Moderators

[Dr. Maserati]

was the certain poster lying or distorting things as usual? Is that even the issue?

The poster said he didn't have time for a link (might or might not be a lie). DrMas said he found the link in less than two minutes (but didn't post it) and rhetorically challenged the certain poster. Is that baiting? Entrapment? Derailing?

All DrMas had to do was post his link (seeing as he already had it), and prove his point the certain poster was lying or distorting without resorting to a rhetorical challenge. The certain poster could have come back with his version if there was one. Or not, and look like a lying distorter.

All of this after I had clearly warned everyone on that thread to desist:


which DrMas clearly read and understood as we started to have a discussion about it, even if he didn't agree to it.

DrMas did point out that he wanted to give the certain poster an opportunity to post his own quote, however that is not really commensurate with the nature of his rhetorical challenge and certainly not in the spirit of my general warning.

Firstly - I did the exact opposite of what you have been whining about recently.

Instead of requesting that the poster link to support their claim - I went and found a link (which I had to pay for) which IMO contradicted their claim - it is the requirement of the person making the claim to back it up, amend clarify or withdraw it.

Also - I clearly stated I found "A" link/quote - how do I know if I have the same piece that the poster was on about when they did not link it?

 

[Netserk]

May I ask you why you didn't just post your link and quoted the bit that contradicted the claim?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

May I ask you why you didn't just post your link and quoted the bit that contradicted the claim?

May I ask why you didn't ask the person who made the claim to back up their claim?

You are assuming that sniper was deliberately lying - I was not and was fairly allowing them an opportunity to either back up what they said, amend it or even withdraw it.

Also - PMCG earlier posts were pretty spot on, and you did not give me a "clear warning".

 

[Netserk]

I assumed sniper was deliberately lying? Really?

Nope.

I'd say that the PM you received was quite clear.

I told you specifically not to do a certain thing. Few moments later you did that.

 

[Netserk]

And BTW you have my permission to show what I wrote to you, if you want to show it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I assumed sniper was deliberately lying? Really?

Nope.

Then if you didn't assume sniper was lying then why ask me to assume he was deliberately lying when you asked me "If you have/know the proper quote, then link/quote it".

How would I know that? Maybe I should have been allowed ask him? Oh wait....

I'd say that the PM you received was quite clear.

I asked you specifically not to do a certain thing. Few moments later you did that.

And guess what - you were wrong.

Don't confuse your ability to ban people with moderation - you jumped in to that particular thread I responded correctly to your post, in that thread.

If it was a moderation issue (which it wasn't) - then YOU take it up in the moderation thread.

 

[Netserk]

So telling you over PM not to do something very specific is not a clear warning?

What is it then?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So telling you over PM not to do something very specific is not a clear warning?

What is it then?

Its like the Rule 303 that I was banned for before this - made up Mod ****.

I did absolutely nothing wrong, I did not break any rule or even the spirit of the forum - but you decided that I had no right to reply and what can be allowed posted.

 

[Daniel Benson]

Come on guys, the ban is over so lets consider the matter settled and move on. Happy for you to email me if needed,

Thanks

Dan

 

[Netserk]

Was it a clear warning or not?

---

You posted something.

I moved something.

You re-posted something.

I told you that something was moved and not deleted. I also told you not to re-post something that has either been deleted or moved. I then deleted what you had re-posted.

You then re-posted it again.

I then banned you for a week, because you ignored a clear warning.

---

Anything you disagree with?

EDIT: Sorry just saw your post Daniel.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Come on guys, the ban is over so lets consider the matter settled and move on. Happy for you to email me if needed,

Thanks

Dan

Dan,
The matter is not settled - how can members avoid bans (which should only be used as an option of last resort) when they have little idea on what mod considers a bannable offense.

Also - I every right to query a mod - they are not above reproach.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Was it a clear warning or not?

---

You posted something.

I moved something.

You re-posted something.

I told you that something was moved and not deleted. I also told you not to re-post something that has either been deleted or moved. I then deleted what you had re-posted.

You then re-posted it again.

I then banned you for a week, because you ignored a clear warning.

---

Anything you disagree with?

EDIT: Sorry just saw your post Daniel.

