Moderators

[sittingbison]

Dr Mas don't try and twist my words or intent. I meant the problem with what you said in the quoted post was neither you nor sniper posted a link. Neither of you. I am pointing out if you had of posted your link, and pointed out how it differed with whatever sniper was claiming, then you would more likely achieve the goal of "stopped any further clogging or derailing of the thread" than not posting your link and asking a rhetorical question.

Dont be late Pedro, you dug up a post from three weeks prior - before I became a mod - that had already been asked and answered, for no other reason than to cause trouble because you clearly knew I did not quote Wiggins as it had already been discussed.

 

[sittingbison]

If he had to go through a paywall to get to the copyrighted material. It would be like, illegal (and prob against forum policy) for him to cut and paste the document in this forum.

I must admit - I had not thought of the copyrighted material part.

I know it is rightly against the rules to post a full article as many sites need the clicks. But for a subscription site it could be in breach of their copyright even to snip the relevant paragraph which I was prepared to do.

Good points

However DrMas did not post a link to said article, merely said he had it. It looked like a case of "if you show me yours I'll show you mine" which was not conducive to the stated aim of clarifying snipers position (or lack of), or to "stopped any further clogging or derailing of the thread"

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr Mas don't try and twist my words or intent. I meant the problem with what you said in the quoted post was neither you nor sniper posted a link. Neither of you. I am pointing out if you had of posted your link, and pointed out how it differed with whatever sniper was claiming, then you would more likely achieve the goal of "stopped any further clogging or derailing of the thread" than not posting your link and asking a rhetorical question.

Dont be late Pedro, you dug up a post from three weeks prior - before I became a mod - that had already been asked and answered, for no other reason than to cause trouble because you clearly knew I did not quote Wiggins as it had already been discussed.

Quite frankly I am not the one twisting here - this is more yak.

Your entire argument is built on a assumption - which is not up for me to make until the other poster responded. Simple.

To unclog you - please point out the relevant rule that I had broken by asking the poster to back up their claim that would require mod intervention?

 

[sittingbison]

Quite frankly I am not the one twisting here - this is more yak.

Your entire argument is built on a assumption - which is not up for me to make until the other poster responded. Simple.

To unclog you - please point out the relevant rule that I had broken by asking the poster to back up their claim that would require mod intervention?

DrMas I'm not discussing that mod intervention per se, I'm discussing the concept of the "vortex" in general with the particular example of how you asked sniper to back up his claim.

This is your fourth edit to this post in the last hour - yet you do not have time to get a link. It took me less than 2 minutes. So - JV said to Walsh Sky were clean. You sure on that? Thats what JV said? No need to edit your post again - a new post clarifying what you meant will suffice.

Yes it is my opinion that you asked a rhetorical question. It is implied that you knew the answer because you had found the article. However I could well be wrong and have misread or misinterpreted.

I just think it would have been easier to make your point, post the link as you actually had one (as opposed to sniper perhaps not having one), perhaps quote the portion making your position clear, and say to sniper "I disagree with what you said"

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Dont be late Pedro, you dug up a post from three weeks prior - before I became a mod - that had already been asked and answered, for no other reason than to cause trouble because you clearly knew I did not quote Wiggins as it had already been discussed.

Being a mod at the time is irrelevant.

I did not realise that
a) Posts had a statute of limitations.
b) If something had been discussed we were not free to discuss it further at a later date.

You should add those to the forum rules to make it clear.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

DrMas I'm not discussing that mod intervention per se, I'm discussing the concept of the "vortex" in general with the particular example of how you asked sniper to back up his claim.

Of course it is relevant - a mod intervened. Why?

"This particular example" is where I asked a poster to clarify their post.

Yes it is my opinion that you asked a rhetorical question. It is implied that you knew the answer because you had found the article. However I could well be wrong and have misread or misinterpreted.

I just think it would have been easier to make your point, post the link as you actually had one (as opposed to sniper perhaps not having one), perhaps quote the portion making your position clear, and say to sniper "I disagree with what you said"

No, it is not implied in any way.
Because their post was vague, I have no way of knowing if I had the correct article or not - I had "a" article.
Which is why I deliberately ended my post requesting clarification from them.

Here is a question for you - its actually quite simple.
Do you know if sniper was correct or incorrect in his comments?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

If I think someone is being a troll, yes, I have certainly said it. Although it is an exaggeration to suggest it is many people.
Have I also trolled - I am sure I have.

Not sure what the point is, sorry.

