Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[del1962]

TANK91's ban seems a tad unfair, basically half the posters in the thread were pushing clinic talk, I think it may be bacause he insaulted a mod, but until you implement a ban for all hinting at cliic talk and do it fairly then the moderation has failed.

 

[Netserk]

He was the only one who did it after the warnings in the thread. (at least of those of the posts I've read so far)

 

[del1962]

He was the only one who did it after the warnings in the thread. (at least of those of the posts I've read so far)

I honestly don't think he was the only one, and also I think you have a mod with a very thin skin (Paurollo) who seems to ban people at any insult directed towards him of the type you see all the time on the threads.

 

[Parrulo]

And he has been baiting and flaming people on the PRR section for a while now getting away with it.

His modus operandi was simple, post at the limit of PRR section rules leaving the only logical replies to his posts on clinic territory, since most people don't want to get banned they couldn't reply properly.

Just check the Contador thread.

And i can assure you, his reply to one of my moderation posts had nothing to do with the decision as i wasn't even the first to suggest him getting banned.

 

[alitogata]

"Permanent" bans don't have to be that way. If it is clear that one is willing to change their behaviour and address the reasons for the initial ban then on review, a permanent ban may only end up being a few months.

The problem is that in most cases the response is to spam accounts. Often the reason for permabanning in the first place is because of account creation to avoid a temporary suspension. A ban is never going to be overturned without a sustained period of abstinence.

Too many permanent bans end up having a forum without members. And this happens because those who post the most and contribute more in discussions, have statistically more possibilities to be banned permanently while those who post less will be discouraged by the permanent bans to post more.

The best moderated forums are those who are moderated less.

If you had a discussion around a table, would you expected from a third person to moderate your discussion? I suppose you wouldn't. If there was a disagreement, even a quarrel, those who were involved would resolved this by themselves sooner or later.

Fora are the equivalent of discussions around a table.

 

[hiero2]

Too many permanent bans end up having a forum without members. And this happens because those who post the most and contribute more in discussions, have statistically more possibilities to be banned permanently while those who post less will be discouraged by the permanent bans to post more.

The best moderated forums are those who are moderated less.

If you had a discussion around a table, would you expected from a third person to moderate your discussion? I suppose you wouldn't. If there was a disagreement, even a quarrel, those who were involved would resolved this by themselves sooner or later.

Fora are the equivalent of discussions around a table.

All very true, and well spoken. Except, when talking around a table, the host does serve the function of "moderator". When a table member is drunk, and unruly, at a generous house, they will be escorted from the premises. If they insist on starting fights, rather than discussing, they will shortly find themselves disinvited from further events, at the least. If they actually become physically violent - the host will act to restrain them, and remove them from the table.

Which, of course, is reflected in the current roles of moderator, etc.

 

[pedaling squares]

When a table member is drunk, and unruly, at a generous house, they will be escorted from the premises. ...
Which, of course, is reflected in the current roles of moderator, etc.

Better change the wifi password, Netserk is still posting from outside the premise.

 

[BroDeal]

All very true, and well spoken. Except, when talking around a table, the host does serve the function of "moderator". When a table member is drunk, and unruly, at a generous house, they will be escorted from the premises.

I thought you wait until they pass out so you can a draw penis on their forehead.

 

[Ferminal]

Too many permanent bans end up having a forum without members. And this happens because those who post the most and contribute more in discussions, have statistically more possibilities to be banned permanently while those who post less will be discouraged by the permanent bans to post more.

The best moderated forums are those who are moderated less.

I agree of course.

Almost all permanent bans are the result of people not respecting temporary suspensions. In these cases there is not much else we can do.

 

[airstream]

LOL, serfla, one of the best posters all over the forum, is banned...New original poster Tank91 banned too... I suspect brotherhood of one rider's fans don't sleep and send complaints about any post and finds cordial support in Parrulo and Netserk.

Contador will be smashed by Froome - trolling.
Contador stole Busche's victory since in case he hadn't attacked, Busche would've confortable taken the stage - trolling...

etc
etc

however somehow I don't observe any ban for the posts like 'he is not a rider, he is the dawg'. Or should I report about em too?

 

[King Boonen]

He was the only one who did it after the warnings in the thread. (at least of those of the posts I've read so far)

Lets be honest, they shouldn't need warnings. Many of the people posting obvious hints at clinic matters in the PRR section are long-time members who all know the rules. I'd advocate a "no more warnings, do it and you're gone" approach.

