Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[mewmewmew13]

You need to know the history to understand. Thehog and RR basically had the same act for years. They were like brothers. They were two anti Armstrong trolls whose main hobby in life was to get around the mod teams on cycling forums to spread vague rumors and gossip and pretend to have the inside line on all things Armstrong. They worked together, sharing PMs and coordinating rumors and sock accounts. They had the same style, always teasing without being specific. Nobody can quite remember anything either of them said coming true, apart from obvious big truth that Armstrong was doping, which everyone in the sport knew anyway. But somehow RR managed to get 20k followers on twitter out of this act, and thanks to this got to finally meet the very cycling celebs he used to hint he knew. Thehog, on the other hand, never made it out of forum obscurity. Thehog must ask himself everyday what the hell happened? How could two people so similar have such different fortunes? Their relationship now is like Landis and Lance before Lance got busted. One believes the other is living a lie and doesn't deserve to be where they are today. Thehog believes RR would still be working the rumor mill on the forums about the likes of team sky, just as he is, had RR not met his new friends and got all serious, and lets face it, thehog is probably right about that. There is going to be no easy fix to this relationship.

prime real estate right here…

 

[Race Radio]

You need to know the history to understand. Thehog and RR basically had the same act for years. They were like brothers. They were two anti Armstrong trolls whose main hobby in life was to get around the mod teams on cycling forums to spread vague rumors and gossip and pretend to have the inside line on all things Armstrong. They worked together, sharing PMs and coordinating rumors and sock accounts. They had the same style, always teasing without being specific. Nobody can quite remember anything either of them said coming true, apart from obvious big truth that Armstrong was doping, which everyone in the sport knew anyway. But somehow RR managed to get 20k followers on twitter out of this act, and thanks to this got to finally meet the very cycling celebs he used to hint he knew. Thehog, on the other hand, never made it out of forum obscurity. Thehog must ask himself everyday what the hell happened? How could two people so similar have such different fortunes? Their relationship now is like Landis and Lance before Lance got busted. One believes the other is living a lie and doesn't deserve to be where they are today. Thehog believes RR would still be working the rumor mill on the forums about the likes of team sky, just as he is, had RR not met his new friends and got all serious, and lets face it, thehog is probably right about that. There is going to be no easy fix to this relationship.

Ha.....Only partly true. The only people I have met via Twitter are a tall guy named Jeff and a lawyer named Travis. Every Wednesday we play poker, drink whiskey, and consume what ever fun stuff Jeff can found in the DEA evidence room

 

[BroDeal]

That is good work.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That is good work.

Its like 2009 again. Fun times.

 

[Granville57]

Its like 2009 again. Fun times.

It's like groundhog day.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's like groundhog day.

Its like 2009 again. Fun times.

 

[mewmewmew13]

That is good work.

remember Polish?
"we're gonna party like its 1999"

 

[MarkvW]

remember Polish?
"we're gonna party like its 1999"

Just looked him up on Twitter. About a week ago, he's trolling Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking. Something seriously wrong with that person.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Just looked him up on Twitter. Right now, he's trolling Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking. Something seriously wrong with that person.

Stephen Hawking ???

 

[MarkvW]

Stephen Hawking ???

Here:


Neil deGrasse Tyson ‏@neiltyson Feb 2

My Super Bowl tweets are ready to bust forth. But I’m trying to wait until the game begins.


Gus Bici ‏@PPolish Feb 2

@neiltyson Stephen Hawking says the game is not Super after all. Not really a Bowl either.

He does regular battle with Richard Dawkins, too.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Here:


Neil deGrasse Tyson ‏@neiltyson Feb 2

My Super Bowl tweets are ready to bust forth. But I’m trying to wait until the game begins.


Gus Bici ‏@PPolish Feb 2

@neiltyson Stephen Hawking says the game is not Super after all. Not really a Bowl either.

He does regular battle with Richard Dawkins, too.

oh gohd..how does he survive

 

[hiero2]

AFAIK this only resulted in an infraction:

Netserk didn't ban him. He wasn't even a mod anymore by the time that post was made.

No, but you go on ignore now.

Wow, the place has gotten entertaining all of a sudden. Jimmie Fingers, thehog, Jackie Treehorn, RR, zam, amsterhammer, all getting bans.

More controversy over Netserk, Jimmie Fingers, Berzin, Parrulo, and many more over a few well-deservered eph yu's.

I agree.

a whole lot of 'self-righteous' going on here and immature posturing

You need to know the history to understand. Thehog and RR basically had the same act for years. They were like brothers. They were two anti Armstrong trolls whose main hobby in life was to get around the mod teams on cycling forums to spread vague rumors and gossip and pretend to have the inside line on all things Armstrong. They worked together, sharing PMs and coordinating rumors and sock accounts. They had the same style, always teasing without being specific. Nobody can quite remember anything either of them said coming true, apart from obvious big truth that Armstrong was doping, which everyone in the sport knew anyway. But somehow RR managed to get 20k followers on twitter out of this act, and thanks to this got to finally meet the very cycling celebs he used to hint he knew. Thehog, on the other hand, never made it out of forum obscurity. Thehog must ask himself everyday what the hell happened? How could two people so similar have such different fortunes? Their relationship now is like Landis and Lance before Lance got busted. One believes the other is living a lie and doesn't deserve to be where they are today. Thehog believes RR would still be working the rumor mill on the forums about the likes of team sky, just as he is, had RR not met his new friends and got all serious, and lets face it, thehog is probably right about that. There is going to be no easy fix to this relationship.

