Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[ebandit]

truth and reconciliation

gone

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

I received a PM from a mod stating that they gave ChrisE a weeks ban, because of their posts to me.

If your point is that C's ban should have been posted in the suspension thread, then I would agree.

But the mod intervention was welcomed by me - I didn't ask for it, or indeed expect it and didn't even know they were banned until the PM, I had assumed they had gone away.

I have a strong suspicion that some mods look at exchanges and think, - they deserve it; or they can defend themselves. Which IMO is wrong, everyone should be protected the same, and there should be no special treatment either, regardless of view or post history.

 

[patricknd]

I received a PM from a mod stating that they gave ChrisE a weeks ban, because of their posts to me.

If your point is that C's ban should have been posted in the suspension thread, then I would agree.

But the mod intervention was welcomed by me - I didn't ask for it, or indeed expect it and didn't even know they were banned until the PM, I had assumed they had gone away.

I have a strong suspicion that some mods look at exchanges and think, - they deserve it; or they can defend themselves. Which IMO is wrong, everyone should be protected the same, and there should be no special treatment either, regardless of view or post history.

if he was banned for the posts that are still up, I don't see what was so horrible to warrant a ban. I agree about no special treatment, everyone should be afforded the same protections. but that goes both ways, there shouldn't be special treatment for what is a banning offense either, no matter who is posting. unless something was deleted, we've all seen much worse than that exchange.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

if he was banned for the posts that are still up, I don't see what was so horrible to warrant a ban.

A ban may be somewhat extreme - but it certainly warranted a mod intervention.

And, I will be honest here - I actually think what ChrisE engaged in is one of the lowest tactics one can do on a forum.
If you think someone is lying, show the lie - trolling, show the troll.
No-one can defend themselves against that kind of attack. Actually no, there is indeed a way people defend themselves - but it is not pretty.

I agree about no special treatment, everyone should be afforded the same protections. but that goes both ways, there shouldn't be special treatment for what is a banning offense either, no matter who is posting. unless something was deleted, we've all seen much worse than that exchange.

Thats certainly true - but its a separate issue about consistency.
Which is what I would prefer and indeed applaud if they applied it evenly.

 

[the sceptic]

So, admittedly the whole argument you put forth for pages and pages a few years ago was BS. If it wasn't on the front page of Le Monde, then it didn't happen.

Welcome to reality.

No, just knowing your arrogance ****s with your consistency is enough for me. Your BS is the fact that you take the opposite opinion now that you took back then in terms of the depth of UCI tendency to protect its image, by various means. You know what I am talking about, and you remember the thread. For that reason I don't care to go back and dig up stuff from 2011 for the forum to see, because you and I know the score.

I have no idea, nor do I care who is right or wrong, but getting banned for this is pretty pathetic by the mods. Guessing it was sittingbison being an terrible mod again.

Could the mods perhaps make a list of which posters you will get automatically banned for disagreeing with?

 

[patricknd]

A ban may be somewhat extreme - but it certainly warranted a mod intervention.

And, I will be honest here - I actually think what ChrisE engaged in is one of the lowest tactics one can do on a forum.
If you think someone is lying, show the lie - trolling, show the troll.
No-one can defend themselves against that kind of attack. Actually no, there is indeed a way people defend themselves - but it is not pretty.



Thats certainly true - but its a separate issue about consistency.
Which is what I would prefer and indeed applaud if they applied it evenly.

I think consistency problems are the root of a lot of the complaints members seem to have with some of the mods. judicious deletion of offending posts versus 1 month bans would probably be a good idea as well.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have no idea, nor do I care who is right or wrong, but getting banned for this is pretty pathetic by the mods. Guessing it was sittingbison being an terrible mod again.

Could the mods perhaps make a list of which posters you will get automatically banned for disagreeing with?

Of course you don't agree with it.
You are another clueless follower of TheHog without an original thought. You appear to be a sock puppet and its very obvious you are an ex Armstrong supporter who now see's doping everywhere, its probably also why you railed against Walsh so hard because he hit the nail on the head about how the mob turned.
And no, I have no intention of going through your stupid posting history to link to it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think consistency problems are the root of a lot of the complaints members seem to have with some of the mods. judicious deletion of offending posts versus 1 month bans would probably be a good idea as well.

