Wow, DNP is a big loss. Sorry to see that.
-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
What happened? I often disagree with him but man, this place would be so much more boring without him.
ManicJack
BANNED
One active moderator + Eshnar who I don‘t think does much at the moment
Another voluntary cool-off period?
Though, I'm pretty sure he hadn't yet been banned when Gigs made that post...
Picking up on that metaphor: Has anyone been over the edge (disregarding mou), though, or has the definition of the edge changed and more territory is out of bounds?It was that Sopranos picture Salvarini posted in the Pogacar thread that pushed everyone over the edge
Especially since tr*lling has become the MO for too many members.
IMO:
-The overall forum tone has become very negative.
--stupid racers, teams, courses, tactics, boring racers/races...
-Rider threads are loaded with more discussion about who a racer can't be/will never be, than actual discussion about the racer.
-Race threads are loaded with more discussion about what a racer can't win than what they just won.
Hence why most of my posts are just 'congrats'.
Last edited by a moderator:
ManicJack
BANNED
The non-cycling side so where American sports, weather, movie, book, etc. threads are all at. It used to be called the Cafe.
Forum has become a bit calcified, but I also think that's a bit of a result of how calcified current cycling is anyway. Most posters have seen their original favorite riders retire. Etc.
I do think people easily forget how toxic fan wars of old on this forum could be.
The fan wars of old were messy at times, but still insightful and constructive (excluding Lance/Postal topics).
EDIT: I meant to touch on the 'favorite racer' part. Certainily many of the racers who I enjoyed watching race have moved on, but there are always many more to fill their place. I really enjoy some of the younger guys who just like to race their ars off.
Last edited:
There's even a thread about vacuum cleaners.
I honestly think the forum hasn't changed that much (at least compared to when I joined) but there was a little period in between when things were a lot less heated, leading us to believe that would be the new norm. Contador had retired, Sky was defeated, Nibali, Valverde and Sagan no longer what they used to be and Pogacar and Remco not yet the superstars they are today. Now it's back to fan wars between Roglic and Remco, MvdP and Van Aert, Vingegaard and Pogacar.
Some of these fan groups are becoming really obnoxious and the old guard watching them from the outside are annoyed how the forum is becoming such a mess. But in reality the only difference is that the last time fan wars were waging, that old guard was right in the middle of them. Take a look back at the Contador thread and tell me that was any better than what's going on in the Pogacar thread. I really don't think it was.
Nibali vs Valverde was hot *** for quite a long time after Contador retired actually. Evenepoel thread was hot and contentious as early as 2019.
We never truly had a break.
But I think it was less heated nontheless. I think Nibali vs Valverde was never quite as toxic because neither had that many followers who were fans of the riders first and fans of the sport second. And while there was a lot of hype around Remco I don't think there were many people on this forum just because of him until at least the 2021 Giro, when he first raced in a GT. I genuinely recall that period around 2020 to be a lot calmer than it was before and than it is now.
Maybe I'm burned out then because it seems worse to me. Maybe the 'rider wars' aren't much different, but there isn't any reasonable discussion in between, and the race threads are bizarre. For example: a rider wins a big race, but a lot of the comments are about how that rider could never defeat some other rider. Many other comments are about how boring the race was, how stupid the tactics were, etc...
EDIT: My feeling about this are certainly aggravated by my enjoyment of the race over the rider. If I was forced to pick a (non USA) favorite, I'd probably pick MvdP. When he wins I'm happy, but when he loses in a good race I'm happy too. I really enjoy all of the great racers who seem to love racing hard. ramble...ramble...
Last edited:
I don’t think it helps that we went from Colombian/French/Italian group, Dutch mafia, Evans, Contador, Froome/Sky/British group, Purito, Nibali, Valverde, Cavendish, Kittel, and Sagan as the big backing groups/discussions. It was more diversified back than in my opinion. Now it’s focused on 6-8 riders with the big 6 having more overlap in races they contend compared to before.
I think there are two things that need to happen for a better forum experience.
The biggest one is there should be more moderators. This gives the moderation team the ability to discuss their approach and lead to a more balanced view, compared to 1 person mostly calling the shots. That's not to say that the shots currently taken are bad, just that when you have a team chances are higher it's a better fit with how users see it. This would also balance out someone having a bad day, and overreacting with banning, and the possibility to share the workload.
Secondly there should be more transparency on why people are banned, and for how long. Basically there should be a banlist with 5 columns: username, date of ban, duration of ban, which post, reasoning of ban. This gives the user a clearer idea what is out of line, and overall transparency.
The biggest one is there should be more moderators. This gives the moderation team the ability to discuss their approach and lead to a more balanced view, compared to 1 person mostly calling the shots. That's not to say that the shots currently taken are bad, just that when you have a team chances are higher it's a better fit with how users see it. This would also balance out someone having a bad day, and overreacting with banning, and the possibility to share the workload.
Secondly there should be more transparency on why people are banned, and for how long. Basically there should be a banlist with 5 columns: username, date of ban, duration of ban, which post, reasoning of ban. This gives the user a clearer idea what is out of line, and overall transparency.
Armchair Cyclist
Moderator
OK So I stepped into a vacuum left when other moderators stepped down.
I put up my philosophy of what I would aim to do, and got 24 positive responses for it
I tried to establish a consensus on what is acceptable, but none was forthcoming.
I examine every report I receive in context, from the point of view of somebody who enjoys cycling largely because it does not demand a blind partisanship in the way that many other sports do. In looking at context, I sometimes see posts that are problematic, or that contributed to, or resulted from, the reported one, so may act on those. I still tend to stay away from those threads that don't interest me unless I am directed there by reports. I receive far more reports than those that I warn or sanction, and tend to believe that if some think I am being too strict, and others that I am not harsh enough, I am probably about as close to the right path as is possible.
I know that past moderation here has been far more lax than the forum providers would want, and I have seen the much stricter interventions that the site administrators apply. I have tried to steer a path between the two, and (apart from one totally egregious case that got an instant permaban, and one case of not my not being familiar with automated responses which was quickly fixed) nobody has had any suspension without prior warning and being advised to desist from a course of actions. I have also very rarely escalated the sanctions to the degree that the advice to moderators suggests.
I have therefore done my best to make a middle way between what the providers want and what users are used to; a balance between banter and abuse. If there is such a thing as a perfect way of doing that, I probably have not hit it every time: I doubt there is, so I can only draw that line where I see fit, bearing all things, including constructive criticism (but not accusations of bias) into account.
But I only want to do this voluntary role as a service to the community here, and if what I do is not seen as such, I shall step down. So for the next 48 hours, I shall only do approvals and stickying. If people want lawless bearpit, then as far as I am concerned they can have it for 48 hours (I will act if there is an extreme breach, but not for what is typical): if people do not trust my judgement, they can be freed from it for a couple of days.
So, at 11:30 (UK time) on Sunday, I shall count the thumbs up or angry faces on this post: I shall consider a thumbs up to be a request that I stay (not as necessarily agreeing with everything I do: I understand that) and an angry face as a vote that I step down (again, I shall not assume that you are necessarily angry at me, just that you don't share my judgements). I shall step down immediately if the balance is that I should do so: I shall remain, still willing to receive constructive criticism (although encouragement might be nice as well), if the majority ask me to continue. Please don't confuse the issue with other emojis.
If continuing, I would very much like to have other moderators alongside me, and if I am stepping down, I hope someone (or better, a team) can step up that can meet the expectations of both the membership and the providers.
I put up my philosophy of what I would aim to do, and got 24 positive responses for it
I tried to establish a consensus on what is acceptable, but none was forthcoming.
I examine every report I receive in context, from the point of view of somebody who enjoys cycling largely because it does not demand a blind partisanship in the way that many other sports do. In looking at context, I sometimes see posts that are problematic, or that contributed to, or resulted from, the reported one, so may act on those. I still tend to stay away from those threads that don't interest me unless I am directed there by reports. I receive far more reports than those that I warn or sanction, and tend to believe that if some think I am being too strict, and others that I am not harsh enough, I am probably about as close to the right path as is possible.
I know that past moderation here has been far more lax than the forum providers would want, and I have seen the much stricter interventions that the site administrators apply. I have tried to steer a path between the two, and (apart from one totally egregious case that got an instant permaban, and one case of not my not being familiar with automated responses which was quickly fixed) nobody has had any suspension without prior warning and being advised to desist from a course of actions. I have also very rarely escalated the sanctions to the degree that the advice to moderators suggests.
I have therefore done my best to make a middle way between what the providers want and what users are used to; a balance between banter and abuse. If there is such a thing as a perfect way of doing that, I probably have not hit it every time: I doubt there is, so I can only draw that line where I see fit, bearing all things, including constructive criticism (but not accusations of bias) into account.
But I only want to do this voluntary role as a service to the community here, and if what I do is not seen as such, I shall step down. So for the next 48 hours, I shall only do approvals and stickying. If people want lawless bearpit, then as far as I am concerned they can have it for 48 hours (I will act if there is an extreme breach, but not for what is typical): if people do not trust my judgement, they can be freed from it for a couple of days.
So, at 11:30 (UK time) on Sunday, I shall count the thumbs up or angry faces on this post: I shall consider a thumbs up to be a request that I stay (not as necessarily agreeing with everything I do: I understand that) and an angry face as a vote that I step down (again, I shall not assume that you are necessarily angry at me, just that you don't share my judgements). I shall step down immediately if the balance is that I should do so: I shall remain, still willing to receive constructive criticism (although encouragement might be nice as well), if the majority ask me to continue. Please don't confuse the issue with other emojis.
If continuing, I would very much like to have other moderators alongside me, and if I am stepping down, I hope someone (or better, a team) can step up that can meet the expectations of both the membership and the providers.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread
- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 24K
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
-
Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard thread: Love in Iberia- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram