Moderators

[pmcg76]

As requested by Dr.Maserati, I'll post here the warning I sent him a few hours ago.

Once again, mods are way off base on this.

There is a very simple solution, do something about the poster's who lie, distort and troll over and over, then you won't have Dr.Mas always calling them out on their BS.

Mods have already banned Dr.Mas once incorrectly whilst letting the troll continue to post unabated. There is most definitely a clear bias here and frankly it's BS.

Ban the real trolls, not the people who decide to engage them.

 

[King Boonen]

And thats the reality.
As much as I appreciated Netserks intervention (no, i did not report it) the fact that these barbed posts are allowed is what has killed off good discussion.


This is not rocket science - a big issue nor is it difficult to understand.

Why would anyone new want to come in and join a discussion here when there is little discussion of facts, people can post any claim to flame or bait others and allow people hurl insults?

In fact it is noticeable and regrettable that the mods have displayed an us v them attitude to other members (mods, you are members too) on the forum.

Hang on, I take offence at this. A lot of the information he requested could be derived from the documents you posted and Google. I found it strange someone would sign up to a cycling forum to comment on financials, and the timing with those specific financials seemed even stranger, especially after it was pointed out he had been a member since 2011. At no point did I call him a troll or even suspect him of it, however, Netserk implied that with his response to me. A good example of a mod not understanding how to moderate.

 

[red_flanders]

Indeed, as I noted, i appreciated netserks intervention.
However, to me it was more the fact that any one would even think about posting that in the first place.

Even if the person was a HeinV fan or whatever - so what? Who has the right to question someone directly like that?
Again, it comes back to removing the personal barbs from contentious posts regardless of what the topic is.

On any given topic people will have strong views one way or the other - for many lurkers this can be an opportunity to learn or make an informed decision on something.

So yes - the post should have been deleted, maybe a minor warning on the thread and a friendly reminder to the 'offender' as it was minor. Simple stuff.
Leaving posts up invites comment - regardless os any warning.

So here we have it. This is the amount of complaining you do about a successful moderation and yet you wonder why you're told you're clogging and hijacking threads. Merely a sampling of what the rest of the forum has to deal with whenever you start nitpicking their posts.

Maybe you've already tried this, but maybe PM the other party and re-invite them to participate instead of littering this page with more pointless complaints. If you've already done so and they declined, maybe it just wasn't that important. Maybe move on.

 

[Race Radio]

Once again, mods are way off base on this.

There is a very simple solution, do something about the poster's who lie, distort and troll over and over, then you won't have Dr.Mas always calling them out on their BS.

Mods have already banned Dr.Mas once incorrectly whilst letting the troll continue to post unabated. There is most definitely a clear bias here and frankly it's BS.

Ban the real trolls, not the people who decide to engage them.

.......This

 

[pmcg76]

Then help us and report it.

Are you ****ing kidding me. Are you guys really that blind that you cannot spot the very obvious poster who is constantly called out by various other posters for their distortions, lies and half-truths. I know I have reported the troll a few times, are they still here doing their usual thing? Yep.

Why report something when nothing happens anyways.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The tone may look a bit harsh, but that's exactly the truth. The warning was simply an alternative to a straight away ban. "No tribunal will question me", not because there's no tribunal, but because the tribunal would just tell me "good work". That wasn't a "threat". I wasn't trying to influence Dr in some obscure way to do my interests as he may think. I was trying not to ban him. A ban would have been much more fast and simple on my part, and it would have triggered less arguments here than the warning itself.
The "bans don't work" may be the only thing I agree with him. But they are necessary at a certain point, and this is something that appears as clear only when you are a mod.

Of course they would.

You have banned what you perceive as a problem rather than address a problem.

BTW - if I wanted to troll this place - I could troll this place and you guys wouldn'd even notice. I could do loop the loops without tripping your radars.
But I actually want to post here and engage with posters on topics. Not personal stuff.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hang on, I take offence at this. A lot of the information he requested could be derived from the documents you posted and Google. I found it strange someone would sign up to a cycling forum to comment on financials, and the timing with those specific financials seemed even stranger, especially after it was pointed out he had been a member since 2011. At no point did I call him a troll or even suspect him of it, however, Netserk implied that with his response to me. A good example of a mod not understanding how to moderate.

Apologies. I was going from memory and missed the exact timing of the post.

I will add, I remember seeing a new name (sadly they are easy spot) on the thread and I did think it 'odd' like you did. But when I saw their join date I realized it was a lurker, which is good.
I did feel it was not the best welcome though.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So here we have it. This is the amount of complaining you do about a successful moderation and yet you wonder why you're told you're clogging and hijacking threads. Merely a sampling of what the rest of the forum has to deal with whenever you start nitpicking their posts.

Maybe you've already tried this, but maybe PM the other party and re-invite them to participate instead of littering this page with more pointless complaints. If you've already done so and they declined, maybe it just wasn't that important. Maybe move on.

So, now my posts are too long........
















build a bridge.

 

[ChrisE]

Calm down Francis.

Didn't you get the memo? It is now ok to give another poster an insulting nickname like "the Vortex" or "Dr. Mastercard". The mods even start threads dedicated to baiting users.

From now on you name is Francis, get used to it

I want my nickname to be asshat. I have updated my avatar to reflect this.

 

[King Boonen]

No problem, I meant interesting in the truest sense of the word, but it seems you can't even say that in the clinic without people thinking you mean something else.

To the general problem here, it all seems to come about because the clinic both allows and actively encourages wild speculation with little to no evidence. This means people say pretty much whatever they want but then get hugely defensive when asked to justify it, because they can't.

Posters like the Dr, however, want to have a reasoned discussion about the facts so will naturally call out what they believe is b.s. If posters would just admit they have no evidence, it's just what they think, this problem would practically resolve itself.

The clinic is almost guaranteed to create these problems and really either both sides should be allowed to continue or both should be stopped. Only one choice will allow free discussion.

 

[pmcg76]

No problem, I meant interesting in the truest sense of the word, but it seems you can't even say that in the clinic without people thinking you mean something else.

To the general problem here, it all seems to come about because the clinic both allows and actively encourages wild speculation with little to no evidence. This means people say pretty much whatever they want but then get hugely defensive when asked to justify it, because they can't.

Posters like the Dr, however, want to have a reasoned discussion about the facts so will naturally call out what they believe is b.s. If posters would just admit they have no evidence, it's just what they think, this problem would practically resolve itself.

The clinic is almost guaranteed to create these problems and really either both sides should be allowed to continue or both should be stopped. Only one choice will allow free discussion.

There is speculation and then there is bending and distorting the facts to fit an agenda, the two things are not the same at all.

If a poster is genuinely unaware of something e.g. an intervier, lack of knowledge or something, fair enough but if a poster deliberately misquotes interviews over and over to push a certain view, that is not speculation, that is plain and simple trolling. It is very evident here but seemingly the mods are unable to spot it.

The irony being that the poster who is most responsible for doing so has been banned before for this exact style of posting. They then set up a sock-puppet account to get around the ban which is a true characteristic of a real troll. As a result, they were perma-banned but somehow had their ban rescinded for God knows why and are now back posting in the exact same manner as first time around. Does that make sense to anyone.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No problem, I meant interesting in the truest sense of the word, but it seems you can't even say that in the clinic without people thinking you mean something else.

To the general problem here, it all seems to come about because the clinic both allows and actively encourages wild speculation with little to no evidence. This means people say pretty much whatever they want but then get hugely defensive when asked to justify it, because they can't.

Posters like the Dr, however, want to have a reasoned discussion about the facts so will naturally call out what they believe is b.s. If posters would just admit they have no evidence, it's just what they think, this problem would practically resolve itself.

The clinic is almost guaranteed to create these problems and really either both sides should be allowed to continue or both should be stopped. Only one choice will allow free discussion.

Well said.

But it is not limited to the Clinic. Take a look at the pedalling technique thread. That has been going round in circles

But one thread off the top of my head where it was ridiculous was the Windy Mountain thread. It was shear (get it) trolling.
The wind?? That is something that was easily addressed and indeed a couple of posters added the actual conditions and another went to great lengths to edit some videos.

But it descended (Im on a roll) because it was allowed be argued on which side of the Sky divide and an opportunity to attempt to ridicule people.
Where was the moderation - they were standing in the middle waving flags.

