Moderators

[Trollski]

Doh

10 characters

 

[Parrulo]

anyway. . . one of perks of being a moderator is that i can still see deleted posts and by whom they were deleted.

and by looking at the events of the previous days on that thread, i have been the only mod deleting posts and none of them belonged to del1962 (is not that hard to get some1s user name right. . . )

so please enlighten me what post of yours did i delete?

 

[JRTinMA]

you will get in trouble for being a returned member trolling. . . .

You banned somebody named Trollski? I officially join the ranks who think you have no clue how to mod

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

And as to why it's car crash - well, someone (you) decided to drag up a post that was 3 weeks old and snip to a bit out of it. It was ok to ask, but then a tag team decided to answer it, which showed that the intent was to troll.

Actually, I snipped out everything that was relevant . I then asked a question that was not answered (I made reference that I had asked it before - I assumed it had been missed). I made two comments after that. Both to different posters.

After that the only person I responded to was you when you decided to derail the thread with your usual meaningless posts. You also kept changing your story. Not enough time was given to answer. To much time was given. You must be trolling because you did not PM him to ask him. You are all over the place.

I asked a question. It wasn't answered. I asked it again a bit later.

 

[hiero2]

. . .

What I was trying to suggest was that, for whatever reasons, the thread became a nasty car crash, and as it involved a (fairly new?) moderator as one of the active participants, it might be worthy of some reflection on the part of all the moderators (especially ones who weren't involved, as we can all agree they will have a different perspective) in the interests of picking out what, if anything, could have been done differently.

. . .
Hence why I think it might be useful if some other moderators had a look, and maybe some discussion amongst themselves as to what they all can learn from that thread. . .

We got that. Thank you for a rational thought process and approach. We did as you suggested, and were doing so even before it was suggested. Part of the natural process. . .

I dont often get involved in these kind of discussions - but I seriously think some moderators make their personal views - which would not be able to be printed in the magazine because lawyers would not allow it - too clear in the Clinic. And then when they threaten to close the thread down, after refusing to stand their views up - is it any wonder their behaviour gets questioned?

these are not randoms off the Interwebz - they are moderators appointed by CN and I would be seriously concerned about this if I was in an editorial capacity at CN - as you would have a very hard time saying their views are not sanctioned by the management or reflect editorial opinion because CN has appointed them in a capacity which is fundamentally editorial.

(Still a good flaming and the tons of slander and libel allowed in the Clinic dont do the page impressions and ad revenue any harm eh? Never mind the editorial reputation of the website and Pro Cycling )

Susan - you really need to think about this

cheers

Well, yes, there are tons of opinions being offered, especially in the Clinic, they could be considered slander or libel if they were offered in another arena. But this is a forum, a place for opinion. We try to allow members to express their opinions, so far as we able to do so.

However, as mods, we are not editors, nor are we responsible for any editorial content or comments. Our function is not "fundamentally editorial". We are rule-cops, albeit volunteer. Our function is to try and keep good conversations happening - we try to facilitate - by keeping the arm-wrestling and rowdy behavior in check. Just like your local pub, we have behavior that tends to start fights. Not much talking happens during a fight, so we try to keep the inflammatory behavior under control. Just like the days when I tended bar.

Our views and the views expressed by CN are two entirely different things. CN does not, in any manner, sanction our viewpoints, and if you believe that it somehow does, you are seriously misled. Nor are we required to hold the editorial viewpoint of CN.

We are also allowed our opinions, so long as what we post is within the same guidelines that apply to every other poster. SB paraphrased something, and he believes that it is a generally held, and recognized, opinion. He may, or may not, be right in this belief, but he is entitled to his opinion. He expressed it as such, and nobody was muzzled who held a contrary opinion.

However, and I think it is quite clear, when the intentional trolling began, along with the personal attacks, SB acted, properly, as a mod. When it quickly became apparent that some members were not willing to take a chill pill and behave civilly, he asked another mod to step in, as he was seen as "biased". He didn't have to do that - doing that showed more respect for the posters than what I see getting returned. This IS a two-way street. Please don't try to conflate the two activities - SB's opinions and his modding. They are not one and the same. I believe that should be sufficient clarity.

 

[hiero2]

Gents and ladies:

I've been being very patient. As I've said before, I've been hoping we could vent in this thread. Some of you are not taking me seriously.

"No personal attacks."

A dead give-away cue that you are making a personal attack is "you are", or any variant of that. "He is" as a 3rd party variant. So, ANY time you say "YOU" - be extremely careful.

Oh, and one other thing, since saying "No personal attacks" - I've seen a lot of you misdefine and misrepresent valid statements as personal attacks. I've even seen some of you completely turn the logic of personal attacks on it's head.

If you THINK you know what a personal attack is, READ THIS:

https://www.kitcomm.com/archive/index.php?t-752.html

If you DON'T know what I'm talking about, read that article.

But whatever you do, put the flames on chill. I hope this is sufficient clarity.

Thank you.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

2 mods, eh?
Seems remarkable as SB didn't post until well after yourself and Pedro had trolled the place.

Dr. Maserati, funny how you claim that. There was no trolling. I had added two comments and gone to bed. It was only when you got involved I decided to defend your contradicting arguments (Funny how you get yourself in so many of those. Must be the other posters though, right?).

Your claim I was trolling was related to the fact that if I really wanted a an answer I should PM someone or give them a chance to respond.

And here you are from another thread just minutes earlier.

By the way - I am still awaiting an answer to my other simple question here.

As someone else said

Quit being so obtuse, you post questions like its your first post, no wonder everyone gets in a spat with you

This is meant to be a mod thread so I will leave it here eps. given what hiero2 has just mentioned.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr. Maserati, funny how you claim that. There was no trolling. I had added two comments and gone to bed. It was only when you got involved I decided to defend your contradicting arguments (Funny how you get yourself in so many of those. Must be the other posters though, right?).

And one of those 2 comments was where you had given an answer.

There are a lot of people who contradict themselves, so I call them on it - so as you can see it is nothing personal.

Your claim I was trolling was related to the fact that if I really wanted a an answer I should PM someone or give them a chance to respond.

And here you are from another thread just minutes earlier.

Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati
By the way - I am still awaiting an answer to my other simple question here.

See, I directed a question at the person - twice. Indeed they even responded to me but ignored my question. So I have patiently awaited their answer and asked them again.

You brought up something 3 weeks old and did not wait for an answer.

As someone else said

Originally Posted by ElChingon
Quit being so obtuse, you post questions like its your first post, no wonder everyone gets in a spat with you

Ya, i asked them a simple question to - they gave a lot of replies but never answered.

This is meant to be a mod thread so I will leave it here eps. given what hiero2 has just mentioned.[/QUOTE]

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You brought up something 3 weeks old and did not wait for an answer.

I did wait. Reread the thread and please stop making things up. If you have any further argument PM me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I did wait. Reread the thread and please stop making things up. If you have any further argument PM me.

You are in the UK I believe - so you posted this at 10:21am UK time.

I am still interested in a link/source for the above in red. As I mentioned in a previous post I never read an interview where he said that I am keen to find else what else he said.

This at 10:57 UK time.

Perhaps, but that is quite different to they are liars and USADA is a disgrace whichever way you try to spin it.

Then this at 11:10am UK time.

sittingbison will know doubt have a link. A mod is not going to have made that kind of stuff up otherwise that is 'slander of the worst kind' (to coin a phrase).

Then you went to bed.....

If you have any further argument that you don't want public, then don't make your arguments in public.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You are in the UK I believe - so you posted this at 10:21am UK time.

This at 10:57 UK time.

Then this at 11:10am UK time.

Then you went to bed.....

If you have any further argument that you don't want public, then don't make your arguments in public.

I am happy to argue in public I just wanted to avoid cluttering up the thread.
And I am in Sydney and have been for a few years. (See here)

This at 21:57 Sydney time.
The first comment was in relation to Wiggins comments on Landis.

Then this at 22:10 Sydney time.
The second was when someone (I think) said that SB was making up stories.

Then I went to bed.

And why is it you tell me to PM SB wrt a public argument but then suddenly you suggest

If you have any further argument that you don't want public, then don't make your arguments in public.

 

[hiero2]

Thank you, gents, for working to cooperate. Maybe it is better if this particular conversation took a rest. All I can see from here are the weeds - so we must be down in them.

Cheers - have a good day!

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Thank you, gents, for working to cooperate. Maybe it is better if this particular conversation took a rest. All I can see from here are the weeds - so we must be down in them.

Cheers - have a good day!

Is it Mexican or Indian (manali) weed?

 

[thirteen]

Is it Mexican or Indian (manali) weed?

i love you, Zam! made my day (night, whatever)

 

[del1962]

anyway. . . one of perks of being a moderator is that i can still see deleted posts and by whom they were deleted.

and by looking at the events of the previous days on that thread, i have been the only mod deleting posts and none of them belonged to del1962 (is not that hard to get some1s user name right. . . )

so please enlighten me what post of yours did i delete?

I must have got in wrong I just couldn't find the post yesterday after you had said you had deleted some posts, I have checked back now and the post is still there, so I made a mistake and I am sorry for that.

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

An idea. Feel free to tell me it is a bad one if you think it is

The clinic is under the road section of the forum.

However there are a lot of threads, including some started by me, that do not deal with road cycling at all. These threads do not really belong there.

So my idea is too split the clinic into two sub forums, one for cycling doping and one for non cycling doping.

 

[Netserk]

An idea. Feel free to tell me it is a bad one if you think it is

The clinic is under the road section of the forum.

However there are a lot of threads, including some started by me, that do not deal with road cycling at all. These threads do not really belong there.

So my idea is too split the clinic into two sub forums, one for cycling doping and one for non cycling doping.

I understand your point of view, but in my humble opinion I think it is better that all clinic material is under the same roof. Regarding the fact that it is under the road section: Formally the clinic is only under the road section, but in reality both road, track and every other sports are welcomed to be discussed there.

But although my opinion is that things should stay the same, I do appreciate that you start the debate, since it is healthy for the forum that its structure is under debate

 

[Froome19]

You know Mods don't need to feel obliged to defend other mods.

 

[hiero2]

Is it Mexican or Indian (manali) weed?

I can't see a thing through all the smoke!

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

I understand your point of view, but in my humble opinion I think it is better that all clinic material is under the same roof. Regarding the fact that it is under the road section: Formally the clinic is only under the road section, but in reality both road, track and every other sports are welcomed to be discussed there.

But although my opinion is that things should stay the same, I do appreciate that you start the debate, since it is healthy for the forum that its structure is under debate

Thank you for the answer Netserk


Anyone else have an opinion?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I agree with Netserk, Clinic is Clinic.

Susan

 

[timmers]

So the Forum Rules & Guidelines that get referred to do not apply to postings in The Clinic?

 

[RownhamHill]

I agree with Netserk, Clinic is Clinic.

Susan

You could take it out of the road section and move it up a level in the hierarchy?

Still, didn't come here to discuss the location of the clinic in any case, was just checking in from my post the other day. And on that subject, thank you for the response Hiero, appreciate it. I can't, honestly, say that I agree with the consensus you've formed - which is a shame - but thank you for at least having the discussion! (My personal view is that while the mods clearly don't represent the editorial view of CN, taking on the role of mod does bring with it some 'forum capital' - obviously mods police the rules, but their posting also has a softer impact, which helps set the bar on what is acceptable on the forum. And I think sometimes the moderators need to apply a bit more, well, moderation to their own posts, even if they have strongly held views. But that's just my twopenneth worth.)

Anyway, thanks again for the discussion, I'm personally done with this subject now, as I'm actually doing some important stuff next week - on holiday with my kids!

 

[Hugh Januss]

I actually don't thing that there realistically could have been done much different by the mods. Even if one of the cars hits the break, there will still be a car crash if the other goes full throttle. But ideally we the mods could have drawn the line Parrulo drew earlier.

What? You mean hits the break like this?

http://youtu.be/mYPDAry-A-s

 

[boomcie]

Can I please get a reasoned decision on why my thread "Toilet paper orientation and race preference" was closed?

Susan already gave a vague explanation: "Sorry, but we really don't need this thread".

I think we can all calmly agree that we do not necessarily need the "cat thread", "dog thread", "Bike advertisements and women thread", "The Mullet Thread", "Coffee Bean Recommendations thread", "Break out the fat bikes thread", "Who? LOves Their Dog as Much as Their Bike/Cycling thread" and last but not least the "Amazing staircases thread".

I could go on for ages, but one gets the point. I did not put 10 minutes in compiling the toilet paper poll just to have someone decide that my thread is less needed than a thread about stairs. Many people actually care about toilet paper orientation and I think it is up to the forum to decide whether or not we need this thread.

If the thread is not needed, it will silently slip away into oblivion like the vastly underrated "Urinating in the Shower thread", which we obviously needed more than this one.

I believe it's a little unfair to close a thread based on a random criterion like relative necessity.