Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[python]

Re: Re:

Whatever.

....whatever ?.....wow....you respond with whatever, the hallmark of dismissive arrogance....coming from someone who rails on about the arrogance you perceive in others, that is rich, very rich....

...you know it just occurred to me why you went after Aphro, you can't be the arrogant know-it-all you want to be around him....the little game you probably resort to at every opportunity just doesn't work here with Aphro....because when you launch one of your trademark posts, laden as they are with mostly threadbare second-rate ideas that would normally floor those around you, Aphro just cuts you to the ribbons your postings deserve....and in so doing he exposes you for what you are....and you really don't like that do you....you want to perceived as sharp and witty and the smartest guy in the room....but you simply can't do that with Aphro around, and to add insult to injury he doesn't suffer fools gladly....

....yup, whatever....whatever, indeed....

....have a nice day ( and I mean that in the good sense )...

Cheers

FYI:
kwikki quit the forum and won't be back (unless of course he assumes another handle again). He blames me for being a bully, treating other members in a more favorable light than him and being biased. All of which I disagree with but hey, whatever...

dan, appreciate your input and actions, but if you dont mind i'd like to also add a mild critique - not yours - but of the general modding around the 'kwikki incident' referred to earlier...

i happened to read the forum when aphro and kwikki sparred and saw the whole incident. it is my opinion that both deserved a slap equally - either a short vacation or, and that would be my action had i been in your shoes, deletion of their off-topic posts with a stern SAME warning to both...that might have been done, but only aphro was suspended.

the unfortunate result was that kwikki interpreted it as his victory. this can be evidenced by a couple of his posts, both here and in the politics thread full with gloating and a hollow praise of the mods in his defence. the celebratory gloating was so obvious to me, that i posted (in the politics) my impression the posts came across as low-minded if not cowardly...btw, it was aphro and scott that he would endlessly typically bait with the same 'whatevers' on many occasions.

his goal was always to WIN the internets via outlasting and having the last word even if a meaningless one...

just my 2 pennies..

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

<Snipped for brevity>
his goal was always to WIN the internets via outlasting and having the last word even if a meaningless one...

just my 2 pennies..

Couldn't that phrase equally apply to the posters that Kwikki was often debating in the politics thread and the clinic?

Throwing around insults always risks incurring a ban of some sort.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

<Snipped for brevity>
his goal was always to WIN the internets via outlasting and having the last word even if a meaningless one...

just my 2 pennies..

Couldn't that phrase equally apply to the posters that Kwikki was often debating in the politics thread and the clinic?

Throwing around insults always risks incurring a ban of some sort.

Though I wasn't following that particular spat, I ironically find "whatever" usually to be a path (not the best path, admittedly) around that "having the last word" mentality. We will never win the internetz and never agree on everything. A snide "whatevz", while, again, not ideal, seems better than endlessly repeating ourselves, IMHO.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Whatever.

....whatever ?.....wow....you respond with whatever, the hallmark of dismissive arrogance....coming from someone who rails on about the arrogance you perceive in others, that is rich, very rich....

...you know it just occurred to me why you went after Aphro, you can't be the arrogant know-it-all you want to be around him....the little game you probably resort to at every opportunity just doesn't work here with Aphro....because when you launch one of your trademark posts, laden as they are with mostly threadbare second-rate ideas that would normally floor those around you, Aphro just cuts you to the ribbons your postings deserve....and in so doing he exposes you for what you are....and you really don't like that do you....you want to perceived as sharp and witty and the smartest guy in the room....but you simply can't do that with Aphro around, and to add insult to injury he doesn't suffer fools gladly....

....yup, whatever....whatever, indeed....

....have a nice day ( and I mean that in the good sense )...

