Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[hiero2]

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.
. . .

Yup, trolling is actually easy to define. It is quite simply a post aimed to get a response, to hook the other party, usually emotionally. The hard part is defining when to mod it.

And thanks for the compliment!.

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

Ah, yes, the days that the Greats write about. Names like Heinlein, Norton, and Stan Lee come immediately to mind. Louis L'Amour, now there was a good one. Piers Anthony, Mark Twain - the list is endless!

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".

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.

In response, I just quote:

. . .

A muckraker is not necessarily a troll.

Must be a heaven for muckrakers somewhere!

Cheers all!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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?

Oh this is real simple.

I can never get over the mods obsession with sock puppets and or banned users. Particularly when the mods themselves smack someone with an extended ban.
I have also said banning BPC for life was wrong. Its not modding when you hit someone with a lifer.
The Papp thing could have been resolved quickly if RR just said he thought JP was a sock puppet.


To be clear - no-one should be able to publicly call another a sock puppet, no ifs or buts.
However, the mods encourage it.

New members should be encouraged, mod what they do, not who you think they are.

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?

Again - no-one should be 'attacked' for having an opinion, regardless of what it is.
We have seen it here before, even the most innocuous thread can have very strong opinions. Good. When people have strong views they will robustly demonstrate it. Again good.
A mod should not judge who is correct or incorrect, the members/lurkers will do that - what any discussion should be is civil. Thats it.

 

[the sceptic]

I assumed the mods did and IP check on the guy that got nuked in the armstrong thread a while ago and found out he was some formerly banned poster.

 

[ebandit]

water under the bridge

some time ago I was incorrectly permabanned for being a returning banned member

many in the clinic had tagged me 'sockpuppet'

+ I had inadvertently ticked a privacy box in my browser so had IP address similar to another

now that took much effort to resolve

Mark L

 

[sittingbison]

....And even theHogs ban is too long. But there is a real dilemma for Mods when someone ignores repeated warnings.

thehog wasn't banned for ignoring repeated warnings.

thehog was banned for going back on promises, commitments s/he made to both Dan and myself more than three times over an extended period.

thehog was under no illusion, it was spelt out very clearly that it was a final opportunity to avoid a ban, and what would transpire if s/he broke said commitment again.

thehog broke said commitment within hours.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

some time ago I was incorrectly permabanned for being a returning banned member

many in the clinic had tagged me 'sockpuppet'

+ I had inadvertently ticked a privacy box in my browser so had IP address similar to another

now that took much effort to resolve

Mark L

Is it true that you had to go all the way to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sockpuppetry)?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

no doubt!

Someone must have went back and done some reading on this forum and others to know so much "history".

 

[sittingbison]

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...

I might be a terrible mod.

I do however post notifications, and explain my actions and opinions when possible.

I also do work behind the scenes to keep things somewhat on track....as you well know.

So no, this isn't a case of moi being a terrible mod again.

 

[sittingbison]

no doubt!

Someone must have went back and done some reading on this forum and others to know so much "history".

Future spyware and monitor cams indicate that indeed yes, Edward went back through every post of race radio, thehog and BPC to come to their conclusions

 

[sittingbison]

Is it true that you had to go all the way to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sockpuppetry)?

Ebandit also had to change their sockpuppet avi

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Future spyware and monitor cams indicate that indeed yes, Edward went back through every post of race radio, thehog and BPC to come to their conclusions

I knew woodstock was not his last name!

 

[sittingbison]

DrMas I will copy your troll of the sceptic explanation to the manifesto thread if you don't mind

Cheers
Bison

 

[Dr. Maserati]

DrMas I will copy your troll of the sceptic explanation to the manifesto thread if you don't mind

Cheers
Bison

You may and you should put it up in the mod room too, just above coffee machine and the magical IP address checker.

 

[Netserk]

You may and you should put it up in the mod room too, just above coffee machine and the magical IP address checker.

If he really wants the other mods to read it, he should post it in the uncensored BoB thread in there.

 

[sittingbison]

You may and you should put it up in the mod room too, just above coffee machine and the magical IP address checker.

That would require mods to smell the coffee.... So no coffee machine provided by Future

 

[TheGame]

Yup, trolling is actually easy to define. It is quite simply a post aimed to get a response, to hook the other party, usually emotionally. The hard part is defining when to mod it.

No, that is not trolling. Posting to get a response alone is not trolling, argumentative maybe, but not trolling. In fact, all posts are ultimately designed to get a response, or otherwise what is the point?

Trolling is more specific, generally its aimed at starting arguments, upsetting people, angering people etc. A troll post will usually be either off topic, inflammatory or extraneous. And has the specific intent of either provoking other members, or disrupting on topic discussion.

