Moderators

[Lukenwolf]

But my main point is that even if you are pragmatic, it also makes sense to be more heavy-handed about it, in the sense of actually advertising that you don't want people talking about it. If you just make it go away, people might wander onto the forums and not see it there and bring it up again.

^^^
What he said.

I also want to add something else. Deletion or modification of posts should come with a good explanation, even more so, if whole threads are deleted. Removing someone's written opinion does not sit very well with some people - people like me, who grew up suffering from despotism and censorship of a Communist dictatorship (East Germany in my case). They too had a predilection for removing unwanted opinions (ok they usually removed the person who voiced it too, I give you that).
If you have reason to modify a thread because a Lawyer growls at you, why not notify the authors of offending post, giving them - let's say 24h - to modify the problematic posts and why not publish what those lawyers threaten you with? If you delete a 200 posts thread because of 10 offending posts, you violate the right of free speech of up to 190 people without much of an explanation.
That feels too Mao Zedong for many people's comfort.

As for the technical reasons behind the deletion of the Kimmage thread. Do you guys not have database admins? How about asking their opinion before you do something as drastic as deleting a user per his own request? The User-Id is bound to be used as a foreign key in many tables. Deleting a user would therefore either orphan a lot of table entries or simply cause their deletion as well, which in turn causes removal of much more data than was supposed to.
How about renaming the user to "deleted user#<userid>" and setting all his posts to "--- deleted by user request ---". In the ideal case that's two UPDATE and a COMMIT statement and the work of two minutes. That way you don't accidentally delete other people's post. (see Mao Zedong)

 

[Ferminal]

I'm sick of this Dictatorship.

 

[thirteen]

Kimmage: I'm looking into it. I have a sneaking suspicion it's my fault. A user asked that his account and details to be removed and with that I removed his posts. If he started the discussion that might have caused the thread to be deleted. If that's the case hopefully I can ask IT to look at this tomorrow and it should be possible to resurrect the Kimmage thread. Apologies, Dan

any word?

there was a lot of info in that thread that would make it much easier to answer questions some have now.

you might also consider that D-Queued thinks he brought up the XZTT case in a post... is it possible that 70+ pages were deleted because of one post?

in that case, please, it should be able to delete... i don't believe it was dwelled on at all -- it was just another example of incompetence amongst many others.

i'm asking that the thread be brought up as it showed a lot of the good that can come from the forum. people united. people, to whom cycling is so important that they came out of lurkdom to declare themselves here. by deleting their voices, what message does it send about this site?

the new thread has already been infiltrated by the trolls, trying to obfuscate and deflect as usual. the defence they left alone for the most part, when Kimmage was merely a victim. now that he's fighting back, they are trying to scatter doubt and fear and, like the suspension of the case against Kimmage, they are trying to stem the momentum of monies to the fund.

bring back that thread!

please.

 

[Ferminal]

It's improbable that the thread will be brought back as the user delete is probably a hard wipe.

 

[Lukenwolf]

It's improbable that the thread will be brought back as the user delete is probably a hard wipe.

All it takes is importing a pre-userdelete backup into a test instance of the database and extracting the deleted thread for re-import into the productive instance. If we're told that it isn't possible, it will be untrue.

 

[Daniel Benson]

It is technically possible. However, as you've noted there are quite a few steps to go through and this all takes time and has to be thoroughly tested to make sure we're not going to lose data in the process. It's potentially a day's work and that's on the assumption we can get the correct database backup from our operations team. Again, apologies the thread was deleted but we don't have the resources and time to resurrect it. The dev team are working on other site-improving projects at the moment and they have to take priority.

Daniel

 

[alanshearer]

fair argument from above but we're advised by legal when other lawyers swing into town demanding things. And end of the day we don't want to lose our jobs/get sued, so you have to understand that we're protecting our backs. That doesn't mean we bow to every angry letter, that's not been the case in the past, but please respect the fact that the majority of content we let slide on the forums and in the 1 per cent of situations we do have to act, we do it with the site's best interest at heart.

Dan

Seems like the legal advice you're receiving is unnecessarily conservative.

 

[ElChingon]

Seems like the legal advice you're receiving is unnecessarily conservative.

Well based on how much they stick their necks out on cycling stories I'd say they are pretty much as far right to the extent that they are always in the dirt on the teeter toter of life.

 

[Ferminal]

All it takes is importing a pre-userdelete backup into a test instance of the database and extracting the deleted thread for re-import into the productive instance. If we're told that it isn't possible, it will be untrue.

Hence the word improbable! There is no active admin on the forum so it's hard for things like this to be done.

 

[Tinman]

Kimmage: I'm looking into it. I have a sneaking suspicion it's my fault. A user asked that his account and details to be removed and with that I removed his posts. If he started the discussion that might have caused the thread to be deleted. If that's the case hopefully I can ask IT to look at this tomorrow and it should be possible to resurrect the Kimmage thread. Apologies, Dan

It is technically possible. However, as you've noted there are quite a few steps to go through and this all takes time and has to be thoroughly tested to make sure we're not going to lose data in the process. It's potentially a day's work and that's on the assumption we can get the correct database backup from our operations team. Again, apologies the thread was deleted but we don't have the resources and time to resurrect it. The dev team are working on other site-improving projects at the moment and they have to take priority.

Daniel

Dan this is poor. Mods have had requests from users to delete posting history before, with answers that it was up to the user to do so. I find your stated rationale for deleting the Kimmage thread in its entirety hard to understand.

This is particularly so in view of the fact that the Kimmage case, similarly to the USADA case, is basically a case to win public support, via fact dissemination to the public and the journalist community who look here for information. With the major difference being that the Kimmage case is in a closed swiss court. Making the contribution of the Clinic to the "public" Kimmage case even more important.

I have also observed many long serving Clinic members express repeated concerns about management of Clinic issues (eg Papp). That did not register with me much when I had first arrived, but is starting to bother me now.

There are many good suggestions here to help you manage the Clinic better. But you need to pick up on them. One is more active moderation, one is to change legal jurisdiction, one is to push back harder on legal. Legal does not run your Clinic board, you do. And you are paid to make the big calls, even if that means pushing the story hard under threat of (UCI?) legal action (which a conspiracist could argue is the real reason you have pulled this thread). That is the gig you have. It is your call to accept or push back internal legal advice, and to delete posts not threads where required. Likewise pushing back on IT. This is not a days job. Your IT folk are trying to register a day's work of internal hours. You need to push back and insist it gets done.

Please. We all put a lot of effort into content here. We deserve your attention and (mostly) correct decisions, not short fob off lame excuse posts.

 

[Tinman]

Hence the word improbable! There is no active admin on the forum so it's hard for things like this to be done.

Come on Ferminal. I accept you may not be an IT wizz, but for legal as well as good business practice reasons there must be a back up. In case the system goes down. That can be accessed. For a thread to be resurrected.

And the excuse that there is no admin to do this doesn't wash. It's IT's job, not a mod.

 

[Tinman]

Dan,

The conspiracist in me says that the two deleted threads in the past week have a common theme. They both substantiate significant UCI mismanagement at a critical time in the current UCI crisis.

No pressure from UCI or management above to close these threads, right?

Not a good look. In any case.

 

[Ferminal]

Come on Ferminal. I accept you may not be an IT wizz, but for legal as well as good business practice reasons there must be a back up. In case the system goes down. That can be accessed. For a thread to be resurrected.

And the excuse that there is no admin to do this doesn't wash. It's IT's job, not a mod.

Again, I said improbable.

Why - not because there is no backup, but because we can't get one man-hour for anything on this forum for the last three years so why would it change just to restore a single thread?

I suggest if you have a problem with this you send lots of emails to Future.

 

[Tinman]

Again, I said improbable.

Why - not because there is no backup, but because we can't get one man-hour for anything on this forum for the last three years so why would it change just to restore a single thread?

Again, Dan needs to push for it. The Clinic is the leading anti-doping social media platform in the world. In a time when social media is the catalyst for change. The clinic doping platform could move to other sports if the company wanted it to. And get bigger still. But then, there are other boards keen to take this spot...

Dan needs to make the business case to his seniors to take this more seriously. And get you more mod & IT support. Just because it didnt happen in the past is no reason not to get it going forward.

Just like he needs to push back legal harder, and IT. I know easy to say when sitting here, but believe me, no different in my real life job...

 

[Ferminal]

Agreed, but you've seen what Future think of this place with the ad debacles.

 

[ElChingon]

Dan this is poor.

...

There are many good suggestions here to help you manage the Clinic better. But you need to pick up on them. One is more active moderation, one is to change legal jurisdiction, one is to push back harder on legal. Legal does not run your Clinic board, you do. And you are paid to make the big calls, even if that means pushing the story hard under threat of (UCI?) legal action (which a conspiracist could argue is the real reason you have pulled this thread). That is the gig you have. It is your call to accept or push back internal legal advice, and to delete posts not threads where required. Likewise pushing back on IT. This is not a days job. Your IT folk are trying to register a day's work of internal hours. You need to push back and insist it gets done.
...

Agh man, you made me laugh so hard there TOO FUNNY!
Now I have to clean up all this spat out drink

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Is this the same legal people who still haven't got back to you about Joe Papp...

CN and the UCI really do have a lot in common. Self-important, Corrupt, devoid of integrity, unaccountable, staffed by petty incompetents (the kind of people who worry about saddle angle or swearing but ignore doping and illegal activity).

Wood, trees. Make sure you can see one for the other.

 

[Daniel Benson]

Tinman, there's no conspiracy over the two deleted threads and no contact or pressure from the UCI. One deletion was down to legal advice, the other to me unticking the wrong box when deleting a user profile:

"There are many good suggestions here to help you manage the Clinic better. But you need to pick up on them. One is more active moderation, one is to change legal jurisdiction, one is to push back harder on legal. Legal does not run your Clinic board, you do. And you are paid to make the big calls, even if that means pushing the story hard under threat of (UCI?) legal action (which a conspiracist could argue is the real reason you have pulled this thread). That is the gig you have. It is your call to accept or push back internal legal advice, and to delete posts not threads where required. Likewise pushing back on IT. This is not a days job. Your IT folk are trying to register a day's work of internal hours. You need to push back and insist it gets done."

1. We're always on the look out for more mods so if you want to help with that please drop me a line. We only have a few mods and they do a great job but more help would be appreciated and would benefit the community.
2. We're a UK registered company, so we can't change that.
3. We have discussions with legal, especially over content we run on the site, but away from this specific thread we deleted: we're not risking legal proceedings over a forum thread. If we're sued I don't expect you to pay our legal fees or safeguard jobs. If legal suggest we delete a thread, or posts, it's because they have the company's interests and the law at heart and that's understandable. An alternative is we moderate every post before it goes up, or we simply say no doping discussion on the site, or we do away with the forum, or you trust that we (editorial, legal, mods) are doing the job as best we can, trying to provide a workable, free to use space where cycling fans can discuss almost every topic, rider, race, allegation without scrutiny. Occasionally, content will need to be removed though.
4. Future own the website, not me.

Cheers

Dan

 

[Froome19]

Dan just out of interest have you approached Future with a request to focusing on improving the forum?

If so it should be in their interest to promote this forum as much as possible.

 

[Realist]

Tinman, there's no conspiracy over the two deleted threads and no contact or pressure from the UCI. One deletion was down to legal advice, the other to me unticking the wrong box when deleting a user profile:

"There are many good suggestions here to help you manage the Clinic better. But you need to pick up on them. One is more active moderation, one is to change legal jurisdiction, one is to push back harder on legal. Legal does not run your Clinic board, you do. And you are paid to make the big calls, even if that means pushing the story hard under threat of (UCI?) legal action (which a conspiracist could argue is the real reason you have pulled this thread). That is the gig you have. It is your call to accept or push back internal legal advice, and to delete posts not threads where required. Likewise pushing back on IT. This is not a days job. Your IT folk are trying to register a day's work of internal hours. You need to push back and insist it gets done."

1. We're always on the look out for more mods so if you want to help with that please drop me a line. We only have a few mods and they do a great job but more help would be appreciated and would benefit the community.
2. We're a UK registered company, so we can't change that.
3. We have discussions with legal, especially over content we run on the site, but away from this specific thread we deleted: we're not risking legal proceedings over a forum thread. If we're sued I don't expect you to pay our legal fees or safeguard jobs. If legal suggest we delete a thread, or posts, it's because they have the company's interests and the law at heart and that's understandable. An alternative is we moderate every post before it goes up, or we simply say no doping discussion on the site, or we do away with the forum, or you trust that we (editorial, legal, mods) are doing the job as best we can, trying to provide a workable, free to use space where cycling fans can discuss almost every topic, rider, race, allegation without scrutiny. Occasionally, content will need to be removed though.
4. Future own the website, not me.

Cheers

Dan

Despite being slightly aggrieved over the deletion of both XZTT/Martin Hardie threads, I want to voice some support for Dan and CN here. They provide a service and they can only be expected to take so many risks. It would be irresponsible for them not to follow legal advice. I appreciate you guys take the time to give us at least some explanation.

 

[TheGame]

The Clinic is the leading anti-doping social media platform in the world.

It used to be. Not anymore, it lags now behind twitter, and various indie sites and blogs. The trouble with the clinic is, is while there is some great conversation and discussion, it is padded out by an incredible amount of bile, irrelevant diatribes and petty arguments.

Somewhere in the middle of all of that bread, is the filling. Its finding it is proving increasingly difficult.

 

[Afrank]

Despite being slightly aggrieved over the deletion of both XZTT/Martin Hardie threads, I want to voice some support for Dan and CN here. They provide a service and they can only be expected to take so many risks. It would be irresponsible for them not to follow legal advice. I appreciate you guys take the time to give us at least some explanation.

+1, I for one am very thankful to Cyclingnews, Dan, and the mods for providing us with a forum and keeping the forum going.

 

[Tinman]

Tinman, there's no conspiracy over the two deleted threads and no contact or pressure from the UCI. One deletion was down to legal advice, the other to me unticking the wrong box when deleting a user profile:

"There are many good suggestions here to help you manage the Clinic better. But you need to pick up on them. One is more active moderation, one is to change legal jurisdiction, one is to push back harder on legal. Legal does not run your Clinic board, you do. And you are paid to make the big calls, even if that means pushing the story hard under threat of (UCI?) legal action (which a conspiracist could argue is the real reason you have pulled this thread). That is the gig you have. It is your call to accept or push back internal legal advice, and to delete posts not threads where required. Likewise pushing back on IT. This is not a days job. Your IT folk are trying to register a day's work of internal hours. You need to push back and insist it gets done."

1. We're always on the look out for more mods so if you want to help with that please drop me a line. We only have a few mods and they do a great job but more help would be appreciated and would benefit the community.
2. We're a UK registered company, so we can't change that.
3. We have discussions with legal, especially over content we run on the site, but away from this specific thread we deleted: we're not risking legal proceedings over a forum thread. If we're sued I don't expect you to pay our legal fees or safeguard jobs. If legal suggest we delete a thread, or posts, it's because they have the company's interests and the law at heart and that's understandable. An alternative is we moderate every post before it goes up, or we simply say no doping discussion on the site, or we do away with the forum, or you trust that we (editorial, legal, mods) are doing the job as best we can, trying to provide a workable, free to use space where cycling fans can discuss almost every topic, rider, race, allegation without scrutiny. Occasionally, content will need to be removed though.
4. Future own the website, not me.

Cheers

Dan

Dan thanks for the answer. I do appreciate that, as well as what you and the mods are putting into the site. It's what's not happening that is causing the occasional major frustration.

Social media is developing rapidly. Future needs to recognize the value AND opportunity with what has been built to date. Twitter is not the answer. It complements but is not the same. What is keeping many here is the singificant number of value add contributors AND the user interface. If it wasn't for the user interface many folk here would be more active elsewhere. But this may be only short term as your competitors will catch up.

So please please keep making the case to Future to invest (eg in mods support), to market the site, and to leverage it more visibly into news. And I trust that our (my) mails will help you in making this case also to Future.

I have thought about volunteering as a mod before, because I value the place a lot and I strongly believe in contributing positively and actively to affect change in general. Unfortunately I am spending too much time here already. It is affecting my other life, which I cannot afford. Maybe in a few years time when I can dedicate myself in the appropriate way.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Legal advise us sounds grand but their lawyer could be just as funny as this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kIVjOe6hDU

 

[Netserk]

Hi mods. In the clinic there are two JV threads, and I was wondering if that if they could be merged, now that JV responses in both of them.