Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[patricknd]

I was banned for insulting another member but if the prevailing opinion is that what I called him was true is it really an insult?

 

[Red Rick]

It is. Just because you're the majority doesn't make it ok.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

It is. Just because you're the majority doesn't make it ok.

who is this addressing?

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

It is. Just because you're the majority doesn't make it ok.

who is this addressing?

The last post before mine, I figured that was clear

 

[aphronesis]

What Patrick actually said has easily flown in less charged contexts. People not riding tubulars are potential nancys in a thread here or there. No uproar.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

What Patrick actually said has easily flown in less charged contexts. People not riding tubulars are potential nancys in a thread here or there. No uproar.

Patrick admits he insulted another member, there's clearly no argument against a suspension in that case.

Context is always important, I might off-handedly call someone a wimp for using derailleurs or someone might say I'm not a real cyclist for riding clinchers, but these aren't meant as insults and are fairly easy to spot. I think the mods are capable of distinguishing which is which.

 

[aphronesis]

Patrick's post also challenged the notion of "context" in this case. And, in fact, he doesn't admit to insulting anyone, but to being banned. Punishment meted is not guilt.

 

[patricknd]

Misunderstood as always, it's my lot in life

 

[patricknd]

Re: Re:

What Patrick actually said has easily flown in less charged contexts. People not riding tubulars are potential nancys in a thread here or there. No uproar.

Patrick admits he insulted another member, there's clearly no argument against a suspension in that case.

Context is always important, I might off-handedly call someone a wimp for using derailleurs or someone might say I'm not a real cyclist for riding clinchers, but these aren't meant as insults and are fairly easy to spot. I think the mods are capable of distinguishing which is which.

given the subsequent martyr act of the person in question i'd say my post was not an insult but was actually a rather remarkable demonstration of my ability to see the future. for a small monthly stipend i'd be happy to use my gift to assist the mods in keeping this place squeaky clean and minty fresh

 

[blutto]

Re:

Misunderstood as always, it's my lot in life

...sadly the lot of all great artists at some point in their careers...chin up, eventually your greatness will shine thru, I'm sure of it...and all the naysayers will be running around claiming they knew you way back when and they hung around with you, and you were pals and stuff....

Cheers

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

Patrick's post also challenged the notion of "context" in this case. And, in fact, he doesn't admit to insulting anyone, but to being banned. Punishment meted is not guilt.

Apparently euphemisms are a no-no as well.

 

[aphronesis]

Yes, no characterization of posts or pm activity. Delicate.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

It is. Just because you're the majority doesn't make it ok.

who is this addressing?

The last post before mine, I figured that was clear

ta, just wanted to clarify.

 

[lenric]

Valv.Piti was banned because he insulted Portugal.11. Agreed. The problem is the member that was insulted is constantly baiting others (Valverde thread, for example), particularly those who aren't fans of Contador.

The moderation in this forum is getting more and more unintelligible as time goes by.

 

[Irondan]

Did you report any of the comments that you claim were baiting?

We don't read every comment of every thread the moment they're posted. We read reports in a timely manner though.

Although what you say may be true we wouldn't know that unless we happened to read it or it was reported.

 

[lenric]

I didn't report, because if Valv.Piti was banned, then I assumed it was because of a report made by Portugal.11. Since moderators (and administrators) read reports, they read the posts reported. The post that was reported had quotes where Portugal.11 was baiting Valverde's fans.
In fact, Valv.Piti answered precisely THAT baiting post. And since bans are a result of different opinions from moderators, I assumed more than one of you have read it.

(Unless I'm wrong about how that works)

Seeing that only one of them was banned (when the most appropriate result IMO would have been the ban of both of them) I wrote my last post.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

I didn't report, because if Valv.Piti was banned, then I assumed it was because of a report made by Portugal.11. Since moderators (and administrators) read reports, they read the posts reported. The post that was reported had quotes where Portugal.11 was baiting Valverde's fans.
In fact, Valv.Piti answered precisely THAT baiting post. And since bans are a result of different opinions from moderators, I assumed more than one of you have read it.

(Unless I'm wrong about how that works)

Seeing that only one of them was banned (when the most appropriate result IMO would have been the ban of both of them) I wrote my last post.

Portugal11 wasn't the member that reported vp's post. We all read it and we generally read a post or two in front and in back of the offending post. If there's no reason to go any further than that we don't. I can't go into great detail because I'm on my phone. If Portugal did something against the rules we will take a look at it and take action if we decide there's a reason to.

Getting baited still doesn't excuse a reaction that's blatantly against forum rules.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Valv.Piti was banned because he insulted Portugal.11. Agreed. The problem is the member that was insulted is constantly baiting others (Valverde thread, for example), particularly those who aren't fans of Contador.

The moderation in this forum is getting more and more unintelligible as time goes by.

Step up to the plate or ask for a refund

 

[Cannibal72]

I'll miss CheckMyPecs.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

I'll miss CheckMyPecs.

If you need to buff up the upper body I'm sure he can be contacted.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Wait part of the reason for taxus' ban is for not using spellcheck?

Anyway, Taxus was indeed trolling, but there are people who are much worse when it comes to this...

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Wait part of the reason for taxus' ban is for not using spellcheck?

Anyway, Taxus was indeed trolling, but there are people who are much worse when it comes to this...

It's much more involved than that but yes.

He has been asked, and then warned numerous times to use spellcheck. He started using it and stopped for some reason.

The point is that he has proven that he's capable of not posting the gibberish that sometimes gets posted. He was warned again today and an hour later a comment was posted that had worse spelling than normal, indicating a purposeful attempt at irritating anyone who would try to read it. This belligerence along with the blatant trolling earned him a ban.

I could have said nothing about the spelling and just banned him for trolling but I think it's important that the regular readers of his posts know that he for some reason or other ignores the built in spellcheck, even though he has used it in the past.

Edit: Spelling on the internet is not that important to some people, I get that. Taxus's comments go way beyond a simple misspelled word or two, as most of you know. It's infuriating to try to decipher what he's saying when the words are botched, jumbled, hacked and butchered into sentences that mean all sorts of different things to different people. His comments are constantly reported for trolling and other rule violations, and I'm the person that has to read the report and try to figure out the intent and meaning out of what I look at as gibberish. It's not out of bounds for a moderator to ask a member that posts comments in a manner that is almost unintelligible to use the forums built in spellcheck before posting a comment.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

I'll miss CheckMyPecs.

If you need to buff up the upper body I'm sure he can be contacted.

Yeah, I'd definitely like to look like that clearly-fake avatar.

Also, Taxus' posts were literally unreadable half of the time.

 

[hrotha]

It's still harsh to ban someone (in part) for not having a better command of the English language. Writing in English when you're not fluent is already a huge amount of work; using a spellcheck and correcting every little bit only adds to that.

Not to mention, there's nothing about good spelling in the rules.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

It's still harsh to ban someone (in part) for not having a better command of the English language. Writing in English when you're not fluent is already a huge amount of work; using a spellcheck and correcting every little bit only adds to that.

Not to mention, there's nothing about good spelling in the rules.

The point seems to be that in this case it was deliberately terrible, not just generally poor. I have huge admiration for anyone posting on here whose first language isn't English. I can speak some French, a bit of Croatian but that's about it and I certainly couldn't write in either in an understandable way. However, it is an English language forum, everyone who signs up knows that and is expected to communicate in English. Purposefully writing in poor English, just to annoy a moderator, after they have specifically asked you not to is surely a form of trolling?