Moderators

[Barrus]

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.

No, no, no. I mean due to the lack of complaints I have not read it. I cannot read every thread and unless a thread title in indicative of some form violation going on (most of the time threads concerning LA and GL unfortunately), or if I get reports, I do not always read it, if I am not interested in the subject

Look, in general I don't mind if people call riders, DS's or any sort of public figure names, as long as they do not circumvent the filter in place, target a member, or become overly abusive, or overly disrespectful (such as wishing a person death)

As for your last paragraph I do agree with you. But I am also of the opinion that at least we attempt to remain objective (off course I cannot say that all moderators in all cases are not objective, as I already gave my own example)

 

[180mmCrank]

@ChrisE

I don't agree with everything you've said above but at least we are having proper discussion. Too often in the past the conversation just goes straight to sweeping generalisations. Thank you.

 

[ChrisE]

@ChrisE

I don't agree with everything you've said above but at least we are having proper discussion. Too often in the past the conversation just goes straight to sweeping generalisations. Thank you.

No problem...I have said many times it is a priveledge to post and not a right. Agree to disagree, with a few ad hominems thrown in would be a perfect world IMO.

I must be off now for a few days....going to south Texas fishing with my father. Hopefully this discussion can continue to be productive, but of course python hasn't chimed in yet. Later.

 

[python]

No, no, no.

barrus, this is my opinion that you or others may or may not share but i really feel you should not defend yourself against so obviously a baseless accusation designed to score points.

chrise composed a thoughtful post that's both interesting and sly. he completely and rather self-serving ignores the fact that as a multiple-ban offender for sock-puppeting, name calling and the generally deliberate inflammatory debating, he attracts most attention. it's the style of his and not his opinion about lemond vs armstrong.

he hasn't deserved the courtesy you afford him, though his points whilst flawed well made.

when reminded to look inwards he reduced it. the obstinate whining whilst refusing to acknowledge own role, is what i see wrong with posters like him.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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 criticizing 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.

There is a reason I ask you back up your opinion.

I put GL's name in to search - but I had to go back 39 threads before I found one with GL's name in its title - with a nice baiting title called Lemond The Last Rider To Win The Tour Clean?

I only had to go to the 6th post to prove you wrong:

The guy is clearly an ***, has a huge victim mentality going back to when he was riding and is just a whiny ****hole.

That poster did not get banned - nor was their opinion deleted or edited.

The Mayor of Toronto? So what - we are allowed some (quite a bit) of discretion in our remarks and opinions, which is proper.
I have only seen the mods step in (with bans) when remarks becomes personal to another forum user or excessive abuse of the filter.

Of course the Mods have personal opinions - but the only issue is whether it leads to bias in their moderation - and again I have not seen any example nor have you produced one.

I am perfectly willing to have another look at your opinion - but in the absence of some examples I believe the mods get it right a lot more often then they get it wrong.

 

[scribe]

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).

Good. If I can manage through nearly 3 thousand posts in shark-infested waters while dealing with constant baiting without an infraction.....I think I have proven myself sturdy enough for admin-ship. No?

My first act as admin will be to go through Race Radio's post history and lop off every single post he presents as fact without substantiation. That'll make an immediate splash toward a more neutral moderation of the forum.

 

[Martin318is]

Good. If I can manage through nearly 3 thousand posts in shark-infested waters while dealing with constant baiting without an infraction.....I think I have proven myself sturdy enough for admin-ship. No?

My first act as admin will be to go through Race Radio's post history and lop off every single post he presents as fact without substantiation. That'll make an immediate splash toward a more neutral moderation of the forum.

Actually I think you will find that is displaying a specific bias targetting one member of the forum.

 

[Race Radio]

Good. If I can manage through nearly 3 thousand posts in shark-infested waters while dealing with constant baiting without an infraction.....I think I have proven myself sturdy enough for admin-ship. No?

My first act as admin will be to go through Race Radio's post history and lop off every single post he presents as fact without substantiation. That'll make an immediate splash toward a more neutral moderation of the forum.

Show me where I have been wrong.

 

[scribe]

Actually I think you will find that is displaying a specific bias targetting one member of the forum.

That's just a start.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I personally think that Scribe would make a good moderator.........almost as good as Wonderlance.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Good. If I can manage through nearly 3 thousand posts in shark-infested waters while dealing with constant baiting without an infraction.....I think I have proven myself sturdy enough for admin-ship. No?

My first act as admin will be to go through Race Radio's post history and lop off every single post he presents as fact without substantiation. That'll make an immediate splash toward a more neutral moderation of the forum.

I think your time might be better spent going through Spart-rox's posts and doing the same thing.