 

[alitogata]

All very true, and well spoken. Except, when talking around a table, the host does serve the function of "moderator". When a table member is drunk, and unruly, at a generous house, they will be escorted from the premises. If they insist on starting fights, rather than discussing, they will shortly find themselves disinvited from further events, at the least. If they actually become physically violent - the host will act to restrain them, and remove them from the table.

Which, of course, is reflected in the current roles of moderator, etc.

A good host never takes out of his house his guests just because they don't agree in the between them discussions. Not even when they don't agree with him. In the case of a forum we can't have violent actions, only hot and perhaps quarrelsome discussions, who sooner or later will be resolved by their own. By banning people and more people a site shows that is tolerant only to specific discussion, but this is not the role or the meaning of having a forum and especially an international forum. Unless you want a forum that everyone agrees with everybody else in a very polite manner so then you have a forum of very few people, ( those who agree the one with the other only) in something like a "Church" way. Do you run a "Church"? No.. just a international cycling forum which gathers any kind of people from all over the world.

I agree of course.

Almost all permanent bans are the result of people not respecting temporary suspensions. In these cases there is not much else we can do.

The host can't and it must not be a governess or the tutor of food manners. When someone signs up in a ( international) forum, doesn't do it in order to get in school and learn good manners. This it a role that society, ( or virtual society) takes.

If there is a member for example that doesn't respect other members and is vile and does sarcastic comments, sooner or later this virtual society will ignore this member and nobody will talk to him or her.

Less moderated forums are in part self moderated forums. Someone who can't behave himself will be put in the right place by other members.. And depending the case, this will be more fair and "socially" acceptable than what is happening now that you even sustain a forum topic about the bans.

As you and anybody else can observe, after so many bans, things haven't changed dramatically and some banned members open new accounts and then you try to find out who is who, and the same thing happens again and again.. You spend sooo much time and energy trying to regulate people from all over the world. This, even as a phrase, is futility.

 

[alitogata]

I've posted again in this discussion. For me the ultimate example of quite and peaceful forum is a Greek one, ( same subject is about cycling) were there is no moderation at all. The only thing that moderators do is to delete unwanted spam messages, like ads etc.

No bans, no warnings, no word filter nothing at all.

The other day, a guy, who is well known now in the forum members as troll, opened a new topic with the provocative tittle "All leftists are idiots and stupid".

What it followed, against his expectations, was a very polite and civilized discussion about political and philosophical things. In the end the troll-member asked if for gods shake is any kind of moderation in this forum, to ban those who extended his topic in such philosophical way..(you see they totally "ruined" his discussion or what he expected from this discussion )

20.000 members in this forum and only 3 identified as trolls. Two of them with political obsessions ( one far left and one far right who usually fight in their own threads and nobody bothers them) and one totally stupid and rather insane that now has the role of the clown in the site and people like him because nobody takes seriously his posts and don't bother to reply seriously to him.

We don't ban trolls because then will come back and we will not know who is who. We keep their accounts active and we know what to expect from their posts.. Simpler.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I've posted again in this discussion. For me the ultimate example of quite and peaceful forum is a Greek one, ( same subject is about cycling) were there is no moderation at all. The only thing that moderators do is to delete unwanted spam messages, like ads etc.

No bans, no warnings, no word filter nothing at all.

The other day, a guy, who is well known now in the forum members as troll, opened a new topic with the provocative tittle "All leftists are idiots and stupid".

What it followed, against his expectations, was a very polite and civilized discussion about political and philosophical things. In the end the troll-member asked if for gods shake is any kind of moderation in this forum, to ban those who extended his topic in such philosophical way..(you see they totally "ruined" his discussion or what he expected from this discussion )

20.000 members in this forum and only 3 identified as trolls. Two of them with political obsessions ( one far left and one far right who usually fight in their own threads and nobody bothers them) and one totally stupid and rather insane that now has the role of the clown in the site and people like him because nobody takes seriously his posts and don't bother to reply seriously to him.

We don't ban trolls because then will come back and we will not know who is who. We keep their accounts active and we know what to expect from their posts.. Simpler.

See, Greeks are Mediterranean People so they are cool and will not respond to trolls, doesnt happen like that here

 

[alitogata]

See, Greeks are Mediterranean People so they are cool and will not respond to trolls, doesnt happen like that here

Quite the opposite I'll say. Hot tempered and ill mannered for what concerns internet things. But the rules and moderation thing didn't work so we've tried the other way round and worked. The first month was a little bit chaotic but then the forum moderated itself.

Now the few trolls that we have are asking for moderation, or desperately someone to ban them. We know who is who, and double accounts are usually very obvious to be hidden for long time. If we find one we asked them politely which account they want to keep.

We even have people from other countries who write in half Greek, ( they try their language skills ) as well. We accept English speaking people too. There is always someone to reply to them because lot of people speak English. But not many as they can't read the Greek speaking discussions.

To conclude if something doesn't bring results is better to try something different.

And it is a pitty to have such a nice and big forum here and ruin it with bans to people that for sure, ( if we leave out the disagreements thing) have a lot to contribute to the discussions.

Just an idea. Personally I don't mess with moderation and I don't read the "hot" topics and one of the reasons is that these topics are huge and I'm bored to read them from the beginning in order to get in the discussions. I prefer new topics or those who are "readable" in order to avoid to post off topic things.

 

[Eshnar]

All this self-moderation stuff is cool until someone realizes that it makes thin-skinned people run away.

 

[Telmisartan new]

I have no problem with TANK91's one week ban.

Firstly,its exactly that,a one week ban.Secondly as has been pointed out by the mods,it was for numerous reasons,flaming,baiting and leading other posters into clinic territory in the PRR section and thirdly and to my mind most importantly,if you open your reply to another poster with an insult or sly dig (as he had been doing all week) then the conversation goes rapidly downhill,plus its totally unnecessary to show such a blatant lack of respect to other cycling fans (against the very ethos of our sport i would argue, as cheesy as that sounds) and against ANY forum rules whether it be this forum or any other online forum.

Civility costs nothing. If he comes back with some manners he'll be welcomed with open arms,even by me who he has on ignore.

 

[Havetts]

Why is sniper still banned and why is there no mention of it in the Suspension thread. I miss him.

 

[Eshnar]

Why is sniper still banned and why is there no mention of it in the Suspension thread. I miss him.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1213249&postcount=626

 

[alitogata]

All this self-moderation stuff is cool until someone realizes that it makes thin-skinned people run away.

When the opposite makes thick-skinned people coming back with a different nickname. So I guess that thin-skinned people have no chances either way..

Anyway.. I just said what I thought while I was reading this thread. Thank you for reading these thoughts of mine.

 

[Eshnar]

When the opposite makes thick-skinned people coming back with a different nickname. So I guess that thin-skinned people have no chances either way..

Anyway.. I just said what I thought while I was reading this thread. Thank you for reading these thoughts of mine.

thick skinned people coming back will just get re-banned by us. That's part of our job. otoh, if thin skinned users leave it won't be as good for the forum. At least for this type of forum. I don't doubt that forum you mentioned is cool and all that, but the concept behind this one is different.

 

[BroDeal]

A forum held hostage to the delicacies of pantywaists ends up being an uninteresting forum.

 

[Eshnar]

A forum held hostage to the delicacies of pantywaists ends up being an uninteresting forum.

The same applies for the opposite. Balance is the key

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1213249&postcount=626

Can you point me where in the forumrules having a sockpuppet while being banned will lead to a permban?

It actually says:

10. Re-registering after a ban under a new name will result in a potential lifetime ban.

I highlighted the important part of course.

A three month ban looks sufficient to me or is sockpuppeting as bad as threatening/insulting people per PM?

 

[Netserk]

Can you point me where in the forumrules having a sockpuppet while being banned will lead to a permban?

It actually says:

I highlighted the important part of course.

A three month ban looks sufficient to me or is sockpuppeting as bad as threatening/insulting people per PM?

If sniper wants to come back, he can simply e-mail Susan and argue why he should be allowed to.

"Permanent" bans don't have to be that way. If it is clear that one is willing to change their behaviour and address the reasons for the initial ban then on review, a permanent ban may only end up being a few months.

The problem is that in most cases the response is to spam accounts. Often the reason for permabanning in the first place is because of account creation to avoid a temporary suspension. A ban is never going to be overturned without a sustained period of abstinence.