Moderators

[Anonymous]

This whole thread has taken on a Cool Hand Luke feel:
"John-boy, lemme tell you something. You know, them chains ain't medals. You get 'em for making mistakes. And you make a *bad* enough mistake, and then you gotta deal with the Man. And he is one rough old boy."

 

[Barrus]

This whole thread has taken on a Cool Hand Luke feel:
"John-boy, lemme tell you something. You know, them chains ain't medals. You get 'em for making mistakes. And you make a *bad* enough mistake, and then you gotta deal with the Man. And he is one rough old boy."

"Them clothes got laundry numbers on them. You remember your number and always wear the ones that has your number. Any man forgets his number spends a night in the box. These here spoons you keep with you. Any man loses his spoon spends a night in the box. There's no playing grab-*** or fighting in the building. You got a grudge against another man, you fight him Saturday afternoon. Any man playing grab-*** or fighting in the building spends a night in the box. First bell's at five minutes of eight when you will get in your bunk. Last bell is at eight. Any man not in his bunk at eight spends the night in the box. There is no smoking in the prone position in bed. To smoke you must have both legs over the side of your bunk. Any man caught smoking in the prone position in bed... spends a night in the box. You get two sheets. Every Saturday, you put the clean sheet on the top... the top sheet on the bottom... and the bottom sheet you turn in to the laundry boy. Any man turns in the wrong sheet spends a night in the box. No one'll sit in the bunks with dirty pants on. Any man with dirty pants on sitting on the bunks spends a night in the box. Any man don't bring back his empty pop bottle spends a night in the box. Any man loud talking spends a night in the box. You got questions, you come to me. I'm Barrus, one of the mods. I'm responsible for order in here. Any man don't keep order spends a night in... "

Sorry I could not resist

 

[JRTinMA]

I can think of only 5 or 6 posters who are currently defending AC, that's it, I do not know where you see a majority.

My bigger point is how you concentrate on LA - I think we would agree that he is the most polarizing Pro rider on this forum, which is to be expected on an English speaking website. But he is not alone in being a controversial figure - the issues and difficulties the Mods face in their role is (& should be) much broader than their view on LA.

While I realize it may not be a reflection of your viewing preferences, of your 296 posts 253 were made in The Clinic. If you spend that much time there than it is going to seem like the most contentious area.

I offered some ideas and gave an opinion or two. You want to make this about me and that was not my intent, thanks for reminding me what a ****ing nuisance you are.

 

[Polish]

.....nothing to show that certain poster get more lenience than others. AS the Doc has pointed out, what about TFF, or the Hog. Especially with the first I can find it quite well, yet I still remand him if there is the need. What about Polish, Scribe and Flicker. The only times I warned them is when they went off-topic after repeated warnings in the topic.

TFF and the Hog, I would guess, are usually remanded because they are impolite, rude, or mean to other posters. (But they are NOT Fanboys lol.)

Polish(me), Scribe, and Flicker could be described as Lance Fans. We get remanded for being "off topic". ("Off topic" usually/always means Lance related).

Mean, rude, impolite Lance FanBoys are the least tolerated. May be Banned.

So, if you are going to be rude or impolite - do not be a fanboy.
And if you are a Lance fanboy, please watch your manners.

I think this stems from the fact that many mods are NOT Lance fans.

Martin/Barrus/Alpe/Susan are NOT Lance fans by any stretch of the imagination.

They also do not like impoliteness.

 

[Anonymous]

TFF and the Hog, I would guess, are usually remanded because they are impolite, rude, or mean to other posters. (But they are NOT Fanboys lol.)

Polish(me), Scribe, and Flicker could be described as Lance Fans. We get remanded for being "off topic". ("Off topic" usually/always means Lance related).

Mean, rude, impolite Lance FanBoys are the least tolerated. May be Banned.

So, if you are going to be rude or impolite - do not be a fanboy.
And if you are a Lance fanboy, please watch your manners.

I think this stems from the fact that many mods are NOT Lance fans.

Martin/Barrus/Alpe/Susan are NOT Lance fans by any stretch of the imagination.

They also do not like impoliteness.

And any man get caught bein' impolite spends a night in the box...

Thanks Barrus!

The rest of you can go back to your whine and cheese. I spend my time in the box like a man. The "man with no eyes" won't steal my soul!

 

[scribe]

GIT MAD AT DEM EGGS!!!

(i've missed the party here. when did I become a fanboy?)

 

[Ferminal]

GIT MAD AT DEM EGGS!!!

(i've missed the party here. when did I become a fanboy?)

Zing

lol @ Polish, he's in good form.

 

[sublimit]

TFF and the Hog, I would guess, are usually remanded because they are impolite, rude, or mean to other posters. (But they are NOT Fanboys lol.)

Polish(me), Scribe, and Flicker could be described as Lance Fans. We get remanded for being "off topic". ("Off topic" usually/always means Lance related).

Mean, rude, impolite Lance FanBoys are the least tolerated. May be Banned.

So, if you are going to be rude or impolite - do not be a fanboy.
And if you are a Lance fanboy, please watch your manners.

I think this stems from the fact that many mods are NOT Lance fans.

Martin/Barrus/Alpe/Susan are NOT Lance fans by any stretch of the imagination.

They also do not like impoliteness.

Haha, nice one. You have a point.
The mods are going through it big style at the minute. Keeps them on their toes.

 

[Martin318is]

Mods may not post in that subforum unless it it is to keep a thread on track.

Where have you heard that rule for moderators before? I am a mod on other websites and have never heard something so bizare.

You want an unpaid person to sit and float around watching conversations in a forum they find interesting and not be allowed to post in it? Thats just spectacularly naive.

Why would any of us bother to come to the site at all? For that matter, why wouldn't we just go back to being regular forum members?

 

[Boeing]

This is the first forum I have been part of where the mods are worse than the Trolls

 

[Martin318is]

Don't sell yourself short, that was a spectacular piece of trolling right there....

 

[Martin318is]

To be honest, while not trying to discredit any of the points raised above, I find this whole situation pretty laughable.

To think that people have wasted 3 days of their lives because I had the temerity to cross post something I left as a message on another site in a non-Moderator capacity....

and what was it that i said?

1) I suggested that Graham Watson was not being smart - clearly this is accurate as given the split in cycling between LA and Greg, he is cutting off potential customers for no logical reason.

2) I labelled Lance a parasite - whilst many obviously have varying views on the accuracy of this, it is hardly a new proposition...

either way, the fact I am labelled an Administrator when I am in fact just another Moderator does in part explain some of the reactions, but the linkages to other claims here is quite absurd.

The fact is that the only evidence you guys ever see of moderator actions is when we edit posts/threads or ban people for various periods. What none of you can see is that moderators can see red or yellow cards against posts which resulted in infractions being given. You can't see the PM conversations that resulted, and you can't see whether someone responded in a beligerent fashion or was contrite.

To those claiming moderator bias, the weight is on you to come up with some form of evidence of this because it is you levelling the accusation. You cannot make such an accusation and say that its not up to you to prove it.


But I will leave you with this simple point:

IF it is so bad here and you are so persecuted for having certain views, then why is it that no moderator has come through here, deleted your posts, and banned you?

 

[Anonymous]

To be honest, while not trying to discredit any of the points raised above, I find this whole situation pretty laughable.

To think that people have wasted 3 days of their lives because I had the temerity to cross post something I left as a message on another site in a non-Moderator capacity....

and what was it that i said?

1) I suggested that Graham Watson was not being smart - clearly this is accurate as given the split in cycling between LA and Greg, he is cutting off potential customers for no logical reason.

2) I labelled Lance a parasite - whilst many obviously have varying views on the accuracy of this, it is hardly a new proposition...

either way, the fact I am labelled an Administrator when I am in fact just another Moderator does in part explain some of the reactions, but the linkages to other claims here is quite absurd.

The fact is that the only evidence you guys ever see of moderator actions is when we edit posts/threads or ban people for various periods. What none of you can see is that moderators can see red or yellow cards against posts which resulted in infractions being given. You can't see the PM conversations that resulted, and you can't see whether someone responded in a beligerent fashion or was contrite.

To those claiming moderator bias, the weight is on you to come up with some form of evidence of this because it is you levelling the accusation. You cannot make such an accusation and say that its not up to you to prove it.


But I will leave you with this simple point:

IF it is so bad here and you are so persecuted for having certain views, then why is it that no moderator has come through here, deleted your posts, and banned you?

Good question. I have another.

If it's so badly moderated here where you feel persecuted and/or discriminated against why come to this site at all? Don't we all have better things to do than endure "abuse" on a web forum?

 

[scribe]

Your zombie kin-folk are coming again to feed on the unsuspecting public. A couple of more weeks before elections....

 

[scribe]

Jes curious. Is there a place to see how many infractions I got?

 

[Martin318is]

Tough to confirm these instructions because as a mod I can see it by default.

If you click on your name and select "View Public Profile" is there a tab called "Infractions" at the same level as "Statistics", "Friends", etc?

I can tell you though that no, you have not got any live infractions, nor have you apparently ever received one. You would know if you had because you would have received an infraction templated email (with hopefully some explanation from the mod that gave it).

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Keep the politics in the appropriate thread in the cafe, and only there. Any futher such postings will be deleted.

Susan

 

[pedaling squares]

IF it is so bad here and you are so persecuted for having certain views, then why is it that no moderator has come through here, deleted your posts, and banned you?

Common sense has no effect upon the wailing Nancies, Martin. Assign yourself 5 demerit points for trying to raise the level of debate on this point.

 

[Martin318is]

Is no thread sacred?

Guys, lets keep it on topic please?

 

[AussieGoddess]

wowsers.

Honestly - if hte forum is so bad - why come here?

I am a mod on another forum - and we dont allow questioning moderator decisions

In relation to supposed bias - surely you guys realise that sanctions and bans get discussed. that no 1 individual mod decides on his/her own to do these things.

Its not rocket science ....
- be polite, follow the rules and you wont get banned.
-If another member/post is upsetting you, baiting, trolling etc - report them.
- if you report, and nothing is done, perhaps report again or pm a mod and ask (politely) if its been overlooked or what is going on.

They are volunteers. They dont get paid to listen to whinging about how bad they do

 

[ChrisE]

Since I started this latest food fight let me clarify.

It is not "bad" in here; I believe all of us enjoy posting. I have been banned several times myself and have always looked forward to returning. I do appreciate the leeway. This "if it's so bad why are you here" card is just strawman and diversionary, instead of addressing the subject.

My point again is that I believe that once people get involved in discussions, and develop relationships with other posters, their objectiveness changes. Inevitably one will give less leeway to somebody they don't agree with, maybe disagree with aggressively, than somebody who is "on their side". This is human nature and not even worth debating.

For example, I believe certain things about GL that contradict the prevailing "wisdom" in the forum. If I were to go on that thread and aggressively attack him or defend GW in the same manner as GW and LA are being attacked in that thread, then I would have gotten banned IMO, or at least gotten my posts deleted and some warnings. Is that "objective" moderating? Mods and mod sycophants like Socal in this thread can say what they want and write my opinion off due to lack of "proof"; but if they want to play psychological games with themselves that is their prerogative. It's easy to play that game if the rest of the mob feels the same way. It's called groupthink.

Look at the Toronto mayor thread. There are all kinds of names directed at that guy, deservedly so, that are skirting the cursing rules. Fat f**k, for example. If I would call GL that name when criticising his positions then off to CN forum Gitmo to me. And, everybody here knows that is true. We can call that guy a "fat f**k" because we don't agree with him; the rules don't apply there but they would if the object of that scorn was GL by a "rogue" in the forum. That is my point. How can we admit that then say moderating is completely objective and even handed regardles of the POV of the poster?

At least bringing this subject up maybe caused some people to think; that is those of you that wish to consider what I am saying instead of jumping up and down screaming for me to go find posts to support my position. That is impossible due to not knowing what has been deleted, etc. plus I refuse to do it for the reasons I stated earlier. I did point out some things earlier that were in blatant violation of the rules by some of the pets in here....

Mods are fans as well, and this thread has made me lessen my stand on whether they should post or not. And, they volunteer to do this and should be thanked, even though I wish there was no such creature as a moderator. If all mods have been objective, which I don't believe, when handing out punishment then sobeit. If after these last few pages in this thread some have reconsidered their objectiveness and have vowed to be more conscious of it, that is a good thing. And the POV I am coming from with that statement is allowing all of us to write "fat f**k" at our adversaries instead of reverting to Miss Manners in all circumstances. I want less moderation, not more.

YMMV.

 

[Barrus]

Look, Chris, in general I do not mind what ones position is over Greg Lemond and Lance Armstrong. Everyone probably knows that I'm no fan of the latter (always was more of a fan of Ullrich and Pantani in those days), and of the former I have no opinion. The problem that I have, with both sides of the argument, is the incessant need of many of those to put either one of those topics into a thread that has nothing to do with it, only to regurgitate the same arguments over and over again. I have railed against this often, and have become quite irritated in many cases, often handing out infractions and warnings after repeated warnings in the thread itself. Yes, these infractions and wanrings have often been against Lance supporters, the reason is that after these repeated warnings they still kept bringing the subject up in that thread. But again those receiving infractions in those cases were not all Lance supporters, but it appears especially Polish had a hand of ignoring the warnings in the threads and thus received more warnings by me for this than other psoters.

Also one considerable problem with your notion is that you have no idea what the moderators do in many cases. You do not know whether your opinion is valid, because in general people, moderators and those warned and everything do not talk about the sanctions taken, in many cases it can't be seen if there is a post or a thread deleted. Again you put forth the notion that there is more leeway for certain posters, but do not substantiate your argument in any way. In this manner I cannot dispute your argument in any way and thus it has no reason for me to continue this argument with you, as you are convinced of your opinion and I would be unable to chance this in any way. That is why I wrote of what you said, as it was nothing with which I could do anything, as there was no discussion possible

 

[ChrisE]

Look, Chris, in general I do not mind what ones position is over Greg Lemond and Lance Armstrong. Everyone probably knows that I'm no fan of the latter (always was more of a fan of Ullrich and Pantani in those days), and of the former I have no opinion. The problem that I have, with both sides of the argument, is the incessant need of many of those to put either one of those topics into a thread that has nothing to do with it, only to regurgitate the same arguments over and over again. I have railed against this often, and have become quite irritated in many cases, often handing out infractions and warnings after repeated warnings in the thread itself. Yes, these infractions and wanrings have often been against Lance supporters, the reason is that after these repeated warnings they still kept bringing the subject up in that thread. But again those receiving infractions in those cases were not all Lance supporters, but it appears especially Polish had a hand of ignoring the warnings in the threads and thus received more warnings by me for this than other psoters.

Also one considerable problem with your notion is that you have no idea what the moderators do in many cases. You do not know whether your opinion is valid, because in general people, moderators and those warned and everything do not talk about the sanctions taken, in many cases it can't be seen if there is a post or a thread deleted. Again you put forth the notion that there is more leeway for certain posters, but do not substantiate your argument in any way. In this manner I cannot dispute your argument in any way and thus it has no reason for me to continue this argument with you, as you are convinced of your opinion and I would be unable to chance this in any way. That is why I wrote of what you said, as it was nothing with which I could do anything, as there was no discussion possible

Ditto, especially since your "proof" takes place behind closed doors. How convenient. I have brought up a perfect example in the Toronto thread of what I am talking about. I am not talking about off-topic stuff that you are against. I am talking about attacking other members or subjects of threads, where leeway is given depending on the POV or who is being attacked.

Answer me this: Is it human nature to give leeway to those that are liked by the majority vs those that are disliked? Is it human nature to like those of similar views than those that have the opposite?

If the answer to those questions are yes then I have made my point. If you dispute that, or say the CN mods are an exception to these points, then I don't think you are being honest. No offense.

 

[Barrus]

Ditto, especially since your "proof" takes place behind closed doors. How convenient. I have brought up a perfect example in the Toronto thread of what I am talking about. I am not talking about off-topic stuff that you are against. I am talking about attacking other members or subjects of threads, where leeway is given depending on the POV or who is being attacked.

Answer me this: Is it human nature to give leeway to those that are liked by the majority vs those that are disliked? Is it human nature to like those of similar views than those that have the opposite?

If the answer to those questions are yes then I have made my point. If you dispute that, or say the CN mods are an exception to these points, then I don't think you are being honest. No offense.

I have not yet read that thread, but was of the intention to do so, as you brought it to, at least mine, intention. I had not received anything else indicating that there was something wrong with that thread.

And to the two question: no, this is not necessarily the case, you can still remain objective even if you agree with one person more than with the other. You might dispute that, but I will remain of that position. I don not agree with many things, but I can remain objective about it. I would not be able to do what I do in real live, if I was not of that conviction and tried to live up to that conviction. As mentioned earlier in this thread, as a moderator here there has been only one person with whom I believed I could not remain objective and as such I recused myself and no longer dealt with that person

Edit: quick look at that thread. saw nobody attacking anyone else and the swearwords were all censored. SO nothing really to warrant any action

 

[ChrisE]

I have not yet read that thread, but was of the intention to do so, as you brought it to, at least mine, intention. I had not received anything else indicating that there was something wrong with that thread.

And to the two question: no, this is not necessarily the case, you can still remain objective even if you agree with one person more than with the other. You might dispute that, but I will remain of that position. I don not agree with many things, but I can remain objective about it. I would not be able to do what I do in real live, if I was not of that conviction and tried to live up to that conviction. As mentioned earlier in this thread, as a moderator here there has been only one person with whom I believed I could not remain objective and as such I recused myself and no longer dealt with that person

I am not saying there is anything "wrong" with that thread. I think it is fine....the guys deserves the grief he is getting and I think the posts are funny. But if somebody started a thread about GL for example and attacked him in that manner then your inbox would be full of complaints. Your implication that that thread is OK due to lack of complaints supports my point that rules are applied based upon the prevailing opinion in the forum.

Hopefully you won't make my point when I told you earlier I didn't want to go find examples to support my POV. Hopefully you won't go in that thread and start deleting posts, giving out warnings, etc. That is not what I want. My point here is the exact opposite of more Mod intervention.

Also, I completely agree with your point that people can be objective with people they disagree with. Of course they can, and people have the ability to think and be aware of many natural traits that aren't conducive to a free or even handed society. But it is only when they become aware of these things can they can work to overcome them.