Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[blutto]

Re: Re:

Reading not your strong suit I see. No surprise. I'm not confused on disc brakes; the sum writings of bike mechanics can be covered in a day or two. Stuff my pops and uncle taught me by age 8. I'm asking you what the dispute in the thread was? You're the only one holding hands right now. Glad it only took a couple of days to get it all out.

Where's the next Jamboree?? Your treehouse or over at Semper's

Dib, dib, be prepared and all that

You ok Brah?

In case you did not notice I was posting in the thread yesterday and it had nothing to do with you.
Today you somehow made it about a clique which really was cute on your part. Let me know if you will be in the need of a safe space or a safety pin.

Nice wee tag team.....relax, Blutto will be back soon and youz can all 3 or 4 up once again brah!,

If you'll be kind enough to excuse me, Britney Spears just came on the radio and her lyrics make more sense than the dribble you're preaching right now.

Have a good one.....all the best for your next badges....make sure you sew them on straight...dib dib

....don't spellz so good eh, its blutto, not Blutto, and youse not youz....and you want to be taken seriously ....get a dictionary....

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

GM had zero input on bluttos ban, I wasn't even aware GM was ever a mod, I don't know if the other current mods were either.

I would've thought GM was a mod in 2012?

He was a mod under the name RDVD4 or similar.

It was some corruption of Roubaix I think, it came up in that thread. He could well have been but I wasn't aware of it. The only person I know for certain who was a mod was Susan as I have only ever had one official interaction with a mod, which was her. It's very possible there are several other members who have been a mod at some time floating around that I don't know about. I know of two.

I was a mod from 2009 to 2012 as RDV4ROUBAIX. When Boonen equaled De Vlaeminck's 4 wins the name change was requested and approved. My "joined" date stamp of 4/8/12 for GM is pretty telling. Even after the name change I had "the member formerly known as RDV4ROUBAIX" as my signature for years after.

Susan Westemyer, Daniel Benson and Alpe d'Huez can all confirm this.

That would probably mean you stopped being a mod just before I joined. I think we've discussed it before when talking about 104BCD cranks on my monster cross, no need for confirmation. I was just pointing out I had no idea you used to be a mod so it's clear that wouldn't have factored into any decision.

....sorta funny this kept intruding into the conversation.....like is anybody in need of a peanut ?.....

...but as long as we are here the bolded bit is kinda interesting.....cause....the fact that GM was a mod was mentioned directly or referenced 14 times in the space of two pages....those self same pages that got me banned for persistent trolling....so by going strictly on what you said in the bolded simple logic tells us we can draw two conclusions, you either didn't actually read that part of the thread, or you had made up your mind before you looked at that part of the thread....either option is weird and probably not what you meant but that is how it reads and one can see how someone could read collusion into this episode....

Cheers

 

[King Boonen]

You seem to be under the impression your ban was my choice and mine alone, it's been repeated several times that it wasn't. You'll notice the past tense in my sentence. The past interactions between yourself and GM were not a factor in your ban as far as I'm aware.

 

[blutto]

Re:

You seem to be under the impression your ban was my choice and mine alone, it's been repeated several times that it wasn't. You'll notice the past tense in my sentence. The past interactions between yourself and GM were not a factor in your ban as far as I'm aware.

...yeah a mommy's skirt is a nice cover to provide plausible deniability but the only irrefutable impression that I have at this point is your name on the official paper work....so until that changes what real choice do I have....like I'm not gonna make things up ( and while I would like to keep an open mind on this I do remember the exact wording of how my earlier dust-up with GM went....wherein he threatened the action, his name was on the action, and he took full credit for it, and stated he would be glad to do it again...so there is that history to consider, read there was no mommy's skirt mentioned...in fact it was all he all the time....)....so colour me somewhat confused....

....but as long as I've got you on the line, could you , if you know, please tell me who removed an earlier post of mine, and why....

....and btw the early betting says that it transgressed the one big line in the sand here at CN, that is, don't go after the goose that lays the golden egg, the bike business...read its ok to go after PED's but for gawd's sake don't go after PEL's and the folks who manufacture, distribute, and use them....now that could considered to be a just a teeny weeny bit cynical and harsh but there aren't any facts around to prove the contrary, in fact, circumstantially quite the opposite....and further btw that is an opinion floated by others and I will neither confirm nor deny having anything to do with that opinion though I will admit I was on planet earth when it was made....

