Moderation

[Samu Cuenca]

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...

I doubt it, but if it happens, then I hope it will annulled within a day. Otherwise I would simply have to wait for the ban to come to an end. Or I would find something else to devote some of my time to.

 

[King Boonen]

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.

If this is in reference to me I never said too seriously (at least I never mean to) and I never implied, or intended to imply, taking the forum seriously is a bad thing, but I guess reading things in the most negative way possible is internet 101. So, to make it clear, I don't think taking something you invest time in seriously is a bad thing.

 

[King Boonen]

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.

Ok, I feel like you're now just posting angry. I asked that question once and it was answered. I'll also say you have absolutely no idea what gets reported, but I do, and I also know how those things get dealt with in the vast majority of cases. You can probably work it out based on the fact hardly anyone ever gets banned for a minor infraction.

 

[RedheadDane]

Ok, I feel like you're now just posting angry. I asked that question once and it was answered. I'll also say you have absolutely no idea what gets reported, but I do, and I also know how those things get dealt with in the vast majority of cases. You can probably work it out based on the fact hardly anyone ever gets banned for a minor infraction.

You're right. I think I've figured it out.
Most of the time, the mods - reasonable people, who knows how this forum works - handle reports. Unfortunately, since fewer and fewer wants to be mods (understandably), more and more frequently admins "have to" step in and handle reports. And, well... since they haven't got a clue, sometimes they'll simply fall down to the level of "Well, a rule was broken..."
But maybe if we could have some sort of "system", so similar infractions would always result in - approximately - the same punishment, regardless of who is dealing with the particular "infriction".

 

[King Boonen]

You're right. I think I've figured it out.
Most of the time, the mods - reasonable people, who knows how this forum works - handle reports. Unfortunately, since fewer and fewer wants to be mods (understandably), more and more frequently admins "have to" step in and handle reports. And, well... since they haven't got a clue, sometimes they'll simply fall down to the level of "Well, a rule was broken..."
But maybe if we could have some sort of "system", so similar infractions would always result in - approximately - the same punishment, regardless of who is dealing with the particular "infriction".

Essentially yes, although I think enough people have stuck their hands up to be mods to say there's cover available.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

Since we have no idea what any poster was banned for, how can anyone claim/imply this is happening? I can tell you as a former mod here, this is about as far from what actually used to happen as I can imagine. Valued posters were given a fair amount (and often a ridiculously unfair amount) of leeway in terms of bans or ban length. I seriously doubt that has fundamentally changed, but more to the point, I would bet my participation here that no one banned Logic for a minor infraction.

The truth is, that as good a poster as Logic can be, he/she constantly attracts fights, spats, and arguments. I'm sure the number of his/her posts which have been reported is huge. At some point, I'm sure the mods got tired of dealing with it and banned him/her for a legitimate violation, but I'm equally sure he/she was given plenty of leeway and warning.

The crying about it here only further empowers the behavior upon the return of the offending poster.

Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere, everyone. Assume good intent. Understand you don't know the details. And it's really not your business.

 

[RedheadDane]

Since we have no idea what any poster was banned for, how can anyone claim/imply this is happening? I can tell you as a former mod here, this is about as far from what actually used to happen as I can imagine. Valued posters were given a fair amount (and often a ridiculously unfair amount) of leeway in terms of bans or ban length. I seriously doubt that has fundamentally changed, but more to the point, I would bet my participation here that no one banned Logic for a minor infraction.

The truth is, that as good a poster as Logic can be, he/she constantly attracts fights, spats, and arguments. I'm sure the number of his/her posts which have been reported is huge. At some point, I'm sure the mods got tired of dealing with it and banned him/her for a legitimate violation, but I'm equally sure he/she was given plenty of leeway and warning.

The crying about it here only further empowers the behavior upon the return of the offending poster.

Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere, everyone. Assume good intent. Understand you don't know the details. And it's really not your business.

We do actually know why one poster was banned, because he told us, and that was definitely a ban for a minor(non)-issue.

I'm sure logic attracts fights, I've had my fair amount of fights with him (pretty sure it's "him"), because he's passionate. As, I would think it's safe to say we all are - we all signed up for a cycling forum. However, based on the amount of time he's been banned for, you'd think he had straight up posted that he wished a rider would be seriously injured, and not in a "message got misunderstood" kind of way. And you know what? I just have a hard time believing that about a poster who pays tribute to a rider who died.
Because that's the thing, I do assume good intent; on the part of my fellow posters!

 

[BR2]

We do actually know why one poster was banned, because he told us, and that was definitely a ban for a minor(non)-issue.

I'm sure logic attracts fights, I've had my fair amount of fights with him (pretty sure it's "him"), because he's passionate. As, I would think it's safe to say we all are - we all signed up for a cycling forum. However, based on the amount of time he's been banned for, you'd think he had straight up posted that he wished a rider would be seriously injured, and not in a "message got misunderstood" kind of way. And you know what? I just have a hard time believing that about a poster who pays tribute to a rider who died.
Because that's the thing, I do assume good intent; on the part of my fellow posters!