 

[Anonymous]

My infraction list is 4 pages long. I don't dispute a single one. I deserved them and quite honestly, I deserved more than that. I think it is clear on which side of the LA line I fall, and you don't hear me whining. Fact is that according to the rules, many people on both sides deserve warnings and bans and never get them. Moderation is not an exact science, but honestly, this place is moderated better than any other site of which I have been a member. By a long shot. cyclingforums was not too bad, but the owner of that site screwed the pooch. This place is more than fair to everyone. There isn't anyone here who can say that they were busted for every infraction. I would be willing to bet that even the biggest offender hasn't been called out for more than 50% of their offensive posts.

Also note that generally, you will get a post by a mod warning you before they begin sanctions. You push past the warning, you get what is coming to you. Act like big boys and girls and take your medicine.

 

[scribe]

I personally think that Scribe would make a good moderator.........almost as good as Wonderlance.

Oh yeah! That's a good one. I'd do an IP comparison and expose which of the regulars is running the wonderlance nic. Of course, then I'll actually have to ban him, as that is explicitly against forum rules.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh yeah! That's a good one. I'd do an IP comparison and expose which of the regulars is running the wonderlance nic. Of course, then I'll actually have to ban him, as that is explicitly against forum rules.

Banning Wonderlance would get you banned.

 

[scribe]

Banning Wonderlance would get you banned.

THAT wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Martin318is]

Oh yeah! That's a good one. I'd do an IP comparison and expose which of the regulars is running the wonderlance nic. Of course, then I'll actually have to ban him, as that is explicitly against forum rules.

Sigh....


<Breathe>


sigh......

this is the component of this whole thread that the moderators find rather boring. Why does everybody wander around assuming that a situation has NOT been thoroughly dealt with by the moderator team? The same assertion comes back every 10 posts or so.


To ChrisE - no matter how many times you argue that you don't have to produce posts to back your claims, you DO have to produce that evidence. Period. It is you putting forward the case and without those posts you are simply arguing that the moon landings never happened. (especially your argument that the moderators hide the evidence of their actions - and that you can't prove THAT because we hide those too, etc)

AND even when you DO manage to produce a post or two that seems to support your case (because a Mod never noticed it in the first place generally), I have to ask - why exactly didn't you care enough to report it to the moderators at the time?

(that said, please do not go to the effort of searching for such posts on my behalf - its a complete waste of time for the above reasons.)

 

[scribe]

Sigh....


<Breathe>


sigh......

this is the component of this whole thread that the moderators find rather boring. Why does everybody wander around assuming that a situation has NOT been thoroughly dealt with by the moderator team? The same assertion comes back every 10 posts or so.

Because it's still here. And it's still here because it hasn't been dealt with. Which would leave one to believe that the reasoning is that you enjoy it, so you tolerate it. Frankly, I've got a warped sense of humor, and I think Wonderlance is funny and rather he stay. But the rules are the rules and you guys have toasted people for abusing these rules. One username per person. If you can't figure out who is behind it, it's because you haven't tried hard enough.

 

[Martin318is]

Because it's still here.

Yep, thats right, WonderLance is still here and that is because...



wait for it.....



....he has only one account.

If you can't figure out who is behind it, it's because you haven't tried hard enough.

And if you think you have more information than we do about who is here, what IPs they use, etc - please share it with the moderators via either PM or by hitting the button and reporting a post to the moderators.

Like I said earlier, there is a large volume of misinformation about what the moderators here do and don't do and the amount of effort we have to put in just to get the site to the level that its at now.

 

[scribe]

Yep, thats right, WonderLance is still here and that is because...



wait for it.....



....he has only one account.




And if you think you have more information than we do about who is here, what IPs they use, etc - please share it with the moderators via either PM or by hitting the button and reporting a post to the moderators.

Like I said earlier, there is a large volume of misinformation about what the moderators here do and don't do and the amount of effort we have to put in just to get the site to the level that its at now.

It's more like wonderlance IS one account.

Bottom line is you are convinced he is one username member, I am convinced he is not. You have access to the IP's, I don't. If I did, it wouldn't take much effort to cross check posting styles with other logging in at comparative times, you know, following hunches. Like you do before you bake BPC.

 

[Barrus]

It's more like wonderlance IS one account.

Bottom line is you are convinced he is one username member, I am convinced he is not. You have access to the IP's, I don't. If I did, it wouldn't take much effort to cross check posting styles with other logging in at comparative times, you know, following hunches. Like you do before you bake BPC.

We have checked his IP adresses, we even had private conversations with him. This has lead us to decide that he is a person with only a single account

 

[scribe]

We have checked his IP adresses, we even had private conversations with him. This has lead us to decide that he is a person with only a single account

It seems like a reasonable amount of due diligence to me. I'd say though, as an admin, I'd probably take a look at some of the others on the banned list, and see if I could make a case against letting an obvious parody (at the expense of those who actually behave like that) nic loose on the forums.

Without previous (at least recent that I can recall) participation in this thread, I have been included within an earlier post by another admin. He cited a list of people who some might point out as 'fanboys'. In spite of the fact that I rarely participate in Armstrong threads, as demonstrated at minimum by the official Lance Armstrong thread, in which I have 3 posts. One of which was pleading to have a single LA thread so that all the nonsense could be kept from dominating the board. So you see, it is not unreasonable to think there is a perception of bias within the moderators. Some are arguing in this thread that the bias comes into play during the course of the discussions.

Now that I have been identified as someone who rides on that side of the fence, it is entirely reasonable that I should be considered for Admin, in the interest of a more balanced moderation of the forum.

 

[Barrus]

It seems like a reasonable amount of due diligence to me. I'd say though, as an admin, I'd probably take a look at some of the others on the banned list, and see if I could make a case against letting an obvious parody (at the expense of those who actually behave like that) nic loose on the forums.

Without previous (at least recent that I can recall) participation in this thread, I have been included within an earlier post by another admin. He cited a list of people who some might point out as 'fanboys'. In spite of the fact that I rarely participate in Armstrong threads, as demonstrated at minimum by the official Lance Armstrong thread, in which I have 3 posts. One of which was pleading to have a single LA thread so that all the nonsense could be kept from dominating the board. So you see, it is not unreasonable to think there is a perception of bias within the moderators. Some are arguing in this thread that the bias comes into play during the course of the discussions.

Now that I have been identified as someone who rides on that side of the fence, it is entirely reasonable that I should be considered for Admin, in the interest of a more balanced moderation of the forum.

Anyway, wonderlance has not breached any rules, nor has he been overly annoying, as such there is no reason not to allow him on the forum. That and he provides a lighter note. Now, if someone had a nick and a posting style parodiing any other style of fanboy, he would too be allowed, provided for that he is not a sockpuppet

To be quite honest, I believe this post was by myself. It was due to the fact that you were stated as one against which this bias was targeted, I do not know whether the original thread was in here, or somewhere else. Also you have often railed against the general opinion of many members of this forum, as such you would have been included with those that should have been unfairly judged by moderators, as the moderators often do not agree with you. This would make us biased against you, at least according to what ChrisE said

You start again with stating that there is unbalanced moderation on this forum. But do not provide for anything indicating that this is going on

 

[scribe]

Anyway, wonderlance has not breached any rules, nor has he been overly annoying, as such there is no reason not to allow him on the forum. That and he provides a lighter note. Now, if someone had a nick and a posting style parodiing any other style of fanboy, he would too be allowed, provided for that he is not a sockpuppet

To be quite honest, I believe this post was by myself. It was due to the fact that you were stated as one against which this bias was targeted, I do not know whether the original thread was in here, or somewhere else. Also you have often railed against the general opinion of many members of this forum, as such you would have been included with those that should have been unfairly judged by moderators, as the moderators often do not agree with you. This would make us biased against you, at least according to what ChrisE said

You start again with stating that there is unbalanced moderation on this forum. But do not provide for anything indicating that this is going on

Again. As I was introduced into this thread by another admin, it is hardly upon me to prove or disprove anything regarding this thread.

I do assert, that I would provide a different perspective than those that are moderators at the present time, which will help to knock back the perception of imbalance (is this even debatable?). I have demonstrated consistently that I am up to the task.

 

[Barrus]

Again. As I was introduced into this thread by another admin, it is hardly upon me to prove or disprove anything regarding this thread.

I do assert, that I would provide a different perspective than those that are moderators at the present time, which will help to knock back the perception of imbalance (is this even debatable?). I have demonstrated consistently that I am up to the task.

If you propose a statement, you better be able to back it up. Otherwise do not put it forth and expect a good discussion about it. So you said that there was an imbalance, than you should have something to back this up. You were brought up as an example, as were some others

 

[scribe]

This is simple, and should not be so tedious so as to have to spell it out. I do not agree with a significant portion of what I see you post. Ergo. We have different opinions on matters. Nothing wrong with that inherently. But you are a moderator, and there are several on that team that I might characterize the same way. That is specifically what others are talking about in this thread, and what I am repeating. This fact is inescapable and naturally colors one's experience and judgment when it comes time to determine what should be done with a post as moderator. How you go about it, and how I would go about will defer at times. Fact.