Why did you "move something"?

I replied to something - something that you did not move.

 

[Daniel Benson]

Both,

It's not judicial review, it's a forum for cycling fans. I agree you can question it but email me if you want. This back and forth on here isn't going to solve a thing. So there's a clear choice, if you want to discuss get in touch.

Dan

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Both,

It's not judicial review, it's a forum for cycling fans. I agree you can question it but email me if you want. This back and forth on here isn't going to solve a thing. So there's a clear choice, if you want to discuss get in touch.

Dan

Absolutely.

But we are members here and this thread is the place to discuss or query how we are being moderated.

Also - in the last week on this thread the solutions have been put forth, by the members, not the mods.

Coinnech rightly pointed out that calling someone a liar is something that should be discouraged as it is inflammatory - it is the difference between showing a lie and dismissing someone.

The Hitch in particular and RR should both be commended for settling their minor difference. Again, they withdrew the personal barbs from the discussion.

This is not rocket science - if the mods discourage the personal stuff in posts, it leaves posters to argue or discuss the content of posts.

 

[pmcg76]

So as I thought, I was right about this situation. Mod ****s up completely and refuses to admit it, then tries to claim high-ground by throwing 'don't mess with mods' BS around.

Netserk, admit it when you are wrong and you were completely out of line on that one. As I said all along, Dr.Mas did nothing wrong but received a personalised rap on the knuckles in the middle of a thread.

 

[darwin553]

Netserk, admit it when you are wrong and you were completely out of line on that one.

Like that is going to happen

 

[Daniel Benson]

I've deleted the Vortex thread. Any complaints, send them my way, please

DAn

 

[Zam_Olyas]

How you like them apples?

 

[Scott SoCal]

I've deleted the Vortex thread. Any complaints, send them my way, please

DAn

Good move. <thumbs up emoticon>

 

[ElChingon]

How you like them apples?

Good move. <thumbs up emoticon>

The back room wrist slap must of been funny (I've heard).

 

[Benotti69]

Y'all *****ing about the mods should get a refund

 

[Tricycle Rider]

Personal opinion- while I mostly lurk on these here boards I see no reaon why a mod should feel the need to change the OP's thread title.

I'm rather taken aback by this, of all my years on the interwebs I've never seen a mod take such a step.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

Btw., as far as "The Vortex" prize should go to, well... I'm pretty sure we all know that one already.

 

[sittingbison]

Personal opinion- while I mostly lurk on these here boards I see no reaon why a mod should feel the need to change the OP's thread title.

I'm rather taken aback by this, of all my years on the interwebs I've never seen a mod take such a step.

Because we need another Wiggins thread where the for and againsts can argur interminably like a hole in the head. I direct your lurking attention to the Sky, Froom, Wiggins, Cadence etc threads. Where is Sky at the moment, 23000 posts?

However, a thread about dramatic declines in performance after a stellar season from nowhere id of nterest and merit.

Confusing or confabulating between the two is the issue

 

[frenchfry]

I am not usually too disturbed by the moderating here, but when I read Berzin's post in the Armstrong thread where he expresses his opinion then basically says that anyone who disagrees will have a vacation I was shocked. Even though I generally agree with his opinion, I don't see why it should be imposed on all forum members.

At this stage of the game, it's useless pointing the finger at the bit players. I understand it's a favorite tactic by the Armstrong apologists, but it's been debunked a while ago, so give it a rest.

The conspiracy has become obvious, and the little people caught in the middle, and I do mean little, had but one choice-go along or be ostracized, lose your job and run the risk of getting such a bad reference that no other team would hire you.

Therein lies the big difference between people like Armstrong and others like O'Reilly.

The subsequent lawsuits will hopefully ferret out the big fish, who through cynical manipulation and corruption allowed this atmosphere to flourish. It was the only way a rider like Armstrong would have won anything, when the deck is clearly stacked in his favor before the race even started. That much has been obvious too for quite a while.

Vehemently blaming the bit players for Armstrong's downfall has been debunked and stomped completely to death, so stop bringing it up as a distraction of the main issues at hand going forward, which are the lawsuits he's facing.

If this isn't clear enough for anyone, a little vacation then may be in order.