• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Moderation

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I see two people got banned this evening. I didn't see for which post so i can't comment on it being fair or not. In the meanwhile i've already seen at least two doping insinuations in todays race thread which (upon reading) did go unpunished. Maybe it's not what you say, but who says it? It's starting to look like that. I sent an email 2 weeks ago, asking for a reason, the motivation behind my ban right after LBL. SHaines replied that he would "look into it" and let me know. It's been 2 weeks and i haven't heard jack Sht.

This is getting out of hand. So this week i sent an email to Matt Knott, Community Director, to criticise how the forum is being managed. So far i haven't heard of him either, and so far it doesn't look like they have any intention of looking into how to better manage things. I can only hope that a valid alternative forum is founded in the near future and perhaps a large part of the community can migrate. Last time i have seen forum administration this arrogant was when one of the largest gaming forums, Neogaf, also thought they were untouchable. Some people from the community created Resetera, and 90% of their quality posters migrated on one day. The rest followed.

Yes. It's kinda funny/ridiculous.
I was banned, because i made a joke when Remco was alone with 3k to go at LBL about ASO having a sniper ready in case a climate change protester ran out into the finishing straight.

That's a ban? lol
This would be funny if it weren't tragic. Sarcasm and humor not allowed.
 
Last edited:
I see two people got banned this evening. I didn't see for which post so i can't comment on it being fair or not. In the meanwhile i've already seen at least two doping insinuations in todays race thread which (upon reading) did go unpunished. Maybe it's not what you say, but who says it? It's starting to look like that. I sent an email 2 weeks ago, asking for a reason, the motivation behind my ban right after LBL. SHaines replied that he would "look into it" and let me know. It's been 2 weeks and i haven't heard jack Sht.

This is getting out of hand. So this week i sent an email to Matt Knott, Community Director, to criticise how the forum is being managed. So far i haven't heard of him either, and so far it doesn't look like they have any intention of looking into how to better manage things. I can only hope that a valid alternative forum is founded in the near future and perhaps a large part of the community can migrate. Last time i have seen forum administration this arrogant was when one of the largest gaming forums, Neogaf, also thought they were untouchable. Some people from the community created Resetera, and 90% of their quality posters migrated on one day. The rest followed.


This would be funny if it weren't tragic. Sarcasm and humor not allowed.

I agree that the lack of communication is a major problem. Now the technical stuff gets looked at, but anything else one says is just "deal with it, that's the forum". Nobody even answers. I have written some people in the past about setting up a new forum though, when the news site was going paywall, and in general the reactions of this forum show me that the members here are not interested in setting up a new forum or changing it. I guess cycling fans are just a very conservative bunch who prefer to accept conditions.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: jmdirt
I agree that the lack of communication is a major problem. Now the technical stuff gets looked at, but anything else one says is just "deal with it, that's the forum". Nobody even answers. I have written some people in the past about setting up a new forum though, when the news site was going paywall, and in general the reactions of this forum show me that the members here are not interested in setting up a new forum or changing it. I guess cycling fans are just a very conservative bunch who prefer to accept conditions.
There is always a tipping point, and maybe some of those people will change their minds when it is them that get banned for a month over a doping insinuation, while seeing people left and right doing the same thing. Or getting banned for making a joke a few times in a row.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: jmdirt
I have written some people in the past about setting up a new forum though, when the news site was going paywall, and in general the reactions of this forum show me that the members here are not interested in setting up a new forum or changing it.
And yet still you and your crew bang on and on and on about the injustice of those who apply the rules. Wiser people might have got the message by now.
 
I agree that the lack of communication is a major problem. Now the technical stuff gets looked at, but anything else one says is just "deal with it, that's the forum". Nobody even answers. I have written some people in the past about setting up a new forum though, when the news site was going paywall, and in general the reactions of this forum show me that the members here are not interested in setting up a new forum or changing it. I guess cycling fans are just a very conservative bunch who prefer to accept conditions.
When VeloNews was purchased, the new owner decided that the forum was too much of everything, and dumped it. Several hundred people went to a 'new forum'. Long story short, due to many reasons, most of those several hundred quickly whittled down to ~15 people. I'm not even sure if it is still alive. This forum is much better than nothing, IMO.
 
There is always a tipping point, and maybe some of those people will change their minds when it is them that get banned for a month over a doping insinuation, while seeing people left and right doing the same thing. Or getting banned for making a joke a few times in a row.
Doping discussion is against the rules outside of the clinic thread and should result in a consequence. If some gets away with it, that does indeed suck, but that doesn't mean that the banned person should be cleared, IMO.
 
Doping discussion is against the rules outside of the clinic thread and should result in a consequence. If some gets away with it, that does indeed suck, but that doesn't mean that the banned person should be cleared, IMO.
This isn't the point i am making. First of all i was talking about insinuations. Secondly, why is one person banned for a month, and another only for a week. Why do some get a free pass? I know a forum moderator was reading that topic. The problem is that there is no uniformity in decisions. It's like you are double parked, and get a huge fine and actual jail time for reckless endangerment because the way you were parked, was unsafe. Ok, maybe that's harsh but fair? But then you see someone rob and beat up an old lady right in front of two cops, who don't react and just walk by.
 
This isn't the point i am making. First of all i was talking about insinuations. Secondly, why is one person banned for a month, and another only for a week. Why do some get a free pass? I know a forum moderator was reading that topic. The problem is that there is no uniformity in decisions. It's like you are double parked, and get a huge fine and actual jail time for reckless endangerment because the way you were parked, was unsafe. Ok, maybe that's harsh but fair? But then you see someone rob and beat up an old lady right in front of two cops, who don't react and just walk by.
BUT, maybe what you aren't seeing/recognizing is that person A got a week for their first infraction, and then two weeks for their second infraction. Person B got a week for their first infraction. Yes, it was the same infraction, but they weren't on the same strike.

I avoided comparisons because they are never apples to apples, but since you really took it to a watermelons to grapes level, let's bring it back a bit: all of the traffic is going 80 in a 65 and you get a ticked for going 80. The fact that others were also going 80 does not make you innocent.
 
BUT, maybe what you aren't seeing/recognizing is that person A got a week for their first infraction, and then two weeks for their second infraction. Person B got a week for their first infraction. Yes, it was the same infraction, but they weren't on the same strike.

I avoided comparisons because they are never apples to apples, but since you really took it to a watermelons to grapes level, let's bring it back a bit: all of the traffic is going 80 in a 65 and you get a ticked for going 80. The fact that others were also going 80 does not make you innocent.
Clearly not the case. I got banned once (first ban) in 2021 for supposed trolling. An entire month. Then i got banned (my second ban) for a doping insinuation three months ago, again for one month. Since then, i have been banned 2 or 3 times for a week. Once for nothing (still waiting for an explanation after 3 weeks).
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
Clearly not the case. I got banned once (first ban) in 2021 for supposed trolling. An entire month. Then i got banned (my second ban) for a doping insinuation three months ago, again for one month. Since then, i have been banned 2 or 3 times for a week. Once for nothing (still waiting for an explanation after 3 weeks).
I'm going to reply to respect the conversation, but I'm not really as into this discussion as my participation indicates.

Trolling is against the rules, but a month seems too much unless it was also included another violation.

Clinic discussion/insinuation is against the rules, but a month seems too much unless it also included another violation.

My point above was that you don't know how often a person has been warned about something, and then see a basic infraction as not grounds for a ban, when in fact its was the third infraction.

I'll gladly read your replies after this, but I'm probably out of the discussion now.
 
And now it's @Extinction turn. He must've insulted Remco or something, that's not allowed.
No, the banning system is pathetic. I was insulted and yet got banned. I was only legitimately responding to something a poster declared that I didn't agree with. I neither used foul language, nor insulted anyone, but on the contrary was insulted and yet got banned.

Just because a moderator may not have liked the exchange, I see no legitimate reason to have been banned. It seems to me this action is a failure of the mods/banning system, in which a tyranny of authoritarianism and censorship has been created. It's unjust and persecutory. I would thus urge CN to moderate it's mods/banning system. Why it was necessary to ban me is rather baffling, instead of just removing the post someone had an issue with (even if I don't think that would have been justified, as it was on topic and wirhin the boundries of civil debating, at least on my part). At any rate, CN mistreats a paying subscriber this way, for which it will be difficult to renew my subscription.
 
Last edited:
When VeloNews was purchased, the new owner decided that the forum was too much of everything, and dumped it. Several hundred people went to a 'new forum'. Long story short, due to many reasons, most of those several hundred quickly whittled down to ~15 people. I'm not even sure if it is still alive. This forum is much better than nothing, IMO.
Was that the "JustCycling" forum?
 
No, the banning system is pathetic. I was insulted and yet got banned. I was only legitimately responding to something a poster declared that I didn't agree with. I neither used foul language, nor insulted anyone, but on the contrary was insulted and yet got banned.

Just because a moderator may not have liked the exchange, I see no legitimate reason to have been banned. It seems to me this action is a failure of the mods/banning system, in which a tyranny of authoritarianism and censorship has been created. It's unjust and persecutory. I would thus urge CN to moderate it's mods/banning system. Why it was necessary to ban me is rather baffling, instead of just removing the post someone had an issue with (even if I don't think that would have been justified, as it was on topic and wirhin the boundries of civil debating, at least on my part). At any rate, CN mistreats a paying subscriber this way, for which it will be difficult to renew my subscription.
Did a mod ban you or an admin? Those two 'titles' seem to be getting used interchangeably in this thread.