Moderators

[Race Radio]

I agree with Maserati wholeheartedly. Long thought that permenant bans are half of the problem for some posters. There are some former posters I would give second chances to, clean slates, but on the understanding that they abide by the forum rules but also that other members abide by them too.
BPC is fine, until he gets people trolling back at him saying he's bpc, then it all kicks off.

No, he is not fine. His strategy is simple, to bait people into derailing a thread. The amount of lies he has invented about me and other posters for the sole reason of getting us to respond to his drivel is amazing. I have received dozens of PMs from him, all done with the goal of baiting me into responding to him. I know I am not the only one who gets this from him. He has said many times his goal is to disrupt the forum.

You may come late to the game with some of his episodes, after many of his posts have been removed. The guy is clearly unstable and cannot be reasoned with.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

I dont know the full story, but nothing that happens outside of here should be considered when handing out bans (unless something potentially libelous is brought up). if he wants to critisize cn on twitter thats his perogative, its a free world. What next, people are banned for slating cn in emails, or down the pub, or out on rides, or we have to start watching what we say on facebook. (could laura not just have blocked his tweets?)

Banning people for what goes on here is one thing, banning people for what goes on outside of these four (virtual) walls is the start of a very slippery slope.

This is sage.

Well argued, Dim.

Barrus, you said you decided to 'take the initiative' to ban Buck. Does this mean you didn't apply any established rules for moderators when you made the decision? Did you consider you may be taking your original authority a bit too far in considering someone's actions from another platform? Are you sure Buck really chose to publically debate Laura or could he actually have been incommunicado? Why is it wrong to debate a moderator on Twitter about CN? Anyone you don't want to talk to can be blocked.

Making certain innocuous subjects taboo on other websites for CN forum members is Orwellian, not to mention quite lame. What time does school get out?

EDIT: read a bit further and saw that Buck engaged a CN employee about his ban. This employee might not have anything to do with the Forums, but would Buck know that? Website operations are usually quite small affairs with not as many employees as one may think (I know CN was a very small affair not many years ago) and a lot of them (shudder) multitask.

It's CN, not CNN.

If Buck got personal or especially beligerent, well fair enough. But if all he did was have the temerity to engage a member of a public forum on a subject both have in common, what was the big deal?

 

[Barrus]

Barrus, you said you decided to 'take the initiative' ban Buck. Does this mean you didn't apply any established rules for moderators when you made the decision? Did you consider you may be taking your original authority a bit too far in considering someone's actions from another platform? Are you sure Buck really chose to publically debate Laura or could he actually have been incommunicado? Why is it wrong to debate a moderator on Twitter about CN? Anyone you don't want to talk to can be blocked.

Making certain innocuous subjects taboo on other websites for CN forum members is Orwellian, not to mention quite lame. What time does school get out?

There were no established rules, as there has yet been a precedent for such a case. However, how should we have reacted? He was debating someone affiliated with cyclingnews in an official capacity, yet that person is not really concerned with the moderation. What's next? Should we allow members to abuse the moderators and the writers over e-mail, as that are 'actions from another platform'. If that is the case one can just pester someone over any other platform and we could not do anything. It is clear that his actions were based on what happened here and were intended to have an impact on this forum.

Now if you don't want to talk on twitter, he can be blocked. Yes indeed. However he purposely sought out laura on twitter and started to abuse her over it. Now, we don't want people with that kind of behaviour on here. we did not ask for this to drag out into the streets, he did this and if he chooses to do this he should also be prepared to suffer any consequences that arise from that

These subjects are not taboo and if he would not have targeted one of the staff members of cyclingnews, nothing would have came of it. However he purposely made it so that there was a need to react.

He was not incommunicado. He could have waited two weeks instead of railing against Laura, or he could have contacted Laura, Susan or any of the other official cyclingnews staff through e-mail. There were quite a lot of other options, other than making this public

 

[Barrus]

His tweets, all within the span of a single hour

@nyvelocity @Laura_Weislo and her mods at CN are great at censoring the forums.

@Laura_Weislo zzzzzz? you guys are publishing old interviews of JV and censoring the forums by 23yr olds "just following orders."

@Laura_Weislo I'm not DM'ing you. I get 140 characters here or DM. I'm buckwheat and you guys censor. For what reason????????

@Laura_Weislo The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy,but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness. Niels Bohr

@Laura_Weislo On CN the Bohr quote would be off topic. Doping IS POLITICAL. Sorry you guys don't see it that way. Wake up.

@Laura_Weislo You guys want to be like Toolhand at Road Bike Review be my guest.

@Laura_Weislo All the secrets in Pro Cycling are the PROBLEM. Complete transparency like who gets to the finish line 1st NATURALLY.

@Laura_Weislo I was banned two weeks for calling Burrus an inexperienced kid flexing muscles. WTH are you people afraid of?

@Laura_Weislo Ok, I just thought that it may offend you that you're part of an organization which censors, that's all. Carry on!

And somewhere between those, these tweet of Laura took place:

@Reid_Rothschild you want to talk to me about "censoring" DM me.

@Reid_Rothschild if you have a problem with CN forums take it up on CN forums. I am not the moderator and I don't set the policies.

So he was asked to take it out of the public eye and was even pointed to the fact that she was not a moderator and yet he continued

(god, I spent more time on twitter in the last 24 hours than ever before)

 

[CycloErgoSum]

There were no established rules, as there has yet been a precedent for such a case. However, how should we have reacted? He was debating someone affiliated with cyclingnews in an official capacity, yet that person is not really concerned with the moderation. What's next? Should we allow members to abuse the moderators and the writers over e-mail, as that are 'actions from another platform'. If that is the case one can just pester someone over any other platform and we could not do anything. It is clear that his actions were based on what happened here and were intended to have an impact on this forum.

Now if you don't want to talk on twitter, he can be blocked. Yes indeed. However he purposely sought out laura on twitter and started to abuse her over it. Now, we don't want people with that kind of behaviour on here. we did not ask for this to drag out into the streets, he did this and if he chooses to do this he should also be prepared to suffer any consequences that arise from that

These subjects are not taboo and if he would not have targeted one of the staff members of cyclingnews, nothing would have came of it. However he purposely made it so that there was a need to react.

He was not incommunicado. He could have waited two weeks instead of railing against Laura, or he could have contacted Laura, Susan or any of the other official cyclingnews staff through e-mail. There were quite a lot of other options, other than making this public

Okay, thanks for responding; I do think well of CN for having this debate. I'm also trying to put myself in your position.

So, you're saying Buck did abuse Laura or the other cyclingnews employee? If so, I'd agree you have grounds for some penalty at least.

Is it because he approached Laura on Twitter or because he abused her? It doesn't really matter the method. The content of the communication is what's important.

I'm sorry if I'm confused; on one hand you state it's because he emailed some employee, then you say it's because he sought out another employee on a site they both belong to and made it public. Then there's a vague and, for a social libertarian, somewhat ominous statement about not wanting certain types of people on this forum. Are these people abusers or do they just use the wrong channels? Perhaps it would be a good idea to make it clear that if a CN member engages a moderator on a another site, they can't discuss CN business. All correspondence about CN must be via CN. It's unwieldy, but if 'making this public' is such a problem it might have to be.

I understand your task is difficult and, at times, ad hoc. It's worthy of you to provide transparency, but it has to be crystal clear to be of any good.

I find the subject of internet liberty interesting as, in Australia, you can abuse and even threaten people here, there and everywhere and, at every turn, the penalties - if any are forthcoming - are not compounded. Each offence, if any can be proven at all, isn't related to others even if the victim is the same person. Weird, huh?

EDIT: Thank you for posting the tweets. I have to say, they don't seem very abusive. He can talk about what he wants and just be blocked, no? I'm left with the impression Buck was banned for just being a gadfly. Or is it more to do with his apparent damaging of 'brand Cyclingnews.com'?

