Moderators

[martinvickers]

is there any need to have that condescending attitude towards a poster that simply disagreed with you in a polite manner? but what do i know i am a biased hater after all who have a personal vendetta against a poster on the internet. . . .

Parrulo, as you know I currently have a formal complaint against you, and pending resolution have requested you not to contact me, post to me, or deal with my posts.

This breach of that request makes clear my concerns were accurate. Please desist from further contact until and unless the complaint is resolved.

 

[Froome19]

I am fine with Mods posting and involving themselves in discussions. Red Flanders is a fine example of a mod who involves himself sometimes in discussion but does not let it generally take away from his ability to make reasonably fair judgements.

But moderators should be examples to other posters about how to conduct themselves and should focus on contributing in positive ways to the discussion to ensure it maintains a suitable trajectory. Currently there are some mods who are not conducting themselves in such a fashion.

 

[Joachim]

I agree with that. I think there are some excellent mods here, but I think there are also some who add to the rancidity by posting comments the like of which, were they posted by somebody on the other side of the fence, would be dismissed as 'trolling', sometimes accompanied by swaggering threats.

This is why it is far better that people who wish to be moderators, abstain from taking sides in the discussions in which they are moderating. They cannot be impartial, and here some of them very clearly are not.

 

[martinvickers]

I agree with that. I think there are some excellent mods here, but I think there are also some who add to the rancidity by posting comments the like of which, were they posted by somebody on the other side of the fence, would be dismissed as 'trolling', sometimes accompanied by swaggering threats.

This is why it is far better that people who wish to be moderators, abstain from taking sides in the discussions in which they are moderating. They cannot be impartial, and here some of them very clearly are not.

To be fair, I have only had problems with two mods. And one of those, Susan, was perfectly civil, and in the cold light of day, perfectly within her rights, to act as she did - I have no quarrel with her.

 

[Joachim]

Susan doesn't take part in contentious threads. This is how moderating should be.

 

[The Hitch]

The above is a perfect example. Why did you feel the need to comment on that, and yet ignore the torrents of abuse that get thrown at people who dare question the view that Sky are doping?

You are free to report these "torrents of abuse".

You are free to pm moderators telling them about it and ask them about these "torrents of abuse"

You are free to to in true "fight for the people" style bring up the "torrents of abuse" here so that your silent majority masses can hold those in power to account.

But wait, you instead choose to ignore these alleged "torrents of abuse"

Then when you see a heated controversy about a moderator's behaviour, suddenly decide to bring up this vague concept of an organized mass persecution against some gandiesque group of forum participants.

Without actually identifying the posters you think are doing this or showing any evidence or examples of what you are talking about.

Looks to me like someone trying to add some fuel to an already healthy fire.

If i am wrong, feel free to use any of the options listed above so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Susan doesn't take part in contentious threads. This is how moderating should be.

I rarely take part in any thread, but that is because I think that expressing my opinon on matters would violate my journalistic integrity.

Yes, it would be nice if all mods were able to stay out of the discussions. But that is not possible. I am paid to be a mod here, at least, it is part of my assignment. The other mods are all volunteers. I cannot think of any reason why anyone would want to be a mod in this or any other forum if they get no benefit from it or are not allowed to post their opinions.

Susan

 

[Cyivel]

I very much disagree.

Thanks to the mods keeping the forum readable, it's a thankless job, but thanks for doing it.

I would like to put on record that he is the only one I have an issue with, I think the others do a bang up job and I appreciate their work.

 

[Joachim]

You are free to report these "torrents of abuse".
You are free to pm moderators telling them about it and ask them about these "torrents of abuse".

Yes, I am free to do so, but I am also free to not. That doesn't mean the abuse isn't there, nor does it mean that moderators haven't seen it.

Not at moderation here is a result of reporting. What gets left and what gets removed is in itself enlightening.

Your tone is unhelpful.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I rarely take part in any thread, but that is because I think that expressing my opinon on matters would violate my journalistic integrity.

Yes, it would be nice if all mods were able to stay out of the discussions. But that is not possible. I am paid to be a mod here, at least, it is part of my assignment. The other mods are all volunteers. I cannot think of any reason why anyone would want to be a mod in this or any other forum if they get no benefit from it or are not allowed to post their opinions.

Susan

Couldn't agree more.

Moderators also have opinions, not if they are payed of course! [=joke]

Some people are really overdoing the overacting, or does this forum look like North Korea?

 

[TheGame]

The point as far as I see it is, no mod should ever publicly call a member of the forum a "troll" when closing their thread.

If a moderator has comment to make such as that when closing a thread they should make it privately and politely in private. Not publicly call them a troll, a spammer and issue a public warning.

 

[martinvickers]

I rarely take part in any thread, but that is because I think that expressing my opinon on matters would violate my journalistic integrity.

Yes, it would be nice if all mods were able to stay out of the discussions. But that is not possible. I am paid to be a mod here, at least, it is part of my assignment. The other mods are all volunteers. I cannot think of any reason why anyone would want to be a mod in this or any other forum if they get no benefit from it or are not allowed to post their opinions.

Susan

With respect, simply expressing an opinion is not what happened in this case.

Not even close.

I await a suitable resolution.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I was not addressing your issue, nor am I involved with your complaint.

Susan

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The point as far as I see it is, no mod should ever publicly call a member of the forum a "troll" when closing their thread.

If a moderator has comment to make such as that when closing a thread they should make it privately and politely in private. Not publicly call them a troll, a spammer and issue a public warning.

Why not?
The thread was a trolling thread, that's why it was rightly closed (perhaps it could have been merged elsewhere, but..)

If anything I would say the mods have let things get out of hand,
I haven't looked at the forum much over the last month as its become a troll festival. It has become a prolonged trolling exchange between TheHog and Sky fans.

 

[martinvickers]

The other mods are all volunteers. I cannot think of any reason why anyone would want to be a mod in this or any other forum if they get no benefit from it or are not allowed to post their opinions.

Perhaps because there is, or should be, satisfaction in properly facilitating free and fair exchange, even if you don't partake in it.

Or to put in another way, 'nemo debet esse iudex in propria causa'

No one can be a judge in their own cause.

 

[Joachim]

Why not?
The thread was a trolling thread, that's why it was rightly closed (perhaps it could have been merged elsewhere, but..)

If anything I would say the mods have let things get out of hand,
I haven't looked at the forum much over the last month as its become a troll festival. It has become a prolonged trolling exchange between TheHog and Sky fans.

It's quite revealing that you assume that anybody that puts a view counter to those of 'thehog' and his little friends is a 'Sky fan'.

 

[martinvickers]

Why not?
The thread was a trolling thread, that's why it was rightly closed (perhaps it could have been merged elsewhere, but..)

1. If it was a matter of merely closing the thread, I would have been unlikely to object.

2. To say it was a 'trolling' thread was highly debatable - I'm sorry, but merely noting that legitimate news might set off people is emphatically not the same as inviting it - the basis of trolling.

3. At worst, the thread was off-topic, and a simple move or closure would have sufficed.

That did not happen. For reasons I have alluded to, but will not, pending resolution, hash out in detail.

You are not privy to the private messages that followed the closing, and I don't intend to release them at this stage, but suffice to say, the tone did not improve. At all. My formal compliant began only after those.

It was following that complaint, that the rather peculiar and unneccesary baiting from the same mod began on this thread, requiring yet another request that he desist from contact with me until the matter is properly resolved.

For an admin/mod to behave like that, repeatedly, and while a formal complaint was in progress, was bizzare, bordering on harrassment. And unacceptable.

Given our previous limited interaction, and one rather odd outburst on this forum, it appears clear my concerns on motive have substance. I too would be interested in knowing how long the mod in question has been an 'admin'.

I will await resolution.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's quite revealing that you assume that anybody that puts a view counter to those of 'thehog' and his little friends is a 'Sky fan'.

What's revealing is that you got that out of what I said - I was not being subtle, here it is again for you:
"It has become a prolonged trolling exchange between TheHog and Sky fans."

 

[Joachim]

Sorry, you'll have to explain.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

1. If it was a matter of merely closing the thread, I would have been unlikely to object.

2. To say it was a 'trolling' thread was highly debatable - I'm sorry, but merely noting that legitimate news might set off people is emphatically not the same as inviting it - the basis of trolling.

"Highly debatable"?
You should start with flat out denial.
Nor were you "merely" noting the news - you started it in The Clinic and commented on it.

3. At worst, the thread was off-topic, and a simple move or closure would have sufficed.

That did not happen. For reasons I have alluded to, but will not, pending resolution, hash out in detail.

You are not privy to the private messages that followed the closing, and I don't intend to release them at this stage, but suffice to say, the tone did not improve. At all. My formal compliant began only after those.

It was following that complaint, that the rather peculiar and unneccesary baiting from the same mod began on this thread, requiring yet another request that he desist from contact with me until the matter is properly resolved.

For an admin/mod to behave like that, repeatedly, and while a formal complaint was in progress, was bizzare, bordering on harrassment. And unacceptable.

Given our previous limited interaction, and one rather odd outburst on this forum, it appears clear my concerns on motive have substance. I too would be interested in knowing how long the mod in question has been an 'admin'.

I will await resolution.

So, you want the mod to desist from comment (which you call baiting) but you are happy to continue to post and suggest that more was said through private mail?

 

[martinvickers]

I was not addressing your issue, nor am I involved with your complaint.

Susan

You did, however, take it upon yourself to edit that mod's post long after the thread was closed.

Since it was relatively unlikely I would read it, what motivation was there for the edit, if not to try to make the mod look better? And is that not basically dishonest?

And you were involved in that, because you did the edit.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Perhaps because there is, or should be, satisfaction in properly facilitating free and fair exchange, even if you don't partake in it.

Or to put in another way, 'nemo debet esse iudex in propria causa'

No one can be a judge in their own cause.

To be fair to you, u did try to start a funny thread, especially given the time u posted it - after midnight.

Perhaps Parullo has another sense of humour.

Get over it.

I got sanctioned, maybe for the right reasons, maybe not, but don't ***** about it. Let's talk Sky man!

Come on Vickers.

 

[martinvickers]

"Highly debatable"?
You should start with flat out denial.

I'll start how i like, and without your help, thanks very much.

EDIT: My honest apologies, DR, that was sharper than i intended. I only leave it up out of desire to be honest. That was snide of me. Again, sorry.

Nor we're "merely" noting the news - you started it in The Clinic and commented on it.

Mellow has already answered that 'charge' perfectly well above. And the limit of my 'comment' was to note that it was likely to be the subject of contention - was i wrong? did I join in that contention? No, on both counts.

So, you want the mod to desist from comment (which you call baiting) but you are happy to continue to post and suggest that more was said through private mail?

I requested the mod to desist from commenting TO ME, or TO MY POSTS, pending resolution of a formal compaint. I actually did it privately first, and he basically refused and began baiting in this thread. Only then did I repeat the request publically. Frankly, given his behaviour, I've been downright civilised about it.

My reply was written to you, not him. And I don't suggest it - i state it outright, because it's fact.

 

[martinvickers]

To be fair to you, u did try to start a funny thread, especially given the time u posted it - after midnight.

Perhaps Parullo has another sense of humour.

Get over it.

I got sanctioned, maybe for the right reasons, maybe not, but don't ***** about it. Let's talk Sky man!

Come on Vickers.

FGL

I got sanctioned for swearing - deserved it.

I got banned for a 'trolling fest' with The Hog - he didn't - the disparity annoyed me and the mod accepted afterwards I had a very strong point - but I was probably trolling and I took my medicine - I shouldn't have risen to it.

I repeat, if the thread had merely been closed or moved, i wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

But that's not what happened.

I won't accept bullying, harrassment, bias or a mod abusing his powers out of spite. No. Sorry, but No.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'll start how i like, and without your help, thanks very much.



Mellow has already answered that 'charge' perfectly well above. And the limit of my 'comment' was to note that it was likely to be the subject of contention - was i wrong? did I join in that contention? No, on both

I requested the mod to desist from commenting TO ME, or TO MY POSTS, pending resolution of a formal compaint. I actually did it privately first, and he basically refused and began baiting in this thread. Only then did I repeat the request publically. Frankly, given his behaviour, I've been downright civilised about it.

My reply was written to you, not him. And I don't suggest it - i state it outright, because it's fact.

Mellows comment? Was that the one where you put it in the Clinic because it would get moved there anyway?! That comment.

If so, then that shows you deliberately put it in the wrong section.
And then there's your comments, "couldn't resist" etc.
Your trolling thread was closed for trolling.