ChrisEs ban is for a week, which actually didn't seem that long, but of course that because the 1 month bans are becoming the norm.

Yip - the one month bans amuse me. There really are few reasons for such excess. Most posters have an occasional meltdown, usually through frustration or getting 'trolled' which could be easily calmed through a mod intervention, no need to ban, just a gentle reminder to cool things down.

Then when the mods do arrive, and find a fire raging they have a meltdown and show their frustration in an appropriate ban.

 

[the sceptic]

Of course you don't agree with it.
You are another clueless follower of TheHog without an original thought. You appear to be a sock puppet and its very obvious you are an ex Armstrong supporter who now see's doping everywhere, its probably also why you railed against Walsh so hard because he hit the nail on the head about how the mob turned.
And no, I have no intention of going through your stupid posting history to link to it.

Yes, everyone that disagrees with you, RR or Walsh, aka the holy trinity must be either clueless or a sockpuppet. (you forgot troll by the way)

Im not interested in going into a vortex ITT about what nails Walsh has hit and missed lately nor whether Im an Armstrong fanboy or not, I just wanted to jump in and say that the over-moderation is getting out of hand.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, everyone that disagrees with you, RR or Walsh, aka the holy trinity must be either clueless or a sockpuppet. (you forgot troll by the way)

Im not interested in going into a vortex ITT about what nails Walsh has hit and missed lately nor whether Im an Armstrong fanboy or not, I just wanted to jump in and say that the over-moderation is getting out of hand.

Nom nom nom.

I did write that in haste, and I actually thought the Walsh reference was a bit too obvious.
The best bit is that you didn't deny being a LA 'fanboy' - of course I do not believe it to be true - but its pretty hard to defend against when I just throw it out there without attribution. Its muck, but it stuck.

 

[MarkvW]

Of course you don't agree with it.
You are another clueless follower of TheHog without an original thought. You appear to be a sock puppet and its very obvious you are an ex Armstrong supporter who now see's doping everywhere, its probably also why you railed against Walsh so hard because he hit the nail on the head about how the mob turned.
And no, I have no intention of going through your stupid posting history to link to it.

You attack a poster for "see[ing] doping everywhere." You insult that poster as "clueless", or a "sock puppet," or an "ex-Armstrong supporter."

DiLuca estimates 90% of the peloton is doping. I cited an expert recently who estimated 60% (And no, I have no intention of going through my . . . posting history to link to it.).

Posters who "see doping everywhere" have a rational basis for their opinion. Those who insult them are on the wrong side of history.

 

[pmcg76]

You attack a poster for "see[ing] doping everywhere." You insult that poster as "clueless", or a "sock puppet," or an "ex-Armstrong supporter."

DiLuca estimates 90% of the peloton is doping. I cited an expert recently who estimated 60% (And no, I have no intention of going through my . . . posting history to link to it.).

Posters who "see doping everywhere" have a rational basis for their opinion. Those who insult them are on the wrong side of history.

Anyone who puts Di Luca forward as evidence of anything is indeed clueless.

You put forward history as justification for believeing that doping is sill total but surely history has taught us that things change, time's change, what was normal 10 years ago may not be the norm now. Saying something was like this before and that there is no possibility of change is more or less ignoring history. You might believe that things have not changed but to just rule out even the possibility of change as many do here is indeed idiotic.

What is funny is that Dr.Mas description of the Sceptic applies to you perfectly, I remember back in the day when you were defending Armstrong with the worst of them and now you have just jumped to an entirely different point of view as if it is the only way you can reconcile Armstrong breaking your heart.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You attack a poster for "see[ing] doping everywhere." You insult that poster as "clueless", or a "sock puppet," or an "ex-Armstrong supporter."

DiLuca estimates 90% of the peloton is doping. I cited an expert recently who estimated 60% (And no, I have no intention of going through my . . . posting history to link to it.).

Posters who "see doping everywhere" have a rational basis for their opinion. Those who insult them are on the wrong side of history.

I must be better at this than I thought.

It is quite tempting to continue this OT discussion by using people who are currently involved in the sport to counteract it.
Obviously I would use Walsh, that worked well on Sceptic, but then I would include JV, it always works well and would draw in more posters.
The best bit is I could sit back and watch as the mods eventually arrive and ban the last few posters.

