Moderation

[red_flanders]

And people aren't going to report posts they don't find any issues with.

No, of course not. Not sure that's a problem?

 

[Samu Cuenca]

My experience from other forums (other people might have different experiences) is that it rarely goes well when someone questions the rules or second-guesses the actions of the mods/admins.

As long as those who get banned get an explanation and a fair treatment, I don't personally need to know why or for how long they're banned.

In Logi's case, I throught his comments were a bit out there at first, but then I realised that I and others had misunderstood them. His reaction to getting misunderstood was a bit weird though, so I'm quite pleased that I wasn't the one who had to deal with it.

The same goes for the Broccolidwarf ban, for instance, though I obviously don't know what went on behind the scenes with either of them.

 

[Salvarani]

Several posters who had never had a reputation of causing trouble getting banned within days didn't make you question things?

People (posters) make mistakes.

I dont think anyone is or should be above the rules that are in place.

I would have to assume the mods have done their job in identifying something that was a violation and proceeded to take the appropriate measures. Right or wrong, they saw it was fit. I would have to trust them that they have made the right call and let it go. I think it would be dangerous to invest myself in or have strong opinion on something that is none of my business, without knowing all the facts on what has happened from different sources. Nor should I go out of my way to seek information about it, when it is probably best for all parties to get on with it and move on.

 

[red_flanders]

But that doesn't really help if the general consensus is that some bans are too strict. We can't very well reverse-report:
"I feel like this post is perfectly fine, and does not warrant any sort of disciplinary action." That's like 99% of posts.

The "general consensus" isn't a strategy for handling moderation. I think it's good to express disappointment when a long-time, solid contributor is banned so that the mods can weigh that. We're all contributors here and our voice should be heard, but it's a decision obviously best left to mods, not the mob.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

My experience from other forums (other people might have different experiences) is that it rarely goes well when someone questions the rules or second-guesses the actions of the mods/admins.

As long as those who get banned get an explanation and a fair treatment, I don't personally need to know why or for how long they're banned.

In Logi's case, I throught his comments were a bit out there at first, but then I realised that I and others had misunderstood them. His reaction to getting misunderstood was a bit weird though, so I'm quite pleased that I wasn't the one who had to deal with it.

The same goes for the Broccolidwarf ban, for instance, though I obviously don't know what went on behind the scenes with either of them.

And this comes from someone who was once banned from a Danish beekeeper forum, because he wanted them to reveal their best tricks to making money!

That said, I don't judge people for speaking their mind, if they do think that some things should have been handed differently.

 

[BR2]

Usually people are banned for things that already got removed by the time I see the ban and sometimes I don't know if there was more than I saw so I've never experienced "xy shouldn't be banned".
Question is probably not about ill-intent (I'm sure there isn't, RedRick is biased when it comes to some riders, but he seems very fair in his mod-role), but whether the mods (mod) might be overstrained, but I guess we've discussed that enough now.

The people that annoy me the most are those that act within the rules if you take them very literally. The people who don't use bad words or anything, but every second post at latest of theirs is done to provoke or ridicule others. That's just trolling. I've reported some such posts in the past and there wasn't any reaction from any mod, I didn't even know whether my "report" even reached anyone, same as with the spam, and then of course you stop doing it.

I think one cannot really complain about the mods actions in this forum, but I do question the secrecy with which some things are done and in general that decisions are made (from the admins side) that are not easy to understand. I also think the "trolling" rule could be extended to posters who obviously find the most pleasure not in discussing cycling but in bringing people down even if they pretend to talk about cycling.

 

[BR2]

The "general consensus" isn't a strategy for handling moderation. I think it's good to express disappointment when a long-time, solid contributor is banned so that the mods can weigh that. We're all contributors here and our voice should be heard, but it's a decision obviously best left to mods, not the mob.

Are we a mob?
I mean, I get your point overall, but I think that's a very negative view of us users here. Especially people like Redhead who have been here for ages, contribute so much, hardly cause any anger are the soul of the forum.

I don't think anyone has been banned for eternity while I have been here other than broccolidwarf, though, and in that case it was justified because he just kept on trolling despite being banned for shorter amounts of time before.

Logic will be back, right?

 

[RedheadDane]

And this comes from someone who was once banned from a Danish beekeeper forum, because he wanted them to reveal their best tricks to making money!

You didn't even ask how to train a swarm of bees so you could make them attack your enemies?
I don't count as one of your enemies, right?

Usually people are banned for things that already got removed by the time I see the ban and sometimes I don't know if there was more than I saw so I've never experienced "xy shouldn't be banned".

Neither have I, really. I just tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Again, especially when talking about people who aren't generally known for causing trouble.
If it was someone known for constantly trolling, my reaction would probably be "Well, it was gonna happen some day..."

 

[red_flanders]

Are we a mob?
I mean, I get your point overall, but I think that's a very negative view of us users here. Especially people like Redhead who have been here for ages, contribute so much, hardly cause any anger are the soul of the forum.

I don't think anyone has been banned for eternity while I have been here other than broccolidwarf, though, and in that case it was justified because he just kept on trolling despite being banned for shorter amounts of time before.

Logic will be back, right?

It was a turn of phrase, done because it rhymed. I have zero ill will towards Redhead Dane, of course. The term “mob rule” isn‘t about any one individual, it’s about resisting the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

You didn't even ask how to train a swarm of bees so you could make them attack your enemies?
I don't count as one of your enemies, right?

I didn't, no. My sister and brother-in-law actually have bees, so perhaps I could be allowed to train some of them. Well if a bunch of bees ever shows up at your door, you'll know who'send them! (But if they aren't wearing small Euskaltel outifts, they're not mine).

 

[fmk_RoI]

I also think the "trolling" rule could be extended to posters who obviously find the most pleasure not in discussing cycling but in bringing people down even if they pretend to talk about cycling.

Totally.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I think it's good to express disappointment when a long-time, solid contributor is banned so that the mods can weigh that.

Problem with that is you quickly devolve to the old thread of discussing mod decisions and that never went anywhere useful.

 

[red_flanders]

Problem with that is you quickly devolve to the old thread of discussing mod decisions and that never went anywhere useful.

Very good point, but one can express disappointment or ask questions in DM's. I've found the mods to be fairly responsive on the rare occasion I've reached out.

 

[RedheadDane]

I just have one question about the Information Thread:

Was it really so horrible it had to be given the full "Dalek Treatment"? Couldn't it just have been... not updated any longer, and quietly allowed to drop down the thread-listing?

 

[tobydawq]

That is just an assumption and a few people agreeing with each other. We cant say that is the general consensus.

Just because you are the loudest dont mean everyone feels that way. Plenty of people that just mind their business.

I believe the mods give out warnings plenty of times to people. A ban does not come like a lightning strike and sometimes it might just be warranted, like sometimes it might not be warranted. It always gonna be a margin for error when there are humans involved, but discussing singular cases gets tedious. "Should this really have been banworthy?", it cant work like that.

The mods have to make a quick decision most times, when things get out of hand or is out of line. I trust that they in most cases make the right decision.

I certainly was given no warning before being banned for a sarcastic answer to a post from a bot. At least it was only for a day, but still...

 

[Salvarani]

I certainly was given no warning before being banned for a sarcastic answer to a post from a bot. At least it was only for a day, but still...

Ok.

Plenty of times, doesnt mean every time.

I dont know what you said, but maybe have a discussion with the mods in private if you still feel a way about it or why you couldnt be given a warning.

Glad to have you back.

 

[tobydawq]

Ok.

Plenty of times, doesnt mean every time.

I dont know what you said, but maybe have a discussion with the mods in private if you still feel a way about it or why you couldnt be given a warning.

Glad to have you back.

It was a post from a user with no other posts that said "I really like your post" in a random thread without answering to anybody in particular. I replied "I don't like yours", but both other posters and admins somehow didn't realise that it was a bot and I was reported and banned. I realise sarcasm is a tricky thing in writing but I couldn't believe I was banned because of that when you see what other posters are allowed to do.

I have had a private conversation with Shaines but I don't see why I should keep it a secret what happened.

If one is not allowed to discuss one's own ban in public, I apologise for this post.

 

[Salvarani]

It was a post from a user with no other posts that said "I really like your post" in a random thread without answering to anybody in particular. I replied "I don't like yours", but both other posters and admins somehow didn't realise that it was a bot and I was reported and banned. I realise sarcasm is a tricky thing in writing but I couldn't believe I was banned because of that when you see what other posters are allowed to do.

I have had a private conversation with Shaines but I don't see why I should keep it a secret what happened.

If one is not allowed to discuss one's own ban in public, I apologise for this post.

If other posters and admins didnt realise it was a bot, it sounds like a mistake that could happen and is within the margin of error.

Sometimes it is not easy to detect sarcasm in writing and people will interpret things differently, which could also lead to mistakes or things escalating.

I dont think it is something to get overly upset about or still be angry about.

You were quickly back within a day, which a lot us are all happy with.

 

[tobydawq]

If other posters and admins didnt realise it was a bot, it sounds like a mistake that could happen and is within the margin of error.

Sometimes it is not easy to detect sarcasm in writing and people will interpret things differently, which could also lead to mistakes or things escalating.

I dont think it is something to get overly upset about or still be angry about.

You were quickly back within a day, which a lot us are all happy with.

I'm still angry that Sagan didn't win MSR 2012 and Strade 2013, this might take a while too

No, I guess you're right.

 

[Salvarani]

I'm still angry that Sagan didn't win MSR 2012 and Strade 2013, this might take a while too

No, I guess you're right.

Sagan not winning MSR is one of the biggest travesties I can think of. Thanks for reminding me

 

[RedheadDane]

It was a post from a user with no other posts that said "I really like your post" in a random thread without answering to anybody in particular. I replied "I don't like yours", but both other posters and admins somehow didn't realise that it was a bot and I was reported and banned. I realise sarcasm is a tricky thing in writing but I couldn't believe I was banned because of that when you see what other posters are allowed to do.

I have had a private conversation with Shaines but I don't see why I should keep it a secret what happened.

If one is not allowed to discuss one's own ban in public, I apologise for this post.

That was actually my first thought, but then I figured that surely that couldn't be it...

Edit:
Though, I suppose that might have been exactly what the "just report it" advice was for. "Just report obvious spambots, rather than snark them."

 

[SHAD0W93]

I mean, at least in the past we’ve been able to voice that we don’t like somebodies post and in worse language then just, I don’t like yours.

 

[King Boonen]

It probably wouldn't surprise you to know that most of the worries people seem to have are taken into account by the mods for pretty much every decision made, and as usual @red_flanders talks a lot of sense.

 

[RedheadDane]

It probably wouldn't surprise you to know that most of the worries people seem to have are taken into account by the mods for pretty much every decision made, and as usual @red_flanders talks a lot of sense.

Sure, but I still wonder about the reasoning - if any - behind banning Toby for that post. As Shadow pointed out; much worse stuff has been allowed.
Was it just because "she" - the obvious spambot - was a newcomer, and we should be nice to newcomers?

 

[King Boonen]

Sure, but I still wonder about the reasoning - if any - behind banning Toby for that post. As Shadow pointed out; much worse stuff has been allowed.
Was it just because "she" - the obvious spambot - was a newcomer, and we should be nice to newcomers?

At a guess, the admin looked at the post, it broke the rules and was reported and that's what the admin ruled on.

As to other stuff being allowed, I'll refer back to what @red_flanders said here and I and other mods have said countless times. It's not that other things are allowed, it's that moderation is largely done based on reports. Sure, mods will see some things and take action or let it slide, but it's reports that drive attention. If things aren't report but others are, it can seem like some people get away with things others don't, but I can tell you when I was a mod that would never have been intentional.