Cheers

FYI:
kwikki quit the forum and won't be back (unless of course he assumes another handle again). He blames me for being a bully, treating other members in a more favorable light than him and being biased. All of which I disagree with but hey, whatever...

dan, appreciate your input and actions, but if you dont mind i'd like to also add a mild critique - not yours - but of the general modding around the 'kwikki incident' referred to earlier...

i happened to read the forum when aphro and kwikki sparred and saw the whole incident. it is my opinion that both deserved a slap equally - either a short vacation or, and that would be my action had i been in your shoes, deletion of their off-topic posts with a stern SAME warning to both...that might have been done, but only aphro was suspended.

the unfortunate result was that kwikki interpreted it as his victory. this can be evidenced by a couple of his posts, both here and in the politics thread full with gloating and a hollow praise of the mods in his defence. the celebratory gloating was so obvious to me, that i posted (in the politics) my impression the posts came across as low-minded if not cowardly...btw, it was aphro and scott that he would endlessly typically bait with the same 'whatevers' on many occasions.

his goal was always to WIN the internets via outlasting and having the last word even if a meaningless one...

just my 2 pennies..

I agree with your opinion on this Python.

I know - I know YOU and I have had our history and a great deal if not all of it was my own fault. But your assessment of this exchange was correct.

Aphro broke the rules and personally insulted someone. That has consequences here. Scott and Patrick saw all of this and ended up with the same or actually a harsher bannination.

I want to say to kwikki if you are reading this forum - I do not or did not want you to quit or be banned. We do not agree on anything as far as I can tell from our past posting histories. I never want to see someone quit.

 

[thehog]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

 

[TheSpud]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

He's never had a 6 month ban or multiple final warnings like you have ...

 

[Irondan]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

I agree with this, unfortunately.

 

[Red Rick]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

He's never had a 6 month ban or multiple final warnings like you have ...

Lets not start this again

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well you would think probably if he is going the sockpuppet route he probably already has a few accounts made and waiting to drop into the discussion.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Well you would think probably if he is going the sockpuppet route he probably already has a few accounts made and waiting to drop into the discussion.

That's entirely possible. There's nothing I can do About it without help from you guys.

 

[thehog]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

He's never had a 6 month ban or multiple final warnings like you have ...

Well, considering the number of accounts that he has used over the years, he has had more bans and permabans than anyone, including me.

I'm also not sure why you're so hung up on my bans, you keep bringing it up, why is that?

 

[Brullnux]

Who has he been beforehand? Or was it before my time?

 

[pmcg76]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

I agree with this, unfortunately.

And this right here is why some people have very little faith in some of the mods. A mod showing a very clear bias against certain posters. People talk about ometra in cycling but it very clearly exists in the forum as well.

It is entirely possible to believe SKY dope without subscribing to all the nonsense that is thrown against SKY, very often distorted or just plain made up. I think that was the general point of Kwikki, but because he went against the overall clinic 'narrative' on SKY, they were given very little leeway, at least in comparison to certain other posters. Never saw anyone join the forum just to put Kwikki on ignore as happened recently concerning some of the doyens of the clinic.

 

[thehog]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

I agree with this, unfortunately.

And this right here is why some people have very little faith in some of the mods. A mod showing a very clear bias against certain posters. People talk about ometra in cycling but it very clearly exists in the forum as well.

It is entirely possible to believe SKY dope without subscribing to all the nonsense that is thrown against SKY, very often distorted or just plain made up. I think that was the general point of Kwikki, but because he went against the overall clinic 'narrative' on SKY, they were given very little leeway, at least in comparison to certain other posters. Never saw anyone join the forum just to put Kwikki on ignore as happened recently concerning some of the doyens of the clinic.

What is the clinic narrative on Sky?

 

[sniper]

I had my moments with kwikki good and bad.
At times I think he was deliberately stubborn, but hey, aren't we all. He had clever arguments and he was able to acknowledge and concede points.
Reminiscing.
Que te vaya bien.

 

[pmcg76]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

I agree with this, unfortunately.

And this right here is why some people have very little faith in some of the mods. A mod showing a very clear bias against certain posters. People talk about ometra in cycling but it very clearly exists in the forum as well.

