• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Moderators

Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
Can we please have some stricter criteria on Moderators in this forum as I have been given 2 infractions because I swore at a poster!

Others swear and so have I in the past and have never gotten a punishment.

Whoever is in charge needs to put the moderators on a leash to control them!

Then you have others making far more personal insults about others and I have been reporting them and nothing at all happens.

Absolute in consistency!

Something needs to be done!

ACF94!
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Can we please have some stricter criteria on Moderators in this forum as I have been given 2 infractions because I swore at a poster!

Others swear and so have I in the past and have never gotten a punishment.

Whoever is in charge needs to put the moderators on a leash to control them!

Then you have others making far more personal insults about others and I have been reporting them and nothing at all happens.

Absolute in consistency!

Something needs to be done!

ACF94!
In my experience you can get away with a lot more if you are right some of the time. Just keep plugging away little grasshopper, your time will come.:D
 
Nov 24, 2009
1,148
0
0
Okay I admit it. I am part of a secret cabal of posters who are out to purge the forum of the following: Evans acolytes and those who use exclamation marks rather superfluously. Sadly, you fit the bill on both scores.

Due to the fact that your Evans affliction was being considered for inclusion in the DSM IV TR, I will not hold it against you. However, if you do not begin to curb your over indulgence in the exclamation mark I will have no further recourse but to report you to whichever entity is willing to poke you with a stick/cattle prod/ tazer in order to stem the tide of your exclamatio in extremis.

your pal,

tlm
 
Sep 24, 2009
1,851
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
In my experience you can get away with a lot more if you are right some of the time. Just keep plugging away little grasshopper, your time will come.:D
That's my secret.:D
 
Oct 29, 2009
414
0
0
The most bemusing thing just happened to me!

I just logged in and saw I had a message from moderator RVD4ROUBAIX. It was, get this, a doping violation! So, OK, it's not the UCI, it's a forum about cycling. The wording of this violation is dervative, unoriginal, almost certainly hyperbolic, or cringingly earnest, maybe even just plain lame.

Let's hope the UCI's Blood Passport is subject to greater analysis, too, because I received my 'doping violation' for not even discussing doping in the now closed-down Ullrich thread. The 'evidence' for my 'doping violation' as presented in my warning message was the post in that thread where I pointed out the absurd expectation that 'certain facts of a very high-profile rider's biography would be left out'. In that post I never used the words doper, doping, haemoglobin-chugging vampire cheat, or words to that effect.

It's a good thing none of this matters a sh!t, because there's some people you really don't want making important decisions about you. In certain areas of life, the outcome could be tragic.

So, moderators, I believe some combination of the words 'life get go a' would pertain here. I will do same.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,694
0
0
CycloErgoSum said:
The most bemusing thing just happened to me!

I just logged in and saw I had a message from moderator RVD4ROUBAIX. It was, get this, a doping violation! So, OK, it's not the UCI, it's a forum about cycling. The wording of this violation is dervative, unoriginal, almost certainly hyperbolic, or cringingly earnest, maybe even just plain lame.

Let's hope the UCI's Blood Passport is subject to greater analysis, too, because I received my 'doping violation' for not even discussing doping in the now closed-down Ullrich thread. The 'evidence' for my 'doping violation' as presented in my warning message was the post in that thread where I pointed out the absurd expectation that 'certain facts of a very high-profile rider's biography would be left out'. In that post I never used the words doper, doping, haemoglobin-chugging vampire cheat, or words to that effect.

It's a good thing none of this matters a sh!t, because there's some people you really don't want making important decisions about you. In certain areas of life, the outcome could be tragic.

So, moderators, I believe some combination of the words 'life get go a' would pertain here. I will do same.
If you want to start your own thread about Ullrich in the clinic nobody's stopping you. If you want to tell admins and mods that doping should be allowed in a non-doping part of the forum because of the person being discussed, or to move the "friggin thread" we might take exception. It's a warning, not a tattoo, relax.
 
Oct 29, 2009
414
0
0
RDV4ROUBAIX said:
If you want to start your own thread about Ullrich in the clinic nobody's stopping you. If you want to tell admins and mods that doping should be allowed in a non-doping part of the forum because of the person being discussed, or to move the "friggin thread" we might take exception. It's a warning, not a tattoo, relax.
Overheard in Berlin, circa 1933, "It's just goose-stepping, relax.'