Wiki is interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

 

[The Hitch]

Future spyware and monitor cams indicate that indeed yes, Edward went back through every post of race radio, thehog and BPC to come to their conclusions

Much of what Edward talks about seems to predate CN forums.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Much of what Edward talks about seems to predate CN forums.

any surprise as I have a guess or two who that might be?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, that is not trolling. Posting to get a response alone is not trolling, argumentative maybe, but not trolling. In fact, all posts are ultimately designed to get a response, or otherwise what is the point?

Exactly.
At the bottom of every post is a 'quote' button. We are encouraged to respond, to specific posts because that were forums are.

Trolling is more specific, generally its aimed at starting arguments, upsetting people, angering people etc. A troll post will usually be either off topic, inflammatory or extraneous. And has the specific intent of either provoking other members, or disrupting on topic discussion.

Wiki is interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Ya, another for the mods wall.

A deliberate troll will always:
1. Make it personal.
2. Will embellish, deceive, or outright lie about the topic.

Sometimes they will do both - but thats obvious, and a really 'good' troll is more damaging as they will be very subtle.

 

[Race Radio]

Much of what Edward talks about seems to predate CN forums.

and little of it was real. Hog had some rather comical previous incarnations but I have never communicated with any of them.

He was famous for posting tabloid style headlines that had zero basis in reality.

Landis part of Fuentes network ! ! - Spanish Police reveal

Zabriskie slums it with drug felon Landis

McQuaid said today that Spanish parents buy their kids dope !!

Kinda funny, but after a while it gets old. When he gets bored he turns to other targets. Intentionally twisting almost every post I wrote got a bit old and made discussion here almost impossible

 

[hiero2]

You may and you should put it up in the mod room too, just above coffee machine and the magical IP address checker.

Methinks that's what he's talking about, dude.

 

[hiero2]

Oh this is real simple.

I can never get over the mods obsession with sock puppets and or banned users. Particularly when the mods themselves smack someone with an extended ban.
I have also said banning BPC for life was wrong. Its not modding when you hit someone with a lifer.
The Papp thing could have been resolved quickly if RR just said he thought JP was a sock puppet.


To be clear - no-one should be able to publicly call another a sock puppet, no ifs or buts.
However, the mods encourage it.

New members should be encouraged, mod what they do, not who you think they are.


Again - no-one should be 'attacked' for having an opinion, regardless of what it is.
We have seen it here before, even the most innocuous thread can have very strong opinions. Good. When people have strong views they will robustly demonstrate it. Again good.
A mod should not judge who is correct or incorrect, the members/lurkers will do that - what any discussion should be is civil. Thats it.

Based on yer last statement - Dr Mas for Mod!

It wasn't the mods out lookin' for sockpuppets - it was the members - calling it unfairly - and harassing a new member on that account. Therefore the new member got a little protection, based on their lack of experience. It was not long, though, b4 the newbie turned and declared they could defend themselves. It all worked out - but in RL (at least, forum RL), it wasn't "treat everyone as universally alike".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Based on yer last statement - Dr Mas for Mod!

It wasn't the mods out lookin' for sockpuppets - it was the members - calling it unfairly - and harassing a new member on that account. Therefore the new member got a little protection, based on their lack of experience. It was not long, though, b4 the newbie turned and declared they could defend themselves. It all worked out - but in RL (at least, forum RL), it wasn't "treat everyone as universally alike".

Nah, I am quite content on sitting on the outside looking in.

To be honest - I don't think protection should stop, or indeed differ from one poster to another.
I believe I can protect myself from a perceived attack - but do the mods want to spend their time cleaning up the blood? Or other posters have to wade through the flames? Me neither.

 

[Granville57]

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...

Sorry, but I can't take your line of reasoning very seriously. Why? Because time and time and time and time and time...(you get it) again the true sock poppets were embarrassingly obvious by their second or third post (and quite often by their first). I can't think of a single perma-banned-member-to-be who I hadn't spotted as such as soon as they caught my attention.

But maybe that's just me. I must have magical, super powers of perception.

How many different ways can people really be fooled? (I suppose that is yet to be determined).

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?

I'll say no.

How can that be?

Relax. It goes back a few years ago to when Armstrong used to own the media (CN still hasn't gotten the updated memo). The scales of public perception had been tilted so heavily, for so long, in Armstrong's direction—there was a one ton weight on the Livestrong side. But lo and behold, 12 ounces of counterweight dared to make themselves known on the other side of the scale: The Clinic. But there was this distorted notion, often put forth by the mods themselves, that the only way to have a fair discussion was to give equal weight to each side of the "debate." The flaw in all this (as I've always been eager to point out) was that the very nature of The Clinic was an attempt to offer a counter weight to the already existing, and vastly overcrowded other version of events as spewed forth by the Armstrong spin machine.

To suggest that once those 12 ounces of dissent had been placed on one side of the scale, that another 12 ounces of Livestrong needed to be placed beside it—in order to create some sort of "balance" —was patently absurd. There was already a one ton weight on the other side!

ESPN, Sports Illustrated, VeloNews...take your pick. The list of fellators would go on and on. Anything to make a buck by riding the Cancer Gravy Train. If someone felt to the need share in the LA love-fest, there were countless opportunities and locations to do just that. So if someone were to show up here with a chip on their Maillot Jauned shoulder, I felt no sympathy whatsoever if they got lambasted—nor would I today. They had their day in the sun, on the heavy side of the scale. I suppose it was fun while it lasted.

Accusations by some that The Clinic was only an echo chamber (or trying to be one) were missing the point entirely. It was an unapologetic rally by The Dirty Dozen. And if that meant at times making a lot of noise in the interest of not being drowned out by the 28,000,000 voices on the other side, then so be it.

Don't look for any apologies from me on the matter.

And if some of that still carries over today, even when the cast of characters has (partially) changed? Oh well.



Hey, we didn't start it!





The above post by Granville57 was intended to make a point by offering a personal perspective. In no way is Granville57 assuming the role of spokesperson for, or guardian of, The Clinic. The fictitious mantle of such was temporarily assumed only in the interest of education. This has been a public service announcement by Granville57.

 

[hiero2]

No, that is not trolling. Posting to get a response alone is not trolling, argumentative maybe, but not trolling. In fact, all posts are ultimately designed to get a response, or otherwise what is the point?

Trolling is more specific, generally its aimed at starting arguments, upsetting people, angering people etc. A troll post will usually be either off topic, inflammatory or extraneous. And has the specific intent of either provoking other members, or disrupting on topic discussion.

Wiki is interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Exactly.
At the bottom of every post is a 'quote' button. We are encouraged to respond, to specific posts because that were forums are.

Ya, another for the mods wall.

A deliberate troll will always:
1. Make it personal.
2. Will embellish, deceive, or outright lie about the topic.

Sometimes they will do both - but thats obvious, and a really 'good' troll is more damaging as they will be very subtle.

Very good. And the wiki is a very good link. But I'm going to claim expertise on this one. Sorry, TheGame, but you are the one here who is wrong. The wiki entry alone contradicts your narrow conclusion. However, you HAVE helped define the point at which a troll needs modding. Now, here is the thing, too, we COULD be just meandering around in circles over semantics, i.e. the definition of "trolling". However, having done a lot of research on the topic - and having lived in it for a spell - I don't think this is the key.

You see, the problem is you CAN NOT, based on a single post, tell the difference between a troll with bad intent and one who is simply trying to stimulate a conversation. Or even, often, a number of posts. I take that back. Amend it to say "An Artful Troll" - with bad intent. (There are artless trolls who are readily recognizable.) Back to your quote:

. . .Trolling is more specific, generally its aimed at starting arguments, upsetting people, angering people etc. . .

Ok. Now, where do we draw the line, at what is specifically aimed at starting arguments, upsetting people, angering people - when ANY disagreement will do all of the above? Where do you draw the line: at "you're full of sh*t"? Or at "you're SO full of sh*t".

You can't.

Most of our trolls today are not so outright hostile as Mikey Vandeman. Mikey IDed himself. And he was 'artful' for the day. Counter that with Jobst Brandt - who remains one of the top experts in some things 'bicycle' - but would get banned from many forums today for his curmudgeonly attitude in general - as a "troll". It is the artful trolls who have survived. Dr Mas has brilliantly illustrated exactly this in his recent "troll-designed" post.

Another consideration: members here, including Brodeal, thehog, RR, blackcat, ChrisE, Dr Mas, Amsterhammer, Scotty SoCal, Boeing, and many more HAVE engaged in purposefully disruptive or obtuse behavior - ipso facto - trolled. Are they then "trolls"? Yes - but I repeat, a troll is the label for an intentionally designed post to hook a response. Where that action becomes a disruptive activity that requires modding is the heart of the question, and it is not answered with the label "troll".

And, there are trolls like Mikey V, who was only recognizeable through repetition and the memory of the masses. He regularly fooled newcomers. And was still doing so on another forum within the past year.

Dr Mas - re the machinations of a "Deliberate troll" - very good. There are more techniques than you mentioned, but that is excellently succinct.

Now, as for expertise - I've spent a lot of time on this post, but that time isn't a candle to what I spent on the research of "what is a troll" when I started being a mod. I left behind me pages of reference material for future mods when I left. I wish somebody paid me for this, so I could sit down and take two weeks to concoct a brief and concise answer to all this. But, they don't - that dream is one for my never-never land.

Cheers;
H