Moderators

[Mad Elephant Man]

I think that if you have a suspicion that a banned user is posting under another name contact the moderators privately, report a post or send a private message. The moderators can then look at the evidence and decide whether the evidence shows they are the same poster.
This will not get the user banned, there might not be enough evidence or you might have made a mistake, they happen. The moderators might even agree that there are a reason to be suspicious but if the proof is not there they cannot do much.
We have a group of shiny new moderators full of energy and raring to go to fulfill there new role, let them do what they have volunteered to do.

As posters lets enjoy ourselves in posting, to the best of our ability and knowledge, quality posts.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Having just read through the 'Armstrong under criminal investigation' topic in the Clinic, I really feel compelled to express my concerns and ask some questions.

I found it extremely distasteful to see how a new poster with an unpopular opinion was jumped on, and subsequently banned in record time. Since no clarification or explanation has been posted in the usual sticky here, my question is quite simply - was this poster found to be a sockpuppet of someone previously banned? If so, fine, and end of story.

If not, I really think that some explanation should be forthcoming, because on the surface, this looks like some of the usual suspects jumping on a new poster for nothing more than an extremely unpopular opinion, but one that any poster should have a right to express without being treated in such a way. Is it now unacceptable on CN to express the opinion that maybe LA shouldn't go to jail?

To be clear, I totally disagreed with that poster and would personally be more than happy to see LA get his just desserts and do time. But, this poster expressed his opinion in a reasonable way, and should in any open society/forum be entitled to that opinion without immediately getting banned for it.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

As the other thread was closed and my last comment

MJM,

You're well within your rights to have an opinion but if anything it's boiled over now. Take this thread for an example, Susan posts a note to say we have new mods and there are a number of positive posts that come. Then you jump in saying she can't do her job. Sure, that's an opinion, but it's a move so telegraphed and repetitive that it's essentially becoming bullying. If you don't like CN, that's fine, me, that's fine too, I'm just asking that you lay off the mods and Susan especially.

Daniel

If telling the mods that they are not very good at their jobs is bullying then I am more than happy to ease off. But like I say - how would you like criticism expressed? What would you like us to do when you do make terrible decisions?

BTW - Did you ever get an answer from legal about Joe Papp?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Having just read through the 'Armstrong under criminal investigation' topic in the Clinic, I really feel compelled to express my concerns and ask some questions.

I found it extremely distasteful to see how a new poster with an unpopular opinion was jumped on, and subsequently banned in record time. Since no clarification or explanation has been posted in the usual sticky here, my question is quite simply - was this poster found to be a sockpuppet of someone previously banned? If so, fine, and end of story.

If not, I really think that some explanation should be forthcoming, because on the surface, this looks like some of the usual suspects jumping on a new poster for nothing more than an extremely unpopular opinion, but one that any poster should have a right to express without being treated in such a way. Is it now unacceptable on CN to express the opinion that maybe LA shouldn't go to jail?

To be clear, I totally disagreed with that poster and would personally be more than happy to see LA get his just desserts and do time. But, this poster expressed his opinion in a reasonable way, and should in any open society/forum be entitled to that opinion without immediately getting banned for it.

Hammer--- I think it was BPC but who knows. Like you said there was nothing indicating one way or another EXCEPT for the post by the moderator SittingBison who made some statement in the thread and gave a wink emote. That takes care of that...

Sorta sad but interesting that some of the stuff that was being put up last week by "another" now banned poster was interesting and true regarding a twitter exchange by someone who is now a moderator and temp banninated member.

I doubt anyone who still supports any side of an argument in Lance Armstrong's defense will receive any treatment different than what we just witnessed in that thread. I base my opinion on the twitter convo that took place a week ago. By the way if it was not such a bad conversation why would someone go through the trouble to delete it after the fact?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Who is this BPC this forum is getting so worked up of? The reverse Hog?

If it was, it should be in the member suspension thread.

 

[Amsterhammer]

I think you will find s/he was banned for reasons other than spouting drivel coinneach

Please, do explain...or post the reason in the usual place.

 

[ElChingon]

The fact that a new set of posters are seeing the light of day says it all.

 

[Boeing]

Please, do explain...or post the reason in the usual place.

yes do explain. I've been spouting drivel for years and its all good. she had to do more than that....

 

[Semper Fidelis]

yes do explain. I've been spouting drivel for years and its all good. she had to do more than that....

Boeing are you on twitter? If so then maybe the explanation is posted up there instead of here today?

 

[ChrisE]

Hammer--- I think it was BPC but who knows. Like you said there was nothing indicating one way or another EXCEPT for the post by the moderator SittingBison who made some statement in the thread and gave a wink emote. That takes care of that...

Sorta sad but interesting that some of the stuff that was being put up last week by "another" now banned poster was interesting and true regarding a twitter exchange by someone who is now a moderator and temp banninated member.

I doubt anyone who still supports any side of an argument in Lance Armstrong's defense will receive any treatment different than what we just witnessed in that thread. I base my opinion on the twitter convo that took place a week ago. By the way if it was not such a bad conversation why would someone go through the trouble to delete it after the fact?

You have fun in here. I'm taking a break. This place is way too ****ed up.

Catch up to me when you are back in town.

 

[Granville57]

I'd just like to raise one point.

In the now-closed-and-locked thread about new mods, this was posted by Eshnar:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1132457&postcount=51

MJM, if you wanna complain about how the website is run you have all the rights to do it by starting your own thread, and not by hijacking others'.

But I'm not convinced that that is true. BroDeal started a similar thread to the one suggested above, and yet it was locked and the key thrown away.

I don't really see the problem in just leaving one thread open for members to express their discontent. What's the big deal about that? If some are too sensitive for such matters, there would be a very, very easy way for them to avoid being exposed to the possibly negative tone that might appear in one or more posts in such a thread.

Shutting down and locking threads that raise uncomfortable or difficult questions only fuels the frustration. The mods have made it perfectly clear that they are not interested in what may amount to a "gripe" thread. But why not?

Some questions need to be asked. Even the ones that none of us actually expect answers to. Allowing the questions to at least be asked may dissipates some of the frustration that builds from time to time. Not even allowing the question to be asked is...is...well, maybe the Texas trio could weigh in here.

 

[BroDeal]

Having just read through the 'Armstrong under criminal investigation' topic in the Clinic, I really feel compelled to express my concerns and ask some questions.

I found it extremely distasteful to see how a new poster with an unpopular opinion was jumped on, and subsequently banned in record time...

It was BPC. He was posting simultaneously at Slowtwitch. It was easy to see him post idiotic reasoning on ST then create a new account here and post the same stuff he was posting there. I recognized it was him with his very first post.

 

[BroDeal]

I'd just like to raise one point.

In the now-closed-and-locked thread about new mods, this was posted by Eshnar:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1132457&postcount=51

But I'm not convinced that that is true. BroDeal started a similar thread to the one suggested above, and yet it was locked and the key thrown away...

Bring back the "This forum blows" thread.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Bring back the "This forum blows" thread.

Yeah!! Ditto!

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'd just like to raise one point.

In the now-closed-and-locked thread about new mods, this was posted by Eshnar:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1132457&postcount=51

But I'm not convinced that that is true. BroDeal started a similar thread to the one suggested above, and yet it was locked and the key thrown away.

I don't really see the problem in just leaving one thread open for members to express their discontent. What's the big deal about that? If some are too sensitive for such matters, there would be a very, very easy way for them to avoid being exposed to the possibly negative tone that might appear in one or more posts in such a thread.

Shutting down and locking threads that raise uncomfortable or difficult questions only fuels the frustration. The mods have made it perfectly clear that they are not interested in what may amount to a "gripe" thread. But why not?

Some questions need to be asked. Even the ones that none of us actually expect answers to. Allowing the questions to at least be asked may dissipates some of the frustration that builds from time to time. Not even allowing the question to be asked is...is...well, maybe the Texas trio could weigh in here.

Chris just took his ball and went home.

Hello hello

I'm getting a message that my post is too short??? Wtf


Edit: ah..didn't place my quote at end...Granville getting all freedom here ...lol

 

[ElChingon]

In the now-closed-and-locked thread about new mods, this was posted by Eshnar:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1132457&postcount=51

But I'm not convinced that that is true. BroDeal started a similar thread to the one suggested above, and yet it was locked and the key thrown away.

Rookie mod. At the very least the new mods should be able to read this thread in full for a reference point on what is happening prior to starting work as a mod.

But no, lets learn as we go once again for the Nth time repeating the same mistakes as the previous batch. Great leaders leading great followers

 

[Amsterhammer]

It was BPC. He was posting simultaneously at Slowtwitch. It was easy to see him post idiotic reasoning on ST then create a new account here and post the same stuff he was posting there. I recognized it was him with his very first post.

Thanks for that, BD. I'm happy to take your word on it, though I was hoping for an answer from a mod.

 

[sittingbison]

I suspect the new member was banned for the very reason pretty much everyone commenting on him said. However its not confirmed by the person who banned him, when it is I'm sure it will be posted on the suspension sticky.

Ask yourselves why a bloke would be banned after 5 posts. Comprende?

 

[sittingbison]

BTW, lighten up on insinuations that moderators would KNOWINGLY condone a banned members sockpuppet.

Such insinuations are complete and utter BS, insulting to any normal persons intelligence, and disgraceful slander of the worst kind.

 

[Granville57]

BTW, lighten up on insinuations that moderators would KNOWINGLY condone a banned members sockpuppet.

Yes, how did DAOTEC ever get away with it for so long?

If you can't put pages 10 thru 12 together, then I can not help you.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9957

Such insinuations are complete and utter BS, insulting to any normal persons intelligence, and disgraceful slander of the worst kind.

You must be new to the interwebz.

 

[Ferminal]

We generally don't post our bans of spambots in the pinned thread. Post #175 may be useful too.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

How does post 175 have anything to do with the issue?

I was not here when the clinic was formed so can not speak to how things were before, but in all seriousness how can you separate pro cycling talk and doping talk in the first place. It would be like a pro basketball forum where you had to go to a different room to mention bad foul calls. And if it is going to be that way then a clear idea of what is and what is not allowed needs to be provided.
If you ask me (and once again I realize no one did, but tough titties) Dim's initial post was not anything that should have garnered a warning or an infraction, but he is dead wrong when he says mods should not be treated any differently than any other posters, at the same time they must act differently than other posters.
Francois take it easy on poor ACF I am sure he will learn how to behave more like an adult once he actually becomes one.

 

[ElChingon]

How does post 175 have anything to do with the issue?

Please re-read, its not that hard, to figure it out.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

Please re-read, its not that hard, to figure it out.

I just did, still cannot work out how the post referred to and I quoted is relevant to anything that is happening now.

 

[Froome19]

I just did, still cannot work out how the post referred to and I quoted is relevant to anything that is happening now.

He meant the suspension announcement thread
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=870221&postcount=175