So now we've got to tell you what is likely to happen in certain threads? Aren't you guys on top of that sort of thing? Didn't it occur to you the direction a thread about an infamous rider would take?

A bit of foresight before issuing 'Achtung: stop it or we'll tie you up with piano wire'-style posts would be appreciated. No mature person listens to bullies.

Edit: I don't care to discuss Ullrich's doping. I positively rail against stupid expectations.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,694
0
0
If you have a that much of a problem with receiving a doping warning, I will go ahead and reverse it, and give you a non-doping warning for debating the rules here.
 
CycloErgoSum said:
Overheard in Berlin, circa 1933, "It's just goose-stepping, relax.'
You can't be serious making that comparison.

It's a cycling message board. Follow the rules. Don't try to skirt around them with semantics. Don't like the rules, or the way things are? Don't post.
 
Oct 29, 2009
414
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
You can't be serious making that comparison.

It's a cycling message board. Follow the rules. Don't try to skirt around them with semantics. Don't like the rules, or the way things are? Don't post.
Some anti-democratic and didactic tendencies there. You're moderator posts read a bit priggish.
 
Oct 29, 2009
414
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
Any further such references will lead to a temporary ban.

Some things are not funny.

Susan
Like throwing cats in snow for personal amusement? Cyberspace isn't Deustchland; in some parts of the world certain subjects aren't off limits and we can associate freely.

I get your drift, don't worry. I'll play in someone else's yard.
 
Oct 29, 2009
414
0
0
CycloErgoSum said:
Like throwing cats in snow for personal amusement? Cyberspace isn't Deustchland; in some parts of the world certain subjects aren't off limits and we can associate freely.

I get your drift, don't worry. I'll play in someone else's yard.
EDIT: While I'm at it, my maiden name's Lagudin, my people are Ukranian Jew. I am entitled to invoke 'that' history when I witness intolerance and lack of fair-mindedness. It's also empowering and therapeudic, like the African-American appropriation of the N-word. I agree, my invocation was hyperbolic given the circumstances - ironic given that's what started this thing off in the first place - but I stand by the notion that intolerant, illiberal attitudes are all of a kind no matter the degree of their consequences. Like they say in Australia, 'Lest We Forget.' The past exists, we can't ignore it.
 
CycloErgoSum said:
EDIT: While I'm at it, my maiden name's Lagudin, my people are Ukranian Jew. I am entitled to invoke 'that' history when I witness intolerance and lack of fair-mindedness. It's also empowering and therapeudic, like the African-American appropriation of the N-word. I agree, my invocation was hyperbolic given the circumstances - ironic given that's what started this thing off in the first place - but I stand by the notion that intolerant, illiberal attitudes are all of a kind no matter the degree of their consequences. Like they say in Australia, 'Lest We Forget.' The past exists, we can't ignore it.
I also have personal connections to this history. I am the first to agree it must not be ignored or forgotten.

But to relate it to moderator techniques in an internet forum is totally out of line.

Susan
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
I also have personal connections to this history. I am the first to agree it must not be ignored or forgotten.

But to relate it to moderator techniques in an internet forum is totally out of line.

Susan
Mostly out of line. I know you guys are still stinging from not being able to keep BPC off the board (by the way I am pretty sure he is back in multiple personalities), but some sort of level of expressive freedom still needs to be allowed without going completely overboard in favour of long time posters.
That Bagster guy was ultimately no more annoying than TFF or me (really ,to be honest) but it seems (to me) like he got cut much less slack because he had some sort of misguided need to defend The LAhole. Please let's not sink to RBR standards, but let us try to maintain a forum where all sort of opinions can be heard.
This rule with an iron hand thing that you are trying out right now is not a good idea IMO.
That's all I have to say about that.
 
