Moderators

[bobs nob]

Is Cobble's ban a permanent ban?

Just Curious.

Is that a permanent or temp ban?

 

[JRTinMA]

Just Curious.

Is that a permanent or temp ban?

30 days ///////

 

[krebs303]

30 days ///////

Humble Pie-30 Days In The Hole

 

[Martin318is]

Guys,
If you REALLY have to discuss Cobblestoned's account suspension, can you please create a new thread for the conversation and not take this one off topic?

Thanks!

Marty

 

[tifosa]

It does not insult, nor attack anyones mother, but is more likely to be interpreted as you being like two brothers, two peas in a pot. It's not even an insult to you

Isn't the idiom two peas in a pod? BTW, that's i-d-i-o-m, not i-d-i-o-t.

 

[Barrus]

Isn't the idiom two peas in a pod? BTW, that's i-d-i-o-m, not i-d-i-o-t.

Ah, yeah, that's what you get when English is your second language

 

[tifosa]

Not to worry, english is my second language too.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Comment submitted:

"Sad to see your response regarding the person that pointed out your tagging of LeMond photos as "fool".

The true shame is that someone in your position isn't smart enough to realise that one of them is doing everything they can for the betterment of the sport and the other is out for whatever he can get in an ego driven desire to maintain his position in the modern peloton. The sport would be infinitely better if all the riders were like Greg. Certainly better than if even one of them attempts to emulate that parasite Armstrong.

Add me to the list of people that won't be purchasing your images."

Oh dear, not a good look for an administrator to be so openly biased. I am sure your comments will win you a few fans on here but you really should censure yourself. At least Susan is a little more circumspect in her public comments even though i am sure she is tempted to say how she feels. maybe if you want to post stuff like this you should consider stepping aside as a 'moderator' and then just go for it.

 

[Berzin]

I do have a slight issue with moderators expressing their biases in such a public fashion. Is that the role of a 'moderator'? I wouldn't have thought so.

So let me get this straight-you want the mods to live up to a set of standards you yourself make a mockery of every time you post.

Yeah, OK.

Why is this poster allowed to take every single thread he posts on off-topic?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh dear, not a good look for an administrator to be so openly biased. I am sure your comments will win you a few fans on here but you really should censure yourself. At least Susan is a little more circumspect in her public comments even though i am sure she is tempted to say how she feels. maybe if you want to post stuff like this you should consider stepping aside as a 'moderator' and then just go for it.

Why should Martin (or any other mod/admin) 'censure' themselves?

Most of the administrators/moderators have a long history of posting on many issues, on this site - and have volunteered their own time to help moderate the forum.

....
I do have a slight issue with moderators expressing their biases in such a public fashion. Is that the role of a 'moderator'? I wouldn't have thought so.
.....

A moderators role is to moderate others posts if they go against forum rules - you appear to believe that a mods role is not to have an opinion.

Its seems you don't understand that this is a forum - where all opinions are tolerated - and we as posters are guests of 'Future publishing' who dictate what is or is not appropriate.

 

[cyclelicious]

Moderators should be NEUTRAL

Comment submitted:

"Sad to see your response regarding the person that pointed out your tagging of LeMond photos as "fool".

The true shame is that someone in your position isn't smart enough to realise that one of them is doing everything they can for the betterment of the sport and the other is out for whatever he can get in an ego driven desire to maintain his position in the modern peloton. The sport would be infinitely better if all the riders were like Greg. Certainly better than if even one of them attempts to emulate that parasite Armstrong.

Add me to the list of people that won't be purchasing your images."

The problem is that the sport is now so filled with feces you have to pick through it to find the actual food.

Sorry for such a wretched analogy, but considering the shame and mockery the sport has endured, and continues to endure, for people like Graham and those who continually enforce the omerta to live such a lie and hide the ugly truth does nothing but continue to degrade the sport into further ridicule. And rightfully so.

Oh dear, not a good look for an administrator to be so openly biased. I am sure your comments will win you a few fans on here but you really should censure yourself. At least Susan is a little more circumspect in her public comments even though i am sure she is tempted to say how she feels. maybe if you want to post stuff like this you should consider stepping aside as a 'moderator' and then just go for it.

SpartacusRox has a valid point, and I added another moderator quote for good measure. A person in a moderator position should remain neutral on the forum. It's a pretty simple premise.

 

[buckwheat]

SpartacusRox has a valid point, and I added another moderator quote for good measure. A person in a moderator position should remain neutral on the forum. It's a pretty simple premise.

It's simple and a premise, but WRONG.

My very simple premise is that people should be able to say wtf they want to say.

Another simple premise is that the truth is the truth and idolaters shouldn't need to hide behind inapplicable legalities and technicalities in order to preserve delusional mental constructs which have crumbled for anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention.

 

[Barrus]

Lets keep that discussion to another board in this forum, namely in the about the forum talk. But anyway my 2 cents, moderators are not to be neutral people, they are individuals with their own opinions who volunteer their time to help keep this forum in check. It has nothing to do with being neutral on topics, you only need to be neutral in your assesment of peoples and their postings and the decision which you make. None of these need to be influenced with the opinion a mod has on the topic at hand. Only if you cannot be neutral toward a person need you take your hands of that person and let someone else deal with that poster

 

[Dr. Maserati]

SpartacusRox has a valid point, and I added another moderator quote for good measure. A person in a moderator position should remain neutral on the forum. It's a pretty simple premise.

No - a moderator should moderate neutrally (& fairly) irrespective of their opinion.

 

[ChrisE]

OK, I'll bite. Barrus wrote in another thread:

Lets keep that discussion to another board in this forum, namely in the about the forum talk. But anyway my 2 cents, moderators are not to be neutral people, they are individuals with their own opinions who volunteer their time to help keep this forum in check. It has nothing to do with being neutral on topics, you only need to be neutral in your assesment of peoples and their postings and the decision which you make. None of these need to be influenced with the opinion a mod has on the topic at hand. Only if you cannot be neutral toward a person need you take your hands of that person and let someone else deal with that poster

Mods having opinions is not the problem. It is when their opinions shape their interpretation or leniency toward the rules by looking at who is breaking them.

Just this past week I have seen posters, who of course coincidentally are always on the side of the mods in terms of subject opinion, call others names such as dumbXXXX and tool. I see other posters continually call out people who don't agree with them as fanboys, etc and ridicule them. This is against the forum rules recently posted.

Also against the rules, I also saw a regular poster out a formal name of another poster. "Coincidentally", most if not all of the offenders are on the same side of the fence with the mods on the dominant theme of the clinic. Anybody that questions that group think or comes at it from a different perspective is shouted down, and if they give back as hard as they receive they are reprimanded.

That is what is wrong with mods getting into discussions. It is human nature to not be subjective in dealing with those you disagree with, in comparison to how you deal with those that are on your side.

 

[Barrus]

Uhm, perhaps it is also the case that we cannot read everything that is posted. Especially not if we need to read posts completely to make out everything that people are saying, especially if these are very long posts.

 

[ChrisE]

Uhm, perhaps it is also the case that we cannot read everything that is posted. Especially not if we need to read posts completely to make out everything that people are saying, especially if these are very long posts.

That is not my point. But, to answer you these posts I refernced were very short.

My point is your (mods in general) opinion on a subject sways your leniency, and the more you engage the more it sways your opinion about those that oppose that opinion. You cannot tell me that somebody like SparticusRox has the same length of rope as somebody like RaceRadio. If SR returned the vitriol in the same manner he receives it he would be banned. And, his only offense is not being on the scorched earth team in terms of LA.

To clarify, I am against any moderation and I wish you didn't exist. But, you do and you and many of the mod group are not evenhanded.

 

[Barrus]

That is not my point. But, to answer you these posts I refernced were very short.

My point is your (mods in general) opinion on a subject sways your leniency, and the more you engage the more it sways your opinion about those that oppose that opinion. You cannot tell me that somebody like SparticusRox has the same length of rope as somebody like RaceRadio. If SR returned the vitriol in the same manner he receives it he would be banned. And, his only offense is not being on the scorched earth team in terms of LA.

To clarify, I am against any moderation and I wish you didn't exist. But, you do and you and many of the mod group are not evenhanded.

To be quite honest you do not know how much goes on behind closed doors. I think that I warned and gave infraction to more of the people you call "haters" than towards the pro-Armstrong people. This is probably the same with many of the other moderators. I have never judge based upon the opinion of the poster and the one time that I did have a problem with a poster personally, in such a manner that I could not treaat him in a manner which I consider fairly, I recused myself and let the other moderators deal with that person

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That is not my point. But, to answer you these posts I referenced were very short.

My point is your (mods in general) opinion on a subject sways your leniency, and the more you engage the more it sways your opinion about those that oppose that opinion. You cannot tell me that somebody like SparticusRox has the same length of rope as somebody like RaceRadio. If SR returned the vitriol in the same manner he receives it he would be banned. And, his only offense is not being on the scorched earth team in terms of LA.

To clarify, I am against any moderation and I wish you didn't exist. But, you do and you and many of the mod group are not evenhanded.

Don't know why you brought RR in to this (well perhaps I do).

A better example would be SR & Python, who have opposing views, and have squared off on occasion. As long as they are both treated the same, then I believe you are finding a problem that does not exist.
Quite simply you have no way of knowing who has or has not received warnings or infractions - so your assumptions are baseless.

As you know - people do not get banned for having a view, it is when they break certain forum rules that they get banned.

 

[ChrisE]

To be quite honest you do not know how much goes on behind closed doors. I think that I warned and gave infraction to more of the people you call "haters" than towards the pro-Armstrong people. This is probably the same with many of the other moderators. I have never judge based upon the opinion of the poster and the one time that I did have a problem with a poster personally, in such a manner that I could not treaat him in a manner which I consider fairly, I recused myself and let the other moderators deal with that person

Yes, I don'tknow what goes on behind closed doors but why does leniency have to go on behind closed doors? The rules are posted, if they are broken then people should get punished equally. I can go back and find numerous posts from one of the forum pets where rules are broken, usually while attacking people with opposing views, where they are still posting afterwards. Obviously if they did get a warning, they ignored it so what good is that?

My opinion is mod "leniency" is shaped by their affinity for certain posters, whose opinion just happen to fall in line with their in terms of the main subject in the clinic. You can say how much I don't know because I am not "behind closed doors", but that is just a copout to avoid scrutiny.

Don't know why you brought RR in to this (well perhaps I do).

A better example would be SR & Python, who have opposing views, and have squared off on occasion. As long as they are both treated the same, then I believe you are finding a problem that does not exist.
Quite simply you have no way of knowing who has or has not received warnings or infractions - so your assumptions are baseless.

As you know - people do not get banned for having a view, it is when they break certain forum rules that they get banned.

I don't recall putting a quarter in you.

I could have easily put in any name, yours for example, in making this argument. I chose him. So what?

I used RR as an example; I have posted with and against him for many years and I respect his opinion. I do not want him or anybody else, including people like python, to get punished for what he posts...I said upthread I am against modding. I would just like some evenhandedness in "what goes on behind closed doors", and I don't think that is possible for the reasons I state. That is not being critical of mods because they are human. This discussion is about how much more human trait comes into play when mods are actively involved in the debates.

You can think what you want about the evenhandedness. You are one of the pets, so I would suspect you think the status quo is peachy.

 

[pedaling squares]

SpartacusRox has a valid point, and I added another moderator quote for good measure. A person in a moderator position should remain neutral on the forum. It's a pretty simple premise.

It is also an inaccurate premise. We are talking about volunteers who joined this forum to discuss a sport they love. They choose to serve the greater good by volunteering their time to keep this forum somewhat in order. HeadfullofRox is off base yet again. Mods remain neutral in user vs user battles and uphold forum rules. They can support or critique any rider, team, product, or person related to cycling. The ones who are employed by CN rightfully take a more neutral approach. Which brings me to our rotund topic of the thread, Graham Watson. It is best for a professional photographer to remain neutral about all riders when he profits from photographs of the entire peloton, not label one former great a fool while savouring the odours emanating from another former great's chamois.

 

[tubularglue]

SpartacusRox has a valid point, and I added another moderator quote for good measure. A person in a moderator position should remain neutral on the forum. It's a pretty simple premise.

I agree, and

I find the moderators role a fascinating project, but quite impossible'

fascinating is the word i use for the unexpected

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFods1KSWsQ&feature=related

 

[Barrus]

Yes, I don'tknow what goes on behind closed doors but why does leniency have to go on behind closed doors? The rules are posted, if they are broken then people should get punished equally. I can go back and find numerous posts from one of the forum pets where rules are broken, usually while attacking people with opposing views, where they are still posting afterwards. Obviously if they did get a warning, they ignored it so what good is that?

My opinion is mod "leniency" is shaped by their affinity for certain posters, whose opinion just happen to fall in line with their in terms of the main subject in the clinic. You can say how much I don't know because I am not "behind closed doors", but that is just a copout to avoid scrutiny.

The difference is that you do not know if there is leniency behind closed doors. Really, in general the rules are applied the same to each and every poster. It is however that in most cases this is not made public by either the moderator, or the poster. Also in general after a warning most poster behave, if only for some time. But there are also other factors that need to be taken into account for taking measusres against people, those being, among others, their past behaviour, the violation itself (how big it was), the context in which the violation occurred. You cannot take the same measure everytime that someone brakes rule x, some violations are more grievious than others

Show me proof of your so-called leniency for those posters in particular, without just stating it as a persecution complex


Also is it just me, or does your statement just now makes it look as though you don't want the moderators to contribute to discussions, because if that is the case you won't have any moderators left and the forum can just close its doors

As the off-topic in the other thread continued, I moced all the posts I could find on such short notice here

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, I don'tknow what goes on behind closed doors but why does leniency have to go on behind closed doors? The rules are posted, if they are broken then people should get punished equally. I can go back and find numerous posts from one of the forum pets where rules are broken, usually while attacking people with opposing views, where they are still posting afterwards. Obviously if they did get a warning, they ignored it so what good is that?

My opinion is mod "leniency" is shaped by their affinity for certain posters, whose opinion just happen to fall in line with their in terms of the main subject in the clinic. You can say how much I don't know because I am not "behind closed doors", but that is just a copout to avoid scrutiny.



I don't recall putting a quarter in you.

I could have easily put in any name, yours for example, in making this argument. I chose him. So what?

I used RR as an example; I have posted with and against him for many years and I respect his opinion. I do not want him or anybody else, including people like python, to get punished for what he posts...I said upthread I am against modding. I would just like some evenhandedness in "what goes on behind closed doors", and I don't think that is possible for the reasons I state. That is not being critical of mods because they are human. This discussion is about how much more human trait comes into play when mods are actively involved in the debates.

You can think what you want about the evenhandedness. You are one of the pets, so I would suspect you think the status quo is peachy.

Save your quarter - speech is free, remember? If you didnt want your views challanged then you should have taken it to PM's.

So - in short, you have no idea who has or has not been hit with infranctions.
Yet claim to base your opinion on that.....oook

Since you don't know who has been spoken to the only way of knowing is by looking at who has been banned. I do not see any unevenhandednesss in that.

I know you prefer to look at it as an us or them - and that the Mods have pets.
Do you think 'TheHog' & 'TFF' (who like you are back from bans) are pets too?

What about 'flicker','Polish', etc...they have never been banned, are they pets?
Quite simply - they post like I do - I don't have sockpuppets. I don't need to insult posters and when directed by the mods I will adhere to their decision (although I may argue it here).

 

[ChrisE]

The difference is that you do not know if there is leniency behind closed doors. Really, in general the rules are applied the same to each and every poster. It is however that in most cases this is not made public by either the moderator, or the poster. Also in general after a warning most poster behave, if only for some time. But there are also other factors that need to be taken into account for taking measusres against people, those being, among others, their past behaviour, the violation itself (how big it was), the context in which the violation occurred. You cannot take the same measure everytime that someone brakes rule x, some violations are more grievious than others

Show me proof of your so-called leniency for those posters in particular, without just stating it as a persecution complex


Also is it just me, or does your statement just now makes it look as though you don't want the moderators to contribute to discussions, because if that is the case you won't have any moderators left and the forum can just close its doors

As the off-topic in the other thread continued, I moced all the posts I could find on such short notice here

It is not my job to find the offending posts or the offending posters. That is your job. You seem to pop up in threads I post in pretty often, so much so I think you must have a bell that goes off on your computer when I log in. Why you pull out the "we can't monitor all threads" card now is a copout.

I will not go and find numerous posts by whoever to prove my point. That person may get scapegoated just to prove your point, and I don't trust you enough to not think you wouldn't do that. You and others choose not to take into account the past offenses of people you agree with or have affinity for because shouting down somebody with an opposing view about LA for example is deserved, isn't it? That is the whole point. The WADA/AC delay thread is a prime example of a pile on to SR by the pet mob, and I am sure nothing has gone on "behind closed doors" to admonish the offenders in that thread.

If the mods leave the forum will close down? Why is that? I think this forum would be a blast if you guys disappeared. Maybe you mean CN would close it down due to too many unsubstantiated stuff that would be flying around. As if that doesn't happen now.