• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

Page 167 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Irondan said:
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...
I didn't see the thread, but I was banned for 6 weeks for making a similar if not identical kind of argument. I tried to give an example of an egregiously false argument by using the example of a child molester (or some such thing, can't recall exactly and the post was deleted) to show how easy it is to tar someone with false assumptions about who they are and how they behave. I was making a point about false forms of argument. I called no one a child molester. Never had a ban before or since. Apparently the moderator to whom the post was aimed took extreme offense. 6 weeks, no warning, no explanation, even after repeated queries. Ridiculous.

Bans are used a bit too freely here sometimes. Seems to be an artifact of lack of time, effort, or imagination. The first one is a legit issue for mods. The last two are fixable.

I would say that for repeat offenders, perma-bans are often used too infrequently. If someone has 10 (or in some cases scores of) bans, it's not going to stop. A pattern has been established long ago.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
fmk_RoI said:
Irondan said:
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...
I didn't see the thread, but I was banned for 6 weeks for making a similar if not identical kind of argument. I tried to give an example of an egregiously false argument by using the example of a child molester (or some such thing, can't recall exactly and the post was deleted) to show how easy it is to tar someone with false assumptions about who they are and how they behave. I was making a point about false forms of argument. I called no one a child molester. Never had a ban before or since. Apparently the moderator to whom the post was aimed took extreme offense. 6 weeks, no warning, no explanation, even after repeated queries. Ridiculous.

Bans are used a bit too freely here sometimes. Seems to be an artifact of lack of time, effort, or imagination. The first one is a legit issue for mods. The last two are fixable.

I would say that for repeat offenders, perma-bans are often used too infrequently. If someone has 10 (or in some cases scores of) bans, it's not going to stop. A pattern has been established long ago.
Regrettably the moderator in question had an agenda that the rest of us mods didn't recognize until the damage was already done. You're ban was too long and should have been a month, the same as what Swart just got.

We (mods) have to draw the line somewhere and making comparisons with pedophiles or other shameful labels is crossing the line and not tolerated. If a member knows the rules they know that making comparisons such as what you and Jereon Swart made runs the risk of being banned from the forum without warning. It's not arbitrary, and there has to be a point in which we say that a comment crosses the line. I've been doing this for quite some time now and can say that during this time, there's only been a handful of comments that have crossed that line and they've all been met with pretty much the same fate. As I said above, perhaps your ban was longer than necessary but we only know that after the fact and can't really do anything else to fix it.

Cheers
 
A simple warning and post deletion would have sufficed for someone who has never been banned or warned before. Somewhere some judgement needs to enter into things. If the goal is to improve posting behavior, it's much more effective to engage and explain than throw out bans for rare posts which cross the line. It's a simple matter of respect and assumption of general good will. This certainly isn't always in play, but members in good standing who post in good faith are extremely put off by the ham-handed behavior which happens all too often here. In my considered view.

I've not publicly commented about it before, since yes, nothing can be done about it. But seeing it happen again I felt compelled to share the story in hope that something can be adjusted.

It is my view that it was not a problem with that mod as much as it is tone set from others who historically set the tone for the mods. It has gotten WAY better of late, thank you for that.

For your consideration.
 
I can't comment on your ban Red. In this case it wasn't a single post, it continued through a conversation and there is a history there apparently, that's before my time. The comparison used is only going to inflame the discussion, the point could have be made with a much less inflammatory example.

A lot of the time people see the one post that gets a user banned and thinks that is the sole cause but there is almost always a discussion, either at the time or beforehand where these things are decided and then acted on.

I do feel a lot of sympathy for Jeroen. His professional standing gets attacked and I will be keeping a close eye on that as he is a member here and is given the same courtesy as everyone else. However, the comparison was completely unnecesary.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Irondan said:
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...
Swarts can be a jerk sometimes with his condescending tone. As I don't like for anyone to get banninated then I have to stay consistent and say that I don't much like that Sworts and Sniper are not around.
 
Bit late to the party, but two posts in the Member Suspensions info-thread kinda got my attention...

29 Jul 2017 15:47
France_En_Marche has been banned for a week for a sexist post.
Immediately followed by:

06 Aug 2017 14:21
France_En_Marche is banned 2 months for obvious trolling and racial posts, after previously also have been ignoring forum rules

EDIT: After further discussions thats changed to a perma-ban.
Yeah... if (one of?) your first acts after returning from a ban is to continue breaking the rules, then I'd say a perma-ban is probably in order.
 
Re:

RedheadDane said:
Bit late to the party, but two posts in the Member Suspensions info-thread kinda got my attention...

29 Jul 2017 15:47
France_En_Marche has been banned for a week for a sexist post.
Immediately followed by:

06 Aug 2017 14:21
France_En_Marche is banned 2 months for obvious trolling and racial posts, after previously also have been ignoring forum rules

EDIT: After further discussions thats changed to a perma-ban.
Yeah... if (one of?) your first acts after returning from a ban is to continue breaking the rules, then I'd say a perma-ban is probably in order.

We will frequently give someone a shorter ban, as an emergency measure, so to speak, just to get the user out of circulation. Perma-bans are almost always discussed before action is taken.
 
Of course. I fully understand why the second ban wasn't instantly a perma-ban, but I also agree with it eventually becoming thus.
Just pretty striking that he was given a week-long ban on July 29, then - on August 6 - was given a new ban. Like, that's literally a week! Dude... you're not even trying to respect the rules.
 
Just saw that someone was banned for "mechanical doping talk in the PRR." So-called "mechanical doping" is not doping at all and I'm not sure why its discussion is banned from that forum. It is illegal mechanical assistance. Is it also illegal to discuss riders grabbing a car door and getting a pull, a la Nibali?
 
Re:

shalgo said:
Just saw that someone was banned for "mechanical doping talk in the PRR." So-called "mechanical doping" is not doping at all and I'm not sure why its discussion is banned from that forum. It is illegal mechanical assistance. Is it also illegal to discuss riders grabbing a car door and getting a pull, a la Nibali?
Because it will descend into exactly the same arguments doping talk descends into and will invariably bring up doping as well.
 
Aug 10, 2010
5,235
0
0
Re:

shalgo said:
Just saw that someone was banned for "mechanical doping talk in the PRR." So-called "mechanical doping" is not doping at all and I'm not sure why its discussion is banned from that forum. It is illegal mechanical assistance. Is it also illegal to discuss riders grabbing a car door and getting a pull, a la Nibali?
I once saw a forum member told by a mod that racing talk was not permitted in the Clinic.

Don't expect this place to make sense.
 
Re: Re:

MarkvW said:
shalgo said:
Just saw that someone was banned for "mechanical doping talk in the PRR." So-called "mechanical doping" is not doping at all and I'm not sure why its discussion is banned from that forum. It is illegal mechanical assistance. Is it also illegal to discuss riders grabbing a car door and getting a pull, a la Nibali?
I once saw a forum member told by a mod that racing talk was not permitted in the Clinic.

Don't expect this place to make sense.
Got a link to that post?

I'd be hard pressed to believe that that was a lone statement and not cherry picked from part of a larger conversation.

It doesn't matter anyway, if this place doesn't make much sense then it fits right into what the world looks like anyway. Our community may be screwed up, but it's ours and I enjoy my time here for the most part.
 
Aug 10, 2010
5,235
0
0
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
MarkvW said:
shalgo said:
Just saw that someone was banned for "mechanical doping talk in the PRR." So-called "mechanical doping" is not doping at all and I'm not sure why its discussion is banned from that forum. It is illegal mechanical assistance. Is it also illegal to discuss riders grabbing a car door and getting a pull, a la Nibali?
I once saw a forum member told by a mod that racing talk was not permitted in the Clinic.

Don't expect this place to make sense.
Got a link to that post?

I'd be hard pressed to believe that that was a lone statement and not cherry picked from part of a larger conversation.

It doesn't matter anyway, if this place doesn't make much sense then it fits right into what the world looks like anyway. Our community may be screwed up, but it's ours and I enjoy my time here for the most part.
I'll try to find it. This is it:
viewtopic.php?p=1095931#p1095931
 
Re: Re:

MarkvW said:
Irondan said:
MarkvW said:
shalgo said:
Just saw that someone was banned for "mechanical doping talk in the PRR." So-called "mechanical doping" is not doping at all and I'm not sure why its discussion is banned from that forum. It is illegal mechanical assistance. Is it also illegal to discuss riders grabbing a car door and getting a pull, a la Nibali?
I once saw a forum member told by a mod that racing talk was not permitted in the Clinic.

Don't expect this place to make sense.
Got a link to that post?

I'd be hard pressed to believe that that was a lone statement and not cherry picked from part of a larger conversation.

It doesn't matter anyway, if this place doesn't make much sense then it fits right into what the world looks like anyway. Our community may be screwed up, but it's ours and I enjoy my time here for the most part.
I'll try to find it. This is it:
viewtopic.php?p=1095931#p1095931
I get what you're saying and you're right, Susan didn't want general racing talk in the clinic.

She's right, it's actually off topic because the "clinic" was set up to specifically talk about doping. If racing threads and conversation were permitted in the clinic then there would be a mixture of both forums, making the PRR forum obsolete which brings us to the original issue, doping talk. To keep them separate they have to be moderated, which may not make sense to you but it does to me.
 
Aug 10, 2010
5,235
0
0
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
MarkvW said:
Irondan said:
MarkvW said:
shalgo said:
Just saw that someone was banned for "mechanical doping talk in the PRR." So-called "mechanical doping" is not doping at all and I'm not sure why its discussion is banned from that forum. It is illegal mechanical assistance. Is it also illegal to discuss riders grabbing a car door and getting a pull, a la Nibali?
I once saw a forum member told by a mod that racing talk was not permitted in the Clinic.

Don't expect this place to make sense.
Got a link to that post?

I'd be hard pressed to believe that that was a lone statement and not cherry picked from part of a larger conversation.

It doesn't matter anyway, if this place doesn't make much sense then it fits right into what the world looks like anyway. Our community may be screwed up, but it's ours and I enjoy my time here for the most part.
I'll try to find it. This is it:
viewtopic.php?p=1095931#p1095931
I get what you're saying and you're right, Susan didn't want general racing talk in the clinic.

She's right, it's actually off topic because the "clinic" was set up to specifically talk about doping. If racing threads and conversation were permitted in the clinic then there would be a mixture of both forums, making the PRR forum obsolete which brings us to the original issue, doping talk. To keep them separate they have to be moderated, which may not make sense to you but it does to me.
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat. Ipse dixit.
 
Re: Re:

MarkvW said:
Irondan said:
MarkvW said:
shalgo said:
Just saw that someone was banned for "mechanical doping talk in the PRR." So-called "mechanical doping" is not doping at all and I'm not sure why its discussion is banned from that forum. It is illegal mechanical assistance. Is it also illegal to discuss riders grabbing a car door and getting a pull, a la Nibali?
I once saw a forum member told by a mod that racing talk was not permitted in the Clinic.

Don't expect this place to make sense.
Got a link to that post?

I'd be hard pressed to believe that that was a lone statement and not cherry picked from part of a larger conversation.

It doesn't matter anyway, if this place doesn't make much sense then it fits right into what the world looks like anyway. Our community may be screwed up, but it's ours and I enjoy my time here for the most part.
I'll try to find it. This is it:
viewtopic.php?p=1095931#p1095931
Pretty typical. No explanation, just a blunt force response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts