• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

Page 130 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
GJB123 said:
Irondan said:
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.
GJB123 said:
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.
Well obviously you are not doing too great a job of appearing neutral and even-handed. The fact that you fail to grasp that you should avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest has everything to do with common sense. How on earth did you guys think it would look anywhere near okay that you would deal with a report on your own post is beyond me? And you are wondering why people might think you are acting less than neutral and even-handed?
 
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
pmcg76 said:
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.

pmcg76 said:
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 :rolleyes: 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.
But the mods are not applying the rules to certain people and you have now confirmed that by saying it is the mods right to decide to take further action.

For example:

This is one of the rules on Trolling listed in the New Forum Rules thread.
Proof of point, opinions, and common knowledge: you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping". You have to provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material.

How many times have certains poster used "we know that XXXX" stating things as fact whilst they are not fact or completely and deliberately misrepresenting articles, quotes or other pieces of information. I gave you very clear examples of such in a reported post. You closed it. No action was taken. I recently highlight another instance in a post today and you gave me a warning for it.

Deliberately ignoring questions that have been asked repeatedly is another form of trolling yet it is happening frequently.

I can only assume Red Flanders was asked via PM to compile evidence. I was asked to send examples of posters deliberately ignoring questions that had been repeatedly asked.

viewtopic.php?p=1905832#p1905832

viewtopic.php?p=1905755#p1905755
 
Another warning for "harassing mods" this time. Apparently one is not allowed to criticize mods and speak one's mind but you have to accept being called a PIA. Once they start running out of arguments they start issuing warnings. I never received any warnings in over 6 years, now I am onto 6 warnings in as many weeks for criticizing a certain poster and mods in the ensuing discussion.
 
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
But the mods are not applying the rules to certain people and you have now confirmed that by saying it is the mods right to decide to take further action.
It the post right after the one at the second link you provide, Irondan says, in part:

Irondan said:
although reports are being filed that doesn't mean he/we're automatically taking the reporting persons side of any argument.
Which is exactly what I said above. It should go without saying, but we're saying it anyway, so that you understand.

Deliberately ignoring questions that have been asked repeatedly is another form of trolling yet it is happening frequently.
If you challenge someone with a question and get no response, you can assume one of three things: 1) they are preparing their response but haven't yet given it; or, 2) they've missed your question, or seen it and forgotten about it, in which case you might want to remind them; or, 3) they have no answer, which means you've won whatever point you were trying to make with them, at least for the time being.

If you've won the point, say so. Press them on it until they admit they have no reply. If they ignore you and continue as though nothing's been said, then they might be trolling. In which case, report it, obviously providing links since we probably aren't reading the thread. If we see a pattern of such trolling we'll shut it down.

I can only assume Red Flanders was asked via PM to compile evidence. I was asked to send examples of posters deliberately ignoring questions that had been repeatedly asked.

viewtopic.php?p=1905832#p1905832

viewtopic.php?p=1905755#p1905755
I will check with the other mods on this.
 
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Re: Re:

GJB123 said:
The problem is that a growing number of people don't trust your judgement. Deal with that as you please.
At this point I don't trust your judgement, so I'm guessing that makes us about even. And I will deal with it as I please.
 
Disagreeing is one thing. Disrespecting is another. Although I have had my share of disagreements with Maxiton, he's never been disrespectful. And you guys have been. And still are. He's not making a penny, he's just helping this site and its forums not turn into trash-talk-fest like YouTube. You got to respect that.

I side with Maxiton 100%. Take your medicine, think about it, and come back assertive, but respectful. You can do it. You have both posted some great stuff in the past. Don't lose control, that's all. I look forward to reading the great posts that you can come up with very soon.
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Welcome back miburo, I have missed you.

Not that it matters one bit, but I have followed on the sideline a bit. Not this particular thread, but the Lemond-one... 100% on red's and the rest of squad's side.
You don't have any idea why red was banned do you....

Did you see the offending comment red posted?

We're not going to listen to a bunch of grief from people that just feel like being on reds side. There is no sides!

Unless you have the facts of the case it's best to keep on moving, there's nothing to see here.

This is a general warning to the thread....
 
Last time I was banned for 6 months, I lost almost 10kg and cycled a whole lot. Sometimes good comes from bans! :rolleyes:

You need bans because there's no inbetween. You also can't have mods endlessly replying to people on PM on why something was edited/deleted etc. It's not workable. Sometimes mods make mistakes, sometimes they don't. It's a thankless job.

I think slack needs to be cut. The LeMond thread was good, the dicussion allowed a lot of new and some older facts come to the important.

I don't know what happened to Red but at least he made a concerted effort to present his side, he also read the opposing posts, you can tell he put thought into it.

But if he stepped over the line, then the mods decision is final. I'd prefer to see him back in a week but I don't have all the information.
 
thehog said:
Last time I was banned for 6 months, I lost almost 10kg and cycled a whole lot. Sometimes good comes from bans! :rolleyes:

You need bans because there's no inbetween. You also can't have mods endlessly replying to people on PM on why something was edited/deleted etc. It's not workable. Sometimes mods make mistakes, sometimes they don't. It's a thankless job.

I think slack needs to be cut. The LeMond thread was good, the dicussion allowed a lot of new and some older facts come to the important.

I don't know what happened to Red but at least he made a concerted effort to present his side, he also read the opposing posts, you can tell he put thought into it.

But if he stepped over the line, then the mods decision is final. I'd prefer to see him back in a week but I don't have all the information.
Class act. Mods do the best they can.

Now for the LeMond thread, I disagree with you. It's toxic as hell, it pins GL fans vs. people who won't give up until it's proven 100% that LeMond was clean. How is that possible?

Last year, a poll showed that most Americans thought that WMDs had been found in Iraq. That's the LeMond thread.

I make this analogy all the time about the GL thread: I went to Africa in '88-'89,TV was crap and I ended-up watching a soap opera: Santa Berbara. Then I came back to France. Out of curiosity, I watched the soap. My Mom watched it everyday. IT WAS LIKE I NEVER MISSED AN EPISODE! And it turned out I had missed two years of the show. That's the LeMond thread.

Too bad we don't have the throwing-up emoticon...
 
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
Valv.Piti said:
Welcome back miburo, I have missed you.

Not that it matters one bit, but I have followed on the sideline a bit. Not this particular thread, but the Lemond-one... 100% on red's and the rest of squad's side.
You don't have any idea why red was banned do you....

Did you see the offending comment red posted?

We're not going to listen to a bunch of grief from people that just feel like being on reds side. There is no sides!

Unless you have the facts of the case it's best to keep on moving, there's nothing to see here.

This is a general warning to the thread....
Maybe you meant there shouldn't be sides, but there definitely IS sides right now. People are more upset with the mods then I've seen in a while. As the new mod gets better I think things will die down.
 
@tonton. But to be honest, the toxicity isn't limited to the GL thread. Look how negative the poels thread got in such short order. The t word was used every couple posts (slight hyperbole but not by much). Or look at the last page of the motodoping or froome thread. Discussion barely seems welcome IMO. The only reason those aren't a mess is the lack of sky fans who post regularly in the clinic nowadays. Good luck with your new gig.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
jeezus, the lemond doping thread :rolleyes: i always had a lot of respect for greg, but not as much as i disdained armstrong's doping to care contributing in there. otherwise, i'd probably side with his fans and who knows with what consequences ;)

but if seriously, folks need to know when to walk away...this is just an internet forum where any passionate viewpoint, no matter how badly trolled (or perceived trolled) should be decidedly secondary to our real life's troubles which, i am sure, we all have enough.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re:

python said:
jeezus, the lemond doping thread :rolleyes: i always had a lot of respect for greg, but not as much as i disdained armstrong's doping to care contributing in there. otherwise, i'd probably side with his fans and who knows with what consequences ;)

but if seriously, folks need to know when to walk away...this is just an internet forum where any passionate viewpoint, no matter how badly trolled (or perceived trolled) should be decidedly secondary to our real life's troubles which, i am sure, we all have enough.
exactly.
imagine me going into the Armstrong thread, or the Nordic Skiing thread, two topics that don't interest me in the slightest, and go shouting down the discussion along the lines of "SSDD people. Ridiculous arguments! Show me some proof.. Baseless rumors!"
What would the point be?

People who attribute an anti-Lemond bias to the mods have it wrong, imo.
I got a four-week ban from that thread not long ago. I thought it was unjust and that I had been baited, and so when my ban was over I decided to report the posts I felt had baited me. In return I got an extra 2-month sitter for 'abusing the report system'. :D
It felt unjust at the time (I can confidently state I never insulted anybody in that thread), but now I can see the irony, and laugh about it, and realize that much of it is a matter of perspective, and in some way even a matter of taste (what is considered baiting and what not).
Also, only a few days ago I got a warning in the Lemond thread for posting "thanks for proving my point", something Race Radio has gotten away with for years. Which is fine, mind. Just saying, imo it's farfetched to accuse the mods of an anti-Lemond stance.

btw, afaict and fwiw, Maxiton's stance re Lemond can roughly be summarized something like this:
- blood transfusions pre-86? epo post-86 and pre-91? possibly...interesting enough to discuss...
- illegal PEDs? less likely, and in the absence of evidence not worth speculating about...

I personally think that's a very neutral, balanced perspective...yes, also for a mod. (And without any exception, he's expressed that pov in a very intelligent and peaceful way.)
Compare the Sky or Indurain threads, where I don't think there is a single mod who doesn't think they dope(d). Yet I don't hear djpbaltimore, gjb123, pcmg76 or Red Flanders complain about lack of impartiality from the mods there.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re:

python said:
not very surprising that an old sexual joke/innuendo caused more commentary than the rest of the board TODAY.

before i say more, in contradiction to a moderating practice, it is important to realize WHO was the 'messenger' before judging his message.

it was pretty much revealed that apparently with a mod approval the spawn of e is chris e.. i say this not to question the mods, but to draw the attention to a sharp-tongued poster known, among other things, for his occasionally clearly sexist remarks for which he suffered numerous consequences. any old timer, including susan-the-moderator will not let me go wrong here. btw, it is also a fact i hardly EVER agreed with the guy including this tasteless joke...

all that said, i have to agree with max, dusty red roads and others who distinguish the sexist nuance from a non present implication of rape. there was none.
Which is true Susan (tic) and Yourself would know Chris e's posting manners.

I can say that I believe even Chris was surprised that his post was taken as an implication of rape.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
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.
Which in my opinion is why you went after Max with respect to the "spawn of e" post on the implication of rape. You only piled on after Merckxindex said something.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
python said:
jeezus, the lemond doping thread :rolleyes: i always had a lot of respect for greg, but not as much as i disdained armstrong's doping to care contributing in there. otherwise, i'd probably side with his fans and who knows with what consequences ;)

but if seriously, folks need to know when to walk away...this is just an internet forum where any passionate viewpoint, no matter how badly trolled (or perceived trolled) should be decidedly secondary to our real life's troubles which, i am sure, we all have enough.
exactly.
imagine me going into the Armstrong thread, or the Nordic Skiing thread, two topics that don't interest me in the slightest, and go shouting down the discussion along the lines of "SSDD people. Ridiculous arguments! Show me some proof.. Baseless rumors!"
What would the point be?

People who attribute an anti-Lemond bias to the mods have it wrong, imo.
I got a four-week ban from that thread not long ago. I thought it was unjust and that I had been baited, and so when my ban was over I decided to report the posts I felt had baited me. In return I got an extra 2-month sitter for 'abusing the report system'. :D
It felt unjust at the time (I can confidently state I never insulted anybody in that thread), but now I can see the irony, and laugh about it, and realize that much of it is a matter of perspective, and in some way even a matter of taste (what is considered baiting and what not).
Also, only a few days ago I got a warning in the Lemond thread for posting "thanks for proving my point", something Race Radio has gotten away with for years. Which is fine, mind. Just saying, imo it's farfetched to accuse the mods of an anti-Lemond stance.

btw, afaict and fwiw, Maxiton's stance re Lemond can roughly be summarized something like this:
- blood transfusions pre-86? epo post-86 and pre-91? possibly...interesting enough to discuss...
- illegal PEDs? less likely, and in the absence of evidence not worth speculating about...

I personally think that's a very neutral, balanced perspective...yes, also for a mod. (And without any exception, he's expressed that pov in a very intelligent and peaceful way.)
Compare the Sky or Indurain threads, where I don't think there is a single mod who doesn't think they dope(d). Yet I don't hear djpbaltimore, gjb123, pcmg76 or Red Flanders complain about lack of impartiality from the mods there.



Thanks for proving my point :)

I think some have taken Red’s ban for what he was posting in the LeMond thread and his point of view.

My understanding is it was more just one post whereby he crossed the line well and truly into the “no fly zone” and that got the 6-week ban and not his view on LeMond doping or not doping.

So nothing to do with taking sides and a lot more to do with taking “action” over a singular and very offensive post.
 
Aug 9, 2015
194
0
0
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
python said:
not very surprising that an old sexual joke/innuendo caused more commentary than the rest of the board TODAY.

before i say more, in contradiction to a moderating practice, it is important to realize WHO was the 'messenger' before judging his message.

it was pretty much revealed that apparently with a mod approval the spawn of e is chris e.. i say this not to question the mods, but to draw the attention to a sharp-tongued poster known, among other things, for his occasionally clearly sexist remarks for which he suffered numerous consequences. any old timer, including susan-the-moderator will not let me go wrong here. btw, it is also a fact i hardly EVER agreed with the guy including this tasteless joke...

all that said, i have to agree with max, dusty red roads and others who distinguish the sexist nuance from a non present implication of rape. there was none.
Which is true Susan (tic) and Yourself would know Chris e's posting manners.

I can say that I believe even Chris was surprised that his post was taken as an implication of rape.
I will address this now since it has come up again, and nobody has to keep guessing about my intent or criticizing mod decisions.

Of course I was surprised, It was a comment about how her looks should let her go with no punishment. It was a joke, I had forgotten the post and I only heard of the dust up a week or two later when I read this thread. I didn't comment at the time because this is so stupid.

This is the first and last time I will address it and hopefully this kills all the off base conjecture made by some posters. Even though my intent was misunderstood by some, I do apologize for any offense taken.
 
Re: Re:

Spawn of e said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
python said:
not very surprising that an old sexual joke/innuendo caused more commentary than the rest of the board TODAY.

before i say more, in contradiction to a moderating practice, it is important to realize WHO was the 'messenger' before judging his message.

it was pretty much revealed that apparently with a mod approval the spawn of e is chris e.. i say this not to question the mods, but to draw the attention to a sharp-tongued poster known, among other things, for his occasionally clearly sexist remarks for which he suffered numerous consequences. any old timer, including susan-the-moderator will not let me go wrong here. btw, it is also a fact i hardly EVER agreed with the guy including this tasteless joke...

all that said, i have to agree with max, dusty red roads and others who distinguish the sexist nuance from a non present implication of rape. there was none.
Which is true Susan (tic) and Yourself would know Chris e's posting manners.

I can say that I believe even Chris was surprised that his post was taken as an implication of rape.
I will address this now since it has come up again, and nobody has to keep guessing about my intent or criticizing mod decisions.

Of course I was surprised, It was a comment about how her looks should let her go with no punishment. It was a joke, I had forgotten the post and I only heard of the dust up a week or two later when I read this thread. I didn't comment at the time because this is so stupid.

This is the first and last time I will address it and hopefully this kills all the off base conjecture made by some posters. Even though my intent was misunderstood by some, I do apologize for any offense taken.

I'm still distraught e.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
sniper said:
python said:
jeezus, the lemond doping thread :rolleyes: i always had a lot of respect for greg, but not as much as i disdained armstrong's doping to care contributing in there. otherwise, i'd probably side with his fans and who knows with what consequences ;)

but if seriously, folks need to know when to walk away...this is just an internet forum where any passionate viewpoint, no matter how badly trolled (or perceived trolled) should be decidedly secondary to our real life's troubles which, i am sure, we all have enough.
exactly.
imagine me going into the Armstrong thread, or the Nordic Skiing thread, two topics that don't interest me in the slightest, and go shouting down the discussion along the lines of "SSDD people. Ridiculous arguments! Show me some proof.. Baseless rumors!"
What would the point be?

People who attribute an anti-Lemond bias to the mods have it wrong, imo.
I got a four-week ban from that thread not long ago. I thought it was unjust and that I had been baited, and so when my ban was over I decided to report the posts I felt had baited me. In return I got an extra 2-month sitter for 'abusing the report system'. :D
It felt unjust at the time (I can confidently state I never insulted anybody in that thread), but now I can see the irony, and laugh about it, and realize that much of it is a matter of perspective, and in some way even a matter of taste (what is considered baiting and what not).
Also, only a few days ago I got a warning in the Lemond thread for posting "thanks for proving my point", something Race Radio has gotten away with for years. Which is fine, mind. Just saying, imo it's farfetched to accuse the mods of an anti-Lemond stance.

btw, afaict and fwiw, Maxiton's stance re Lemond can roughly be summarized something like this:
- blood transfusions pre-86? epo post-86 and pre-91? possibly...interesting enough to discuss...
- illegal PEDs? less likely, and in the absence of evidence not worth speculating about...

I personally think that's a very neutral, balanced perspective...yes, also for a mod. (And without any exception, he's expressed that pov in a very intelligent and peaceful way.)
Compare the Sky or Indurain threads, where I don't think there is a single mod who doesn't think they dope(d). Yet I don't hear djpbaltimore, gjb123, pcmg76 or Red Flanders complain about lack of impartiality from the mods there.



Thanks for proving my point :)

I think some have taken Red’s ban for what he was posting in the LeMond thread and his point of view.

My understanding is it was more just one post whereby he crossed the line well and truly into the “no fly zone” and that got the 6-week ban and not his view on LeMond doping or not doping.

So nothing to do with taking sides and a lot more to do with taking “action” over a singular and very offensive post.
This.
 
The mods in this forum have always operated under the motto, “It doesn’t matter to us what your opinion is, what matters is how you state it.”

No one here is banned, nor have they ever been, solely because they support or dislike any particular rider, team or issue. We have been through this with the Armstrong affair, with Sky/Froome, and many others.

Of course all the mods have their own opinions, and have the right to express them. They obviously do not have the right to moderate the forum based on those opinions. This has never happened, and we will not allow it to happens. Mods are chosen with this in mind.

We are confident that all new and current mods are living up to the standard that was set many years ago.

For those who harp on the matter, and are convinced that the mods here are evil-minded persons who are out to get YOU: a word of advice. Re-consider whether this forum really meets your needs. We are not saying that you should leave, but for your own happiness, peace of mind and blood pressure, you might be better off elsewhere.

* * *

I am posting this as the senior moderator emeritus, having been a mod here since before the forum went public. I am no longer active in moderating this forum, and any complaints sent to me will be forwarded to the active mods for action.
 
I'm not normally one to want others banned but I appreciate eBandit being curtailed with one week.

An interesting statistical discussion was unfolding and he really wasn't trying to be part of it, he was only attempting to interrupt, dislodge and cloud the discussion. It was much better once removed.

I don't think anyone really cares if Boardman doped or not, it was so long ago it really doesn't matter, so allowing the statistics provide the probability was interesting.

Kudos for removing him before it got too stupid. Of course he is harmless, but in this case the end result was justified.

Now on that note, I wonder is it possible to ban someone from one thread and not entirely from the forum? Is that a new possible method for mods?
 
thehog said:
I'm not normally one to want others banned but I appreciate eBandit being curtailed with one week.

An interesting statistical discussion was unfolding and he really wasn't trying to be part of it, he was only attempting to interrupt, dislodge and cloud the discussion. It was much better once removed.

I don't think anyone really cares if Boardman doped or not, it was so long ago it really doesn't matter, so allowing the statistics provide the probability was interesting.

Kudos for removing him before it got too stupid. Of course he is harmless, but in this case the end result was justified.

Now on that note, I wonder is it possible to ban someone from one thread and not entirely from the forum? Is that a new possible method for mods?
It's not possible to ban anyone from a single thread without being banned from the forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts