Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[Dr. Maserati]

i've been reading this thread's defensive reaction of the mods (re. the permabans) and the multitude of dissatisfied/disappointed/critical long-term posters, and i've been wondering:

what exactly is/are the reason/s behind the PUBLIC parallel locked thread announcing 'member suspensions' ?

i have thought of a dozen of good/bad reason for or against the public thread, personally, i started to lean to a conclusion, the tread is counterproductive, but would like to hear from others both mods and non-mods...

is it for the sake of transparency ? but doesn't a banned member software plate already tell when he/she is banned ?

why is it important to announce to everyone that so-and-so has been banned, when, in practical terms, the matter is really between the forum mods, the banned member a very limited number of direct participants affected by the banned member ?

is it to make an example to promote a deterrence ? even a superficial analysis of the facts will tell that a deterrence like that is an abysmal failure...

is it to provide clarity ? i can't see anything more confusing then the typical reasons posted in that thread (granted, 'trolling' is a good reason yet when considered away from a public view - as post afte post by the current admins tell us - it helps little to alleviate the confusion)

is it to to publicly embarrass/humiliate the banned member ? i have no idea but THAT (if that's a goal or not) is actually the most accomplished outcome, deserved or not...

then, there is this tiny thing of sparing the moderating crew from defending itself against the avalanche of furious members due to a hasty decision by a single inexperienced mod ?

and what did the public announcement to ban someone do - in real well recorded and proven terms - to the forum reactions at large ?

it served to reinforce the 'friends' to gloat or the 'haters' to endlessly protest. again, it served the polarization and spite rather than promoting the transparency, self-reflection, deterrence..

these are my quick thoughts on what appears a set up for the forum unnecessary tension and polarization..

Personally speaking - I see nothing wrong with that thread. In fact it is good to see that people have been sanctioned, for what and for how long.

The problem is that those sanctions appear to vary.

 

[Eshnar]

To the blue - please stop making **** up, this is annoying. And is completely irrelevant.

You came up with that. You're complaining about bans lenght and you suddenly come up with "how can people who don't read rules know what is allowed etc." and I answered that for those people bans lenght is the last of their problems. the only thing they need is to see mods giving warnings to illegal posts. That's all.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You came up with that. You're complaining about bans lenght and you suddenly come up with "how can people who don't read rules know what is allowed etc." and I answered that for those people bans lenght is the last of their problems. the only thing they need is to see mods giving warnings to illegal posts. That's all.

No.
My complaint is about how there is inconsistency.

I have already made it clear that I am against perma bans, and that my solution is for shorter bans with less tolerance for baiting/trolling - ie implement the rules.

As to the highlighted - again, no. Often the warnings are not clear and the offending post is left.

 

[ElChingon]

The locked thread on the bans is one of a few things:

1. Wall of shame (most likely mod intent).
2. Wall of pride by those out to get banned.
3. Wall of honor by the derailures of the forum, how many accounts can they create and get banned.
4. Wall of excuses for a ban even though it boils down to not being able to categorize a forum member or just not liking them for any other reason.
5. List of Muddy Transparent rule applications.
6. Tired of replying to "Where is so and so?" threads.
7. An example of the rules and what happens if you break them to serve as an example (would work only if it was a set of static rules and not a wishy washy set as they stand now, yet they're written yet broken very day yet never applied till someone clicks the yellow warning icon on a post).
8. Forum poster board filler, gives mod's a chance to post something in their own dedicated thread that no regular poster can add to or poke fun at/of.

That's all I got.

 

[JRTinMA]

Personally speaking - I see nothing wrong with that thread. In fact it is good to see that people have been sanctioned, for what and for how long.

The problem is that those sanctions appear to vary.

Its also a great historical thread of people stupid enough to be banned or suspended from this site. You have to work hard at stupid to get a suspension from CN, let that thread recognize those people.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

No.
My complaint is about how there is inconsistency.

I have already made it clear that I am against perma bans, and that my solution is for shorter bans with less tolerance for baiting/trolling - ie implement the rules.

As to the highlighted - again, no. Often the warnings are not clear and the offending post is left.

I agree with all of this. Moderate the content, not the poster, and reserve perma bans only for the Joe Papps out there.

 

[sittingbison]

Dr Maserati, a decision to reduce a ban does not invalidate the original decision, nor suggest it is hasty or the act of an individual, because they are mutually exclusive.

