Moderators

[martinvickers]

Since he asked - I should note this all follows a somewhat bizarre exchange some days ago when Parrulo appeared to describe my use of the phrase "anglos v latins" (and "anglos v slavs") to describe some pro and anti sky commenting, as racist.

Details of private message with Parrulo

From myself

"consider yourself warned"

Excuse me? is that aggressiveness of tone either warranted or acceptable?

I accept the thread being closed, that's fine. I consider the last bit seriously out of order.

from Parrulo

all you were getting from that thread (you pretty much admitted it in your OP) were reactions from either "haters" or "fanboys" but particularly "haters". in the internet that's called baiting for trolls and on this forum that is not allowed.

so ya, "consider yourself warned" that baiting is not allowed even if it's only "for fun" and if you are caught doing it again you will get a small ban.

from myself

I would be grateful if you can tell me to whom and how I can make a formal complaint against an administrator.

MV

from Parrulo

bottom of the site, "contact us"

just fyi complain or not, you still remain warned and any further baiting stunt will still be dealt with a ban.

from myself

Thank you. A complaint has been issued.

I would be grateful in the meantime if any further issues with myself dealt with by a separate administrator, as I have no confidence in your ability or desire to act fairly in this matter.

 

[Parrulo]

what about the part where you claimed the post made by the game quoting what i posted was also edited?

"Today 18:00
TheGame The original post

"this is pure spam and could even be considered trolling, consider yourself warned.

/thread closed"

agree it said considered."

and why should i stop defending myself when you are launching such a "strong campaign against me"

if anything you should also stopping arguing until your complain was responded don't you think? it only seems fair.

either way i shouldn't really be responding to this but only because this will only get susan more headaches which he really doesn't deserve.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

It reflected poorly on Parrulo because it deserved to. She removed the spam comment - but for The Game that would simply have disappeared and Parrulo would have been wrongly and dishonestly protected.

Why should his 'rep' be protected from his own misjudgment, bang in the middle of a formal complaint? It's not like he reconsidered and took it down himself. and the bottom line is, the private mesages were even more aggressive. And no apology, no Susan telling Parrulo to cool it in those messages. No consideration of the threats made.

No, just an attempt to make Parrulo look better in a dispute, folloiwng a formal compaint, by dishonest and selective editing of an already closed thread.

Dishonest cover-up. convince me otherwise, susan.

This is total speculation on your part. If I may speak frankly, you have no idea of what is going on, as none of what you say about the mods here is true.

I cannot imagine why this is all so important to you.

You and others have indicated you are unhappy with teh forum and with the other users. Then why do you stay here? I have left a number of forums where I found I did not fit.

Finally, I have pretty much lost track of what you are arguing. And I am not the only one tired of your emotional tirades in this thread. Please "consider yourself warned" that you may be given a cooling-off short-term ban.

Susan

ETA: I am still puzzled by your references to the "formal complaint" you have filed. As far as i know we have no such complaint procedures.

 

[martinvickers]

what about the part where you claimed the post made by the game quoting what i posted was also edited?

"Today 18:00
TheGame The original post

"this is pure spam and could even be considered trolling, consider yourself warned.

/thread closed"

agree it said considered."

I didn't say the game's post was edited - i said the original post he quoted was edited. Or are you going to claim you can't understand the language, now?

and why should i stop defending myself when you are launching such a "strong campaign against me"

I never even named you, or went into detail about the thread, until you insisted on commenting on my post against my specific request. I didn't even bring the issue here. Mellow did. Even then, my responses were pretty vague until you ramped it up.

As for campaign? I'm looking for a fair resolution to a legitimate and formal complaint. What that means to you, after the spite you have shown against me, and the implied threats, i couldn't give a toss. You reap what you sew. You chose to make it spiteful, not me.

if anything you should also stopping arguing until your complain was responded don't you think? it only seems fair.

either way i shouldn't really be responding to this but only because this will only get susan more headaches which he really doesn't deserve.

D*mn right, but it hasn't stopped you yet, has it - god knows i asked you politely to show a bit of class often enough. So why don't you take the opportunity now, and we'll see what the administrators do. If it's any consolation, given the dishonesty of what susan appears to have done (still no explanation) I suspect they'll circle the wagons. But don't expect me to just accept that.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Martin: If you continue to accuse me and the other mods of dishonesty, you will be banned.

Susan

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"she took out some of what the mod said" - she did, the spam reference.

"she added a bit of her own" - the 'invitation' to post elsewhere.

which part of that is a lie?

I have asked politely for you to desist while this complaint is in progress. I advice you to heed me.

It's amusing that you have said that Parrulos "threatened" you and in the release of PMs there is nothing in that, yet you make threatening statements yourself?!

 

[martinvickers]

This is total speculation on your part. If I may speak frankly, you have no idea of what is going on, as none of what you say about the mods here is true.

I cannot imagine why this is all so important to you.

You and others have indicated you are unhappy with the forum and with the other users. Then why do you stay here? I have left a number of forums where I found I did not fit.

Maybe you back down from bullies. Maybe you give in to spite and bias.

I don't.

I find the suggestion that those who have been harrassed or threatened should simply go away bizzare, and frankly immoral. What kind of ethics is that?

Finally, I have pretty much lost track of what you are arguing. And I am not the only one tired of your emotional tirades in this thread. Please "consider yourself warned" that you may be given a cooling-off short-term ban.

Susan

I find that difficult to believe. it's really pretty simple.

i'm arguing that Parrulo treated me unfairly and in a biased and aggressive manner out of spite. when challenged he became more aggressive and borderline threatening.

I argue in addition that your edit was dishonest. I'm giving you the chance to convince me otherwise. Instead you first essentially tell em to just clear off, and then threaten a ban. A ban because you are 'tired'.

On what grounds do you propose now to ban me. Can you point me in the direction of the rules which allow you to ban me because you are 'tired' of a thread?

If it's supposed to be a joke, it's not funny.

I am still puzzled by your references to the "formal complaint" you have filed. As far as i know we have no such complaint procedures.

A complaint to the owners of the site.

 

[martinvickers]

Martin: If you continue to accuse me and the other mods of dishonesty, you will be banned.

Susan

1. Are you beyond discussion? Even in the thread CALLED Moderators?

2. If I'm wrong, explain to me, why did you make that edit long after the thread was closed? What good reason was there?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

ETA: I am still puzzled by your references to the "formal complaint" you have filed. As far as i know we have no such complaint procedures.

I don't know about formal complaint procedures, but I do know that the extremely insulting thread about Giorgia Bronzini when she first won the World Championships in Geelong was closed by Daniel after a direct appeal from some site users to the site owners, so I would assume that Martin is meaning that he has decided to pursue a similar avenue.

 

[martinvickers]

I don't know about formal complaint procedures, but I do know that the extremely insulting thread about Giorgia Bronzini when she first won the World Championships in Geelong was closed by Daniel after a direct appeal from some site users to the site owners, so I would assume that Martin is meaning that he has decided to pursue a similar avenue.

Thank you, LS, that is indeed correct.

 

[martinvickers]

It's amusing that you have said that Parrulos "threatened" you and in the release of PMs there is nothing in that, yet you make threatening statements yourself?!

What's the threat I'm supposed to have made?

 

[M Sport]

Martin: If you continue to accuse me and the other mods of dishonesty, you will be banned.

Susan

From looking at the last few pages and seeing the reply to the original post shortly after it was made I would say a prima facie case exists for making that accusation against Parrulo. He should be the one apologising. Does he get a week ban as well?

 

[jamiephillips]

Martin I had a post deleted once. I happened to make a remark about Durian Rider's girlfriend!! It hurt for a bit but I'm ok now!

 

[Dazed and Confused]

With all this talk of honesty and ethical behavior, I wonder how some of these forum members be cycling fans.

Glad not to be a mod.

 

[veganrob]

Martin I had a post deleted once. I happened to make a remark about Durian Rider's girlfriend!! It hurt for a bit but I'm ok now!

Ya, that was not right that comment you made about Freelee. You should have got some quiet time on that also.
I got one deleted about Andy Schleck, sand and a private part. I deserved it, was testing the waters. Know where the line is now.
Susan is fair and Parullo does a good job.

 

[BroDeal]

1. Are you beyond discussion? Even in the thread CALLED Moderators?

Feel lucky you did not say the the mods are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of ****, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, are no different than Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, or to make any similar other allegations of that kind.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Wow, it's been busy around here.

A couple of observations:
Interesting to see that the two factions debating in the various Sky threads appear on opposite sides of the debate, here.
Maybe that tells us something?

Glad to see that similar "trolling" posts in the Wiggins-Cadence thread have now been removed, although the original reply that started the ball rolling, made by a moderator, remains.

With several of the mods, self confessed Sky detractors, it is inevitable that moderation "inconsistencies" will crop up from time to time. It would happen just the same, were it the other way around.
Indeed, there are a couple of posts here, that directly attack MartinV, not the issue, that have been allowed to stand.
Little wonder that he over stepped the mark and got himself sidelined.

Ignore, count to ten, or grin and bear it, those who enter the Sky arena, in their defence.

 

[Joachim]

I think this thread is instructive.

 

[Ferminal]

MV there are only several active mods. If people have problems list names, posts, and the most constructive way to get a discussion out of a moderator would be in private. And again if you have a problem with a specific moderator I suggest trying to work it out with them directly or contacting a Future rep.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wow, it's been busy around here.

A couple of observations:
Interesting to see that the two factions debating in the various Sky threads appear on opposite sides of the debate, here.
Maybe that tells us something?

Glad to see that similar "trolling" posts in the Wiggins-Cadence thread have now been removed, although the original reply that started the ball rolling, made by a moderator, remains.

With several of the mods, self confessed Sky detractors, it is inevitable that moderation "inconsistencies" will crop up from time to time. It would happen just the same, were it the other way around.
Indeed, there are a couple of posts here, that directly attack MartinV, not the issue, that have been allowed to stand.
Little wonder that he over stepped the mark and got himself sidelined.

Ignore, count to ten, or grin and bear it, those who enter the Sky arena, in their defence.

Funny you write that yet you didn't address 'the issue'. Martins thread was closed for trolling, regardless of who the mod was it was the proper action.

It's odd (and harks back to a different time) that some posters view this as some anti-Sky bias, the Sky fans are certainly being played, but its not by the mods.

 

[Mellow Velo]

MV there are only several active mods. If people have problems list names, posts, and the most constructive way to get a discussion out of a moderator would be in private. And again if you have a problem with a specific moderator I suggest trying to work it out with them directly or contacting a Future rep.

Did my post come across as having a problem with a specific mod?
If so, let my clarify.

What I am saying is that mods are only human and that therefore, one mods meat may be another mods poison: interpretation will differ.

The ignore, count to 10 etc, was in respect of avoiding baiting of posters in the first instance.
I assume that posts I consider might fall into this category, yet remain, have already been scrutinized.
So, my interpretation differs; end of story.

Funny you write that yet you didn't address 'the issue'. Martins thread was closed for trolling, regardless of who the mod was it was the proper action.

It's odd (and harks back to a different time) that some posters view this as some anti-Sky bias, the Sky fans are certainly being played, but its not by the mods.

I agree, as stated above.

 

[Ferminal]

Did my post come across as having a problem with a specific mod?

No I'm just not sure if you're complaining about a specific problem or making general comments. Do people want more moderation or less moderation?

 

[LaFlorecita]

No I'm just not sure if you're complaining about a specific problem or making general comments. Do people want more moderation or less moderation?

Better moderation !

 

[Froome19]

Better moderation !

Indeed, though I was thinking more like Fairer moderation.

Not to say the moderation is bad. In 80% of cases it is absolutely fine.

 

[Joachim]

If Moderators wish to demonstrate any integrity, they need to at least abstain from participating, in a partisan way, in threads that are highly contentious, otherwise the line between participant and moderator is blurred, not least of all to themselves. Perhaps they would be better asking a different moderator to moderate.

I'm pretty sure that is not a revolutionary concept.

It goes without saying that a forum such as this could not exist without moderation, and by and large, it seems to me that a good job is done by most.