It is entirely possible to believe SKY dope without subscribing to all the nonsense that is thrown against SKY, very often distorted or just plain made up. I think that was the general point of Kwikki, but because he went against the overall clinic 'narrative' on SKY, they were given very little leeway, at least in comparison to certain other posters. Never saw anyone join the forum just to put Kwikki on ignore as happened recently concerning some of the doyens of the clinic.

What is the clinic narrative on Sky?

That anything and everything is evidence of SKY wrongdoing, from doping to political incluence to cover-ups etc, etc whether there is any evidence to support such claims or not. Very often the imagined stuff gets repeated so often that posters start to quote them as accepted facts. And nots let get started about posters bringing SKY into non SKY related thread and calling posters who dont follow the anti-SKY/Brits line as 'Bots'. Plenty of stuff you have been guilty numreous times over.

As I said, people are plenty capable of thinking that SKY/Brits, whoever dopes, but still point out incoorect 'facts' when they see them. That is the problem in the clinic, people view posters who correct disinformation as being sympathetic or defending whoever is being attacked, when they are in fact just pointing out BS.

 

[Benotti69]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

He's probably not gone.

 

[Irondan]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

I agree with this, unfortunately.

And this right here is why some people have very little faith in some of the mods. A mod showing a very clear bias against certain posters. People talk about ometra in cycling but it very clearly exists in the forum as well.

It is entirely possible to believe SKY dope without subscribing to all the nonsense that is thrown against SKY, very often distorted or just plain made up. I think that was the general point of Kwikki, but because he went against the overall clinic 'narrative' on SKY, they were given very little leeway, at least in comparison to certain other posters. Never saw anyone join the forum just to put Kwikki on ignore as happened recently concerning some of the doyens of the clinic.

A mod showing a very clear bias against certain posters.

Suspecting a member of being a sockpuppet is something derived solely by experience moderating the forum. This suspicion is meaningless because if they're posting comments it's obvious that any so called bias was not acted on. If it was, they would be permabanned.

I've been suspicious of kwikki since the moment he posted his first comment, but the regular forum wouldn't know that because there's a conversation that goes on behind the scenes.

And this right here is why some people have very little faith in some of the mods.

Then maybe this isn't the right forum for them. I do my best to moderate and administrate this forum and volunteer many many hours of my limited free time to help make this a clean, safe place to read and share opinions about the cycling lifestyle along with the rest of the moderation team. As always, if there's complaints about moderation please post them in the 'moderators' thread.

 

[thehog]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

I agree with this, unfortunately.

And this right here is why some people have very little faith in some of the mods. A mod showing a very clear bias against certain posters. People talk about ometra in cycling but it very clearly exists in the forum as well.

It is entirely possible to believe SKY dope without subscribing to all the nonsense that is thrown against SKY, very often distorted or just plain made up. I think that was the general point of Kwikki, but because he went against the overall clinic 'narrative' on SKY, they were given very little leeway, at least in comparison to certain other posters. Never saw anyone join the forum just to put Kwikki on ignore as happened recently concerning some of the doyens of the clinic.

What is the clinic narrative on Sky?

That anything and everything is evidence of SKY wrongdoing, from doping to political incluence to cover-ups etc, etc whether there is any evidence to support such claims or not. Very often the imagined stuff gets repeated so often that posters start to quote them as accepted facts. And nots let get started about posters bringing SKY into non SKY related thread and calling posters who dont follow the anti-SKY/Brits line as 'Bots'. Plenty of stuff you have been guilty numreous times over.

As I said, people are plenty capable of thinking that SKY/Brits, whoever dopes, but still point out incoorect 'facts' when they see them. That is the problem in the clinic, people view posters who correct disinformation as being sympathetic or defending whoever is being attacked, when they are in fact just pointing out BS.

That sounds like your narrative though not would be a forum wide common viewpoint.

This forum has a sense of humor, often it pokes fun at obscene performances, whether that be Froome, Valverde, Sky or the US swim team it's out there. I think some of the problem is there too much sensitivity from Sky fans about Sky. They know Sky looks a lot like USPS and get upset each time the reference is made. Brits know their track team was nowhere at the Worlds and then they break every conceivable world record at the Olympics so they get defensive when a little fun or questions are simply asked.

So see it less like a narrative and more like a forum dedicated to doping talk having fun and asking the questions that most if not all of the UK media is afraid to ask. I'm not wrong am I?

 

[pmcg76]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

I agree with this, unfortunately.

And this right here is why some people have very little faith in some of the mods. A mod showing a very clear bias against certain posters. People talk about ometra in cycling but it very clearly exists in the forum as well.

It is entirely possible to believe SKY dope without subscribing to all the nonsense that is thrown against SKY, very often distorted or just plain made up. I think that was the general point of Kwikki, but because he went against the overall clinic 'narrative' on SKY, they were given very little leeway, at least in comparison to certain other posters. Never saw anyone join the forum just to put Kwikki on ignore as happened recently concerning some of the doyens of the clinic.

A mod showing a very clear bias against certain posters.

Suspecting a member of being a sockpuppet is something derived solely by experience moderating the forum. This suspicion is meaningless because if they're posting comments it's obvious that any so called bias was not acted on. If it was, they would be permabanned.

I've been suspicious of kwikki since the moment he posted his first comment, but the regular forum wouldn't know that because there's a conversation that goes on behind the scenes.

And this right here is why some people have very little faith in some of the mods.

Then maybe this isn't the right forum for them. I do my best to moderate and administrate this forum and volunteer many many hours of my limited free time to help make this a clean, safe place to read and share opinions about the cycling lifestyle along with the rest of the moderation team. As always, if there's complaints about moderation please post them in the 'moderators' thread.

You can believe that Kwikki is a sockpuppet all you want, but as a mod making that view public is poor form and does demonstrate a bias whether you recognise that or not. Kwikki is not banned and can return if they so wish so no proclamations of sockpuppetry should be made until they are proven and banned.
Also, lets not forget there is a poster who was permabanned for being a sockpuppet roaming freely around this forum, so I do not really see the big issue if Kwikki is a sockpuppet or does that only apply if you are not in line with the clinic majority.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

I agree with this, unfortunately.

And this right here is why some people have very little faith in some of the mods. A mod showing a very clear bias against certain posters. People talk about ometra in cycling but it very clearly exists in the forum as well.

It is entirely possible to believe SKY dope without subscribing to all the nonsense that is thrown against SKY, very often distorted or just plain made up. I think that was the general point of Kwikki, but because he went against the overall clinic 'narrative' on SKY, they were given very little leeway, at least in comparison to certain other posters. Never saw anyone join the forum just to put Kwikki on ignore as happened recently concerning some of the doyens of the clinic.

What is the clinic narrative on Sky?

That anything and everything is evidence of SKY wrongdoing, from doping to political incluence to cover-ups etc, etc whether there is any evidence to support such claims or not. Very often the imagined stuff gets repeated so often that posters start to quote them as accepted facts. And nots let get started about posters bringing SKY into non SKY related thread and calling posters who dont follow the anti-SKY/Brits line as 'Bots'. Plenty of stuff you have been guilty numreous times over.

As I said, people are plenty capable of thinking that SKY/Brits, whoever dopes, but still point out incorrect 'facts' when they see them. That is the problem in the clinic, people view posters who correct disinformation as being sympathetic or defending whoever is being attacked, when they are in fact just pointing out BS.

Have to say --- NEVER thought I would see the day when UK folk were defending dopers. Well back in the day on other message boards before this one was born and then the DIMSPACE aka Alternate Universe board that came about because he was a bitter B I ACH .... anyhow back to the point all the UK folk were slamming the USA dominance in the TDF and right they were. Now they are a duplicate of that photo and guess what .... they are defending like a bunch of puffftaahhhs. greater than less than greater than less than.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

He's probably not gone.