If you are suggesting that a more formalised set of infractions would alleviate the necessity of changing a decision, in some cases it might but in some it will not. Because there is always an element of subjectivity which is why the mods have private discussions.

A simple set of infractions might well help to bring some regimen to bans, especially if they are a graduated response with heavier or permanent bans kept in the back pocket for a rainy day. Which is now being discussed.

18V, you would be surprised at the amount of content moderation that occurs.

 

[Eshnar]

The locked thread on the bans is one of a few things:

1. Wall of shame (most likely mod intent).
2. Wall of pride by those out to get banned.
3. Wall of honor by the derailures of the forum, how many accounts can they create and get banned.
4. Wall of excuses for a ban even though it boils down to not being able to categorize a forum member or just not liking them for any other reason.
5. List of Muddy Transparent rule applications.
6. Tired of replying to "Where is so and so?" threads.
7. An example of the rules and what happens if you break them to serve as an example (would work only if it was a set of static rules and not a wishy washy set as they stand now, yet they're written yet broken very day yet never applied till someone clicks the yellow warning icon on a post).
8. Forum poster board filler, gives mod's a chance to post something in their own dedicated thread that no regular poster can add to or poke fun at/of.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why is sniper still banned?

His ban was also meant to be a week and I just checked his profile and its stated he is banned.

 

[Netserk]

Because of peace in middle east.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Because of peace in middle east.

If you don't know could you ask a real mod?

 

[Netserk]

You don't remember peace in middle east?

He is also banned. At the same time Sniper's ban was prolonged. You go figure.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You don't remember peace in middle east?

He is also banned. At the same time Sniper's ban was prolonged. You go figure.

Ok, apologies to you - I thought you were being a smart a$s.

No, I don't remember Peace in Middle East ..... I was banned at the time.
But just looking at their join date and posts it looks am familiar.

 

[Netserk]

When I was banned I still read in here, so thought you did too
But 10 posts per page sucks b*lls

 

[airstream]

In general, interpretation of 'trolling' doesn't hold water on the forum. Accusations of trolling followed me since I joined CN.

Schleck would have kept up with Contador if Contador was in the Giro 2011 form - trolling;
Wiggins is a superclimber - trolling;
Wiggins is as deserved Tour winner as any other in terms of doping for last 20 years - trolling;
Froome would have been able to keep up with Contador without the train at Prati di Tivo - trolling
Froome will attack Contador in the Tour on the climbs - trolling ...
Derailing train doesn't guarantee beating Sky captains - trolling ...
etc etc etc

In short here trolling is often just 'anything one dislikes to read'. The forum has one unique feature. Some posters consider they overly disputable opinions on overly debatable questions THE ONLY CORRECT and call others trolls automatically. I know a few forum members categories from which it comes from. Some of them are very agressive and it is absolutely blind agression. Part of users live in some complex numbers. They settled down in their cycling views and simpathies like in a shell and instantly accuse others of trolling. I'm genuinely amazed how these accusers should admire their own points in order to accuse and denigrate others. It is unbelievable.

This doesn't relate to me personally. Recently I've been reading a Sky dispute in the Clinics. As far as I could notice del1962 and Mastersracer were ones of few guys who treated Sky quite neutrally and without excessive hatred. The others simply dwelled in some idiotic absolutely clueless 'Froome's and Nibali's ways of improving' comparisons, CQ graphs and all that jazz. I'm not surprised that one of these forum members has been already banned. Mastersracer demonstrated himself as a real cycling intellectual, who contemplate independently and express his argument precisely, coherently and politely. A word 'politely' should be underlined, because it is not so wide-spread in the clinics. The good well informed guy was banned, because he is not full of bile and utopian cycling views Fearless Greg Lemond and not a star of evil clinics trolling thehog. Is it a forum integrity? I couldn't care less about this kind of integrity.

-------------------------------

As for the ban after the post in the E3 thread:
Such expressions are very wide-spread in my language, because a word 'low' is percieved both directly and figuratively, iow 'low' in terms of lower than high mountains. But it is not something I should apologize. I don't really follow classics fixedly which clearly is illustrated in my posts. 99% of them are about GT contenders. It is not trolling. It is nothing. Usual post.

-------------------------------

Netserk, I know you were wrong. The fact you banned me for nothing is evil profanation and lawlessness. Could you present the posts you interpeted like trolling for that month which caused forged 'bad behaviour'?
I'm asking you to quote them. I want other forum members to read those posts and express their opinion. Again, with your interpretation of trolling, you should have banned yourself many many times so why it didn't happen? If you don't reason your decision on 1 month ban earnestly and most forum members don't support you [this point is necessary], everyone will know that you are just a brazen youngster, who resolved the issue unfairly and removed the poster you dislike to read. Cmon, don't hesitate. Unlike you, I have nothing to hide from the forum guys and I'm ready to answer for any my word. Having banned me, you knew I woudn't keep silent so be responsible for you acts. You know man, it's great to feel God, but cynics with dirty souls are disliked everywhere. Probably that's why some of them prefer to settle on the internet...

You can declaim the forum rules, you can try to deceive forum guys who don't follow the racing section attentively, you can defame me in every way, making up the thing I didn't do, but you can't cheat the posters like 18.Valve (pithy), who probably read all my posts for that month and understand that you were wrong. Do not cheat people and do not dare touch this post.
-----------------------------------
I found some posts after which I was accused of trolling and I suspest someone was hurried up to complain about that. So here we go:

1. My post in Prati di Tivo thread

'OH MY GOD! WHAT A DELIGHT!!! What a brilliant tactics! What a splendid strategic idea that was played perfectly! What a power, what a valor and what a composure! It is something I've never ever seen for 8 years I follow. Probably exactly stages like this are remembered most of all, pushing back some first or childish memories. It was something we loved the sport for.

Contador fans, I sincerely sympathyze with you, but changes always come sooner or later.

I was instantly accused of trolling. Some administrator (I suspect, that was ferryman or Netserk) disliked the post so much that deleted it at once. Hell, is that normal? Everyone I polemize with in racing thread knows I prefer Froome and Wiggins to Contador. So apparently I wasn't entitled to be happy...In addition, it was a marvellous stage in terms of tactics. Simply stunning. Btw, who deleted that post? Mod, give voice.

2. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1161879&postcount=5871

As far as I remember soon after these posts I got an official warning from ferryman. As we see administrator ferryman stands for his rider very strongly. His mind doesn't want to admit that climber Uran can be equal to climber Contador and that climber Froome is able to drop climber Contador mano-to-mano. Well... It is called trolling on this forum. ferryman, I just inform you that narrowness of one's thought doesn't make other a troll. Nonetheless, if that were your standarts, get ready to ban many many people in July.


3. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1163677&postcount=14788

No comments. Following these criteria, I could accuse 1/3 of posters of trolling and baiting.


I'd be glad if Netserk and ferryman find another examples of far-fetched bad behaviour. But those that I brought is idiotism.

Using Netserk's and ferryman's methods, anyone on the forum instantly banned for any pin, irony, radical point, joke etc. So Netserk should have been banned for his Cancellara / Boonen dispute with Miburo for a month as minimum. Did you think about that, Netserk? Huh, Mr.permissiveness? If it is a matter of complaints, man, it is not difficult to solve that. I think me, Christian, Caruut and other guys could easily provide you with numerous complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------
Administrator should be an experienced, honorable, mentally tough, objective guy, who can regulate the situations by fair. Netserk simply showed himself like an untenable member of administrator gild, who breaks forum rules himself in the following ways:
A) Openly trolls Andy Schleck's fans in his signature (obvious mockery) and in a Schleck thread! He does it constantly and persistently. SHAME.
B) Posted an youtube link, in which a car knocked the riders in the race in Latin America (utterly unethical act);
C) Fanatically defends his preferences (Contador, Nibali, Boonen) by belitting merits of Sky, Cancellara, Schleck. I'd inevitably get numerous warnings for that. Netserk easily gets away with it. And it is only the material I could notice. Why didn't you ban yourself? I'm being serious. At least it would help you look honest in the eyes of forum members. The methods you use clearly characterize you in a certain way.

I don't know requirements according to which administrators are appointed. But based on last appointments, I suppose the main indicator is a free will otherwise Netserk would never have been appointed. In my view administrators should have one quality: they should not have strong simpathies/antipathies. I don't know all moderators, but say Ferminal and Eshnar perfectly match this feature. I even don't know who they root for, though they post a lot and it is peaceful expert posting. BUT until we have administrator Netserk, who considers Boonen higher than Cancellara racially just based on the fact he likes the first more, administrator (ferryman), who divides riders on legitimate winners (Contador) and outlaws (Froome or Uran) and administrator Berzin, who will in no way able to provide any 100% evidence that Lemond didn't use doping however superciliously threatens other posters — we will never get an objective forum management. Such administrators is the road to nowhere. Administration, wild hostages of their fan preferences is pathetic. If I was accused of trolling by ferryman because Froome dared beat Contador and I'm happy for him, it says a lot. It is better to have less administrators of high fair quality, than many guys who generate lawlessness, Bans will continue since they put their cycling views, I'd even call this stuff ideologies, way higher than anything they are not gonna put up with.

 

[airstream]

Dear forum members, I think we should defend our rights and I hope it is not the end of the story. I'm asking administration to look into these cases in order not to create precedents in the future. If unfair bans continue, we should call for the guys who appoint administrators. I find it offensive that all forum members have little choice but to unquestioningly believe administrator's decision (especially if this great moderator is a baiter Netserk) while unfairly banned user is absolutely deprived of the rights and even can not read the forum. It is ANARCHY where administrators can do whatever they want. About 20 forum users said that administrator were wrong regarding 2 those bans. Still no proper response. Netserk arrogantly spits on forum members from his sky-high belfry. Netserk, moral of that story is overly simple. Can't be a mod - don't be a mod. The best mod's quality is his invisibility like a mod and you don't match it at all. As to my case, you clearly showed that henceforth no one can feel safe on the forum because any irony, any pin and any 'I don't like Classics' post can entail a ban. Administrator credentials is responsibility and you clearly crossed the line of this responsibility.

Thanks for the support, 18-Valve. (pithy), Afrank, aphronesis, Caruut, Christian, ebandit, Hugh Januss, Parrot23, pedaling squares, the asian and TheGame.


Hitch, Yes, my English is weak for obvious reason. I was apologizing for that during first months on the forum, but find it unnecessary now. After all, we discuss cycling on here, not astrophysics and not oratory. My English is ok to discuss cycling. The level of language is 10th thing here. The main ones are what you know, what you bring, to what extent you are interesting to talk, whether independently you reason or not. To be honest, I don't quite understand how I can be smacked down if someone uses purely cycling arguments. Smacked down with insults? True, but I'm not going to argue with anyone here on a personal basis. I respect many posters, read them gladly and know that they are interested in reading me too. This is the main thing for me.

 

[ebandit]

glad your back

Dear forum members, I think we should defend our rights and I hope it is not the end of the story.

hi airstream.............great! to see you back

my constant complaint about the forum is that true debate is not encouraged
those who suffer the wrath of the majority for conflicting views are mocked
and more likely to be banned

while rule breaking by popular members who conform to the 'group think' is
more likely to be overlooked

Mark L

 

[Zam_Olyas]

 

[Netserk]

In short: you were not banned for any of your views/opinions. It was how expressed yourself in a trolling manner. I'll answer you more thoroughly later.

EDIT: you were NOT banned for one month because of your post in the E3 thread. It was because of the accumulation of trolling after several warnings.

 

[airstream]

In short: you were not banned for any of your views/opinions. It was how expressed yourself in a trolling manner. I'll answer you more thoroughly later.

No, you removed me intentionally like a poster who feels strongly about his opinion which you strongly dislike. Again, I can declare 1/3 of posters trolls on here, using your yardstick. Possibly it was some emotional impulse but it does not change the essence of the matter.

 

[Netserk]

Side note: I don't think anyone who could write what you wrote in your two posts, would consider their English weak. IOW I really don't think your English is weak.

 

[ElChingon]

Side note: I don't think anyone who could write what you wrote in your two posts, would consider their English weak. IOW I really don't think your English is weak.

Should we start a poll?

 

[hiero2]

Should we start a poll?

If we do, don't forget the Vino option. But I'll check the option that his English is very good, at the top level just below "native speaker", although he does have a bit of an accent. I don't think he needs to apologize for his English skills, although I understand why he would - he might not understand something one of us native speakers said, and not realize it. Anyway, his English is excellent, imo.

 

[horsinabout]

hi airstream.............great! to see you back

my constant complaint about the forum is that true debate is not encouraged
those who suffer the wrath of the majority for conflicting views are mocked
and more likely to be banned

while rule breaking by popular members who conform to the 'group think' is
more likely to be overlooked

Mark L

Well said ebandit

 

[Benotti69]

Bingo.................