Just in case you are in any doubt.
I trolled Sceptic with commonly used phrases and tactics. Essentially the same ones that he did not see as worthy of a ban.
I intentionally made it personal with them by using "you", and instead of using something that would be reported like '***' I went slightly more subtle by dismissing all their posts as "stupid".

 

[MarkvW]

I must be better at this than I thought.

It is quite tempting to continue this OT discussion by using people who are currently involved in the sport to counteract it.
Obviously I would use Walsh, that worked well on Sceptic, but then I would include JV, it always works well and would draw in more posters.
The best bit is I could sit back and watch as the mods eventually arrive and ban the last few posters.

Just in case you are in any doubt.
I trolled Sceptic with commonly used phrases and tactics. Essentially the same ones that he did not see as worthy of a ban.
I intentionally made it personal with them by using "you", and instead of using something that would be reported like '***' I went slightly more subtle by dismissing all their posts as "stupid".

No. You insulted another poster. I responded, rather than reporting your BS.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course you don't agree with it.
You are another clueless follower of TheHog without an original thought. You appear to be a sock puppet and its very obvious you are an ex Armstrong supporter who now see's doping everywhere, its probably also why you railed against Walsh so hard because he hit the nail on the head about how the mob turned.
And no, I have no intention of going through your stupid posting history to link to it.

Good post Dr. Maserati.

Just in case anyone is any doubt - this is what I went for with the post:
Of course you don't agree with it. - Started out strong, made it personal with "you" as well as passively aggressively dismissing them.
You are another clueless follower of TheHog without an original thought. - For this line alone I deserve some type of award: Deliberate use of "you", but I also get to call Sceptic, TheHog and his followers as 'clueless' and 'without an original thought'.
You appear to be a sock puppet and its very obvious you are an ex Armstrong supporter who now see's doping everywhere, - All this would be irrelevant if true - which of course its not. I made up something, then I put you in a 'group' (LA supporter, ha) and then deliberately distorted your position on doping.
its probably also why you railed against Walsh so hard because he hit the nail on the head about how the mob turned - I knew mentioning Walsh would get you. It is such a tasty bait that you don't even realise that it is also totally irrelevant.
And no, I have no intention of going through your stupid posting history to link to it - This I am especially pleased with. Firstly, again, I dismiss all your posts as stupid. And then I anticipate your reaction and have it already countered that I have no intention of backing up any of the BS I made up.

 

[Scott SoCal]

I received a PM from a mod stating that they gave ChrisE a weeks ban, because of their posts to me.

If your point is that C's ban should have been posted in the suspension thread, then I would agree.

But the mod intervention was welcomed by me - I didn't ask for it, or indeed expect it and didn't even know they were banned until the PM, I had assumed they had gone away.

I have a strong suspicion that some mods look at exchanges and think, - they deserve it; or they can defend themselves. Which IMO is wrong, everyone should be protected the same, and there should be no special treatment either, regardless of view or post history.

.............

 

[Scott SoCal]

Good post Dr. Maserati.

Just in case anyone is any doubt - this is what I went for with the post:
Of course you don't agree with it. - Started out strong, made it personal with "you" as well as passively aggressively dismissing them.
You are another clueless follower of TheHog without an original thought. - For this line alone I deserve some type of award: Deliberate use of "you", but I also get to call Sceptic, TheHog and his followers as 'clueless' and 'without an original thought'.
You appear to be a sock puppet and its very obvious you are an ex Armstrong supporter who now see's doping everywhere, - All this would be irrelevant if true - which of course its not. I made up something, then I put you in a 'group' (LA supporter, ha) and then deliberately distorted your position on doping.
its probably also why you railed against Walsh so hard because he hit the nail on the head about how the mob turned - I knew mentioning Walsh would get you. It is such a tasty bait that you don't even realise that it is also totally irrelevant.
And no, I have no intention of going through your stupid posting history to link to it - This I am especially pleased with. Firstly, again, I dismiss all your posts as stupid. And then I anticipate your reaction and have it already countered that I have no intention of backing up any of the BS I made up.

Comedy Gold.

Well done.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.............

They:

(used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she )

 

[Scott SoCal]

They:

(used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she )

Yep. Got it.

 

[BYOP88]

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.

Awesome post!

Please don't post again! Your post was like a guy hitting a grand slam in his 1st Major League at bat and anything after that is just going to ruin the legend.

 

[the sceptic]

Good post Dr. Maserati.