Cheers

....edit....and speaking of group decisions....when they are brought up they seem to come with the implication that because it was a group decision it was unanimous ....but in my case I kinda don't think it was....was it?...

 

[python]

Re: Re:

You seem to be under the impression your ban was my choice and mine alone, it's been repeated several times that it wasn't. You'll notice the past tense in my sentence. The past interactions between yourself and GM were not a factor in your ban as far as I'm aware.

...yeah a mommy's skirt is a nice cover to provide plausible deniability but the only irrefutable impression that I have at this point is your name on the official paper work....so until that changes what real choice do I have....like I'm not gonna make things up ( and while I would like to keep an open mind on this I do remember the exact wording of how my earlier dust-up with GM went....wherein he threatened the action, his name was on the action, and he took full credit for it, and stated he would be glad to do it again...so there is that history to consider, read there was no mommy's skirt mentioned...in fact it was all he all the time....)....so colour me somewhat confused....

....but as long as I've got you on the line, could you , if you know, please tell me who removed an earlier post of mine, and why....

....and btw the early betting says that it transgressed the one big line in the sand here at CN, that is, don't go after the goose that lays the golden egg, the bike business...read its ok to go after PED's but for gawd's sake don't go after PEL's and the folks who manufacture, distribute, and use them....now that could considered to be a just a teeny weeny bit cynical and harsh but there aren't any facts around to prove the contrary, in fact, circumstantially quite the opposite....and further btw that is an opinion floated by others and I will neither confirm nor deny having anything to do with that opinion though I will admit I was on planet earth when it was made....

Cheers

....edit....and speaking of group decisions....when they are brought up they seem to come with the implication that because it was a group decision it was unanimous ....but in my case I kinda don't think it was....was it?...

i had to go back with the screwee hotel wi fi in this hotel...anyways, welcome back, prof. Blutto. Regards from the pyhon family now exploring new mexico

 

[Benotti69]

Swart gets one month for calling Sniper a paedophile( at least twice), and Sniper gets 2 months!!!

Something wrong there!!

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Swart gets one month for calling Sniper a paedophile( at least twice), and Sniper gets 2 months!!!

Something wrong there!!

Swart has never been banned or warned before and sniper has (I believe) over 10 previous bans and warnings. A one month ban for someone that's never had an infraction before is an appropriate action to fit the violation.

We (mods) always take into account previous interactions whether they be warnings or bans into account when issuing bans. The fact that sniper has numerous previous bans attached to his profile was the sole reason his ban was so long, not to mention that a lot of them happen to be trolling bans and he made a concerted effort to troll Jereon Swart, again. We can't allow blatant trolling and we won't, and what sniper did was blatant. If you want to get mad at someone get mad at sniper for creating the mess that happened in the XC MTB thread.

 

[Tienus]

If you want to get mad at someone get mad at sniper for creating the mess that happened in the XC MTB thread.

There was no mess until Swart made his first post in the thread in which he told of the moderators and accused them of having an agenda. I'm not even going to start on the nazi and paedophile rubbish he came up with.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

If you want to get mad at someone get mad at sniper for creating the mess that happened in the XC MTB thread.

There was no mess until Swart made his first post in the thread in which he told of the moderators and accused them of having an agenda. I'm not even going to start on the nazi and paedophile rubbish he came up with.

You must have overlooked the part where sniper insinuated that Jeroen Swart was a doper, which preceded the tirade that Swart went on. Oh well, the posts are gone now so it really doesn't matter anymore...

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

Re: Re:

Swart gets one month for calling Sniper a paedophile( at least twice), and Sniper gets 2 months!!!

Something wrong there!!

Swart has never been banned or warned before and sniper has (I believe) over 10 previous bans and warnings. A one month ban for someone that's never had an infraction before is an appropriate action to fit the violation.

We (mods) always take into account previous interactions whether they be warnings or bans into account when issuing bans. The fact that sniper has numerous previous bans attached to his profile was the sole reason his ban was so long, not to mention that a lot of them happen to be trolling bans and he made a concerted effort to troll Jereon Swart, again. We can't allow blatant trolling and we won't, and what sniper did was blatant. If you want to get mad at someone get mad at sniper for creating the mess that happened in the XC MTB thread.

#getridofthedeadwoodforgood

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Swart gets one month for calling Sniper a paedophile( at least twice), and Sniper gets 2 months!!!

Something wrong there!!

Swart has never been banned or warned before and sniper has (I believe) over 10 previous bans and warnings. A one month ban for someone that's never had an infraction before is an appropriate action to fit the violation.

We (mods) always take into account previous interactions whether they be warnings or bans into account when issuing bans. The fact that sniper has numerous previous bans attached to his profile was the sole reason his ban was so long, not to mention that a lot of them happen to be trolling bans and he made a concerted effort to troll Jereon Swart, again. We can't allow blatant trolling and we won't, and what sniper did was blatant. If you want to get mad at someone get mad at sniper for creating the mess that happened in the XC MTB thread.

#getridofthedeadwoodforgood

Hey Swart aint dead wood. Guy found Froome lost his inner fat and for that fans will be eternally grateful!!!

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

If you want to get mad at someone get mad at sniper for creating the mess that happened in the XC MTB thread.

There was no mess until Swart made his first post in the thread in which he told of the moderators and accused them of having an agenda. I'm not even going to start on the nazi and paedophile rubbish he came up with.

This^^^

Still dont get how calling any poster a 'nazi and paedophile' is not a permaban?

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

If you want to get mad at someone get mad at sniper for creating the mess that happened in the XC MTB thread.

There was no mess until Swart made his first post in the thread in which he told of the moderators and accused them of having an agenda. I'm not even going to start on the nazi and paedophile rubbish he came up with.

This^^^

Still dont get how calling any poster a 'nazi and paedophile' is not a permaban?

Maybe they should both be permabanned....

 

[Netserk]

Maybe we'll get peace in middle east again.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

If you want to get mad at someone get mad at sniper for creating the mess that happened in the XC MTB thread.

There was no mess until Swart made his first post in the thread in which he told of the moderators and accused them of having an agenda. I'm not even going to start on the nazi and paedophile rubbish he came up with.

This^^^

Still dont get how calling any poster a 'nazi and paedophile' is not a permaban?

Maybe they should both be permabanned....

Sniper makes a good contribution to the clinic. He aint everyones cup of tea. I think a lot of posters don't want to see the wood for the trees. See sky fans and before that Armstrong fans. Both of snipers eyes are open. His contributions in the motor fraud thread are good and i feel he is right on the button with his stuff. Lots dont want to believe the levels that sport will descend to in order to win. Heck the sports uses the deaths of others for its own schemes and excuses. Swart is an idiot who thinks he can pull the wool over peoples eyes. But calling someone a 'nazi and paedophile' is a permaban in my book, but i aint a mod.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

If you want to get mad at someone get mad at sniper for creating the mess that happened in the XC MTB thread.

There was no mess until Swart made his first post in the thread in which he told of the moderators and accused them of having an agenda. I'm not even going to start on the nazi and paedophile rubbish he came up with.

This^^^

Still dont get how calling any poster a 'nazi and paedophile' is not a permaban?

Maybe they should both be permabanned....

Sniper makes a good contribution to the clinic. He aint everyones cup of tea. I think a lot of posters don't want to see the wood for the trees. See sky fans and before that Armstrong fans. Both of snipers eyes are open. His contributions in the motor fraud thread are good and i feel he is right on the button with his stuff. Lots dont want to believe the levels that sport will descend to in order to win. Heck the sports uses the deaths of others for its own schemes and excuses. Swart is an idiot who thinks he can pull the wool over peoples eyes. But calling someone a 'nazi and paedophile' is a permaban in my book, but i aint a mod.

...yeah exactly what he said....

Cheers

 

[miguelindurain111]

Re:

Swart gets one month for calling Sniper a paedophile( at least twice), and Sniper gets 2 months!!!

Something wrong there!!

I think he didn't call sniper a paedophile. Actually he showed how sniper's tin foil hat way to connect dots to show that Swart is a doper can as well use to show that sniper, or anyone else, is a paedophile.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Maybe they should both be permabanned....

