Moderators

[Netserk]

You still have not explained why you feel it is acceptable to have swearing and trolling in your signature.

Given that I had pretty much the exact same signature when I went from a poster to a mod, and never heard anything about it before you mentioned it, I think it's only you who see it as a problem for me to have BS written there, and some other non-trolling content.

 

[MarkvW]

Given that I had pretty much the exact same signature when I went from a poster to a mod, and never heard anything about it before you mentioned it, I think it's only you who see it as a problem for me to have BS written there, and some other non-trolling content.

He has a good point. It's a pity that you can't see it.

 

[ferryman]

if I were a mod I would just ban everyone and start over

Not a bad idea, I'll raise this at the next mod meeting

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

You still have not explained why you feel it is acceptable to have swearing and trolling in your signature.

Dont want to be a d!ck but you seem to be preoccupied with the 'about the forum' section on this forum. Do you have a 'special mission' or something like that?

 

[TheGame]

Dont want to be a d!ck but you seem to be preoccupied with the 'about the forum' section on this forum. Do you have a 'special mission' or something like that?

I read "The Clinic", but I learned very quickly that posting there is a dangerous thing. I have a variety of reasons for not posting there, not least that I simply don't have the time to follow two thousand page threads. As for races, I have very little to offer, I increasingly find myself unable to watch as many races as I would wish, and those I do, frankly no longer interest me.

The Margaret Thatcher thread was excellent however.

I don't have a mission, but I do seem to have got myself involved in this discussion over the hypocrisy of the moderation team.

And no, my name is not ****

 

[ebandit]

value

Dont want to be a d!ck but you seem to be preoccupied with the 'about the forum' section on this forum. Do you have a 'special mission' or something like that?

i value contributions from the game.............at least they add to discussions
with thoughtful insight

i too have more interest in this section of the forum than most........perhaps?
way too much interest........taking the forum oh so seriously

Mark L

 

[Christian]

I'm going to try and mediate. Briefly.

The quotes above start with Christian's accusation. I can see that Netserk's response could be slightly defensive, thinking that it was referring strictly to Netserk. But frankly, I also read it that way, and netserk's point is valid even if the accusation is more general. Christian is accusing netserk, and/or the mod staff, of acting unfairly and unequally. He is accusing us of banning someone for responding to a mod's baiting/trolling post.

Christian is making an ad hominem attack, and creating a straw man.

So netserk's question is then actually accurate. I also understand the statement that nobody has accused netserk of doing this bait/ban routine - but Christian's statement is, in fact, an accusation, either of netserk or the mods in general of baiting --> banning. So, he is either making it up, or he can point to an incident, or he is revealing his inner fear of being banned for arguing with netserk.

Christian closes that post with a statement that is patently ridicule and inflammatory.

Now, if I had to make a judgement based on these posts alone, I would note that Christian's post used the most techniques that are described on this page:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

Hello, sorry I have not been able to check the forum for a couple of days, so here my response a bit late:

This goes back to when I first started my beef with Netserk. If you want you can go some pages back and read it all through... I don't remember when exactly it was, but not too long ago so it should be relatively easy to find.

In my opinion (and that of many other forumites) Netserk is actively baiting and/or trolling at times. If other users react to those posts (i.e. take the hook), then he will have to ban them (i.e. bye bye). He confirmed this to me in our previous discussion. It is impossible for me to establish malice of forethought (i.e. Netserk baits with the precise purpose of banning another user), therefore I (and many other forumites) maintain that at the very least Netserk's posting style can be considered irresponsible for a mod.

This is what I meant in my post that you are refering to. But as I said it basically sums up another discussion that I had with Netserk, and since I can only assume that his position on this hasn't changed I invite you to go back and read that, so as not to have the exact same discussion all over again.

 

[Netserk]

In my opinion (and that of many other forumites) Netserk is actively baiting and/or trolling at times. If other users react to those posts (i.e. take the hook), then he will have to ban them (i.e. bye bye). He confirmed this to me in our previous discussion. It is impossible for me to establish malice of forethought (i.e. Netserk baits with the precise purpose of banning another user), therefore I (and many other forumites) maintain that at the very least Netserk's posting style can be considered irresponsible for a mod.

 

[Christian]

I meant this:

To the bolded:
Sure I would

 

[Christian]

A mod that I really liked was palmerq. I just realized he has been gone for over a year. I hope he is fine and didn't leave in anger (seriously).

:S

 

[Netserk]

I meant this:

You do know that was a sarcastic smiley, right?

 

[Christian]

You do know that was a sarcastic smiley, right?

Ah, that was a misunderstanding then. Still, it is your duty as a mod to sanction users when they explode, and it is my impression that you set fires rather than prevent them....

 

[TheGame]

Ah, that was a misunderstanding then. Still, it is your duty as a mod to sanction users when they explode, and it is my impression that you set fires rather than prevent them....

Are you suggesting that an arsonist has joined the Fire Service?

 

[Netserk]

Does that mean that you will retract you statement about taking the moder-baiter's hook = bye bye?

 

[hiero2]

if I were a mod I would just ban everyone and start over

--- Yeah!

I've had that thought.

Did you ever, by chance, go on usenet rec.bicycle.misc? Amongst others, Jobst Brandt used to post there. To say he was an irascible curmudgeon would be putting it gently. At the same time, he was one of the most influential and famous researchers in the bicycle world. When not posting about his specialty, he was also often wrong. But if he were here today, how could one moderate that? You couldn't change him - he was too set in his ways. If you tried to tone him down, he would have left first.

 

[mewmewmew13]

--- Yeah!

I've had that thought.

Did you ever, by chance, go on usenet rec.bicycle.misc? Amongst others, Jobst Brandt used to post there. To say he was an irascible curmudgeon would be putting it gently. At the same time, he was one of the most influential and famous researchers in the bicycle world. When not posting about his specialty, he was also often wrong. But if he were here today, how could one moderate that? You couldn't change him - he was too set in his ways. If you tried to tone him down, he would have left first.

I think there are many famous retired cyclists that would fill that description, no?
Gad help us if they all decided to post on the forum

 

[hiero2]

I think there are many famous retired cyclists that would fill that description, no?
Gad help us if they all decided to post on the forum

Nah, just me! Sheldon Brown and, if I recall, John Allen, also used to post, and they weren't irascible curmudgeons. And when they posted they were usually right. Jobst is still around - might even come lurking here and get accused of being a sockpuppet!

Oops - except I wasn't famous. My name is known to a few people in the industry - but not famous.

 

[hiero2]

In addition to your former offensive avatar, I'm still totally confused how a so called moderator can have a) swearing in their signature and b) deliberate baiting in their signature.

I read "The Clinic", but I learned very quickly that posting there is a dangerous thing. I have a variety of reasons for not posting there, not least that I simply don't have the time to follow two thousand page threads. As for races, I have very little to offer, I increasingly find myself unable to watch as many races as I would wish, and those I do, frankly no longer interest me.

The Margaret Thatcher thread was excellent however.

I don't have a mission, but I do seem to have got myself involved in this discussion over the hypocrisy of the moderation team.

And no, my name is not ****

WHAT!? You mean, you mean . . . you are NOT a sockpuppet and haven't been accused of being one yet? Wowy, zowy, mate! I enjoyed your joke.

i value contributions from the game.............at least they add to discussions
with thoughtful insight

i too have more interest in this section of the forum than most........perhaps?
way too much interest........taking the forum oh so seriously

Mark L

taking it seriously, eh? ....... somebody forget to tell you to get a life today? ....... I, for one, appreciate your input. Even though I do not always agree with you.

Hello, sorry I have not been able to check the forum for a couple of days, so here my response a bit late:

This goes back to when I first started my beef with Netserk. If you want you can go some pages back and read it all through... I don't remember when exactly it was, but not too long ago so it should be relatively easy to find.

In my opinion (and that of many other forumites) Netserk is actively baiting and/or trolling at times. If other users react to those posts (i.e. take the hook), then he will have to ban them (i.e. bye bye). He confirmed this to me in our previous discussion. It is impossible for me to establish malice of forethought (i.e. Netserk baits with the precise purpose of banning another user), therefore I (and many other forumites) maintain that at the very least Netserk's posting style can be considered irresponsible for a mod.

This is what I meant in my post that you are refering to. But as I said it basically sums up another discussion that I had with Netserk, and since I can only assume that his position on this hasn't changed I invite you to go back and read that, so as not to have the exact same discussion all over again.

Does that mean that you will retract you statement about taking the moder-baiter's hook = bye bye?

Ok, now fasten your seat belts and thanks for listening.

One of the mores by which I operate is that even the least of us deserves to be heard - at least once. Therefore, I always try to work within the community as I can see that it exists, and modify my style as required to do so. I also try to listen, often beyond what I have seen others do.

Christian: your most recent post was much more rational. I've seen some of your older posts on other topics, and they all seemed rational and balanced. Raising your arguments this way lends far more credence to your arguments. Previously, in this case, your arguments and emotional posting forced me to discount your complaints. The use of "moder-baiter" alone was enough to delete that post. However, out of courtesy, and not wanting to cut the conversation short, I did not. That whole argument was also an inflammatory and unjustified accusation, which was apparently due to a misunderstanding. [I will continue to address your issue here further down.] When the hypocrite comment was made, I followed the complete trail of posts for both of you, as I felt this could easily get, ahem, controversial. Reading all that has been part of my response since. I will further address your current, rational, comments farther down.

Next: cursing and baiting in netserk's sig. This is a straw man, and trying to build a case based on these points is distracting and not useful. Words like sucks have entered the general lexicon, and are used on the daily news. BS is one of those usages. If you haven't been bringing every "****" entry you see in a post to our attention, then you have nothing to complain about with something as mild and innocuous as BS. In addition, if you want to complain about using such a quote as a sig, then we would need to delete the original. A couple of years ago, everything that a mod found with "****" was deleted. Following the common practice as it was when I came on board, I and we have been pretty generous about ignoring lesser examples of such usage. Baiting: I hear several people calling the "abandony" portion of the sig as baiting. Sorry, I can't see it. Additionally, I DID see hypocrisy about calling that baiting, and not calling it baiting when it was another poster. AFAIC, these points are moot.

Now, back to the meat of this matter, stated, in your posts, fairly well:

In my opinion (and that of many other forumites) Netserk is actively baiting and/or trolling at times. If other users react to those posts (i.e. take the hook), then he will have to ban them (i.e. bye bye). He confirmed this to me in our previous discussion. It is impossible for me to establish malice of forethought (i.e. Netserk baits with the precise purpose of banning another user), therefore I (and many other forumites) maintain that at the very least Netserk's posting style can be considered irresponsible for a mod.

and

. . . it is my impression that you set fires rather than prevent them....

First - I'm going to get this out of the way -

If other users react to those posts (i.e. take the hook), then he will have to ban them (i.e. bye bye).

- is a fallacious assumption. Any number of options could result. This has been responded to by netserk well enough, imo. Again, it seems to also be based on a misunderstanding.

Which leaves us with the opinion that netserk is baiting/trolling with his posting style. And, that a mod needs to post in a different fashion than a general user (as eloquently noted by Aus goddess).

I'd like to take a moment and digress, imo, I concur with python's estimation of Aus goddess, Mew, etc.

. . .intelligent/cogent, positive, balanced and respectful…

again, netserk, i do not have any issues with you or your style, but i suggest you very seriously consider the opinions of the 2 good ladies i quoted…

In answer to that claim - which may be valid - and is certainly worth our consideration, I am going to say two things. First, just like other claims or problems - the individual posts, the actual events, should be reported. Generic complaining, as in this thread, is difficult or impossible to do anything with. Second, for this topic, I will say that the complaints have been noted and will be discussed. Beyond that, we are now taking TheGame's advice on this topic:

. . . I am totally 100% opposed to this thread in that it is just a baiting war between members and moderators. If members have a grievance with an individual moderator they should approach another mod, or more senior person so as Dan and explain the situation. It should be dealt with privately, behind closed doors. . .

Topic has been noted and is under consideration. Future incidents should be flagged through the normal complaint channel - flag the post. Discussion closed. Thank you for participating. (And I am serious when I say that. I do appreciate your input, but unless you have something new to add, this has been done to death.)

 

[Christian]

Does that mean that you will retract you statement about taking the moder-baiter's hook = bye bye?

I will change my statement from "bye bye", which implies a ban, to "sanction", which is a broader term and can include warnings, etc. I maintain my stance that your posting style is, at times, and IMHO, prone to provoke sanctionable behaviour in other users. And that, in compliance with your duties as a mod, you would have to sanction said behaviour.

Furthermore as a gesture of good will and in an effort to promote rational discussion on this matter, I can formally announce that I will retire the term "moder-baiter". I would, however, appreciate a formal acknowledgement that that was a clever play on words.

I will respond to hiero2 later, possibly tomorrow

 

[spetsa]

if I were a mod I would just ban everyone and start over

+10
I haven't signed in or posted for a few months, although I have read some threads from time to time. This forum has turned into a he said she said, your wrong, I am right p*ssing contest. The fact that mods are involved, sums it all up, and not in a good way.

 

[BroDeal]

+10
I haven't signed in or posted for a few months, although I have read some threads from time to time. This forum has turned into a he said she said, your wrong, I am right p*ssing contest. The fact that mods are involved, sums it all up, and not in a good way.

This place went to crap a long time ago. The death knell was the original mods quitting en masse. Now the mods are intent on crushing the life out of the forum. Any spark of liveliness or controversy and they will make it disappear like it's 1984.

Robbie Canuck goes off the reservation and the Ministry of Truth sweeps in to expunge everything.

Here's a clue. Overmoderation makes the place boring.

 

[Eshnar]

Robbie Canuck goes off the reservation and the Ministry of Truth sweeps in to expunge everything.

Here's a clue. Overmoderation makes the place boring.

Wait, posting nothing but insults and personal attacks was allowed back then? And no one told me anything?

 

[BroDeal]

Wait, posting nothing but insults and personall attacks was allowed back then? And no one told me anything?

When an idiot does something as ridiculout as threatening to fight people in the alley, people are going to have some fun taking a poke at him. It is what makes forums fun and interesting.

The "Johan" thread is a classic example of overmoderation. It is too bad you deleted all the evidence. TFF cannot even post an accurate description of what led Canuck to wig out.

 

[Eshnar]

When an idiot does something as ridiculout as threatening to fight people in the alley, people are going to have some fun taking a poke at him. It is what makes forums fun and interesting.

The "Johan" thread is a classic example of overmoderation. It is too bad you deleted all the evidence. TFF cannot even post an accurate description of what led Canuck to wig out.

You had fun for long enough I think. Since things were only gonna get worse and more pointless than already were, we had to stop you. And I had to delete those posts because threads are meant to be read by people who may want to read about the topic and not some random fights.

 

[BroDeal]

Actually I think the death knell of this place might have been the closing of the "This forum blows" thread. Clear sign the mods know the place blows but don't want people talking about it.