Moderation

[Cookster15]

There were. I'm not going to argue semantics but both threads were discussing moderation and had to be removed unfortunately.

Firstly, thank you for stepping in on an unofficial capacity to address our concerns.

Been thinking about your quote above. I hope I am not censored for asking but why is moderation even such a sensitive issue? What actual problems were caused by that old thread? It informed facts it was not “discussing” moderation. The thread could have been locked to anyone who wasn’t a mod or administrator.

This is only a cycling forum I get the impression those in charge take the forum too seriously sometimes. But like you, a timer showing against banned members would satisfy most. But the best would be to simply reinstate the old thread about who was banned, how long and what for. It would also serve to remind members of acceptable behaviour. Someone suddenly showing as banned does not. And yes this does disrupt discussion.

 

[fmk_RoI]

ou all know the simplest solution to all this is that people just post within the rules so the mods/admin don't have to ban them? There are loads of members who manage to do this with no problems whatsoever.

There are also loads of users who have been banned and don't feel the need to keep banging on about and claiming their ban was unfair. Respecting the commissaire's decisions is part of the sport.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Whatever he did, it was probably something quite minor.

Because he was such a lovale and huggable and nice person, someone we like and therefore can do no wrong. Unlike those ba5tard5 we don't like, they deserve everything they get.

 

[fmk_RoI]

And some of us have started writing "I don't like your post!" - apparently a ban-worthy offense - in response to each other's posts as a joke! If someone who isn't in on the joke sees it and reports it, do we risk getting banned? Or are people gonna know that "Oh, it's just those silly Danes at it again..."?

In jokes are so cliquey, aren't they? Is there a rule that protects cliques, like the imagined rule that protects banter?

 

[Netserk]

How do we decide whether it's related to the core subject?

We don’t. Read the next five words.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I get the impression those in charge take the forum too seriously sometimes.

Unlike the users.

 

[Netserk]

The banning of Eshnar is a big shock to me.

He hasn’t afaik. It was a hypothetical example.

 

[Cookster15]

He hasn’t afaik. It was a hypothetical example.

Oh good, I read the comment and was shocked, but yes it’s a good example.

Edit: I removed that.

 

[RedheadDane]

Because he was such a lovale and huggable and nice person, someone we like and therefore can do no wrong. Unlike those ba5tard5 we don't like, they deserve everything they get.

Because recent examples have shown that things that should at most have resulted in a quick in-thread warning can result in a day-long ban, so it probably wouldn't take much for a longer ban... And there are several riders I don't particularily like I still don't report because I just don't see the reason to report anyone, other than obvious spammers.

In jokes are so cliquey, aren't they? Is there a rule that protects cliques, like the imagined rule that protects banter?

But they don't harm anyone. Of course people are gonna get along better with some than with others...

We don’t. Read the next five words.

And what if there are no staff members around to declare a perfectly relevant discussion "allowed"? If a male rider came out as gay, it would obviously cause some discussions about progress within the society of the sport - and yes, I would consider it a clear progress if that was to happen! Would be not be allowed to discuss it - in a respectful manner, of course - if some staff member simply hadn't been around to give us permission?

There are also loads of users who have been banned and don't feel the need to keep banging on about and claiming their ban was unfair. Respecting the commissaire's decisions is part of the sport.

So is calling out when their decisions are unfair. I think we can all agree that Schär being disqualified from Flanders was unfair.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I think we can all agree that Schär being disqualified from Flanders was unfair.

Can we? Really?

Maybe now you can begin to see the problem here: we're not all like you.

 

[RedheadDane]

Can we? Really?

He was thrown out of the race for "littering", even though he was very clearly giving the bottle to a fan. Something which is a very popular part of the sport.

 

[fmk_RoI]

He was thrown out of the race for "littering", even though he was very clearly giving the bottle to a fan. Something which is a very popular part of the sport.

You're like coastal erosion, you know that? You ignore everything and just try to wear folk down.

 

[RedheadDane]

You're like coastal erosion, you know that? You ignore everything and just try to wear folk down.

You're saying you think it was perfectly fair what happened? Well, the UCI came to their senses, maybe the admins on this forum can too.
And you shouldn't talk about ignoring everything. You're the one acting like being kept in the dark is perfectly reasonable...

It appears your problem is that you follow a mindset of "Someone in authority declared it so, thus it must be true and right!"

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Clearly the UCI needs to wake up and finally introduce som ban protective apparel. Too many people suffer from low ban density nowadays.
Formula One did it years ago, and it's worked wonders.

 

[King Boonen]

Firstly, thank you for stepping in on an unofficial capacity to address our concerns.

Been thinking about your quote above. I hope I am not censored for asking but why is moderation even such a sensitive issue? What actual problems were caused by that old thread? It informed facts it was not “discussing” moderation. The thread could have been locked to anyone who wasn’t a mod or administrator.

This is only a cycling forum I get the impression those in charge take the forum too seriously sometimes. But like you, a timer showing against banned members would satisfy most. But the best would be to simply reinstate the old thread about who was banned, how long and what for. It would also serve to remind members of acceptable behaviour. Someone suddenly showing as banned does not. And yes this does disrupt discussion.

Unfortunately I can't really answer that here, all I can really say is that the announcement thread certainly caused issues that had to be dealt with by the mods. I'd also say that, at least based on this chat here, it's the users who take the forum far more seriously.

 

[Netserk]

Clearly the UCI needs to wake up and finally introduce som ban protective apparel. Too many people suffer from low ban density nowadays.
Formula One did it years ago, and it's worked wonders.

Good try, but the joke doesn't work perfectly. Bone protective apparel is not protective against bones, and I find it difficult to see why the bans should be protected. Hmm, unless you mean apparel that protects the bans from discussions? Like an invisibility cloak? Then the joke would work on both levels.

 

[Salvarani]

Unfortunately I can't really answer that here, all I can really say is that the announcement thread certainly caused issues that had to be dealt with by the mods. I'd also say that, at least based on this chat here, it's the users who take the forum far more seriously.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the last sentence without going further into it.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Good try, but the joke doesn't work perfectly. Bone protective apparel is not protective against bones, and I find it difficult to see why the bans should be protected. Hmm, unless you mean apparel that protects the bans from discussions? Like an invisibility cloak? Then the joke would work on both levels.

Sure, it wasn't a perfect joke, but both discussions do heavily feature one person who refuses to accept defeat.

 

[Jagartrott]

You're like coastal erosion, you know that? You ignore everything and just try to wear folk down.

Maybe you should read what was said earlier in the thread, but I actually guess you did. If you're on "the spectrum" (as am I), things that do not seem fair or logical can be very difficult to let go (and we all know, logic is your friend, right?). What you seem to be doing is just provoking further.

On the discussion at hand: I have some forum experience elsewhere, and when bans are applied seemingly randomly and without explanation, this can sour the atmosphere quite quickly (baiting, snitching, clans, etc.). I think the forums here were doing very well, actually, so changing the rules for some administrative reason (a takeover) risks destroying a healthy habitat pointlessly. Yes, I know, I do not really have any power here, so it's probably pointless to speak out about this, but it would be a shame if the particular cyclingnews forum atmosphere would go to waste.

 

[PeterB]

I am honestly surprised that anyone can even wonder that people who have been spending so much time in some cases for >10 years in the community of other people on this forum, investing their time and attention to interacting with other people here, do care about those other people and may become somewhat upset if members of their online community are suddenly made disappeared, albeit temporarily, with no information given.

I am likewise surprised that those who manage this forum do not feel it should be a sign of simple basic decency and respect towards their community to let them know at least for how long they banned which member. I don't know how it is usually done on other forums and I don't really care because it has no implication on how it should be done on the forum of this kind and in fact in general. If there are some really serious reasons why it is not possible to do it publicly I am not aware of, there probably should be no reason not to communicate that information to interested parties at least in private messages.

People keep mentioning there is a rule which prohibits discussing moderation which covers that, which I think is a ridiculous interpretation. Anyway, whether the current state of affairs is based on the actual rule or just an interpretation, it seems to go against justified interests of the community. Forum owners have every right to decide to not satisfy those interests, but such a show of perceived disrespect to their community is then the very reason why threads like this come to existence.

I post here so infrequently and my interactions are so limited that you can take my view as one of an almost entirely impartial person. I don't actually care about the recently banned users but unlike some here, I can understand why others do, that's why I felt I should add my opinion to this conversation.

 

[BR2]

I am honestly surprised that anyone can even wonder that people who have been spending so much time in some cases for >10 years in the community of other people on this forum, investing their time and attention to interacting with other people here, do care about those other people and may become somewhat upset if members of their online community are suddenly made disappeared, albeit temporarily, with no information given.

I am likewise surprised that those who manage this forum do not feel it should be a sign of simple basic decency and respect towards their community to let them know at least for how long they banned which member. I don't know how it is usually done on other forums and I don't really care because it has no implication on how it should be done on the forum of this kind and in fact in general. If there are some really serious reasons why it is not possible to do it publicly I am not aware of, there probably should be no reason not to communicate that information to interested parties at least in private messages.

People keep mentioning there is a rule which prohibits discussing moderation which covers that, which I think is a ridiculous interpretation. Anyway, whether the current state of affairs is based on the actual rule or just an interpretation, it seems to go against justified interests of the community. Forum owners have every right to decide to not satisfy those interests, but such a show of perceived disrespect to their community is then the very reason why threads like this come to existence.

I post here so infrequently and my interactions are so limited that you can take my view as one of an almost entirely impartial person. I don't actually care about the recently banned users but unlike some here, I can understand why others do, that's why I felt I should add my opinion to this conversation.

You put this so well.

 

[RedheadDane]

I'd also say that, at least based on this chat here, it's the users who take the forum far more seriously.

I dunno... banning people for even the slightest rule break also seems a little like taking the forum too seriously... You keep asking if posters being away for a while interrupts forum posting so much. Well, do minor infractions? Luckily, most of them aren't even reported.

 

[hrotha]

It's so funny to me that the instinct to close ranks in this kind of situation is forcing perfectly reasonable people to argue that there's no legitimate reason why someone would want to know why and for how long a fellow forumer has been banned. Or that if someone cares about that's a sign that they're taking the forum too seriously (as opposed to the people who volunteered to moderate the place lol). Just have a locked thread or subforum (so only mods and admins can post) to post moderation announcements. If you're banning bots left and right then make it so that you only report bans on people with more than X posts or whatever.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

I dunno... banning people for even the slightest rule break also seems a little like taking the forum too seriously... You keep asking if posters being away for a while interrupts forum posting so much. Well, do minor infractions? Luckily, most of them aren't even reported.

People aren't getting banned for just the slightest rule break, though. You and I would both have been permabanned long ago, if they were really annoyed with people discussing off-topic topics.
CyclistAbi would have been, too, if excessive punctuation were deemed a major issue.

And everyone who has posted in thread should of course also end up receiving bans for discussing moderation and specific bans.

 

[RedheadDane]

People aren't getting banned for just the slightest rule break, though. You and I would both have been permabanned long ago, if they were really annoyed with people discussing off-topic topics.
CyclistAbi would have been, too, if excessive punctuation were deemed a major issue.

And everyone who has posted in thread should of course also end up receiving bans for discussing moderation and specific bans.

Seems we were just lucky the admins never "had to" step in and look at a post we made.
Who knows, tomorrow neither of us might be able to log in...