Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[mewmewmew13]

Holy jesus christ is this discussion still going on? Does anyone have any idea what what it's about still? Wow.

ha! was just going to post the same thing!
fgs get a life some of you....

gheezus carry on

 

[sittingbison]

...An equitable resolution to all perceived wrongs is at hand.

Complaints on moderation can come to me, I'll do my best to answer them quickly....

hehe

10chars

 

[Hugh Januss]

You guys can spend all the time you want going back and forth with this and that stupid arguments, but the point is this place has picked up a whole new level of SUCKS that it never had before. That is even after BPC has for all intents and purposes given up, so that is actually no small accomplishment.

 

[darwin553]

Complaints on moderation can come to me, I'll do my best to answer them quickly.

Dan

Well then if everything is to be done behind closed doors I expect to see some changes to who is moderating around here as a result.

 

[python]

I already posed a very similar question in the past, but, unsurprisingly, there was no reaction from neither the staff nor the users…

what exactly is accomplished by a public announcement that so-and-so has been banned ?

The latest series of demands from some posters make me think it may be an opportune time to revisit the issue (yes, they were essentially the demands b/c a question repeated several times is shouting and is beyond a simple curiosity or a polite inquiry)

Perhaps I am not seeing everything, but here is my try..

- it amounts to public porking and thus should be dissuasive through shame. False, the board experience is opposite… almost anyone banned once was banned again and in some cases again and again.

-it achieves public humiliation of the offender. VERY true, it does. but does it work ? No, see above.

-it is a transparency tool. May be, but what’s its true worth when almost all public feedback is forbidden in favour of private complaining to a head honcho who is likely too busy to even read the crap coz he’s the managing editor making money for the real business….

- it provides clarifications to the rules as to WHY people get punished. Sometimes. But mostly False, as some will always agree and some will always disagree with the rule application and its specific context wregardless…

-it provides entertainment to the majority bystanders. Very much true. But is THAT the cycling board’s purpose ?

No matter where I turn, i don’ t see a solid, constructive reason for the 'suspension' thread ... but i see plenty of posts in the very thread demandingw answers as if this was their privilege as opposed to what it really is - a private matter btwn a mod and the banned.

So im asking again, is the angerw-venting created by the thread worth the entertainment for bystanders or someone’s gloating seeing the poster they dislike banned ?

Btw, if someone REALLY WANTS to find out, it is still possible to see that the banning occurred w/o the special thread and the whirlpool of ‘he deserved/ he didn’t’ almost always emotional and biased judgments.

Then, on the other hand, if this mod team insists there is a good purpose behind such threads, they should be prepared to take the PUBLIC heat rather then pretending it was a collective punishment for the misdeeds of the few.

It wasn’t. It is a symptom of a managing trouble and/or refusal or the inability to reflect.

 

[Eshnar]

I already posed a very similar question in the past, but, unsurprisingly, there was no reaction from neither the staff nor the users…

what exactly is accomplished by a public announcement that so-and-so has been banned ?

From the suspension thread OP:

This thread has been created as a place to post notifications regarding forum member suspensions. It will remain in a locked state and only be opened so that new notifications may be added, before locking it again.

This is because it is not intended as a place for rambling discussions of each action, it is just intended to remove the need for people to create threads asking what happened to a particular user. It will give the duration and the reason.

If a member gets suspended and after reading the reason you still need to discuss it then feel free to create a thread on the topic.

So I guess that's the reason.

 

[Beech Mtn]

I agree with much of Python's post. I've never thought the banned member announcements were a good idea. It should be a private matter between that member and the mods. I also never really liked it back in the day (before the dedicated thread), when posters would ask in a regular thread why someone was banned, and then be told why by a mod. IMO, the answer to why was XXXXX banned should be: "that's a private matter. You can ask them when they come back next week, and they will tell you if they wish for you to know."

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I already posed a very similar question in the past, but, unsurprisingly, there was no reaction from neither the staff nor the users…

what exactly is accomplished by a public announcement that so-and-so has been banned ?

The latest series of demands from some posters make me think it may be an opportune time to revisit the issue (yes, they were essentially the demands b/c a question repeated several times is shouting and is beyond a simple curiosity or a polite inquiry)

Perhaps I am not seeing everything, but here is my try..

- it amounts to public porking and thus should be dissuasive through shame. False, the board experience is opposite… almost anyone banned once was banned again and in some cases again and again.

-it achieves public humiliation of the offender. VERY true, it does. but does it work ? No, see above.

-it is a transparency tool. May be, but what’s its true worth when almost all public feedback is forbidden in favour of private complaining to a head honcho who is likely too busy to even read the crap coz he’s the managing editor making money for the real business….

- it provides clarifications to the rules as to WHY people get punished. Sometimes. But mostly False, as some will always agree and some will always disagree with the rule application and its specific context wregardless…

-it provides entertainment to the majority bystanders. Very much true. But is THAT the cycling board’s purpose ?

No matter where I turn, i don’ t see a solid, constructive reason for the 'suspension' thread ... but i see plenty of posts in the very thread demandingw answers as if this was their privilege as opposed to what it really is - a private matter btwn a mod and the banned.

So im asking again, is the angerw-venting created by the thread worth the entertainment for bystanders or someone’s gloating seeing the poster they dislike banned ?

Btw, if someone REALLY WANTS to find out, it is still possible to see that the banning occurred w/o the special thread and the whirlpool of ‘he deserved/ he didn’t’ almost always emotional and biased judgments.

Then, on the other hand, if this mod team insists there is a good purpose behind such threads, they should be prepared to take the PUBLIC heat rather then pretending it was a collective punishment for the misdeeds of the few.

It wasn’t. It is a symptom of a managing trouble and/or refusal or the inability to reflect.

Quite frankly, I believe you are looking at this the wrong way around.

It is not about the 'member' who got suspended per se - but why were they banned and showing that the mods are applying the rules or bans in a fair and even way.

While I do agree there should be no place to gloat (ie this very thread) it is IMO essential that the mods should be queried on theses matters, especially when it involves long bans.
Its rare, but we have also seen where posters have had bans waived because they were misidentified etc.

 

[BroDeal]

I agree with much of Python's post. I've never thought the banned member announcements were a good idea. It should be a private matter between that member and the mods. I also never really liked it back in the day (before the dedicated thread), when posters would ask in a regular thread why someone was banned, and then be told why by a mod. IMO, the answer to why was XXXXX banned should be: "that's a private matter. You can ask them when they come back next week, and they will tell you if they wish for you to know."

Anonymous people with goofy pseudonyms have their privacy violated when it is announced they are banned? That is the type of specious reasoning some forums use to prevent the moderators' decisions from being questioned by those who provide the forum's content. Those forums usually ban people for any questioning of the mods' actions. Clearly this forum is headed to that destination, so maybe that thread should be closed so another avenue of community involvement goes away sooner rather than later. There is no reason to draw the process out.

 

[sittingbison]

...Those forums usually ban people for any questioning of the mods' actions. Clearly this forum is headed to that destination....

I sincerely hope not. We should all be accountable for our actions despite some insinuations to the contrary. Python has some good observations as does Beech Mtn, and DrMas is also correct in that mod decisions and actions should be fair and reasonable, be seen as such and be defendable if queried.

How can these observations be implemented? I'm not sure, especially as they are also slightly at odds. There is a difference though between questioning a mods action and outright abusing them for taking (or not taking) any action good bad or indifferent. I don't think that's conducive to achieving the positive outcomes that are being asked for.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You guys are fiddling while the troll is burning.

 

[ElChingon]

Complaints on moderation can come to me, I'll do my best to answer them quickly.

Dan

I've had a much better response from craig1985. For the record, most of the Senior & Junior members should take note.

 

[ElChingon]

Every post from a non Senior or Junior Member has turned to total Troll posts and Baits and off topic. For the record, yet not one ban.

 

[EnacheV]

I think im gonna take a voluntary break, it's sad the some of the biggest trolls are mods here.

 

[Cyivel]

I think im gonna take a voluntary break, it's sad the some of the biggest trolls are mods here.

Goodbye. ..

 

[the sceptic]

I think im gonna take a voluntary break, it's sad the some of the biggest trolls are mods here.

Make it a long one.

 

[Cyivel]

Make it a long one.

Now, now sceptic you are better than that, we are all one big family here.

 

[the sceptic]

How is "clogging up threads" such a serious offense that it warrants a 1 month ban? ridiculous.

If you want all the good high volume posters to leave the forum then you are on the right track.

 

[Eshnar]

How is "clogging up threads" such a serious offense that it warrants a 1 month ban? ridiculous.

Dr.Maserati has been banned for a month, for clogging up threads despite previous private and public warnings.

If you want all the good high volume posters to leave the forum then you are on the right track.

Nope, for that there's the permaban.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Nope, for that there's the permaban.

That comment, and the overall attitude of the entire new batch of mods is total BS. You guys are like waiters in a poorly run French restaurant, where you think that you are the show when you should be serving the customers. In short, as I have said before, you guys suck and you are dragging the entire forum down into suckiness with you.
Thank you for letting me speak my mind on this, without banning me.

 

[MarkvW]

Maserati didn't have to tell people challenging him to "fook off." Surprised that the ban wasn't for that. Until that point he was just being his normal self, and not being particularly offensive.

But why ban Maserati for a thread that has was pretty well mined out (at least for the time being)? His provocation was the only thing keeping the zombie alive.

 

[Eshnar]

That comment, and the overall attitude of the entire new batch of mods is total BS. You guys are like waiters in a poorly run French restaurant, where you think that you are the show when you should be serving the customers. In short, as I have said before, you guys suck and you are dragging the entire forum down into suckiness with you.
Thank you for letting me speak my mind on this, without banning me.

you're welcome. Although you should tell Dan instead of writing it here, this thread is not about mods.

 

[Netserk]

That comment, and the overall attitude of the entire new batch of mods is total BS. You guys are like waiters in a poorly run French restaurant, where you think that you are the show when you should be serving the customers. In short, as I have said before, you guys suck and you are dragging the entire forum down into suckiness with you.
Thank you for letting me speak my mind on this, without banning me.

And I thought it only were the mods who had gotten the CN-antihumour-implants...

 

[darwin553]

I would really have liked to see Dr Maserati's views on Armstrong Part 1

 

[skidmark]

And I thought it only were the mods who had gotten the CN-antihumour-implants...

I would contend that there is a large difference between 'humour' and 'responding smugly and sarcastically to a serious complaint'. I don't see anything wrong with mods being humourous, provided it isn't about something they should respond seriously to (like, say, a comment directed at the serious position of power they've been put in).

Either way, sad to see Mas banned for so long for something that didn't seem to be that bothersome. To me, he was obviously being thoughtful and restraining himself for the last few weeks, and I thought maybe that goodwill would be reflected by the mods. But hey, I don't wanna do the job, so I guess you guys can do it however you want.