And, maybe some insight. At least some partial insight. Mew, etc, I don't agree about Nets deserving the Jimmy Finger reaction - that was over the top - but I sure agree that there is a lot of immaturity around here. MarkVW, you should be apologizing to Nets for an overreaction on your part. Amsterhammer, much as I respect him, is I agree, over the top when it comes to certain issues/posters. If he didn't deserve a message to "cool it" for this offence, he has earned it in the past.

You know what is most interesting to me? One of the things I said before I left the mod squad was that a lot of regulars needed some serious manners lessons. Just about every regular who has called another poster a troll is also guilty of trolling. And everyone of them says, "Oh, I'm not guilty, I never do THAT!" Plumb amazing. Ironically -the prime name slapdown has happened even without me.

On the other hand, I also said that the mod squad needs some new blood. There are still a couple of mods who do not know how to be moderate. Just not in their blood, and you only need one bad apple to taint the barrel. Just my opinion, of course. You have "no manners" trying to teach "manners". Wow. Which means I also find myself in agreement with AmsterH, etc.

And, on top of that, we get Edward of Munchkinland? Ah, no, sorry, Woodstock. Interesting post. I actually think it could probably have stayed in the Mods thread - since it has a direct bearing on a lot of moderation. Assuming there is some truth to it, which I think there is. Some. Troll hall of fame material? Idk, about that. Sure, there is some exaggeration - but Troll Hall of Fame quality? Nah, I don't think so. But, my voice is not legion.

Cheers all, glad to see everybody having fun. Just remember, your fun is somebody else's troll!

 

[Granville57]

I actually think it could probably have stayed in the Mods thread - since it has a direct bearing on a lot of moderation. Assuming there is some truth to it, which I think there is.

I see you haven't lost your sense of humor.

Good man.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I see, Parrulo, so I have young master sh!t stirrer here above to thank for stimulating you into your ridiculously over-the-top reaction to my 'offense'.



Yes, it might have become you to find out what the context was, before hitting me with a ban longer than the vast majority of persistent, repeat offender trolls have ever received for far worse infractions. Three days or a week would have been far more appropriate for a first offense, if any ban at all. Your sad, disgraceful over-reaction, egged on by the creature quoted above, is just one fine example of the downward slope this forum has been on for some time. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself, both for not investigating and taking the context and circumstances into account, for not speaking with me privately, and for the length of the ban.

And please, don't any of you mods ever privately ask me for advice again.

been out of the loop for a while but very suprised and disapointed to see you received a ban.

this place is upside down in my opinon.

I will try to send ya a PM "amster" maybe tomorrow sometime. Hope all is well with ya.

Anyone know what happened with ChrisE? I see he is banned but no notice in the suspension thread. Did he make the DR mad or something?

 

[BroDeal]

Just about every regular who has called another poster a troll is also guilty of trolling. And everyone of them says, "Oh, I'm not guilty, I never do THAT!" Plumb amazing. Ironically -the prime name slapdown has happened even without me.

The problem with the new mods is a lack of understanding of what trolling is. The acid test is not whether someone lobs a bomb occasionally into a thread. That type of post keeps the place lively and often elicits interesting responses. The acid test is whether it is persistently disruptive or not. BPC would not simply post distortions. He would post distortions then doggedly post followup after follow up until the thread was not worth reading.

A muckraker is not necessarily a troll.

 

[hiero2]

The problem with the new mods is a lack of understanding of what trolling is. The acid test is not whether someone lobs a bomb occasionally into a thread. That type of post keeps the place lively and often elicits interesting responses. The acid test is whether it is persistently disruptive or not. BPC would not simply post distortions. He would post distortions then doggedly post followup after follow up until the thread was not worth reading.

A muckraker is not necessarily a troll.

Bro, that is perhaps the single most beautiful post of yours, ever. It at least deserves to be in the running for that honor. Well said. "Persistently disruptive" - with, perhaps, malice aforethought. One of the first things I had to do as a mod was to go back and DEFINE what a troll was. And, when they should be banned or moderated.

And, because of this, I like your words - "Persistently disruptive" - but the only thing I would add to that is malice. Harm, to the forum, the thread, or another poster, must be intended or implied. The type of harm that you attribute to BPC is harm to the thread, and thus, 2ndarily, to the forums.

However, even as beautifully clear as I believe your statement is, it still gets down to an objective opinion of "What IS persistently disruptive?" I've seen everyone I mentioned, plus yourself, engage in behavior that another poster would call persistently disruptive. Therein lies the rub.

The key to good moderation is having mods the forum members respect. The key to having, or earning, that respect, is either proven expert value (Examples: Lennard Zinn, Frankie Andreu), or a known reputation for a moderate opinion with which one finds some level of reason or commonality with sufficient frequency that one feels they are predictable in a positive fashion. Trying to put that in a few words, the reader thinks the mod's decisions USUALLY make sense. They develop trust.

Which also means, being able to draw the line on "persistently disruptive", in a way the most people (readers) find reasonable and that they can agree with. Am I right?

Because trust works both ways. Whilst I agree that a more successful team strategy could be found, I also find that many members are, if not abusing, then taking advantage of all the excitement to throw their own effluence into the ring. (That will get past the word censor, ha!)

I sincerely believe all of our mod squad wants to do a good job. Just as I believe all the regular posters throwing their own ____ around want a good forum. I think we have a couple of people, on both sides, who consistently make bad choices, and I think there is a lack of team leadership. I don't think either is intentional - it just is. I sometimes wonder if the ones who consistently make boo-boos are posting those when drunk. It might then make sense.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Bro, that is perhaps the single most beautiful post of yours, ever. It at least deserves to be in the running for that honor. Well said. "Persistently disruptive" - with, perhaps, malice aforethought. One of the first things I had to do as a mod was to go back and DEFINE what a troll was. And, when they should be banned or moderated.

And, because of this, I like your words - "Persistently disruptive" - but the only thing I would add to that is malice. Harm, to the forum, the thread, or another poster, must be intended or implied. The type of harm that you attribute to BPC is harm to the thread, and thus, 2ndarily, to the forums.

However, even as beautifully clear as I believe your statement is, it still gets down to an objective opinion of "What IS persistently disruptive?" I've seen everyone I mentioned, plus yourself, engage in behavior that another poster would call persistently disruptive. Therein lies the rub.

The key to good moderation is having mods the forum members respect. The key to having, or earning, that respect, is either proven expert value (Examples: Lennard Zinn, Frankie Andreu), or a known reputation for a moderate opinion with which one finds some level of reason or commonality with sufficient frequency that one feels they are predictable in a positive fashion. Trying to put that in a few words, the reader thinks the mod's decisions USUALLY make sense. They develop trust.

Which also means, being able to draw the line on "persistently disruptive", in a way the most people (readers) find reasonable and that they can agree with. Am I right?

Because trust works both ways. Whilst I agree that a more successful team strategy could be found, I also find that many members are, if not abusing, then taking advantage of all the excitement to throw their own effluence into the ring. (That will get past the word censor, ha!)

I sincerely believe all of our mod squad wants to do a good job. Just as I believe all the regular posters throwing their own ____ around want a good forum. I think we have a couple of people, on both sides, who consistently make bad choices, and I think there is a lack of team leadership. I don't think either is intentional - it just is. I sometimes wonder if the ones who consistently make boo-boos are posting those when drunk. It might then make sense.

Another great post Hiero.

Trolling is a generic catchall term for, well trolling.
Now, have I ever trolled? "I'll say no"
In other words, of course I have.

But I can also say it is my preference not to do so. And also, many other people who have trolled will have done so also regret their behaviour.

You mentioned the word malice and you have pretty much read my mind.
I would phrase is as 'intent'. By that is someone posting to be deliberately disruptive, rude, or to influence opinion or make it unreadable.
Quite frankly - this forum would be easy to troll (particularly now) if that was my intent.

 

[Granville57]

"What IS persistently disruptive?"

You asked
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=6412

 

[Hugh Januss]

Anyone know what happened with ChrisE? I see he is banned but no notice in the suspension thread. Did he make the DR mad or something?

That is a really good question, I was wondering that as well. He came and made like 3 posts none of which have been removed and then was banned, no explanation, no nothing.
It's almost like some of the mods don't care how much they seem to suck.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You asked
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=6412

Ah, the good old days, when men were men, and trolls roamed the earth.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Good first post. Welcome to the forum.

Thank you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thank you.

Good post, Hog.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Good post, Hog.

Thank you. I see you found out about how I get around another (30th? 40th? Damn, I lost count) ban. But keep it to yourself, OK?

 

[sittingbison]

The problem with the new mods is a lack of understanding of what trolling is. The acid test is not whether someone lobs a bomb occasionally into a thread. That type of post keeps the place lively and often elicits interesting responses. The acid test is whether it is persistently disruptive or not. BPC would not simply post distortions. He would post distortions then doggedly post followup after follow up until the thread was not worth reading.

A muckraker is not necessarily a troll.

If you don't mind BroDeal I'll copy this post into the manifesto thread

cheers
bison

 

[patricknd]

That is a really good question, I was wondering that as well. He came and made like 3 posts none of which have been removed and then was banned, no explanation, no nothing.
It's almost like some of the mods don't care how much they seem to suck.

that's pretty obvious