My guess is that he got into serious fights with mods after he was banned for a shorter amount of time. Like you I have fought with him. And he can actually be effing annoying. But I have never read something really awful from him that would ask for a longer ban. He seems like a liberal person, not racist, not sexist etc. But he's not someone to back down either, so I can imagine that things got heated behind the scenes and the ban got longer and longer. It would just be nice if we got to know that. "Logic was banned for xy weeks because he repeatedly insulted the mods behind the scenes" or something like that would make it a lot better for me.
However, I really think there is no other option but to let it go. Obviously the policy on this forum will not change, whatever we think about it. We have repeatedly said how we feel about it, either they take that into account or they don't - well they don't, that's it.

 

[RedheadDane]

I guess we should praise the mods for making it appear like the info thread was working without any issues, when - apparently - it wasn't.

 

[red_flanders]

We do actually know why one poster was banned, because he told us, and that was definitely a ban for a minor(non)-issue.

I'm sure logic attracts fights, I've had my fair amount of fights with him (pretty sure it's "him"), because he's passionate. As, I would think it's safe to say we all are - we all signed up for a cycling forum. However, based on the amount of time he's been banned for, you'd think he had straight up posted that he wished a rider would be seriously injured, and not in a "message got misunderstood" kind of way. And you know what? I just have a hard time believing that about a poster who pays tribute to a rider who died.
Because that's the thing, I do assume good intent; on the part of my fellow posters!

How did he tell us? I'm certainly not privvy to this info. Was this claim confirmed by a mod? If not, you don't know. You only have a claim from one side.

You can also assume good intent on the part of the mods, who are also your fellow posters.

 

[RedheadDane]

How did he tell us? I'm certainly not privvy to this info. Was this claim confirmed by a mod? If not, you don't know. You only have a claim from one side.

You can also assume good intent on the part of the mods, who are also your fellow posters.

He wrote about it, in this very thread. Or, are you implying he only claimed that was the reason, while there was a much more sinister reason actually behind it? That's not exactly assuming good intent, is it?

And I'm concerned that more and more reports are dealt with by admins, who are not my fellow posters!

But anyway... as BR2 said; I guess we just have to accept that the forum certainly needed a reboot, and we got what we got...

 

[red_flanders]

He wrote about it, in this very thread. Or, are you implying he only claimed that was the reason, while there was a much more sinister reason actually behind it? That's not exactly assuming good intent, is it?

I'm saying we (apparently, I haven't seen it) have an unverified claim. Being rational, I don't necessarily believe or disbelieve unverified claims, I wait for more information. I don't know the reason given, I don't 'know if it was/is minor (subjective). Maybe you can link to it. I also know from being a mod that one person's version of an interaction can vary WILDLY from another person's version. That's really the core of my question about what was claimed.

As an aside, how does a banned user post the reason for their ban in this thread...while they are still banned? I honestly don't understand that.

And I'm concerned that more and more reports are dealt with by admins, who are not my fellow posters!

But anyway... as BR2 said; I guess we just have to accept that the forum certainly needed a reboot, and we got what we got...

Maybe volunteer to be a mod and take some of the load, then the admins won't need to. I'm sure complaining about all the things here isn't doing a whole lot.

 

[RedheadDane]

As an aside, how does a banned user post the reason for their ban in this thread...while they are still banned? I honestly don't understand that.

He explained it after the ban had ended.

As for me being a mod, well... as great a mod as I think I would be - I wouldn't ban people - I suppose it wouldn't be a good idea... apparently you need to work with the admins.
But until we get more mods, maybe - as BR2 suggested at the very beginning of this thread - some who are only expected to deal with spambots, my earlier suggestion still stands:
To ease the load on the mods, we should just stick to only reporting spambots and extremely bad rule breaks.

 

[fmk_RoI]

We do actually know why one poster was banned, because he told us, and that was definitely a ban for a minor(non)-issue.

And that was a one day ban. One day. If you were a kid being told to sit on the naughty step for 24 hrs you might have a point but for an online form, that's just a cool down break.

The crying about it here only further empowers the behavior upon the return of the offending poster.

This, for me, was one of the bigger problems with the old system where bans could be publicly autopsied: some posters took the support they received as a licence to just keep doing what they were doing, the mods were at fault, not them.

 

[RedheadDane]

Quick question.
I understand that - and why - we're not allowed to post explicit content, but we're still allowed to riders being in relationships, and having children?
As long as it's not done in a crude manner of "[NAME] AND [NAME] HAVE HAD S**!" While that would be true if they have a (biological) child, it can be described in a more delicate way.

 

[red_flanders]

He explained it after the ban had ended.

He appears to be still banned. Not following. Can you link it? Was he explaining a previous ban?

Never mind, fmk_Rol explained above. That was for a previous, one day ban. Which is nothing. This whole thing is silly, I'm done here. This is complaining for its own sake. Yawn.

As for me being a mod, well... as great a mod as I think I would be - I wouldn't ban people - I suppose it wouldn't be a good idea... apparently you need to work with the admins.
But until we get more mods, maybe - as BR2 suggested at the very beginning of this thread - some who are only expected to deal with spambots, my earlier suggestion still stands:
To ease the load on the mods, we should just stick to only reporting spambots and extremely bad rule breaks.

You do realize "extremely bad" is wholly subjective and not a usable policy prescription, right?

If think you see rules being broken, report the post. Or don't. If you do, the mods get to make the judgement on whether there was a violation and whether that violation deserves a ban. If you don't, expect the behavior to continue. Having people second guess bans when they don't have all the info is utterly pointless. I'm surprised this thread lives on, frankly.

 

[RedheadDane]

He appears to be still banned. Not following. Can you link it? Was he explaining a previous ban?

Never mind, fmk_Rol explained above. That was for a previous, one day ban. Which is nothing. This whole thing is silly, I'm done here. This is complaining for its own sake. Yawn.



You do realize "extremely bad" is wholly subjective and not a usable policy prescription, right?

If think you see rules being broken, report the post. Or don't. If you do, the mods get to make the judgement on whether there was a violation and whether that violation deserves a ban. If you don't, expect the behavior to continue. Having people second guess bans when they don't have all the info is utterly pointless. I'm surprised this thread lives on, frankly.

999/1000 infringements shouldn't even be given a ban.

As for "extremely bad", I'm talking stuff like straight up expressing joy about a rider being injured, or wishing injury on a rider, stuff like that.

 

[red_flanders]

999/1000 infringements shouldn't even be given a ban.

And you know this isn't the current ratio...how exactly? You don't. I'm not sure I'd agree with 999/1000, but obviously most infractions aren't reported, most reported infractions don't result in action, and most actions aren't bans.

I don't see a lot of bans on this site. I think the current mods are doing a great job.

As for "extremely bad", I'm talking stuff like straight up expressing joy about a rider being injured, or wishing injury on a rider, stuff like that.

I'm finding it difficult to have a conversation here. My point was (clearly) that "extremely bad" is subjective, and this example clearly points out this problem. Someone else might not think wishing injury is "extremely" bad, or bad at all. It's not a metric one can use for moderation. There has to be more clear definition, and thankfully there is. Wishing harm on riders is specifically not allowed and results in moderation–or it used to be.

Anyway, I've said my piece. For whatever it's worth.

 

[fmk_RoI]

999/1000 infringements shouldn't even be given a ban.

Well done, Elon.

 

[SHAD0W93]

I’m waiting for Logic-is-your-enemy to appear.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I’m waiting for Logic-is-your-enemy to appear.

I'm waiting for the formation of the official Liberation of Logic group (aka LOL).

Motto: Release the Logical One!

Sonny Colbrelli can be the official mascot.

 

[RedheadDane]

And you know this isn't the current ratio...how exactly? You don't. I'm not sure I'd agree with 999/1000, but obviously most infractions aren't reported, most reported infractions don't result in action, and most actions aren't bans.

So I'm guessing the "getting banned for snarking a spambot" - something I personally didn't even know was against the rules - thing was just admins not having had their coffee that morning.
Strange thing is, I haven't seen any banworthy infractions ("infractions", not "infringements". English is hard...) recently. The only semi-recent one I can think of - and I only remember that because I recently came across the (still-banned) poster - was the guy who claimed that we shouldn't feel sorry for Bernal for being injured because "it was his own fault".

I'm finding it difficult to have a conversation here. My point was (clearly) that "extremely bad" is subjective, and this example clearly points out this problem. Someone else might not think wishing injury is "extremely" bad, or bad at all. It's not a metric one can use for moderation. There has to be more clear definition, and thankfully there is. Wishing harm on riders is specifically not allowed and results in moderation–or it used to be.

And I suppose there are people who think snarking spambots is "extremely bad"...
However, if wishing harm on riders - and other posters, I assume - is specifically not allowed, surely that's considered extremely bad.

Sonny Colbrelli can be the official mascot.

Okay... what's Sonny Colbrelli got to do with this? You want me to believe that logic straight up posted that Colbrelli should have died? Or laughed about what happened? Yeah... I just have a hard time believing that.

 

[williamjenkins]

very almost Additionally, I should mention how infrequent permanent bans were throughout my time as a mod . The only one that comes to mind is so terrible that I can't even recall who said it or what, but it was clear they were gone forever.

 

[Lequack]

I’m waiting for Logic-is-your-enemy to appear.

We just need him back, in any form.

 

[Lequack]

We've had a tradition of avatar bets on cycling outcomes. How about avatar bets on ban lengths? I'm willing to bet that @Logic-is-your-friend's ban length is 1 month. Any takers?

Let the postdiction market open!

Well tomorrow will be one month, so I guess we will see.