It was an observation. I could go into more detail but I will refrain since I am sure it will end up going off-topic.

 

[darwin553]

You had gone to that trouble and expense to get an article that appeared to support your opinion that sniper was wrong. Why didn't you just post the article you researched, point out why you thought sniper was either misinterpreting, misconstruing or misreporting, and let him respond...or not. WHich would clarify snipers position...or lack of.

It's not up to him to do so. If this is what you expect, you will have posters like Sniper continuing to post unsubstantiated assertions in the knowledge that there is somehow an onus on the member who challenges its authenticity or truthfulness to find proof that it is actually false what they are posting.

 

[darwin553]

However DrMas did not post a link to said article, merely said he had it. It looked like a case of "if you show me yours I'll show you mine" which was not conducive to the stated aim of clarifying snipers position (or lack of), or to "stopped any further clogging or derailing of the thread"

It doesn't matter if there is a standoff as to whether the challenger or the poster will post the link or whether the challenger has actually got the link to which he reportedly claims he has, it's up to the actual poster of the assertion to be able to back up his claim. And until he can, the challenger has every right to be calling for that evidence and if that 'clogs' up the thread, then so be it until the poster backs away and says that he has nothing to back up his claims.

 

[JRTinMA]

About 5 pages ago the Doc proposed it was time to move on. Maybe its time to move on.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

About 5 pages ago the Doc proposed it was time to move on. Maybe its time to move on.

Yep. I guess it is time for some Sky Radio, enjoy the music brought to you by MasterC...



Great topic this. Semantics rule!

 

[LaFlorecita]

?!

Posting a tweet from one of the major cycling world players followed by a basic logic if then construction is baiting and trolling

I'm getting a little feed up

How/Who you report this kind of mod abuses?

It is quite funny that one of the few non-baiting posts of this poster got moderated

 

[Froome19]

I agree with you that is absurd that the name-calling has been allowed and in fact endorsed by one moderator.

That said, to make the assertion that "it is OK to taunt fellow posters with an insulting nickname for paying for and reading an article", is also absurd. It is revisionism as to the source of the nickname. As is your repeated call to have other posters get nicknames. You now troll as often and equally as those about whom you complain.

Everyone gets your point. But you can't really complain about trolling when you're doing as much trolling as anyone on the site. Or are you special?

Red, I have noticed in contrast to a number of moderators on the site you have become much less tolerant after stepping down as a moderator. I applaud you for it, but I also wonder why if you believed strongly about getting rid of all that rubbish then did you not take a firmer stance when moderating?

 

[hiero2]

Red, I have noticed in contrast to a number of moderators on the site you have become much less tolerant after stepping down as a moderator. I applaud you for it, but I also wonder why if you believed strongly about getting rid of all that rubbish then did you not take a firmer stance when moderating?

He did. You weren't listening. Don't blame yourself though. And actually, it would be more accurate to say 'you didn't hear'. As you probably were not present in a forum when he acted and spoke.

First said: I agree that we have some consistency and standards issues to address.

And, btw, Dr M, I apologize for the stfu. That was a little harsh, but I also felt, at the time, that being harsh might communicate something important to you and others. I'm not sure it did.

But, as for the rest of this mess: I'm done. I've tried to wade through this swamp. I can't make it through all the pages. Dr. Mas is guilty of trolling in a destructive sense. So is Race Radio. And more than a few others. Somebody is guilty of handing out the nick "vortex". And some of the mods are guilty of using it as a nick.

At the same time, I've seen the MOST rational and well-reasoned post by The Hitch that I have ever read from him. So the conversation is not all one way, and not all for a loss.

Dr Mas and RR - you are two of the posters whom I respect and honor the most - but just because of that, you are not free to post stuff you would think was not ok from another poster. And do not worry that I am singling you, alone, out. What I am saying holds true for several long-time posters.

REMEMBER THIS: trolling, in the destructive sense, is attempting to disrupt or destroy the forum, or the thread, the conversation, or a fellow poster.

Repeating yourself becomes trolling. Because repeating yourself generally destroys the conversation and/or the thread. It doesn't usually
a. convince anybody new of your wisdom and veracity
b. convince the argument opponent of your wisdom and veracity
c. otherwise make any difference in the truth of the world

But I will ask you, "dear reader", this: have you repeated yourself? Have we already heard your point? Are you adding anything new by repeating it?

I'm not handing out any "infractions" of any sort for the many posts in this thread, because I think this conversation, at the moment, is well-meaning and needful. I also think that many of the opinions are misguided, or at the least, unaware. Which is not a difficult place to get to, given the large amount of posts and conversations, and the limits on time to keep up with them.

I often find myself less aware than I would like, so I find it not useful to condemn another poster when they might only be in a similar situation.

But what I see here is argument for argument's sake - a fight - nothing more, nothing less.

I want to see it stop. As of this post. From here forward, I want to see everyone involved in this conversation - as 95% of you want, honestly, to see the forums bettered - to work towards better standards in these forums as a community. There are accepted methods for working towards better threads and better posting. Use them.

For my part, I will do my best to see that infractions are used first, instead of bans, and that light warning bans are light warning bans. But I will also add that the current ban usage was arrived at because the group experience was that lesser bans were less effective. EXPERIENCE MEANS SOMETHING. Especially group experience. I know, I know, it doesn't always mean what the group thinks it does - but it still deserves some respect. When light warnings are not effective, more extreme measures will have to take their place.

In addition, ALL of our posters will have to realize that "HUMOR" and sarcasm have been overused. 99% of the time that one of our respected posters has cried "troll", I have been able to find examples of the respected posters behaving in precisely the same fashion. If the #1 poster says someone is an idiot - and we allow it, that means we HAVE to allow the number "last" poster to say someone is an idiot. So then if the #1 poster says "its ok if they call me an idiot", what am I to do when #n poster says "its NOT ok, and I don't want to post if they are going to talk like that!". Nope - if it looks to us like you are trying to start a fight - you will have to abide by that decision. We have long-time posters who will not post in certain forums, because they are "inhabited" by long-time posters who believe themselves witty, and love sarcasm. I think we need some limits - but that means also that the community must recognize the limits.

I will tell you this - I will work towards providing consistency, fairness, and reasonableness in the moderation. I can say this with 100% confidence because I have already done so. I have invested many hours in collecting the words of wisdom, not just from the famous Francois, but from martin, and many others. I put them together for our mod squad. I have formatted them, as best I could, to provide guidance, and light the way. Do not talk to me about gold standards - because I have probably read more of the standards used by those leaders of old than you have. No - I shouldn't say that - too personally challenging - but I HAVE spent a hell of a lot of work and hours of my time to put this stuff together in a productive fashion. I also know, from what Francois and martin and others wrote, that THEY were not content they had provided consistency or fairness! I also know, from what they wrote, that some of our long-posting members have been a long-term push-the-edges-of-the-envelope problem. Obviously, they are also capable of writing posts with value - or else they would no longer be here.

Dan has put together a new set of rules, in some small part because of the work I did putting those pages of history and wisdom together. I think that will be a first step. No, I take that back - THIS THREAD is the first step. I don't think Dan has rolled out the new rule set yet. In this thread I want to see an end to this bickering. Bickering only makes you look like part of the problem. For those who have a SPECIFIC complaint - and I want to see references to specific posts - please post here. If all you are doing is continuing an unproductive and interminable argument - cease.

Thank you.

 

[The Hitch]

Can someone explain this warning to me?

Dear The Hitch,

You have received a warning at CyclingNews Forum.

Reason:
-------
good idea

I'll try to flag this - it is a good idea in the 1st 2 paras. idk 'bout the rest. tryin' to catch up.

Original Post:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1350760

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
CyclingNews Forum

Since I'm not told what rules I broke, nor where the rulebreak was (its a 1000 word post and nothing is highlighted), I'm guessing it was a pm accidentally sent as a warning?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He did. You weren't listening. Don't blame yourself though. And actually, it would be more accurate to say 'you didn't hear'. As you probably were not present in a forum when he acted and spoke.

First said: I agree that we have some consistency and standards issues to address.

And, btw, Dr M, I apologize for the stfu. That was a little harsh, but I also felt, at the time, that being harsh might communicate something important to you and others. I'm not sure it did.

But, as for the rest of this mess: I'm done. I've tried to wade through this swamp. I can't make it through all the pages. Dr. Mas is guilty of trolling in a destructive sense. So is Race Radio. And more than a few others. Somebody is guilty of handing out the nick "vortex". And some of the mods are guilty of using it as a nick.

At the same time, I've seen the MOST rational and well-reasoned post by The Hitch that I have ever read from him. So the conversation is not all one way, and not all for a loss.

Dr Mas and RR - you are two of the posters whom I respect and honor the most - but just because of that, you are not free to post stuff you would think was not ok from another poster. And do not worry that I am singling you, alone, out. What I am saying holds true for several long-time posters.