I think Swart was making a strong argument, using the same logic as sniper does, demonstrating by example not just the fundamental flaw in sniper's thought processes but also the damage he does, not just to individuals but to the whole of this forum. I can see how it might offend the sensibilities of some, and I can see how some would see it as Swart attacking sniper and not just making a strong point, but I still don't see it as being worth a month on the naughty step. But hey, I don't get to vote on these thing...

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Swart gets one month for calling Sniper a paedophile( at least twice), and Sniper gets 2 months!!!

Something wrong there!!

I think he didn't call sniper a paedophile. Actually he showed how sniper's tin foil hat way to connect dots to show that Swart is a doper can as well use to show that sniper, or anyone else, is a paedophile.

[quote="Irondan":27vgfz0y]Maybe they should both be permabanned....

I think Swart was making a strong argument, using the same logic as sniper does, demonstrating by example not just the fundamental flaw in sniper's thought processes but also the damage he does, not just to individuals but to the whole of this forum. I can see how it might offend the sensibilities of some, and I can see how some would see it as Swart attacking sniper and not just making a strong point, but I still don't see it as being worth a month on the naughty step. But hey, I don't get to vote on these thing...[/quote]

This is, in essence, what happened. If Jeroen had chosen a less emotive comparison, only done it once and generalised it rather than point it at a member it would probably have been fine, but as soon as someone goes to the examples he did you know nothing good is going to come of it. To continue it makes it worse. Jeroen is smart enough to realise this, I'm sure his response came from frustration as attacks on him are also attacking his reputation and work/research, but it was felt by the mods that he went much too far, hence the ban.

The comment about mods leaving libellous posts up and having an agenda was a bit irritating as we had had no reports about the post in question. In general we seem to get accused of having an agenda by both sides of an argument fairly regularly. As far as I'm aware the only mod with any real ties to the website is Susan and she doesn't mod much anymore, the rest of us are just users who have volunteered. I don't think I've ever even had a conversation with someone from the website, other than a coder while trying to recover my password here.


People also need to remember that Jeroen is a member here and is afforded the same courtesies everyone else is. You can criticise his work and question it (as long as it's not trolling/baiting) but to accuse him of being tied to doping/motor doping/cover ups etc. requires proof. Anything else will be consider baiting and personal attacks and will result in a ban.

 

[Irondan]

This line of snarky, baiting with the personal attacks in response must unfortunately come to an end.

Please choose words that fit well within forum rules and posting decorum and post them accordingly.

The fact that mods have not dealt with the petty insults and personal attacks does not mean that they've been approved as acceptable, it only means that we're busy with other stuff and will get to them in a timely manner.

Cheers

 

[Forever The Best]

Wait, a member was banned for a week just because he said that a moderator was touchy?
I think that 'huge' shouldn't have been banned.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Wait, a member was banned for a week just because he said that a moderator was touchy?
I think that 'huge' shouldn't have been banned.

That post was the definition of trolling (and baiting), not to mention completely off topic and not very cooperative with moderators. If huge had a problem with moderation of that thread then they should have went through the proper channels to air their grievances. Instead, they decided to post a comment that was meant to illicit a negative reaction from a mod while the mod was performing moderation duties.

 

[Forever The Best]

Re: Re:

Wait, a member was banned for a week just because he said that a moderator was touchy?
I think that 'huge' shouldn't have been banned.

That post was the definition of trolling (and baiting), not to mention completely off topic and not very cooperative with moderators. If huge had a problem with moderation of that thread then they should have went through the proper channels to air their grievances. Instead, they decided to post a comment that was meant to illicit a negative reaction from a mod while the mod was performing moderation duties.

Ah, understood. Though I still think a week is too harsh, 3 days perhaps?

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Wait, a member was banned for a week just because he said that a moderator was touchy?
I think that 'huge' shouldn't have been banned.

That post was the definition of trolling (and baiting), not to mention completely off topic and not very cooperative with moderators. If huge had a problem with moderation of that thread then they should have went through the proper channels to air their grievances. Instead, they decided to post a comment that was meant to illicit a negative reaction from a mod while the mod was performing moderation duties.

Ah, understood. Though I still think a week is too harsh, 3 days perhaps?

The forum standard ban for trolling is one week for a first offence.

 

[aphronesis]

Boom shacka lacka. I trust sniper is well.