Your right about that.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Kwikki was always looking for a fight. He was banned for 1 month for a sexist comment then was back in the BoB locked thread defending sexism. He then would head into the clinic talk about "forum narratives" and defending Sky, Froome, Brits don't dope whilst pretending they might dope. Problem being, all of the factual information he pretended to provide was mostly wrong, he just made a lot of things up.

He'll be back again as another poster like the 13 other times he has been here prior.

I agree with this, unfortunately.

And this right here is why some people have very little faith in some of the mods. A mod showing a very clear bias against certain posters. People talk about ometra in cycling but it very clearly exists in the forum as well.

It is entirely possible to believe SKY dope without subscribing to all the nonsense that is thrown against SKY, very often distorted or just plain made up. I think that was the general point of Kwikki, but because he went against the overall clinic 'narrative' on SKY, they were given very little leeway, at least in comparison to certain other posters. Never saw anyone join the forum just to put Kwikki on ignore as happened recently concerning some of the doyens of the clinic.

A mod showing a very clear bias against certain posters.

Suspecting a member of being a sockpuppet is something derived solely by experience moderating the forum. This suspicion is meaningless because if they're posting comments it's obvious that any so called bias was not acted on. If it was, they would be permabanned.

I've been suspicious of kwikki since the moment he posted his first comment, but the regular forum wouldn't know that because there's a conversation that goes on behind the scenes.

And this right here is why some people have very little faith in some of the mods.

Then maybe this isn't the right forum for them. I do my best to moderate and administrate this forum and volunteer many many hours of my limited free time to help make this a clean, safe place to read and share opinions about the cycling lifestyle along with the rest of the moderation team. As always, if there's complaints about moderation please post them in the 'moderators' thread.

Have to say IronDan your post hits the points.

your work here is appreciated.

No way to quantify that but thanks for what you and all the moderators do.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

<Snipped for brevity>
his goal was always to WIN the internets via outlasting and having the last word even if a meaningless one...

just my 2 pennies..

Couldn't that phrase equally apply to the posters that Kwikki was often debating in the politics thread and the clinic?

Throwing around insults always risks incurring a ban of some sort.

Horsesch!t.

Patrick may be masterful at oneliners but you can't say he was trying to win anything.

Now it was early in the morning but well past closing time so I may have been wrong about the drunkeness. More seriously, you saw how many people the guy pissed off while saying nothing of substance. You also saw me ask him repeatedly to post anything on topic and deal with post not poster. Those are also forum rules; they get stretched outside race threads, but usually by posters who've brought content. Kwikki reminded me of the yobs in UK pubs who get in a half-drunken state of desublimated aggression and come walking straight at you. 4 out of 5 when elbow checked before they make contact will offer to buy a drink. The fifth will get belligerant and say "what? who? me! I wasn't doing anything." I wanted him moderated and he wasn't doing it himself as the big boys in the politics thread do. The guy also tailed me across threads as is the new fashion.

@bigmac, I generally respect your sensibilities and intentions, but I'd dial the sensitivity training back from kneejerk on this one. Early in his foray to the politics thread kwikki told me to get off the porch and put a shirt on (or cover my wifebeater). Whiskey Tango jokes are all good fun if you've been a contributor. He hadn't. Shouldn't be a big deal if I crack wise about aged UK pub flotsam.

The fey passive aggressivity had to go, and I knew what he was doing so I ramped it up--as I said I would--full-frontal, to see what shook loose. I've no problem with a ban. I also knew Dan was on it. (And told blutto at least a month ago that he was a sock.)

(UK snipes aside, I have loads of brilliant, giving, inspirational friends there.)

I depreciate the bans of Patrick and Scott.

 

[blackcat]

i am an equal opportunity bigot


anti-brit anti-american anti-australian anti-newzealand anti-french anti-spanish...


i pot everyone. #wildeandrollery or as delgagos says "#wildereandrollery" and #Poe's_law and absurdism...