Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[BigMac]

Only Blurry is not a new member. People get banned often for creating sockpuppets, those bans are announced and the rules are clear. They knew they were circumventing them. On top of that, you don't need to be a seasoned forumite to know or at least expect that making a sockpuppet account will get you in truble, as KB points out. Else what would be the point of the ban? That they could not wait 3 days shows some sort of really unhealthy obsession and arrogance towards everyone here who abides by the rules. No sympathy whatsoever in a case like this. Three days, for goodness sake.

 

[sniper]

Only Blurry is not a new member. People get banned often for creating sockpuppets, those bans are announced and the rules are clear. They knew they were circumventing them. On top of that, you don't need to be a seasoned forumite to know or at least expect that making a sockpuppet account will get you in truble, as KB points out. Else what would be the point of the ban? That they could not wait 3 days shows some sort of really unhealthy obsession and arrogance towards everyone here who abides by the rules. No sympathy whatsoever in a case like this. Three days, for goodness sake.

i cant speak for blurry, i never interacted with him, and maybe he fits your description.
but not everybody does.
i know i had no idea what sockpuppets were, not even what a 'ban' was all about, when i joined this forum.
you see, in real life people dont get banned. so why would people immediately know how to deal with that or what the implications are?
Also mind that 'joining a/the forum' is not a purpose in itself for many posters. Oftentimes posters just join as a kind of side-effect of being bored, then stumbling upon the forum, and thinking, hm, let's see what happens if i sign up. For those people there is no motivation to go dig into the forum rules or think "ow, what if I get banned".
You can say "well then those people should stay away", which is fair enough, but again, some simply need to 'grow into it' first, discover the whole thing, and might then eventually become regular contributors.

 

[RedheadDane]

You can be banned from somewhere irl. Stores, cafes, resturants, you name it.

Okay, now I'm gonna be a bit silly.
Creating a sockpuppet is a bit like if you've been banned from some place irl and then slap on a pair of sun glasses and a fake moustache and claim you're a different person.
Or put on a wig and a dress and claim you're your wife.

 

[hrotha]

I don't think bans are some sort of super arcane secret handshake only forumites would know about. They're rather intuitive.

Also, this is the only forum where I've seen the term "sockpuppet". I thought the word was "smurf" everywhere.

 

[BigMac]

Only Blurry is not a new member. People get banned often for creating sockpuppets, those bans are announced and the rules are clear. They knew they were circumventing them. On top of that, you don't need to be a seasoned forumite to know or at least expect that making a sockpuppet account will get you in truble, as KB points out. Else what would be the point of the ban? That they could not wait 3 days shows some sort of really unhealthy obsession and arrogance towards everyone here who abides by the rules. No sympathy whatsoever in a case like this. Three days, for goodness sake.

i cant speak for blurry, i never interacted with him, and maybe he fits your description.
but not everybody does.
i know i had no idea what sockpuppets were, not even what a 'ban' was all about, when i joined this forum.
you see, in real life people dont get banned. so why would people immediately know how to deal with that or what the implications are?
Also mind that 'joining a/the forum' is not a purpose in itself for many posters. Oftentimes posters just join as a kind of side-effect of being bored, then stumbling upon the forum, and thinking, hm, let's see what happens if i sign up. For those people there is no motivation to go dig into the forum rules or think "ow, what if I get banned".
You can say "well then those people should stay away", which is fair enough, but again, some simply need to 'grow into it' first, discover the whole thing, and might then eventually become regular contributors.

But again, sniper:

a) Blurry did not just join the forum.

b) It goes without saying that posting under a different account while you're banned is against the rules. It's logic 101. Else what is the point of the ban?

They most likely knew this and if they didn't they only have themselves to blame.

The unwillingness to serve a 3 day ban thinking they were smarter than the rest here only makes it worse.

 

[sniper]

(a) sure, but i thought we had already moved away from his particular case;
(b) sure, but the question is: is an immediate permaban (always) warranted?

As for "thinking they were smarter than the rest here", sorry but that sounds like you're blowing a basically harmless act way out of proportion. There are much worse forms of trolling.
Making a sockpuppet, isn't that a bit like a kid stealing candy? Really potentally quite harmless, unless the kid has a long history of stealing candy, and/or has an additional history of bullying or beating up other kids.
So, as somebody suggested, it seems fair to take a case-by-case approach to this, although i realize that that entails more work for the mods.

 

[BigMac]

(a) as I said I don't know blurry, so i'm not addressing his case.

You keep saying something like new members should be cut some slack and that they're often not aware of rules. I'm telling you Blurry was not a new member. What's there to know?

(b) sure, but the question is: is an immediate permaban (always) warranted?

As for "thinking they were smarter than the rest here", sorry but that's just blowing a basically harmless act way out of proportion.
Making a sockpuppet, isn't that a bit like a kid stealing candy? Really what's the big deal?

You could argue that a permaban is not always the best option, but what do you make of someone who tries to circumvent a three (3!) day ban knowing full well that would get them in trouble? If they knew they'd get a perma or not isn't really the point - either way, only Blurry is to blame.

I don't think i'm blowing it out of proportion. Of course that, in practice, a sockpuppet is harmless unless it is used to insult others or wash the dirty laundry in public (something which happens more often than not), but it doesn't change the fact that the person banned either believed they could fool those ''in charge'' or that they are above the rules. I'ts a big deal when you consider the lack of honesty behind it, it's nothing like a kid stealing candy. First, because you don't expect the same kind of behaviour from a child than you do from a teen, youg adult, adult, etc. Your analogy doesn't add up because while a kid stealing candy can make one laugh, you'd find it creppy, to say the least, if it was an adult doing it. Once you grow up, there are some social norms you're expected to follow and which go without saying - you'd have to be really, really daft to think there was no problem with coming here under a new name with an account currently serving a ban. I don't think Blurry is daft. It's basically saying ''I'm better'', ''bans are useless''. Permabans as a punhisment for sockpuppetry exist mainly as a deterrent, and they are explicit for old folks and new members alike - when you chose to ignore this, justice is served in the most objective means possible, under the terms everyone chose to agree by the simple act of posting here.

That said, a permaban doesn't always need to be permanent. People can make a case for themselves after being away for some time. I speak from personal experience. Blurry only needed to wait one more day but thought they'd return with a sock instead. That doesn't bode well. Good luck.

 

[sniper]

yeah, fair point(s).

But "It's basically saying ''I'm better'', ''bans are useless'',

well, for some maybe.
But imo some others will do it out of genuine ignorance of forum culture/etiquette.
And there's little use comparing it with reallife, because in real life people don't get banned either.
Some won't even know that it's possible to make a second account. They may just be tempted to try and see if it works.

Anyway, we seem to agree that posters should be allowed to make a case for themselves if they want to overturn a permaban. Sounds fair enough.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

yeah, fair point(s).

But "It's basically saying ''I'm better'', ''bans are useless'',

well, for some maybe.
But imo some others will do it out of genuine ignorance of forum culture/etiquette.
And there's little use comparing it with reallife, because in real life people don't get banned either.
Some won't even know that it's possible to make a second account. They may just be tempted to try and see if it works.

Anyway, we seem to agree that posters should be allowed to make a case for themselves if they want to overturn a permaban. Sounds fair enough.

Let me just chime in for a second...

The automatic permaban for creating a sockpuppet account is there for a good reason (and has been forever), and will not be debated.

Bigmac makes some great points that don't need repeated, let's leave it at that.

 

[the delgados]

Re:

..or let your dog/wife appeal on your behalf....

Mark L

I am...ebandit's dog...and I fully agree...with everything...ebandit...says.
Now...I need..to go for...walkies.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

Anyway, we seem to agree that posters should be allowed to make a case for themselves if they want to overturn a permaban. Sounds fair enough.

How can you, of all people, post that like it isn't the case already?!

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

What is up with people and creating sockpuppets? I mean really, they all know it ends in a perma ban. I don't get it.

I don't either.

I was pretty disappointed when I saw that BlurryVII couldn't wait another day.

The AC thread will suffer because of his impatience.

It seems like you regret having to ban him which implies that he hasn't genuinely derailed the forum or harassed another member in a serious way. So why can't the power of discretion being applied?

I don't see regret in that post, rather disappointment.

To answer your question: pretty sure they lost that 'right' the moment they created a sockpuppet.

I didn't say he had a right. My point is that creating a sockpuppet doesn't seem like a heinous crime in and of itself, for example, if the original infraction is minor and if the sockpuppet is used to post in a way that would otherwise abide by the rules. I sensed an attitude of "it's a shame, but rules are rules" whereas I would prefer to see discretion applied rather than indiscriminate application of the rules. On the other hand, if the sockpuppet was used to create mayhem then fair enough.

I've been on this forum for two years and literally only just found out now that creating a 2nd account is a 'permaban offence'

 

[lenric]

Re: Re:

What is up with people and creating sockpuppets? I mean really, they all know it ends in a perma ban. I don't get it.

I don't either.

I was pretty disappointed when I saw that BlurryVII couldn't wait another day.

The AC thread will suffer because of his impatience.

Surely, the rhetoric in that thread will be a lot better now at least. Will it suffer? I don't think that thread will ever suffer.
Also funny that ray, blackmamba and blurry - probably the 3 most aggressive and passionated AC-fans - all couldn't wait and created sock puppets. That thread will be a little less hostile for every one of those kinda members getting permabanned. At one point, it was a given to get completely blasted in that thread, but the risk of that happening is getting lower and lower by the bans.

Feeling a little sorry for blurry tho. I dont think the first ban was deserved. And it also reminded me off how much I appreciate blackmamba is gone, possibly the worst and most annoying poster I have ever encountered.

I find this very suspicious. I have just joined this cycling website because I think these 3 posters did not create false identity's. They all have been members for a long time and have a similar point of view i.e.Contador fans. Can I ask if there is a way to check who created the accounts that got them banned. That's my view/conclusion. The poster Ray jay even stated in his funny wife's post that he did not create a new account. I have looked at some of their posts and all the above posters mentioned speak their mind and in a lot of posts do not deserve a ban in my view. I am very suspicious of this post by the chap above. He obviously is happy to see these chaps banned. Its seems obvious to me an outsider who likes to see what's happening on this site that something is not quite right about 3 posters in such a short time getting a life ban when they have had bans before and never posted another account in all the years they have been on this website. This post makes me very suspicious I'm not accusing the chap Valv piti I am just highlighting that it seems a bit of a coincidence. Also what is stopping me for instance creating a new account and getting valv piti banned. The moderators need to look into this a bit more and I have no reason to think rayjay was not telling the truth when he said he never created another account. I have looked at the 3 chaps banned and they do not come across as people who lie and would do such a silly thing knowing they would get a permanent ban.
"Surely, the rhetoric in that thread will be a lot better now at least. Will it suffer? I don't think that thread will ever suffer.
Also funny that ray, blackmamba and blurry - probably the 3 most aggressive and passionated AC-fans - all couldn't wait and created sock puppets. That thread will be a little less hostile for every one of those kinda members getting permabanned. At one point, it was a given to get completely blasted in that thread, but the risk of that happening is getting lower and lower by the bans"

I want to re-state. What is stopping any poster starting a new account and getting another poster a life ban?
I think these 3 chaps should be reinstated. It stinks to high hell if you ask me of them being set up. A change of rules is needed in my view.
Please check the Cycling Maven you tube site. Its very good .A look at the tour from behind the scenes.

You registered in this forum just to give your 2 cents on this? Funny...

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

What is up with people and creating sockpuppets? I mean really, they all know it ends in a perma ban. I don't get it.

I don't either.

I was pretty disappointed when I saw that BlurryVII couldn't wait another day.

The AC thread will suffer because of his impatience.

Surely, the rhetoric in that thread will be a lot better now at least. Will it suffer? I don't think that thread will ever suffer.
Also funny that ray, blackmamba and blurry - probably the 3 most aggressive and passionated AC-fans - all couldn't wait and created sock puppets. That thread will be a little less hostile for every one of those kinda members getting permabanned. At one point, it was a given to get completely blasted in that thread, but the risk of that happening is getting lower and lower by the bans.

Feeling a little sorry for blurry tho. I dont think the first ban was deserved. And it also reminded me off how much I appreciate blackmamba is gone, possibly the worst and most annoying poster I have ever encountered.

I find this very suspicious. I have just joined this cycling website because I think these 3 posters did not create false identity's. They all have been members for a long time and have a similar point of view i.e.Contador fans. Can I ask if there is a way to check who created the accounts that got them banned. That's my view/conclusion. The poster Ray jay even stated in his funny wife's post that he did not create a new account. I have looked at some of their posts and all the above posters mentioned speak their mind and in a lot of posts do not deserve a ban in my view. I am very suspicious of this post by the chap above. He obviously is happy to see these chaps banned. Its seems obvious to me an outsider who likes to see what's happening on this site that something is not quite right about 3 posters in such a short time getting a life ban when they have had bans before and never posted another account in all the years they have been on this website. This post makes me very suspicious I'm not accusing the chap Valv piti I am just highlighting that it seems a bit of a coincidence. Also what is stopping me for instance creating a new account and getting valv piti banned. The moderators need to look into this a bit more and I have no reason to think rayjay was not telling the truth when he said he never created another account. I have looked at the 3 chaps banned and they do not come across as people who lie and would do such a silly thing knowing they would get a permanent ban.
"Surely, the rhetoric in that thread will be a lot better now at least. Will it suffer? I don't think that thread will ever suffer.
Also funny that ray, blackmamba and blurry - probably the 3 most aggressive and passionated AC-fans - all couldn't wait and created sock puppets. That thread will be a little less hostile for every one of those kinda members getting permabanned. At one point, it was a given to get completely blasted in that thread, but the risk of that happening is getting lower and lower by the bans"

I want to re-state. What is stopping any poster starting a new account and getting another poster a life ban?
I think these 3 chaps should be reinstated. It stinks to high hell if you ask me of them being set up. A change of rules is needed in my view.
Please check the Cycling Maven you tube site. Its very good .A look at the tour from behind the scenes.

You registered in this forum just to give your 2 cents on this? Funny...

Yep, funny is right...

 

[ebandit]

post edited.....to protect the innocent
Mark L

 

[King Boonen]

Yes, you've made your points. I've never been a mod but I can guarantee there is more than "I think this user is a sockpuppet" that goes into deciding if someone gets a ban.

If you see insults report them, the mods cannot read every post.

It's pretty self-explanatory why a banned user would lie about the thing that got them banned.

People do not get banned for heated discussions.

Cyclingnews own and operate the forum according to their rules. If they want the sockpuppet rule they can have it, it's up to them.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Yes, you've made your points. I've never been a mod but I can guarantee there is more than "I think this user is a sockpuppet" that goes into deciding if someone gets a ban.

If you see insults report them, the mods cannot read every post.

It's pretty self-explanatory why a banned user would lie about the thing that got them banned.

People do not get banned for heated discussions.

Cyclingnews own and operate the forum according to their rules. If they want the sockpuppet rule they can have it, it's up to them.

Bingo..

 

[Pricey_sky]

Re:

Yes, you've made your points. I've never been a mod but I can guarantee there is more than "I think this user is a sockpuppet" that goes into deciding if someone gets a ban.

If you see insults report them, the mods cannot read every post.

It's pretty self-explanatory why a banned user would lie about the thing that got them banned.

People do not get banned for heated discussions.

Cyclingnews own and operate the forum according to their rules. If they want the sockpuppet rule they can have it, it's up to them.

Well said, it's virtually impossible for us to read every single post, but I always check for reported comments when I log on so those will be dealt with.

I'm all for heated discussion too, if posters want to be negative that's ok, as long as they are contributing to the discussion and not just posting troll and baiting stuff.

 

[sniper]

megasmacky was permabanned for being a self-confessed sockpuppet

no penalty reduction for whistleblowing? you guys are ruthless

 

[cellardoor]

Re:

megasmacky was permabanned for being a self-confessed sockpuppet

no penalty reduction for whistleblowing? you guys are ruthless

Now that is funny :lol:

 

[nairoman]

Nairo play it well , knowing him he will attack on Mount ventoux but if he doesn't i don't see any problem , all the bad thing on tactics write on him don't interest nobody and are very insignificant

P.s
To the moderator that made the ban ,
i can write that i hate froome but i can't say why , this rules are quite stupid and irrational , there were some post YOU DELETE there were not involving doping and were not troll or anything wrong , and you delete them and i ask you to made them visible again , but if you try to delete or edit this post you are very shameless.

 

[BigMac]

I'm not going to make a fuss because of a 24h ban, but I want to clear something up regardless:

I did not wish death to any spectator, I choose my words carefully. Not to mention it's not my style. What I did say was that a certain 'fan' should have had his head kicked with cleats and then be thrown down a ravine. I did wish them pain, but surely not death. Might have deserved being deleted, but in my opinion is no worse than people making fun of Froome's despair running uphill. Just my two cents.

Cheers.

 

[King Boonen]

While I don't have the data to hand I'm pretty sure what you describe would result in death in the vast majority of cases.

 

[BigMac]

Yeah, maybe it would. I meant it in a 'instant karma' way, as in a cyclist hitting them and the crowd doing their part, a cartoonish image.

Again, I really just wanted to make clear that I didn't wish death on anybody. Just that. I'm not protesting the ban.

 

[Pricey_sky]

Say goodbye to our newest member, Pricky Sky, who was permabanned for trolling and posting rather obscene pictures across the forum.

Im honoured, my very own fan!