Just in case anyone is any doubt - this is what I went for with the post:
Of course you don't agree with it. - Started out strong, made it personal with "you" as well as passively aggressively dismissing them.
You are another clueless follower of TheHog without an original thought. - For this line alone I deserve some type of award: Deliberate use of "you", but I also get to call Sceptic, TheHog and his followers as 'clueless' and 'without an original thought'.
You appear to be a sock puppet and its very obvious you are an ex Armstrong supporter who now see's doping everywhere, - All this would be irrelevant if true - which of course its not. I made up something, then I put you in a 'group' (LA supporter, ha) and then deliberately distorted your position on doping.
its probably also why you railed against Walsh so hard because he hit the nail on the head about how the mob turned - I knew mentioning Walsh would get you. It is such a tasty bait that you don't even realise that it is also totally irrelevant.
And no, I have no intention of going through your stupid posting history to link to it - This I am especially pleased with. Firstly, again, I dismiss all your posts as stupid. And then I anticipate your reaction and have it already countered that I have no intention of backing up any of the BS I made up.

Well trolled doc. I admit I fell for it, and almost launched into a long essay to defend myself.

I got your point now that those posts are annoying and pointless and do nothing for the overall quality of the forum.

I dont disagree with that, however, there should also be some room for harmless trolling and some banter (yes I know, I know, how do you define that etc)

Either way, your post, and chrisE and whoever else has made a post like that were pretty harmless in the grand scheme of things, and I certainly dont think they deserve to get banned for any significant amount of time. Delete the post, tell whoever did it that the post is not acceptable. At worst give them a 1 day ban.

That would be my policy for what little thats worth.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well trolled doc. I admit I fell for it, and almost launched into a long essay to defend myself.

Hey, I apologize unreservedly.

I really thought i had over laced it with the LA comment, and I must admit I laughed at the highlighted, that would have been so good.

I got your point now that those posts are annoying and pointless and do nothing for the overall quality of the forum.

I dont disagree with that, however, there should also be some room for harmless trolling and some banter (yes I know, I know, how do you define that etc)

Either way, your post, and chrisE and whoever else has made a post like that were pretty harmless in the grand scheme of things, and I certainly dont think they deserve to get banned for any significant amount of time. Delete the post, tell whoever did it that the post is not acceptable. At worst give them a 1 day ban.

That would be my policy for what little thats worth.

Thats a great question - and one which *whisper it* the mod team struggle to resolve also.
My view - if the personal comments are left out it takes the heat out of it.
Personal also means referring to groups as Skybots, groupies (which I really wanted to use earlier), fanboys etc - even if its obvious in your opinion they are. Just because you are a fanboy, doesnt mean you are wrong, but that is often the implication.

That does not mean you cannot jibe or joke with someone - it just means you have to be more inventive.

As for ChrisE, a warning would be enough. And even theHogs ban is too long. But there is a real dilemma for Mods when someone ignores repeated warnings.

 

[hiero2]

. . .
I have a strong suspicion that some mods look at exchanges and think, - they deserve it; or they can defend themselves. Which IMO is wrong, everyone should be protected the same, and there should be no special treatment either, regardless of view or post history.

Just a quick particular here. I want to ask a Socratic question here: let us say a new poster joins the forum. Due to posting style, they are thought by some denizens to be a sockpuppet - the word gets out - and the attacks on the poster begin. Now, I, then a mod, could see that the likelihood of sockpuppetry was quite minimal - no evidence. The new poster demonstrates a convincing lack of knowledge of what a sock puppet even is. Now - you are saying I should respond in the same manner as if such sockpuppetry attacks were made against an experienced forum writer, like yourself?

Or - here is another one. Some people honestly believe the whole Lance Armstrong thing was blown out of proportion - and they have their arguments and convictions. But when they express that, many regulars here respond in a rabid, over-the-top fashion. Do they not deserve, as do the Lance haters, the opportunity to post as well? Yet, to get that, they need mod protection. To do otherwise would be to witness that which de Tocqueville feared: "the tyranny of the masses", yes?

 

[del1962]

Snipped for brevity ...
To do otherwise would be to witness that which de Tocqueville feared: "the tyranny of the masses", yes?

I love that phrase, hunting in packs

 

[hiero2]

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

cheers
bison

SB: good idea. I concur.