 

[python]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTcBgs2huRo

eshnar, take this taco's suggestion seriously,'When you have to shoot...Shoot! Don't talk'

that said, jokes aside, i have personally experienced and confronted the phenomena you wasted so much time on...

the fact (as i see it) is, the doc could be an excellent, thoughtful, funny as hell poster as well as..what you guys are concerned with.

if, as you said, there is a consensus among the mods, act, however unpopular, don't talk too much and let the chips fall wherever they may.. by talking so much, you basically provided the platform for 'i can outlast you' contest which this (or any private forum) should be keen to observe with respect to some posters (not just dr mas)

this was my 5 pennies.

 

[red_flanders]

Well said.

But it is not limited to the Clinic. Take a look at the pedalling technique thread. That has been going round in circles

But one thread off the top of my head where it was ridiculous was the Windy Mountain thread. It was shear (get it) trolling.
The wind?? That is something that was easily addressed and indeed a couple of posters added the actual conditions and another went to great lengths to edit some videos.

But it descended (Im on a roll) because it was allowed be argued on which side of the Sky divide and an opportunity to attempt to ridicule people.
Where was the moderation - they were standing in the middle waving flags.

Sorry, that's a horrible example. Several people watched the same stage and somehow came up with very different interpretations of the wind direction. I personally watched the entire stage on DVR and disagree with a couple other posters about where the wind came from. I don't see how they saw what they saw, but apparently they believed it. I know I saw what I saw and still had people claiming the wind was coming from 45 degrees off what I saw. I assume they believed what they were saying, because they would not or could be persuaded otherwise, despite clear video evidence. They looked at the same thing I saw and saw it differently. All smart guys, all coming to different conclusions.

For sincerely disagreeing with certain people and backing it up with evidence, posters were labeled trolls. There certainly were plenty of insults thrown about by parties arguing various points of view. However, blanket statements were made about those who disagreed with certain people that they were trolls. Disagreements were labeled as twisting of posts, and honest opinions were called lies. Facts were blatantly and obtusely ignored.

All too often if someone disagrees with someone, they are called a troll. It's sad, it's a huge disservice to the forum which is here to let everyone express their opinion.

It sounds to me very much like there are a couple of guys who are sure they're right and want to quell disagreement by calling those who disagree with them trolls.

Horrible example for you to bring up. Yet of course, you will disagree with everything I've said in this post. And I'm 100% sure I'm correct and state it with complete sincerity and seeking of the truth.

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry, that's a horrible example. Several people watched the same stage and somehow came up with very different interpretations of the wind direction. I personally watched the entire stage on DVR and disagree with a couple other posters about where the wind came from. I don't see how they saw what they saw, but apparently they believed it. I know I saw what I saw and still had people claiming the wind was coming from 45 degrees off what I saw. I assume they believed what they were saying, because they would not or could be persuaded otherwise, despite clear video evidence. They looked at the same thing I saw and saw it differently. All smart guys, all coming to different conclusions.

For sincerely disagreeing with certain people and backing it up with evidence, posters were labeled trolls. There certainly were plenty of insults thrown about by parties arguing various points of view. However, blanket statements were made about those who disagreed with certain people that they were trolls. Disagreements were labeled as twisting of posts, and honest opinions were called lies. Facts were blatantly and obtusely ignored.

All too often if someone disagrees with someone, they are called a troll. It's sad, it's a huge disservice to the forum which is here to let everyone express their opinion.

It sounds to me very much like there are a couple of guys who are sure they're right and want to quell disagreement by calling those who disagree with them trolls.

Horrible example for you to bring up. Yet of course, you will disagree with everything I've said in this post. And I'm 100% sure I'm correct and state it with complete sincerity and seeking of the truth.

Several posters went to great length to distort what I had written in order to internationally disrupt. It was trolling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTcBgs2huRo

eshnar, take this taco's suggestion seriously,'When you have to shoot...Shoot! Don't talk'

that said, jokes aside, i have personally experienced and confronted the phenomena you wasted so much time on...

the fact (as i see it) is, the doc could be an excellent, thoughtful, funny as hell poster as well as..what you guys are concerned with.

if, as you said, there is a consensus among the mods, act, however unpopular, don't talk too much and let the chips fall wherever they may.. by talking so much, you basically provided the platform for 'i can outlast you' contest which this (or any private forum) should be keen to observe with respect to some posters (not just dr mas)

this was my 5 pennies.

Or the mods could, you know actually moderate?

Funny thing is I was just thinking of you earlier. You & I went toe to toe on the AC stuff, (bar one incident) it was civil. Not only that it was probably one the most informative threads I was in. I certainly know I learned loads from it because you were able to produce the relevant information and it was all content driven.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sorry, that's a horrible example. Several people watched the same stage and somehow came up with very different interpretations of the wind direction. I personally watched the entire stage on DVR and disagree with a couple other posters about where the wind came from. I don't see how they saw what they saw, but apparently they believed it. I know I saw what I saw and still had people claiming the wind was coming from 45 degrees off what I saw. I assume they believed what they were saying, because they would not or could be persuaded otherwise, despite clear video evidence. They looked at the same thing I saw and saw it differently. All smart guys, all coming to different conclusions.

For sincerely disagreeing with certain people and backing it up with evidence, posters were labeled trolls. There certainly were plenty of insults thrown about by parties arguing various points of view. However, blanket statements were made about those who disagreed with certain people that they were trolls. Disagreements were labeled as twisting of posts, and honest opinions were called lies. Facts were blatantly and obtusely ignored.

All too often if someone disagrees with someone, they are called a troll. It's sad, it's a huge disservice to the forum which is here to let everyone express their opinion.

It sounds to me very much like there are a couple of guys who are sure they're right and want to quell disagreement by calling those who disagree with them trolls.

Horrible example for you to bring up. Yet of course, you will disagree with everything I've said in this post. And I'm 100% sure I'm correct and state it with complete sincerity and seeking of the truth.

Glad you are now making assumptions on what I am going to say. I didn't and don't give a **** about the wind on Ventoux.

So here is an easy one - since you admit that the thread had "insults" and many "blanket statements" why is it the moderators (from my vantage point) did nothing?

 

[red_flanders]

Several posters went to great length to distort what I had written in order to internationally disrupt. It was trolling.

That is ALSO true. 100%. And some were banned. And some who were labeled trolls but were disagreeing were not.

 

[the sceptic]

Glad you are now making assumptions on what I am going to say. I didn't and don't give a **** about the wind on Ventoux.

So here is an easy one - since you admit that the thread had "insults" and many "blanket statements" why is it the moderators (from my vantage point) did nothing?

Sure is a lot of posts by someone that didnt care.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sure is a lot of posts by someone that didnt care.

And I was actually banned for a lot of it.

As I said I couldn't give a **** about the wind on Ventoux, but I do care about the correct information being posted.

 

[pedaling squares]

I wonder how the wind is up on that high horse. Im guessing tailwind.

Quoted for cleverness.

 

[darwin553]

Once again, mods are way off base on this.

There is a very simple solution, do something about the poster's who lie, distort and troll over and over, then you won't have Dr.Mas always calling them out on their BS.

Mods have already banned Dr.Mas once incorrectly whilst letting the troll continue to post unabated. There is most definitely a clear bias here and frankly it's BS.

Ban the real trolls, not the people who decide to engage them.

If a troll is going to post incorrect statements with nothing to back it up, why shouldn't they be questioned and challenged?

 

[darwin553]

"No tribunal will question me", not because there's no tribunal, but because the tribunal would just tell me "good work".

Lol

Of course in the make believe of this hypothetical tribunal you really think it's going to be independent and not in the interests of CN which is to support its moderators' decisions...too funny

 

[darwin553]

The clinic is almost guaranteed to create these problems and really either both sides should be allowed to continue or both should be stopped. Only one choice will allow free discussion.

Everyone should know what the answer to this should be

 

[Race Radio]

That is ALSO true. 100%. And some were banned. And some who were labeled trolls but were disagreeing were not.

no. "some" were not banned, only one. The rest continue with their nonsense.

The entire thread was a troll. It had nothing to do with the wind direction but was the result of several posters odd obsession. Mods only made it worse by ignoring what was going on and, in some cases, contributing to the chaos. I even had a Mod tell me "tell your friends in the sport they're the ones who burned the fans" instead of addressing the obvious chaos