Moderators

[Dr. Maserati]

I was not talking about Joachim.

But that's what we're talking about - that's what you responded to.

And no I do not know what infractions everbody gets.

But I do know what has got others banned in the past.

So, you have no idea what sanctions/infractions others get - your basis is on bans.

Great - give us first 5 examples that you know.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I was not talking about Joachim.
And no I do not know what infractions everbody gets.

But I do know what has got others banned in the past.

You have been here for a whole year yet you are talking of 'the past'?

Yes, I agree on MV's ban not being oke, but for the rest: bullocks/BS/flauwekul/French for BS/Italian for BS.

Go watch darts Froome, van Gerwen against Phil!

 

[Froome19]

But that's what we're talking about - that's what you responded to.

You are right. My point was supposed to be more general though and from the lack of bans I can deduce close enough what has been dealt out and what has not been. There is a maximum amount of warnings which can be dealt out. It is generally made clear when reading threads. But you are right my basis is on bans. There gets to a point where I would have thought there was no other option but to ban a poster.

So, you have no idea what sanctions/infractions others get - your basis is on bans.

Great - give us first 5 examples that you know.

AFAIK a ban is a sanction. The most extreme one there is, therefore you can kind of figure out where the line is generally supposed to be drawn.

And I do believe that close to every single one of the people who have been banned should have been banned.

 

[Froome19]

You have been here for a whole year yet you are talking of 'the past'?

Yes, I agree on MV's ban not being oke, but for the rest: bullocks/BS/flauwekul/French for BS/Italian for BS.

Go watch darts Froome, van Gerwen against Phil!

The past as in yesterday, the day before etc

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You are right. My point was supposed to be more general though and from the lack of bans I can deduce close enough what has been dealt out and what has not been. There is a maximum amount of warnings which can be dealt out. It is generally made clear when reading threads. But you are right my basis is on bans. There gets to a point where I would have thought there was no other option but to ban a poster.

AFAIK a ban is a sanction. The most extreme one there is, therefore you can kind of figure out where the line is generally supposed to be drawn.

And I do believe that close to every single one of the people who have been banned should have been banned.

So, who are these people that are not getting fair treatment?

 

[red_flanders]

No moderation. Why don't you and your "even handed" buddies take a vacation for awhile.

I think the better solution is that you start a moderation free cycling forum. Then you can post in the style you prefer, and not have to deal with moderation and bans.

If your posting style is the one most people prefer, I would imagine your forum would take off like gangbusters.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So, who are these people that are not getting fair treatment?

ME!

I even got an 'infriction', when I knew I was getting out of line, getting in stupid arguments you will never win because the're so stupid.

Them nasty mods! They must be related to the UCI or some sort!

Yes, it was.

 

[Joachim]

No, I don't gettit yet.
We're any of your posts removed - your above is vague.
Simple yes or no is fine.

Not that I spotted, no.

You're new here, this is only our second interaction - you know nothing about me, how would know what I know? .

I was crediting you with intelligence and honesty. By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[The Hitch]

It gets to a point where you see some posters banned and not others.

Which posters

mv got banned for the 5 pages of arguments with the mods including accusing them of disohnesty, not for being pro sky, though it seems some want to push this martyrdom narrative whether it is true or not.

What other posters have there been? Looking through the ban list i cant see any.

Maybe in this rewriting of history we can push Ryo Hazukis bans as being anti Sky? Nevermind that his bans tend to come after celebrating riders crashes, promoting the taliban attitude towards women or calling posters "braindead", im sure it was actually cos he said Sky (and every rider in the world apart from Oscar Sevilla) are in his eyes clean


And wasnt dear Wiggo banned under his old username?

btw the hog has had his fair share of bans on this forum and some long ones so the idea that he has mod protection doesn't really play.

I remember he once got a ban for wrting "edited by mod" on his own post

I dont see how not banning the hog is evidence of being pro Sky anyway.
Most of us Sky sceptics see him as a Rasputin, who does our side far more damage with his mad monk conspiracy theories, even if it can be quite funny at times.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not that I spotted, no.

So, you don't know. Ok.

I was crediting you with intelligence and honesty. By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

Why would you do that when you don't know me, that's neither honest or intelligent.
Also, are you sure you would like me to start correcting you when you're wrong?

 

[red_flanders]

Regarding moderators participating in threads, I’ve given this quite a bit of thought in the past and wanted to share my personal (not forum policy) thinking along these lines.

At first glance it does make complete sense not to have moderators participate in the discussion. It gives the appearance of balanced moderation, and does not give anyone any ammo to claim “bias!” when moderation occurs. It seems fair and reasonable.

However, upon further examination we need to consider a few other things.

Appearance of balance does not equal balance. As we all follow cycling closer than most fans we have long since become fans of one rider or another over the years. We have bias toward them. We understand the issues in cycling fairly deeply, and we understand the arguments on either side of an issue and have our opinions whether we express them or not. Would you prefer to know where our opinion lies or would you prefer not to know?

Most importantly, I have to ask what is moderation? Is it the handing out of infractions, bans, editing and deleting posts? Those are certainly tools of moderation. But the other, and potentially most powerful tool is to set the tone by our manner of discourse and how we deal with things when they come up. We can and should (in my opinion) be trying to set examples of how to opine, discuss or even argue in a respectful manner which engages forum members and diffuses rancor and abuse. If we were to participate as only the police of the community and not as members and do drive-by moderation I think we’d be less effective than we are now. When we participate on the forum you know us and we know you. We have engaged in discussion with you previously (in most cases) and that tempers our moderation. There are many times when a great long-time member has posted something completely out-of-bounds and because there is a relationship there I have tempered my reaction. I know this person is a good person and good poster and that matters to me in how I treat them. More often than not when moderating or sanctioning someone like this it turns out to be an opportunity for a betterment of the relationship and a better understanding between myself and the other member. For those members with whom we’ve had disagreements but those were handled with respect on both sides, we truly appreciate it and it really does matter. Thanks for that.

Beyond all that, there simply isn't any reward in doing moderation only. We came here because we were fans, and because we thought this was a great forum. I don't know that I'd do much moderation if I didn't participate, at that point it becomes work alone. Further, we can't really determine which threads are "contentious" as all threads can be and one man's contentious is another man's lively discussion.

I hope this adds to the understanding of what we do here.

 

[Joachim]

So, you don't know. Ok.

I don't keep a log of everything I post. I regard all of this as pretty inconsequential, certainly I don't think it is of much interest to anyone outside of it despite the delusions of some who post here. So, no, I don't know, but as far as I can remember none were deleted.

Why would you do that when you don't know me, that's neither honest or intelligent.

It was an appeal to honesty. Don't worry yourself with it.

Also, are you sure you would like me to start correcting you when you're wrong?

Yes, I'd like to know when I'm wrong. I'm not sure you can deliver that, though, despite the hubristic nature of your posts.

 

[LaFlorecita]

And how would you define "better moderation"?

Susan

I think that the problem is that some posters get away with things others don't get away with - this shouldn't be the case so as froome said moderation needs to be fairer.

Also sometimes it seems as if threads, posts and "matters" are just left ignored.

Also I get the impression that once you're on the naughty list there is no good thing you can do. For example myself, I got away with my posting style for months and then BAM started the load of warnings, bans, infractions and deleted posts.

Also I feel like Parrulo could be a bit nicer at times and Susan seems a bit cool which could be a good thing but for example ferryman shows that you don't need to come across that way in order to be a good mod

But I appreciate the time you guys put into it and most of the time it is ok.

And red_flanders, ferryman and Ferminal are my favorite mod/admins

It's settled, then. La Flo for mod!

and this is the solution to all the problems when is the next election? krabs will vote for me

 

[Hugh Januss]

ha ha. You trying to get me fired?

Susan

Chris wouldn't do that, sounds like he is recommending a paid vacation.

 

[TheGame]

I think the better solution is that you start a moderation free cycling forum. Then you can post in the style you prefer, and not have to deal with moderation and bans.

If your posting style is the one most people prefer, I would imagine your forum would take off like gangbusters.

no the solution is, have moderators that delete a "pointless" thread and inform the user privately, rather than accusing them of spamming, possibly trolling and warn them publicly.

That is the difference as far as the original argument goes.

If forum members call somebody a troll they get a warning.

But the other, and potentially most powerful tool is to set the tone by our manner of discourse and how we deal with things when they come up. We can and should (in my opinion) be trying to set examples of how to opine, discuss or even argue in a respectful manner which engages forum members and diffuses rancor and abuse.

Exactly, which begs the question...

I think that the problem is that some posters get away with things others don't get away with - this shouldn't be the case so as froome said moderation needs to be fairer.

Exactly, a long standing poster is given an awful lot more leeway to cause friction and be rude to other members, than a new user is. The Hog is a prime example, if he were a new poster he would quickly be bombarded with a wave of abuse an troll photos.

 

[red_flanders]

no the solution is, have moderators that delete a "pointless" thread and inform the user privately, rather than accusing them of spamming, possibly trolling and warn them publicly.

That is the difference as far as the original argument goes.

If forum members call somebody a troll they get a warning.

I think you're confounding two different posts. What you're addressing does not apply to my (quoted above) response to Chris E's post, rather it seems to be addressing an issue which I haven't commented on. Or I'm missing the connection.

 

[red_flanders]

Exactly, a long standing poster is given an awful lot more leeway to cause friction and be rude to other members, than a new user is. The Hog is a prime example, if he were a new poster he would quickly be bombarded with a wave of abuse an troll photos.

If you have issues with a particular poster's contribution, please specifically point them out in PM or report them.

That said, we get a lot of posts which report behavior that violates no rules of the site. In these cases we do not act. We don't give long-time posters more leeway. What I said in my earlier post is that I (personally and speaking for no one else) consider the poster's history when deciding on a sanction. Please don't assume what that means, it's a case-by-case situation. I don't fail to address things because someone has been here for a long time. Not at all. The action I take may be influenced by what I know previously about the person, good or bad.

It is a constant truism on this forum that people on both sides of discussions here think equally that the other side is being shown preferential treatment. They can't all be correct.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

no the solution is, have moderators that delete a "pointless" thread and inform the user privately, rather than accusing them of spamming, possibly trolling and warn them publicly.

That is the difference as far as the original argument goes.

If forum members call somebody a troll they get a warning.

The thread was closed because it was trolling. What was the mod supposed to do, say it was closed because of the font?
Also - you get a warning for calling someone a troll only if they are not indeed a troll.

Exactly, which begs the question...



Exactly, a long standing poster is given an awful lot more leeway to cause friction and be rude to other members, than a new user is. The Hog is a prime example, if he were a new poster he would quickly be bombarded with a wave of abuse an troll photos.

I raised TheHog earlier - very simply they keep most of their trolling under the radar. A lesson Martin missed.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ten characters.

 

[M Sport]

The thread was closed because it was trolling. What was the mod supposed to do, say it was closed because of the font?
Also - you get a warning for calling someone a troll only if they are not indeed a troll.

A thread about a topic that subsequently became newsworthy in most western countries, then subsequently got reported on most cycling outlets. Yes, Martin opened the topic before it was on the homepage here.

If it was trolling and spam then why run the story?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A thread about a topic that subsequently became newsworthy in most western countries, then subsequently got reported on most cycling outlets. Yes, Martin opened the topic before it was on the homepage here.

If it was trolling and spam then why run the story?

The topic was not trolling.
Putting the topic in the Clinic, stating they could not resist and that they would "walk away" .........that's the trolling part.

 

[TheGame]

The topic was not trolling.
Putting the topic in the Clinic, stating they could not resist and that they would "walk away" .........that's the trolling part.

It was a Wigans thread. Where the hell else are you supposed to put it?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It was a Wigans thread. Where the hell else are you supposed to put it?

Sky thread? Clinic or Road Race?

Vickers will get over it but the others who take a big interest in this are the real trolls, not you intended Game.

Cucumbers, when will racing start again...

 

[thirteen]

It was a Wigans thread. Where the hell else are you supposed to put it?

it was a thread of its own and therein lies the problem... stuck in an existing Wiggins thread is exactly where it belonged.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I think you have mentioned the two mods who have generally been the source of complaints. Interestingly enough they are also the two most recent mods (red flanders is not counted).

I suppose then the problem is that much as the posters themselves need time to set their stalls out as posters (Joachim has noted taking less abuse of late than in their initial posts on the board) and to gauge their posting style against the environment of the board, the same is true of moderators; they're more likely to ruffle feathers and make questionable calls when new moderators. Perhaps new moderators are more likely to either be very timid at using their new found powers, or more trigger happy than the experienced mods. Either way, there was a lot of debate a while back about there not being enough moderation on the forum, and the need to have more mods to cover the amount of issues being brought up, especially after incidents and problems with the board that saw the likes of Barrus and Francois the Postman leave, thus depleting the moderation resources; these new mods are the result of that. Maybe they need a bit of time to adjust to being posters AND moderators and the need to keep fair moderation and personal opinions separate.

Exactly, a long standing poster is given an awful lot more leeway to cause friction and be rude to other members, than a new user is. The Hog is a prime example, if he were a new poster he would quickly be bombarded with a wave of abuse an troll photos.

Think of it like stage 2 of the 2011 Giro. Alessandro Petacchi won with a slightly wayward sprint that annoyed Mark Cavendish, who placed 2nd. The more experienced posters probably have a better idea of where the mark lines so they can tread it without overstepping it (not that it helps some, Ryo Hazuki is now on his 49572nd temporary vacation for example). These posters may well overstep the mark, but will usually know when they've done so, which, unless they're serial offenders, may explain some level of leniency.