Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[lenric]

Re: Re:

So, I have a doubt:
Is it ok to insult people here?
I know if you're a fan of Contador you get that little extra protection because of some reason I really don't have the smarts to understand, but there are some obnoxious guys over here (such as Miburo) that don't know how to take other people's opinions respectfully without insulting. Whether that's because Trump is the worst candidate in the last 100 years, or if Contador dropped like a stone, or whatever, but is it ok to insult other people then?

I'm asking this, because this is supposed to be a forum where people should respect each other and moderators/administrators should do their job coherently and, if some user has a doubt, they should answer them, but what I see is obnoxious guys like Miburo and Ryo (Ryo is a way bigger case) doing crap after crap and still being in this forum, while others do the same and get banned way longer.

Since I'm not an hypocrite guy and I say what I think, seeing that I'm not getting answered in PMs, I ask here: is this what being biased looks like, or is there any other explanation I don't have the smarts to get?

This is a thread where we discuss bans of posters. It is not allowed to insult posters in this thread, or in any other thread on this forum.

For further information, viewtopic.php?p=1354428#p1354428

Posts before and after mine were addressing bans of users much like mine was.
And by the way, I was insulted two times and you guys did 0. I even reported, to make your job easier.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

How many suspensions does somebody need to have before it is to be concluded that they have neither the respect for the forum, nor the self awareness to recognise their unacceptable conduct, to the extent that they should not be re-admitted?

I can't actually find any set of current rules, just a quote dating from October 2013 citing what presumably were then promulgated as the "Big Rules", which include " Once you have received a short term ban, this will be taken into consideration when further sanctions are required and considered. Multiple short term bans may make you eligible for a long term ban"

Is any warning about long term suspension for repetition either implicit, or explicit, in a ban?

 

[python]

Re:

How many suspensions does somebody need to have before it is to be concluded that they have neither the respect for the forum, nor the self awareness to recognise their unacceptable conduct, to the extent that they should not be re-admitted?

I can't actually find any set of current rules, just a quote dating from October 2013 citing what presumably were then promulgated as the "Big Rules", which include " Once you have received a short term ban, this will be taken into consideration when further sanctions are required and considered. Multiple short term bans may make you eligible for a long term ban"

Is any warning about long term suspension for repetition either implicit, or explicit, in a ban?

i quite understand the angle as it's consistent with the nordic attitudes, but frankly it is - to put it mildly - a logical trap.

a trap, among other things, b/c those short term bans are highly arbitrary. the fact is, there was NEVER to my knowledge a publicly available 'banning scale' for a specific misdeed that could be known to a potential culprit to supposedly modify the bad behavior if the the punishment consequence was clear. sometimes i saw a 24h ban that caused a week vacation in other cases (judging by my sense) for a similar supposed infraction. as one can guess i am quite familiar with how a mod team might act.

it is also a trap b/c lack of the elementary punishment transparency leaves room (though i am sure it's unintentional and infrequent) for abuse of the moderator/administrator power. the fact we often hear a banning decision is never unilateral is a weak justification in my view b/c of the prevailing attitude of at least some mods to punish 'with only a short ban' as opposed to spend time to go deep...

this place needs more transparency. specifically, it would be helpful if a mod would quote/reference a specific rule they used to ban someone. and the practice should become the basis for a mod INTERNAL scrutiny not necessarily available to common users.

or as in the delgados fair question why his post was deleted....a mods taste should be the no go zone b/c the rules should provide a clear and fair guidance.

just my thoughts...

 

[the delgados]

Re:

Probably distressing images or something along those lines I imagine.

My thoughts as well.
But the images were contained in a link I posted from the Toronto Star. I even warned that graphic content was contained within--i.e. cop opens fire on someone exiting an airport terminal. Not a pretty sight, but nothing we haven't seen before.
I didn't post the link for gratuitous purposes; I added comments that were consistent with the thread topic.
Again, no big deal.
But, as python says, it would be nice to know why posts like that get deleted.

 

[Echoes]

Okay so you've dared to...

I don't mind being banned. I don't have too much affinities with this forum anymore but for two or three friends.
But saing I'm trolling, that cannot pass. I have the feeling it is the easy excuse of mods who cannot justify their bans. "Trolling". It always works.

You think I'm gonna shut up after being banned. Certainly not. You've made a terrible mistake. You should have permabanned me in order to shut my mouth. When you shoot someone you target the heart, not the leg.

I'm not gonna stop and I still CLAIM that the reaction to Stig Broeckx accident on this forum was heartless and cynical. Period!

 

[RedheadDane]

Okay, maybe it was slightly overshadowed by what was happening at the Giro.
However, you put a disturbingly amount of focus on the fact that it was a Grand Tour that (suppossedly) overshadowed his injury while screaming up about how "It's just because Stig Broeckx is a classic specialist!"
So let me ask you this; if during the exceptionally exciting P-R this year news had suddenly arrived about - say - Froome having been horribly injured, yet nobody really reacted much at first, would you still have complained about how the race overshadowed the rider?
You missed a great part of the Stig Broeckx thread, go read it and say we don't care.
You missed the Keagan Girdlestone thread, from the horrified reactions to the - thankfully mistaken - reports of his death, to the relief when we learned it wasn't that case and he was actually getting better.

 

[Miburo]

This is the Internet lenric and you cant be a man here? I got banned so many times but dont go cry to the mods. Fair game bro. Let them do the banning. Asking for bans makes you look weak. Not my fault you lost adiscussion . Love ya mods

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

How many suspensions does somebody need to have before it is to be concluded that they have neither the respect for the forum, nor the self awareness to recognise their unacceptable conduct, to the extent that they should not be re-admitted?

I can't actually find any set of current rules, just a quote dating from October 2013 citing what presumably were then promulgated as the "Big Rules", which include " Once you have received a short term ban, this will be taken into consideration when further sanctions are required and considered. Multiple short term bans may make you eligible for a long term ban"

Is any warning about long term suspension for repetition either implicit, or explicit, in a ban?

i quite understand the angle as it's consistent with the nordic attitudes, but frankly it is - to put it mildly - a logical trap.

a trap, among other things, b/c those short term bans are highly arbitrary. the fact is, there was NEVER to my knowledge a publicly available 'banning scale' for a specific misdeed that could be known to a potential culprit to supposedly modify the bad behavior if the the punishment consequence was clear. sometimes i saw a 24h ban that caused a week vacation in other cases (judging by my sense) for a similar supposed infraction. as one can guess i am quite familiar with how a mod team might act.

it is also a trap b/c lack of the elementary punishment transparency leaves room (though i am sure it's unintentional and infrequent) for abuse of the moderator/administrator power. the fact we often hear a banning decision is never unilateral is a weak justification in my view b/c of the prevailing attitude of at least some mods to punish 'with only a short ban' as opposed to spend time to go deep...

this place needs more transparency. specifically, it would be helpful if a mod would quote/reference a specific rule they used to ban someone. and the practice should become the basis for a mod INTERNAL scrutiny not necessarily available to common users.

or as in the delgados fair question why his post was deleted....a mods taste should be the no go zone b/c the rules should provide a clear and fair guidance.

just my thoughts...

Thank you: I've never thought of my mindset as Nordic, but if you say so.

If the intention of a ban is not to encourage someone to express the opinion that conduct is unacceptable, and invite the offender to reconsider their attitude and approach, then what does it serve?

And if someone has been suspended several times, and each time returns with a clear unwillingness to moderate that attitude and approach, are they going to be received back time and time again, with an increasingly unfounded hope that their conduct will improve? Or will moderators finally decide that persistent lack of respect for the forum makes somebody no longer welcome to return?

Perhaps my original question seemed to suggest a strictly mathematical solution: I'm really wondering whether anyone is willing, or authorised, to make a call based on long term behaviour.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

How many suspensions does somebody need to have before it is to be concluded that they have neither the respect for the forum, nor the self awareness to recognise their unacceptable conduct, to the extent that they should not be re-admitted?

I can't actually find any set of current rules, just a quote dating from October 2013 citing what presumably were then promulgated as the "Big Rules", which include " Once you have received a short term ban, this will be taken into consideration when further sanctions are required and considered. Multiple short term bans may make you eligible for a long term ban"

Is any warning about long term suspension for repetition either implicit, or explicit, in a ban?

i quite understand the angle as it's consistent with the nordic attitudes, but frankly it is - to put it mildly - a logical trap.

a trap, among other things, b/c those short term bans are highly arbitrary. the fact is, there was NEVER to my knowledge a publicly available 'banning scale' for a specific misdeed that could be known to a potential culprit to supposedly modify the bad behavior if the the punishment consequence was clear. sometimes i saw a 24h ban that caused a week vacation in other cases (judging by my sense) for a similar supposed infraction. as one can guess i am quite familiar with how a mod team might act.

it is also a trap b/c lack of the elementary punishment transparency leaves room (though i am sure it's unintentional and infrequent) for abuse of the moderator/administrator power. the fact we often hear a banning decision is never unilateral is a weak justification in my view b/c of the prevailing attitude of at least some mods to punish 'with only a short ban' as opposed to spend time to go deep...

this place needs more transparency. specifically, it would be helpful if a mod would quote/reference a specific rule they used to ban someone. and the practice should become the basis for a mod INTERNAL scrutiny not necessarily available to common users.

or as in the delgados fair question why his post was deleted....a mods taste should be the no go zone b/c the rules should provide a clear and fair guidance.

just my thoughts...

Thank you: I've never thought of my mindset as Nordic, but if you say so.

If the intention of a ban is not to encourage someone to express the opinion that conduct is unacceptable, and invite the offender to reconsider their attitude and approach, then what does it serve?

And if someone has been suspended several times, and each time returns with a clear unwillingness to moderate that attitude and approach, are they going to be received back time and time again, with an increasingly unfounded hope that their conduct will improve? Or will moderators finally decide that persistent lack of respect for the forum makes somebody no longer welcome to return?

Perhaps my original question seemed to suggest a strictly mathematical solution: I'm really wondering whether anyone is willing, or authorised, to make a call based on long term behaviour.

You're right to ask how long do we keep allowing the same members to break forum rules before it's time to cut the cord. We don't have a formula or a cutoff with a specific number of bans triggering a permaban. Although, in the case of the person we're talking about, he just came back from a 6 month ban for accumulating too many bans. Should he get permabanned for the newest ban? That's a question that's being tossed around but there is no answer just yet.

 

[lenric]

Re:

This is the Internet lenric and you cant be a man here? I got banned so many times but dont go cry to the mods. Fair game bro. Let them do the banning. Asking for bans makes you look weak. Not my fault you lost adiscussion . Love ya mods

Whatever you say honey. Like I already said, take the bicycle and ride it

 

[python]

Re: Re:

How many suspensions does somebody need to have before it is to be concluded that they have neither the respect for the forum, nor the self awareness to recognise their unacceptable conduct, to the extent that they should not be re-admitted?

I can't actually find any set of current rules, just a quote dating from October 2013 citing what presumably were then promulgated as the "Big Rules", which include " Once you have received a short term ban, this will be taken into consideration when further sanctions are required and considered. Multiple short term bans may make you eligible for a long term ban"

Is any warning about long term suspension for repetition either implicit, or explicit, in a ban?

i quite understand the angle as it's consistent with the nordic attitudes, but frankly it is - to put it mildly - a logical trap.

a trap, among other things, b/c those short term bans are highly arbitrary. the fact is, there was NEVER to my knowledge a publicly available 'banning scale' for a specific misdeed that could be known to a potential culprit to supposedly modify the bad behavior if the the punishment consequence was clear. sometimes i saw a 24h ban that caused a week vacation in other cases (judging by my sense) for a similar supposed infraction. as one can guess i am quite familiar with how a mod team might act.

it is also a trap b/c lack of the elementary punishment transparency leaves room (though i am sure it's unintentional and infrequent) for abuse of the moderator/administrator power. the fact we often hear a banning decision is never unilateral is a weak justification in my view b/c of the prevailing attitude of at least some mods to punish 'with only a short ban' as opposed to spend time to go deep...

this place needs more transparency. specifically, it would be helpful if a mod would quote/reference a specific rule they used to ban someone. and the practice should become the basis for a mod INTERNAL scrutiny not necessarily available to common users.

or as in the delgados fair question why his post was deleted....a mods taste should be the no go zone b/c the rules should provide a clear and fair guidance.

just my thoughts...

Thank you: I've never thought of my mindset as Nordic, but if you say so.

all the quotes are within the post - please point WHERE did i refer to YOUR mindset &#63

i only pointed out that while I understood your suggestions (b/c they rang in with my attitude), they were nevertheless a logical trap. i explained why. to me, a logic 'if banned xyz times, then...' would lead to mechanical punitives. a consistent infractor needs no algebra to be well known to both the mods and other users.

otoh, as i suggested, if a transparent, logical banning scale was known in advance plus the specific ban being clearly referenced to a rule that triggered it, then the infractors would have no grounds for whining about subjectivity.

 

[Echoes]

Re:

The other one, though, I've given up on words to describe him.

Coming from you...

You lack the sociable competences to get words to describe how respectable Ryo is. He respect his word. HIM!

By the way, I hope that during my next ban, you won't have the nerve to defend me, hypo!

 

[BigMac]

Re: Re:

The other one, though, I've given up on words to describe him.

Coming from you...

You lack the sociable competences to get words to describe how respectable Ryo is. He respect his word. HIM!

By the way, I hope that during my next ban, you won't have the nerve to defend me, hypo!

Uh... Ok.

 

[Netserk]

Lol, the best hate - love/make-up - breakup relationship on here

Only a few weeks away from Echoes publicly begging BigMac to read his love poems (/PMs)

 

[GJB123]

Re:

So, I have a doubt:
Is it ok to insult people here?
I know if you're a fan of Contador you get that little extra protection because of some reason I really don't have the smarts to understand, but there are some obnoxious guys over here (such as Miburo) that don't know how to take other people's opinions respectfully without insulting. Whether that's because Trump is the worst candidate in the last 100 years, or if Contador dropped like a stone, or whatever, but is it ok to insult other people then?

I'm asking this, because this is supposed to be a forum where people should respect each other and moderators/administrators should do their job coherently and, if some user has a doubt, they should answer them, but what I see is obnoxious guys like Miburo and Ryo (Ryo is a way bigger case) doing crap after crap and still being in this forum, while others do the same and get banned way longer.

Since I'm not an hypocrite guy and I say what I think, seeing that I'm not getting answered in PMs, I ask here: is this what being biased looks like, or is there any other explanation I don't have the smarts to get?

In short and in my opinion it does make a difference who does the insulting and name calling.

 

[Eshnar]

Okay so you've dared to...

I don't mind being banned. I don't have too much affinities with this forum anymore but for two or three friends.
But saing I'm trolling, that cannot pass. I have the feeling it is the easy excuse of mods who cannot justify their bans. "Trolling". It always works.

You think I'm gonna shut up after being banned. Certainly not. You've made a terrible mistake. You should have permabanned me in order to shut my mouth. When you shoot someone you target the heart, not the leg.

I'm not gonna stop and I still CLAIM that the reaction to Stig Broeckx accident on this forum was heartless and cynical. Period!

If we wanted to ban you over your absurd claims we could have done so ages ago.

You were banned because you spent the last month posting in PRR threads with the sole intent to start a fight. That thread was just the last one of a long list. A thread you entered to complain that nobody started it earlier, and when people pointed out that the fact was already being discussed in the general news you just changed claim. You transformed that thread into an argument insulting people left and right, and that's the very definition of trolling. It really looked like you were purposely looking for a ban.
The two weeks (way too lenient considering your recent repeated trolling) were just a message. If you want a longer ban, you just have to ask.

 

[burning]

Okay so you've dared to...

I don't mind being banned. I don't have too much affinities with this forum anymore but for two or three friends.
But saing I'm trolling, that cannot pass. I have the feeling it is the easy excuse of mods who cannot justify their bans. "Trolling". It always works.

You think I'm gonna shut up after being banned. Certainly not. You've made a terrible mistake. You should have permabanned me in order to shut my mouth. When you shoot someone you target the heart, not the leg.

I'm not gonna stop and I still CLAIM that the reaction to Stig Broeckx accident on this forum was heartless and cynical. Period!

You don't mind being banned and you come to post here right after your ban is expired, yeah cool story bro.

 

[PeterB]

MacBair, two weeks. Trolling, baiting, everything...

Is this a ban announcement? If so, it is in a wrong thread. But, really? From what I could see he was only quite politely defending his position, no?

 

[Benotti69]

Thought Blackcats comment was on a par for him. His zany style of posting is not meant to offend. At least i dont think it is and i dont find it offensive, i find it unique, funny, witty and most importantly alliterative! Blackcat is the dog!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

Thought Blackcats comment was on a par for him. His zany style of posting is not meant to offend. At least i dont think it is and i dont find it offensive, i find it unique, funny, witty and most importantly alliterative! Blackcat is the dog!

Yes I agree, with he has a zany style. Since I did not see the offending post I can't speak to it.

But I will always support my Aussie friend blackcat.

People think he and I are not friends because of some of our reply posts, nothing could be further from the truth. We have history way back in the back in the day forums.

 

[Beech Mtn]

I saw it. I like the cat, but that post needed to be removed. He'll be back soon anyway, and back to his old self, and life goes on.

 

[the delgados]

Re:

I saw it. I like the cat, but that post needed to be removed. He'll be back soon anyway, and back to his old self, and life goes on.

Alas, I did not see the "offensive" post.
blackcat has been a regular here for years; if you don't get his sense of humour now, you probably never will (by saying "you" I'm speaking in general terms).
I'd understand the mods concerns if some rando created an account and started posting stuff similar to blackcat; but even then I think it would be necessary to privately consult the poster before issuing suspensions.
As has been mentioned, he does not post with malicious intent; that seems to be pretty clear.
I'm pretty sure blackcat gets a kick out of this, but why not just leave the guy be?
His Wilderean drollery is one of the reasons I visit this message board on a daily basis.

 

[RedheadDane]

david221 was permabanned for spamming and advertising

Not to mention advertising for something that's kinda illegal...
Just out of curiosity, how come the thread was allowed to survive for three years?

 

[blackcat]

come on, where is the sense of humour in this place.

 

[ebandit]

....i smiled at your ban.....and mine....earlier

gotta roll with the fun....

Mark L