Mar 22, 2010
897
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Mostly out of line. I know you guys are still stinging from not being able to keep BPC off the board (by the way I am pretty sure he is back in multiple personalities), but some sort of level of expressive freedom still needs to be allowed without going completely overboard in favour of long time posters.
That Bagster guy was ultimately no more annoying than TFF or me (really ,to be honest) but it seems (to me) like he got cut much less slack because he had some sort of misguided need to defend The LAhole. Please let's not sink to RBR standards, but let us try to maintain a forum where all sort of opinions can be heard.
This rule with an iron hand thing that you are trying out right now is not a good idea IMO.
That's all I have to say about that.
I agree that the mods here (and elsewhere, to be fair) tend to cut a lot more slack to those who may be obnoxious but at least agree with the mods point of view as well.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,694
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Mostly out of line. I know you guys are still stinging from not being able to keep BPC off the board (by the way I am pretty sure he is back in multiple personalities), but some sort of level of expressive freedom still needs to be allowed without going completely overboard in favour of long time posters.
That Bagster guy was ultimately no more annoying than TFF or me (really ,to be honest) but it seems (to me) like he got cut much less slack because he had some sort of misguided need to defend The LAhole. Please let's not sink to RBR standards, but let us try to maintain a forum where all sort of opinions can be heard.
This rule with an iron hand thing that you are trying out right now is not a good idea IMO.
That's all I have to say about that.
You still are hung up on this Hugh... Why didn't you respond directly to my post in the thread you started about Bagster? Are you guys related or something? Iron fist? You must be joking.. Pffft, Jeez. :rolleyes: You've been around here long enough to see that the trolls go through here like weather fronts. Lately it's been storming. What you fail to understand is that you only see what's typed on the boards, when we confront these individuals after reported posts, it's either an apology and life goes on, or act like a Bagster for instance and be gone. Sure TFF is annoying, but reasonable if he's in the wrong, Bagster absolutely wasn't. Got it?
 
CycloErgoSum said:
The most bemusing thing just happened to me!

I just logged in and saw I had a message from moderator RVD4ROUBAIX. It was, get this, a doping violation! So, OK, it's not the UCI, it's a forum about cycling. The wording of this violation is dervative, unoriginal, almost certainly hyperbolic, or cringingly earnest, maybe even just plain lame.

Let's hope the UCI's Blood Passport is subject to greater analysis, too, because I received my 'doping violation' for not even discussing doping in the now closed-down Ullrich thread. The 'evidence' for my 'doping violation' as presented in my warning message was the post in that thread where I pointed out the absurd expectation that 'certain facts of a very high-profile rider's biography would be left out'. In that post I never used the words doper, doping, haemoglobin-chugging vampire cheat, or words to that effect.

It's a good thing none of this matters a sh!t, because there's some people you really don't want making important decisions about you. In certain areas of life, the outcome could be tragic.

So, moderators, I believe some combination of the words 'life get go a' would pertain here. I will do same.
It's rather straightforward that doping discussions take place in The Clinic. All other sub-forums are dope-discussion free. If you want to talk about doping and Jan Ullrich, start a thread in The Clinic.

You're so clearly ignoring the rules of the forum by posting doping rants outside of The Clinic that you should just accept that you were wrong and modify your behavior accordingly.
 
Oct 29, 2009
414
0
0
joe_papp said:
It's rather straightforward that doping discussions take place in The Clinic. All other sub-forums are dope-discussion free. If you want to talk about doping and Jan Ullrich, start a thread in The Clinic.

You're so clearly ignoring the rules of the forum by posting doping rants outside of The Clinic that you should just accept that you were wrong and modify your behavior accordingly.
I think you've missed my point also. Whilst I did contribute a couple of posts on Ullrich's biography, they were responses to others. I didn't post after the warnings. My point was that, given certain ignominous facts of the rider's biography and the likelihood they would be discussed, it would have been prescient of the mods to move the thread in the first place. I also objected to the mods bullish crackdown after letting the 'transgression' fester in the first place. There's nothing moderate about the mods, lately.

NB. What do you mean by doping 'rants?' Are you suggesting that some people's views are unreasonable? Can only convicted, prodigal sons like your good self discuss it? These forums are as snobbish as a bunch. I have no interest in Ullrich and I do not care to start a thread on him. My contribution to the said thread was pointing out the revisionist inconsistency of hero-worshipping the guy because he's retired whilst others of his ilk are demonised (and no, I don't THAT guy, either.) I wouldn't call that a 'rant.' I call it intellectual honesty and integrity.
 
Apr 16, 2010
70
0
0
CycloErgoSum said:
I think you've missed my point also. Whilst I did contribute a couple of posts on Ullrich's biography, they were responses to others. I didn't post after the warnings. My point was that, given certain ignominous facts of the rider's biography and the likelihood they would be discussed, it would have been prescient of the mods to move the thread in the first place.

NB. What do you mean by doping 'rants?' Are you suggesting that some people's views are unreasonable? Can only convicted, prodigal sons like your good self discuss it? These forums are as snobbish as a bunch. I have no interest in Ullrich and I do not care to start a thread on him. My contribution to the said thread was pointing out the revisionist inconsistency of hero-worshipping the guy because he's retired whilst others of his ilk are demonised (and no, I don't THAT guy, either.)

Snobbery is putting nicely. Basically, if you diverge from the forum's conventional wisdom, you've already got one foot out the door. From that point it's just a matter of them searching for a hook to hang their banning hat on. Because..... they are such big fans of diversity, freedom of thought and are not hypocritical in the least :rolleyes:.... No big deal. It's a forum. Mods who can't get over themselves are fun to bait.
 
Oct 29, 2009
414
0
0
r.avens said:
Snobbery is putting nicely. Basically, if you diverge from the forum's conventional wisdom, you've already got one foot out the door. From that point it's just a matter of them searching for a hook to hang their banning hat on. Because..... they are such big fans of diversity, freedom of thought and are not hypocritical in the least :rolleyes:.... No big deal. It's a forum. Mods who can't get over themselves are fun to bait.
If this little episode has done anything, it's given me an idea for general thread. When I was studying psych in the early 90s I came across some papers on personailty and motivation. One was about the personality traits of serious cyclists. It related that the sport tends to attract austere, goal-oriented types who are sticklers for orthodoxy, conservatism and rule-following. Their social circles also tend toward hierachy. I wonder if an updated one exists, especially in relation to cyclsts who dope?

Those traits can also be seen in a good light, for instance in relation to fortitude. I wonder what others' experience is of the 'archetypal cyclist?'
 
May 11, 2010
2
0
0
CycloErgoSum said:
If this little episode has done anything, it's given me an idea for general thread. When I was studying psych in the early 90s I came across some papers on personailty and motivation. One was about the personality traits of serious cyclists. It related that the sport tends to attract austere, goal-oriented types who are sticklers for orthodoxy, conservatism and rule-following. Their social circles also tend toward hierachy. I wonder if an updated one exists, especially in relation to cyclsts who dope?

Those traits can also be seen in a good light, for instance in relation to fortitude. I wonder what others' experience is of the 'archetypal cyclist?'
When you have a very fringe niche like this, any deviance from the tribal beliefs- even the meaningless ones- is grounds for ostracization. It's a blaspheme against their tribal meme. They keep trying to position themselves as 'the new golf'. I love cycling, I can't stand golf. So don't get me wrong when I say, "This will never be golf." Golf is mainstream. This is fringe.

Cycling is a passion. But the cyclists themselves can be a very tedious lot. When the beliefs are so scripted, there's almost no point in conversation. If you know one member of the tribe....there's been little variation, in my experience.
 
May 11, 2010
2
0
0
CycloErgoSum said:
If this little episode has done anything, it's given me an idea for general thread. When I was studying psych in the early 90s I came across some papers on personailty and motivation. One was about the personality traits of serious cyclists. It related that the sport tends to attract austere, goal-oriented types who are sticklers for orthodoxy, conservatism and rule-following. Their social circles also tend toward hierachy. I wonder if an updated one exists, especially in relation to cyclsts who dope?

Those traits can also be seen in a good light, for instance in relation to fortitude. I wonder what others' experience is of the 'archetypal cyclist?'
When you have a very fringe niche like this, any deviance from the tribal beliefs- even the meaningless ones- is grounds for ostracization. It's a blaspheme against their tribal meme. They keep trying to position themselves as 'the new golf'. I love cycling, I can't stand golf. So don't get me wrong when I say, "This will never be golf." Golf is mainstream. This is fringe.

Cycling is a passion. But the cyclists themselves can be a very tedious lot. When the beliefs are so scripted, there's almost no point in conversation. If you know one member of the tribe....there's been little variation, in my experience.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts