to those complaining about inconsistency:

Did any of you complain when Scienceiscool posted that Lemond has two kidneys, despite the fact that Lemond having one kidney had already been posted previously, at different points in the thread, about a dozen times in total?

Did any of you complain when Red Flanders claimed that there had not been the slightest of rumors wrt Lemond and doping? Or when he shifted the goalposts saying that the rumor of Lemond using EPO were "comments of a guy who's been dead for 20 years"?

Did any of you complain when pcmg76 presented as a fact that Mottet was clean?

I see a pattern here: inconsistent complaining.

 

[GJB123]

Red wasn't banninated for being inconsistent otherwise you would have been banninated long before him. He has been banned because pointed out that the modding in the various LeMond-threads was anything but neutral and even-handed.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Red wasn't banninated Cor being inconsistent otherwise you would have been banninated long before him. He has been banned because pointed out that the modding in the various LeMond-threads was anything but neutral and even-handed.

red wasn't banned because of the thread he posted in, it was because of a particular comment that I'm not going to repeat.

FYI: red_flanders ban was deliberated behind the scenes by no less than 5 mods and administrators.

Nowhere in the discussions was the question ever asked, "was it in the Lemond thread?".

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

Red wasn't banninated Cor being inconsistent otherwise you would have been banninated long before him. He has been banned because pointed out that the modding in the various LeMond-threads was anything but neutral and even-handed.

red wasn't banned because of the thread he posted in, it was because of a particular comment that I'm not going to repeat.

FYI: red_flanders ban was deliberated behind the scenes by no less than 5 mods and administrators.

Nowhere in the discussions was the question ever asked, "was it in the Lemond thread?".

In the current climate I have a particular hard time taking your word (or maxiton's for that matter) for it.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Red wasn't banninated Cor being inconsistent otherwise you would have been banninated long before him. He has been banned because pointed out that the modding in the various LeMond-threads was anything but neutral and even-handed.

red wasn't banned because of the thread he posted in, it was because of a particular comment that I'm not going to repeat.

FYI: red_flanders ban was deliberated behind the scenes by no less than 5 mods and administrators.

Nowhere in the discussions was the question ever asked, "was it in the Lemond thread?".

In the current climate I have a particular hard time taking your word (or maxiton's for that matter) for it.

It doesn't matter if you believe me or not, I was simply adding context to a suspension of a member that's well known and highly respected.

 

[sniper]

Re:

...Red wasn't banninated for being inconsistent

Who said he was?

otherwise you would have been banninated long before him.

again, you complain about my inconsistency, but not about that of others (see my previous post). That's rather...inconsistent.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

Red wasn't banninated Cor being inconsistent otherwise you would have been banninated long before him. He has been banned because pointed out that the modding in the various LeMond-threads was anything but neutral and even-handed.

red wasn't banned because of the thread he posted in, it was because of a particular comment that I'm not going to repeat.

FYI: red_flanders ban was deliberated behind the scenes by no less than 5 mods and administrators.

Nowhere in the discussions was the question ever asked, "was it in the Lemond thread?".

In the current climate I have a particular hard time taking your word (or maxiton's for that matter) for it.

It doesn't matter if you believe me or not, I was simply adding context to a suspension of a member that's well known and highly respected.

Very little context was provided other than that we are to trust this decision because it was apparently made by more mods than just maxiton and yourself. You can do better than that surely.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Red wasn't banninated Cor being inconsistent otherwise you would have been banninated long before him. He has been banned because pointed out that the modding in the various LeMond-threads was anything but neutral and even-handed.

red wasn't banned because of the thread he posted in, it was because of a particular comment that I'm not going to repeat.

FYI: red_flanders ban was deliberated behind the scenes by no less than 5 mods and administrators.

Nowhere in the discussions was the question ever asked, "was it in the Lemond thread?".

In the current climate I have a particular hard time taking your word (or maxiton's for that matter) for it.

It doesn't matter if you believe me or not, I was simply adding context to a suspension of a member that's well known and highly respected.

Very little context was provided other than that we are to trust this decision because it was apparently made by more mods than just maxiton and yourself. You can do better than that surely.

Why would I need to do better than what I have already said since you're representing the entire forum in calling me a liar?

It's like 'opposite' day...

 

[GJB123]

I haven't called you a liar, I have said you and maxiton have appeared less than neutral and not even-handed on more than occasion and that your explanation of red's ban is woefully lacking in substance. So please retract the unfounded accusation that I called you or any mod a liar.

 

[Beech Mtn]

I feel sorry that Ryo is banned now that Betancur is showing his talent again. Not saying Ryo didn't do anything to be banned again (he probably did), just that it's too bad he doesn't get his chance to gloat about it, which would've been fun to see.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

I haven't called you a liar, I have said you and maxiton have appeared less than neutral and not even-handed on more than occasion and that your explanation of red's ban is woefully lacking in substance. So please retract the unfounded accusation that I called you or any mod a liar.

I will not retract a word of what I said.

Very little context was provided other than that we are to trust this decision

The way I read the bolded statement reads that I have not provided you with trustworthy information in order to render said decision. The only way it would not be trustworthy is for me to to be lying about it. That's the only way I could see that being read by myself or anyone else.

If I told you that I'm a huge Lemond fan and would like nothing more than for all the talk of his supposed doping to just "go away", would that make me any more trustworthy? Would that add truthfulness to my words?

It's true, I'm sure there's a post somewhere in the 2500+ comments that I posted that would confirm this. It doesn't matter though because I'm a mod and for some members of this forum mods can't be trusted.

There's no more context to add to reds ban, it's all out there. The comment that got him banned won't be repeated again in the open forum. If you missed a chance to read it then the only thing you can go by to trust the decision that was rendered, is what I've already said. If you don't trust that decision than I must be lying about it.

 

[GJB123]

In any decision there is always part of it that implies a personal judgement. It is perfectly possible to perceive matters differently without any party wilfully lying. I never claimed you lied nor did I insinuate that, that is all in your head. The problem is much more essential in that I don't trust your and maxiton's judgement in this and other cases.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Fair enough, Irondan. Your word is unimpeachable in my book. No matter what precipitated the ban, I still think red_flanders argument about what is actually occurring in the LeMond thread is still very relevant moving forward.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Fair enough, Irondan. Your word is unimpeachable in my book. No matter what precipitated the ban, I still think red_flanders argument about what is actually occurring in the LeMond thread is still very relevant moving forward.

red_flanders was banned for a comment that he made, it doesn't matter what thread it was in because it would have resulted in the same consequences.

I admit it looks like mods took a voice of reason out of an unreasonable thread but that's just simply not the case. You all can draw your own conclusions and voice your displeasure, but ultimately it was reds own lack of self control that removed him from a discussion that greatly needs his articulation.

 

[GJB123]

I reported a post from maxiton only to receive a message that it was dealt with by ..... wait for it .... maxiton. Are you guys for real? Do you know the words "conflict of interest"? This is hilarious. Steve Martin and Louis de Funes coudn't have done better.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

Red wasn't banninated Cor being inconsistent otherwise you would have been banninated long before him. He has been banned because pointed out that the modding in the various LeMond-threads was anything but neutral and even-handed.

red wasn't banned because of the thread he posted in, it was because of a particular comment that I'm not going to repeat.

FYI: red_flanders ban was deliberated behind the scenes by no less than 5 mods and administrators.

Nowhere in the discussions was the question ever asked, "was it in the Lemond thread?".

And I would wager that was a direct result of frustration at the lack of action taken by mods in the LeMond thread. Even though the trolling was crystal clear, mods were asking for posters to compile evidence of such. Red did, I did and DJ Baltimore did yet nothing happened. The same poster just continued to troll away as normal. It truly has become ridiculous. Some will say it is because the trolling is anti-LeMond, no its not, I don't have issues with Blutto, Glenn Wilson or Damiano Machiavalli, I disagree with them but they are not trolling. There is a world of difference between debate and trolling. Clearly the current mods cannot or will not recognise that.

I believe that the trolling is so obvious and so many people have pointed it out, that the mods are ashamed to do anything because they don't want to feel like they have been forced into it. Keeping face and all that. Instead they stick their head in the sand and ban people who get frustrated at their lack of action.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

FYI: red_flanders ban was deliberated behind the scenes by no less than 5 mods and administrators.

Nowhere in the discussions was the question ever asked, "was it in the Lemond thread?".

In the current climate I have a particular hard time taking your word (or maxiton's for that matter) for it.

I reported a post from maxiton only to receive a message that it was dealt with by ..... wait for it .... maxiton. Are you guys for real? Do you know the words "conflict of interest"? This is hilarious. Steve Martin and Louis de Funes coudn't have done better.

This isn't some large purchase on the stock exchange or government budget discussion, this is a cycling forum. Your participation here is by your own choosing. We, the moderators, put in our own time, gratis, to keep things running smoothly for everyone. We do our best to be even handed, objective, and honest.

I showed your report to the other moderators before I dealt with it. If you don't trust us, or feel we're not acting in your interests, why don't you find a different forum whose moderators meet with your approval?

If you're going to stay here, though, stop whining and being such a huge PIA.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

FYI: red_flanders ban was deliberated behind the scenes by no less than 5 mods and administrators.

Nowhere in the discussions was the question ever asked, "was it in the Lemond thread?".

In the current climate I have a particular hard time taking your word (or maxiton's for that matter) for it.

I reported a post from maxiton only to receive a message that it was dealt with by ..... wait for it .... maxiton. Are you guys for real? Do you know the words "conflict of interest"? This is hilarious. Steve Martin and Louis de Funes coudn't have done better.

This isn't some large purchase on the stock exchange or government budget discussion, this is a cycling forum. Your participation here is by your own choosing. We, the moderators, put in our own time, gratis, to keep things running smoothly for everyone. We do our best to be even handed, objective, and honest.

I showed your report to the other moderators before I dealt with it. If you don't trust us, or feel we're not acting in your interests, why don't you find a different forum whose moderators meet with your approval?

If you're going to stay here, though, stop whining and being such a huge PIA.

This is the problem though, it is blatantly clear mods are failing miserably in this department. There seems to be no point reporting stuff as it just seems to get lost in a vacuum. After numerous people complaining about the same poster, I reported a post by the same poster for blatantly misrepresenting facts and trolling, you closed the report. What happened? Nothing. What exactly are people supposed to think when numerous complaints, reports etc result in nothing being done to address the underlying problem.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

FYI: red_flanders ban was deliberated behind the scenes by no less than 5 mods and administrators.

Nowhere in the discussions was the question ever asked, "was it in the Lemond thread?".

In the current climate I have a particular hard time taking your word (or maxiton's for that matter) for it.

I reported a post from maxiton only to receive a message that it was dealt with by ..... wait for it .... maxiton. Are you guys for real? Do you know the words "conflict of interest"? This is hilarious. Steve Martin and Louis de Funes coudn't have done better.

This isn't some large purchase on the stock exchange or government budget discussion, this is a cycling forum. Your participation here is by your own choosing. We, the moderators, put in our own time, gratis, to keep things running smoothly for everyone. We do our best to be even handed, objective, and honest.

I showed your report to the other moderators before I dealt with it. If you don't trust us, or feel we're not acting in your interests, why don't you find a different forum whose moderators meet with your approval?

If you're going to stay here, though, stop whining and being such a huge PIA.

This is the problem though, it is blatantly clear mods are failing miserably in this department. There seems to be no point reporting stuff as it just seems to get lost in a vacuum. After numerous people complaining about the same poster, I reported a post by the same poster for blatantly misrepresenting facts and trolling, you closed the report. What happened? Nothing. What exactly are people supposed to think when numerous complaints, reports etc result in nothing being done to address the underlying problem.

Ridiculous, after highlighting the fact that reporting posts was a waste of time and having mods ask for evidence of trolling to be compiled, doing so along with Red Flanders and DJ Baltimore and still nothing being done, I decided to highlight the trolling as it happens. Guess what, I received a warning for accusations of trolling You could not make this stuff up. Quite easy to see why Red_Flanders lost it. Will be surprised if I don't get more warnings now.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

This is the problem though, it is blatantly clear mods are failing miserably in this department. There seems to be no point reporting stuff as it just seems to get lost in a vacuum. After numerous people complaining about the same poster, I reported a post by the same poster for blatantly misrepresenting facts and trolling, you closed the report. What happened? Nothing. What exactly are people supposed to think when numerous complaints, reports etc result in nothing being done to address the underlying problem.

What you're supposed to think is that a) you reported something, and b) one or more moderators looked at your report and found it to be without basis.

When you're involved in a debate, especially a debate involving something you have strong feelings about, it can be difficult to remain objective. We ask forum users to flag things they think are in violation of the rules. Once you've done that, the ball is in our court. We look at the report, examine the offending post, and decide whether or not to take action, based on our own judgement. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. The only thing guaranteed by filing a report is that a moderator will take a look at it.

Ridiculous, after highlighting the fact that reporting posts was a waste of time and having mods ask for evidence of trolling to be compiled, doing so along with Red Flanders and DJ Baltimore and still nothing being done, I decided to highlight the trolling as it happens. Guess what, I received a warning for accusations of trolling You could not make this stuff up. Quite easy to see why Red_Flanders lost it. Will be surprised if I don't get more warnings now.

To my knowledge, none of the mods asked for evidence of trolling to be compiled. I didn't anyway. What I said is that if you are going to have a conversation with each other it will be more productive if you supply a link and a quote when you refer to each other's previous posts. This minimizes the likelihood of misconstruing the other person's post, and thus facilitates dialog.

The rule for suspected trolling has been the same for a long time now: report it. If you think it will make the trolling more obvious, include in your report evidence if you have it.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

This is the problem though, it is blatantly clear mods are failing miserably in this department. There seems to be no point reporting stuff as it just seems to get lost in a vacuum. After numerous people complaining about the same poster, I reported a post by the same poster for blatantly misrepresenting facts and trolling, you closed the report. What happened? Nothing. What exactly are people supposed to think when numerous complaints, reports etc result in nothing being done to address the underlying problem.

What you're supposed to think is that a) you reported something, and b) one or more moderators looked at your report and found it to be without basis.

When you're involved in a debate, especially a debate involving something you have strong feelings about, it can be difficult to remain objective. We ask forum users to flag things they think are in violation of the rules. Once you've done that, the ball is in our court. We look at the report, examine the offending post, and decide whether or not to take action, based on our own judgement. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. The only thing guaranteed by filing a report is that a moderator will take a look at it.

Ridiculous, after highlighting the fact that reporting posts was a waste of time and having mods ask for evidence of trolling to be compiled, doing so along with Red Flanders and DJ Baltimore and still nothing being done, I decided to highlight the trolling as it happens. Guess what, I received a warning for accusations of trolling You could not make this stuff up. Quite easy to see why Red_Flanders lost it. Will be surprised if I don't get more warnings now.

To my knowledge, none of the mods asked for evidence of trolling to be compiled. I didn't anyway. What I said is that if you are going to have a conversation with each other it will be more productive if you supply a link and a quote when you refer to each other's previous posts. This minimizes the likelihood of misconstruing the other person's post, and thus facilitates dialog.

The rule for suspected trolling has been the same for a long time now: report it. If you think it will make the trolling more obvious, include in your report evidence if you have it.

The problem is that a growing number of people don't trust your judgement. Deal with that as you please.