 

[Barrus]

Okay, thanks for responding; I do think well of CN for having this debate. I'm also trying to put myself in your position.

So, you're saying Buck did abuse Laura or the other cyclingnews employee? If so, I'd agree you have grounds for some penalty at least.

Is it because he approached Laura on Twitter or because he abused her? It doesn't really matter the method. The content of the communication is what's important.

I'm sorry if I'm confused; on one hand you state it's because he emailed some employee, then you say it's because he seeked out another employee on a site they both belong to and made it public. Then there's a vague and, for a social libertarian, somewhat ominous statement about not wanting certain types of people on this forum. Are these people abusers or do they just use the wrong channels? Perhaps it would be a good idea to make it clear that if a CN member engages a moderator on a another site, they can't discuss CN business. All correspondence about CN must be via CN. It's unwieldy, but if 'making this public' is such a problem it might have to be.

I understand your task is difficult and, at times, ad hoc. It's worthy of you to provide transparency, but it has to be crystal clear to be of any good.

I find the subject of internet liberty interesting as, in Australia, you can abuse and even threaten people here, there and everywhere and, at every turn, the penalties - if any are forthcoming - are not compounded. Each offence, if any can be proved at all, isn't related to others even if the victim is the same person. Weird, huh?

Ooh Cyclo, I know how it works legally, god knows I know that. However this is not a court of law, it is a privately owned website and these decisions are decisions made by individuals and not by a legal system. We don't need, nor do we intend to adhere to the same standards that courts set. If we were, this place would be much more a free for all than it is nowadays. People have a very wide protection of their freedom of speech on the internet, arguably grater than in an offline environment. However this forum is not that free, there are standards that we follow which are a lot stricter than those of the courts.

Perhaps in my previous posts I was not as clear as I wanted to be, i do have the habit to ramble a bit and be quite incoherent. He is banned because he pestered and abused Laura over twitter, even after she requested him to take it out of the public and that she was not the person who he needed to direct this at.
I meant that he did not e-mail someone, yet choose to make it public and that this was the wrong move. Instead of seeking out Laura on twitter and having this discussion in public, the more sensible and reasonable thing to do would have been to e-mail someone of the staff.

Off course I am not saying a member on here should not engage a moderator on another site, however the manner in which one does is a lot more important. The fact that he pestered her and appeared to have floaded her are a lot more important factors in his ban.


@ cyclo to be quite honest I myself, if he would not have been banned yet would ban him for some of the statements made by him about myself.

The 'just following orders' and the Eichmann reference in a later tweet, both clearly comnparing me with Adolf Eichmann and the Nazi regime, those are things that just cannot fly. That is just not done, I don't know how that is in the US, but here in Europe, that is just crossing a line

But even before that, the simple message within these messages is not abusive, however the amount and the fact that they continued after Laura's statement that she could not do anything about it and before that even that he should takeit out of the public, is what is abusive

 

[Francois the Postman]

Oh I get that, and i also realise in the case of bpc for instance its almost impossible for him to get a second chance as there are too many posters around here that would not allow him one. As soon as he says something that someone doesnt like people know exactly how to wind him up and get him to snap. Too late for him, but going forward for others I dont think life (or two or six month suspensions which to many members 6 months is effectively a life ban) help the situation.,

TSF, I suspect you come from the pov that things can be worked out and some form of understanding can be reached when there is a problem.

But the simple truth is, that this is true for most of us, but with some people that simply isn't the case. Or would only be possible if we accepted all their conditions, even when they break the forum behavioural rules that apply to us.

I get why you argue for second chances and clean slates.

However, when you tie that to the longer bans, you are missing something.

A 6-month ban, or a life-long ban, doesn't come out of the blue, and people who come back from them are not getting a "second change", as you suggest. But already had the fourth, fifth, eight....

There will have been a long run-up to it - repeated warnings and communication efforts, and -depending on the case- on the whole one or more smaller suspensions too.

So by the time the 6-month stage is reached, we are already dealing with someone who doesn't respond well to that "second chance might/should work" approach, that you envision. Or who seriously flouted the terms and conditions that went with getting that 2nd chance (or 3rd, or 4th).

In the end you need something in place that deals with that. What would you propose? Because what you suggest, giving people a second chance is the hurdle that already has been jumped, and really failed the first time they were be given it. You are not dealing well with appeals to curb the excesses in their behaviour.

If you say that you slowly increase the level of warnings and reprimands, that is exactly what those 6-month and life-bans are.

It will be clear why we cannot tolerate letting anyone bypass a suspension by creating another account, without us approving that, short or long. It also wouldn't be fair to the folk who do take their minute on the naughty step to reflect, and return when their time is up.


I think you are actually wrong to assume that the second accounts are creating problems that would otherwise not be there.

Because those "second accounts" you talk (initially) only came to our attention after they yet again became problematic. Which by definition means that you are dealing people who didn't even take the second change they created for themselves, and blend in with the rest. Or were likely to behave better on their first account before they lost access to it, if we had kept their access in tact.

Some really aren't here to let others have their fun. By the time they get to 6-months or more, they will have shown a blatant disrespect for others, usually refusing to walk one inch in a direction they don't like. Ironically, it is usually whilst claiming at the same time that we should accept their terms for being here, show some respect to them.

I'm not saying that it is all done with malicious intent (although some of it clearly is). I'm even sure that there are people who I might on smashingly in private.

It is a sad reality that we do have to jump in at times, and that some people will simply not back down or adopt a different tune. In the end, we do have to deal with that in way that solves the problem. Trust me, banning folk is the last thing we became mods for. Ideally we do nothing and people self-moderate.

I hinted at some of the efforts that go on to keep people here even if they are not our version of "ideal forum participant". So when we get to "second chance" number 5, and you are still blowing it, there really is no other route left than to show some folk the door.

And remember,we are only talking about a handful of cases within the large pool of people that visit the forum. Long bans are rare here.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Ooh Cyclo, I know how it works legally, god knows I know that. However this is not a court of law, it is a privately owned website and these decisions are decisions made by individuals and not by a legal system. We don't need, nor do we intend to adhere to the same standards that courts set. If we were, this place would be much more a free for all than it is nowadays. People have a very wide protection of their freedom of speech on the internet, arguably grater than in an offline environment. However this forum is not that free, there are standards that we follow which are a lot stricter than those of the courts.

Perhaps in my previous posts I was not as clear as I wanted to be, i do have the habit to ramble a bit and be quite incoherent. He is banned because he pestered and abused Laura over twitter, even after she requested him to take it out of the public and that she was not the person who he needed to direct this at.
I meant that he did not e-mail someone, yet choose to make it public and that this was the wrong move. Instead of seeking out Laura on twitter and having this discussion in public, the more sensible and reasonable thing to do would have been to e-mail someone of the staff.

Off course I am not saying a member on here should not engage a moderator on another site, however the manner in which one does is a lot more important. The fact that he pestered her and appeared to have floaded her are a lot more important factors in his ban.


@ cyclo to be quite honest I myself, if he would not have been banned yet would ban him for some of the statements made by him about myself.

The 'just following orders' and the Eichmann reference in a later tweet, both clearly comnparing me with Adolf Eichmann and the Nazi regime, those are things that just cannot fly. That is just not done, I don't know how that is in the US, but here in Europe, that is just crossing a line

Thanks Barrus, that does make things clearer. Thanks for pointing out that a private site can make their own rules; I forgot that. Actually, I didn't notice the Eichmann stuff before. I agree that's pretty abusive and I'm sorry you were subjected to it and it is grounds for dismissal, especially if it's made in public. I'm sorry to see Buckwheat go as well, but I do understand better now.

 

[Anonymous]

I know its going back a bit, but does anyone actually remember what BPC was banned for?

 

[straydog]

Gotta say I would love to know that too TSF. I arrived here after all that drama. Genuinely want to know why I get accused of being him so often....

I actually think you have some valid points here Dim. Cyclo too. On censorship in general. One thing I would add in relation to Buck is this: I haven't been posting for a while due to work commitments, but when I had a quick look in last night I was amazed at Buck's apparent spiral in regards to the whole JV thing....then I saw he was banned....and kind of understood why....now, I can understand his frustration at not being able to debate with any moderators his ban (as we have discussed before, you can't log in to even pm mods if you are banned), however I think his behaviour towards Laura W on twitter is pretty out of order. It does seem he was getting pretty desperate for public attention. If he really wanted to discuss it with her, why didn't he take up her offer to DM her? Even if she had been a moderator here, surely one or two tweets or one or two DMs are adequate? Otherwise it becomes harassment. Regardless of any lack of "abusiveness" or otherwise in the messages. In principle I am totally against any kind of "lifetime" ban on an internet forum, but on this I do see Barrus' point.

However I totally defend Buck's (and anyone else's for that matter) right to post whatever they want on other sites criticising the mods here, without any act of censor from said mods here. Anything else would be utterly ridiculous.

After all I have posted many times on various sites that I think Alpe probably sports a mullet and Barrus doesn't even own a bike and nothing has happened to me....yet.

One suggestion....why not set up some kind of email account where banned members can contact the mods and receive an official statement regarding their ban or appeal? I know it might get kind of inundated...and not least regarding my whole "posting porn" debacle....but maybe it might lead some of the "offenders" to acceptance.

Anyway I am off to pen some hate mail to 185mm cranks....

Cya round x

 

[The Hitch]

Im not going to get involved (yet ) in the discussion regarding bans, are they justified, how long, in what sphere etc.

But i would just like to chime in, late as it may be, that i sympathise with Barrus after reading the "Eichman" comment.

Weve written a few times on these boards about how moderating is a thankless job, and that was a shocking comment.

And I dont get why those comments say burrus instead of barrus. Whats that about?

 

[straydog]

Im not going to get involved (yet ) in the discussion regarding bans, are they justified, how long, in what sphere etc.

But i would just like to chime in, late as it may be, that i sympathise with Barrus after reading the "Eichman" comment.

Weve written a few times on these boards about how moderating is a thankless job, and that was a shocking comment.

And I dont get why those comments say burrus instead of barrus. Whats that about?

The Eichman comment is just plain stupid....but you can't censor someone based on IQ tests otherwise this would be a very quiet place indeed...populated just by myself, polish and wonderlance

You are right moderating is a thankless job....but they volunteer for it. It's not a press gang situation. You have to be prepared to take some of the tears that fly your way if you volunteer to wield the whip.

 

[Ferminal]

I know its going back a bit, but does anyone actually remember what BPC was banned for?

The usual, baiting in every topic, saying ridiculous things like "Ferrari is a legend".

 

[BroDeal]

The Buckwheat situation is clearer. He went off the deep end. It happens occasionally when people have a bad week and blow off steam in forums.

I think that before people get permanently banned their total contribution to the site should be taken into account. Go over to RBR/MTBR and you can find many examples of banned members who had 15,000 posts and had been posting for six or seven years. Parts of RBR have been obliterated because the mods have banned most of those with anything interesting to say.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Amazing how this thread has over 500 posts. not such a useless thread after all.

 

[Race Radio]

The usual, baiting in every topic, saying ridiculous things like "Ferrari is a legend".

Yup... and Frankie should have committed perjury as it was the right thing to do, Cortisone is useless for professional cyclist, Armstrong raised $200 million a year for cancer research, The reason for Armstrong sudden improvement was because of the development of his frontal lobe, various translations of French and Spanish articles that were invented and twisted to support his latest bait......on and on and on. He also invented many lies about myself and other posters. Luckily most have been deleted.

Many of these absurd claims would be prefaced with "I think we can all agree" If you were stupid enough to reply to his bait he would "defend" his bait with a wide variety of crazy logic and more lies. and if you did not respond he would send you dozens of PM's until you did.

The guy is the definition of a troll.

 

[Anonymous]

Yup... and Frankie should have committed perjury as it was the right thing to do, Cortisone is useless for professional cyclist, Armstrong raised $200 million a year for cancer research, The reason for Armstrong sudden improvement was because of the development of his frontal lobe

The guy is the definition of a troll.

See, this is where I have always had issue. Just because someone talks crap, or does not say something we agree with, or has an opinion different to ours, maybe is even an idiot, or is illogical, it does not automatically qualify them as a troll. To be honest, Flicker, Polish and Wonderlance come up with far more idiotic things yet for some reason we regard them as the *** little brother we never had, we almost show a perverse affection towards them. People cant be banned just because we disagree with them, because they talk rubbish and therefore are branded a troll. We would end up with only one side of each argument (which is why almost every pro lance poster has vanished from the forum)

BPC for instance, returns, talks, people engage him in conversation, but as soon as he says something they dont agree with, or consider stupid, the troll card is played rather than either ignoring or rationally arguing the point (and yes people will say they rationally argue etc, but they dont ignore..). Does he bait or do they just get baited? I do notice it seems to be only certain people now that get baited by him, some of us have learnt to just ignore things.

Im not taking sides, just exploring both sides of the coin.

My opinion is, BPC had/has a tendancy to talk sh*t, but, as far as I know talking **** is not a bannable offence on the forum, which is perhaps just as well. There would be nobody left here, myself included.

Which is why I am opposed to permanent banning, except for gross misconduct in the form of physical threats, abuse towards other members or mods, or actions of the libellous form. Stupidity is just part of life.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

See, this is where I have always had issue. Just because someone talks crap, or does not say something we agree with, or has an opinion different to ours, maybe is even an idiot, or is illogical, it does not automatically qualify them as a troll. To be honest, Flicker, Polish and Wonderlance come up with far more idiotic things yet for some reason we regard them as the *** little brother we never had, we almost show a perverse affection towards them.

BPC for instance, returns, talks, people engage him in conversation, but as soon as he says something they don't agree with, or consider stupid, the troll card is played rather than either ignoring or rationally arguing the point (and yes people will say they rationally argue etc, but they don't ignore..). Does he bait or do they just get baited? I do notice it seems to be only certain people now that get baited by him, some of us have learnt to just ignore things.

Im not taking sides, just exploring both sides of the coin.

My opinion is, BPC had/has a tendancy to talk sh*t, but, as far as I know talking **** is not a bannable offence on the forum, which is perhaps just as well. There would be nobody left here, myself included.

I agree witn much of what you say but some of your observations BPC was not adhering too.
My main complaint of BPC would be when he distorted someones view or sometimes outright lies saying someone (another poster) had said something that they had not.

But again to give the Mods some credit - they let TheArbiter go on for a long long time and let BPC set up numerous accounts.
An example was when BPC returned as the Icelandic Volcano and was let post for weeks - while everyone knew it was BPC the Mods only stepped in when they went trolling/baiting again.

 

[Anonymous]

One thing I would add in relation to Buck is this: I haven't been posting for a while due to work commitments, but when I had a quick look in last night I was amazed at Buck's apparent spiral in regards to the whole JV thing....then I saw he was banned....

In my opinion, buckwheat should have been either suspended a lot earlier, OR the thread that caused the problem should have been closed a lot earlier, as some people myself, the hog and a couple of others requested. If that had happened I beleive things would have died down. I think the mods acted far too late and by then the whole thing had spiralled out of control.

Not laying the blame at the mods, buckwheat was responsible for his own actions, but there were several members who saw it coming and requested action. That action was a long time coming. But hindsight is a very wonderful thing.

 

[Ferminal]

See, this is where I have always had issue. Just because someone talks crap, or does not say something we agree with, or has an opinion different to ours, maybe is even an idiot, or is illogical, it does not automatically qualify them as a troll. To be honest, Flicker, Polish and Wonderlance come up with far more idiotic things yet for some reason we regard them as the *** little brother we never had, we almost show a perverse affection towards them. People cant be banned just because we disagree with them, because they talk rubbish and therefore are branded a troll. We would end up with only one side of each argument (which is why almost every pro lance poster has vanished from the forum)

BPC for instance, returns, talks, people engage him in conversation, but as soon as he says something they dont agree with, or consider stupid, the troll card is played rather than either ignoring or rationally arguing the point (and yes people will say they rationally argue etc, but they dont ignore..). Does he bait or do they just get baited? I do notice it seems to be only certain people now that get baited by him, some of us have learnt to just ignore things.

Im not taking sides, just exploring both sides of the coin.

My opinion is, BPC had/has a tendancy to talk sh*t, but, as far as I know talking **** is not a bannable offence on the forum, which is perhaps just as well. There would be nobody left here, myself included.

Which is why I am opposed to permanent banning, except for gross misconduct in the form of physical threats, abuse towards other members or mods, or actions of the libellous form. Stupidity is just part of life.

It's fairly easy to ignore flicker and Polish because they don't post repetitively and their comments are more satirical than inflammatory. If it enrages you, it's still possible to bite your tongue.

On the other hand, BPC would sit in a thread, make quadruple posts, end up with 40% of the thread post count with more and more misinformation "Lance's haemoglobin rose on the rest day because he forgot to drink and became dehydrated".

Maybe such conduct would be tolerable if it was someone posturing something ridiculous once or twice a day, but not intentionally doing it 50+ times a day only causes chaos.

 

[Anonymous]

It's fairly easy to ignore flicker and Polish because they don't post repetitively and their comments are more satirical than inflammatory.

Im not convinced Polish aims to be satirical. If he is, its purely co-incidence

An example was when BPC returned as the Icelandic Volcano and was let post for weeks - while everyone knew it was BPC the Mods only stepped in when they went trolling/baiting again.

Another problem, multiple accounts is a life ban, sometimes they ban him immediately, some times they leave him to post for a few hours, days or weeks. (i know this rule only too well ) There needs to be consistency. If it was a conscious decision to let him post as long as he behaved and there where discussions to that effect with him, then make it public that he was back on probation.

 

[Martin318is]

Clearly the changes that were made to the sign up process a few months ago has already dimmed people's memories of what this forum was like pre this year's Tour.

One minute everybody cries for the mods to fix the place so that he can't ever come back because he is completely ruining the place and now that he can't, suddenly he was just simply misunderstood? Ridiculous.

As an asside, let me point out that each incarnation of BPC generally comes with associated PM barrages and that these PMs whilst not seen by most of you are on their own grounds for not letting a person that says things like that back onto this site.

As discussed earlier, BPC had all the offerings of second and NINTH chances that have been suggested above and in every single instance, HE blew it. Not the mods, not the other members. BPC.

He will not be allowed to come back in any form under any conditions and should he sneak in, he shall be immediately expelled. End of dicussion.

 

[Anonymous]

One minute everybody cries for the mods to fix the place so that he can't ever come back because he is completely ruining the place and now that he can't, suddenly he was just simply misunderstood? Ridiculous.

I dont think its so much that. If you are able to enforce permenant bans then do it, if youre not, then theres really little point in handing them out. Its clear that permenant bans dont work, so alternative solutions need to be found.
End of discussion now cos im off to bed

 

[Martin318is]

I don't see why permanent bans "don't work". It means that we don't have old accounts springing up active all over the place over time.

 

[Race Radio]

I
On the other hand, BPC would sit in a thread, make quadruple posts, end up with 40% of the thread post count with more and more misinformation "Lance's haemoglobin rose on the rest day because he forgot to drink and became dehydrated".

That was a classic. He also said it rose because they had crossed the Galibier the day before and that the 20 minutes at altitude was the same as altitude training. He must have used that one 10 times before someone bit and he proceeded to argue with the guy, flood the thread, and completely kill the discussion....which was his goal.

There is a huge difference from Polish or Flicker. They admit they are trolls and only post 1-2 silly posts and do not to go out of their way to completely flood a thread with inane comments. They do not invent lies about other posters or flood your PM inbox with inane ramble.