REMEMBER THIS: trolling, in the destructive sense, is attempting to disrupt or destroy the forum, or the thread, the conversation, or a fellow poster.

Repeating yourself becomes trolling. Because repeating yourself generally destroys the conversation and/or the thread. It doesn't usually
a. convince anybody new of your wisdom and veracity
b. convince the argument opponent of your wisdom and veracity
c. otherwise make any difference in the truth of the world

But I will ask you, "dear reader", this: have you repeated yourself? Have we already heard your point? Are you adding anything new by repeating it?

I'm not handing out any "infractions" of any sort for the many posts in this thread, because I think this conversation, at the moment, is well-meaning and needful. I also think that many of the opinions are misguided, or at the least, unaware. Which is not a difficult place to get to, given the large amount of posts and conversations, and the limits on time to keep up with them.

I often find myself less aware than I would like, so I find it not useful to condemn another poster when they might only be in a similar situation.

But what I see here is argument for argument's sake - a fight - nothing more, nothing less.

I want to see it stop. As of this post. From here forward, I want to see everyone involved in this conversation - as 95% of you want, honestly, to see the forums bettered - to work towards better standards in these forums as a community. There are accepted methods for working towards better threads and better posting. Use them.

For my part, I will do my best to see that infractions are used first, instead of bans, and that light warning bans are light warning bans. But I will also add that the current ban usage was arrived at because the group experience was that lesser bans were less effective. EXPERIENCE MEANS SOMETHING. Especially group experience. I know, I know, it doesn't always mean what the group thinks it does - but it still deserves some respect. When light warnings are not effective, more extreme measures will have to take their place.

In addition, ALL of our posters will have to realize that "HUMOR" and sarcasm have been overused. 99% of the time that one of our respected posters has cried "troll", I have been able to find examples of the respected posters behaving in precisely the same fashion. If the #1 poster says someone is an idiot - and we allow it, that means we HAVE to allow the number "last" poster to say someone is an idiot. So then if the #1 poster says "its ok if they call me an idiot", what am I to do when #n poster says "its NOT ok, and I don't want to post if they are going to talk like that!". Nope - if it looks to us like you are trying to start a fight - you will have to abide by that decision. We have long-time posters who will not post in certain forums, because they are "inhabited" by long-time posters who believe themselves witty, and love sarcasm. I think we need some limits - but that means also that the community must recognize the limits.

I will tell you this - I will work towards providing consistency, fairness, and reasonableness in the moderation. I can say this with 100% confidence because I have already done so. I have invested many hours in collecting the words of wisdom, not just from the famous Francois, but from martin, and many others. I put them together for our mod squad. I have formatted them, as best I could, to provide guidance, and light the way. Do not talk to me about gold standards - because I have probably read more of the standards used by those leaders of old than you have. No - I shouldn't say that - too personally challenging - but I HAVE spent a hell of a lot of work and hours of my time to put this stuff together in a productive fashion. I also know, from what Francois and martin and others wrote, that THEY were not content they had provided consistency or fairness! I also know, from what they wrote, that some of our long-posting members have been a long-term push-the-edges-of-the-envelope problem. Obviously, they are also capable of writing posts with value - or else they would no longer be here.

Dan has put together a new set of rules, in some small part because of the work I did putting those pages of history and wisdom together. I think that will be a first step. No, I take that back - THIS THREAD is the first step. I don't think Dan has rolled out the new rule set yet. In this thread I want to see an end to this bickering. Bickering only makes you look like part of the problem. For those who have a SPECIFIC complaint - and I want to see references to specific posts - please post here. If all you are doing is continuing an unproductive and interminable argument - cease.

Thank you.

The post was very long with lots of repetition and a bit of a mess, so I only wade through the first few paragraphs of this swamp.
Hiero you are one of the mods I respect and honor the most but just because of that does not mean that I will not highlight the flaws in your moderation ability, what I am saying holds true for other moderators here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hiero,
Of course I read your post, several times.

A quick question - how did you appreciate my initial response? What emotions did you feel when you read it?

Because all the adjectives I used were taken from your post.



I will say I find it regrettable that you did not wade through this thread.
If you had you would have noticed that both myself and RR (as well as others) were the ones to propose ideas and actually agree to adhere to standards. The people who stepped up and were willing to take responsibility were the members not the mods.

This thread is 'where its at' - the solutions to all problems can be gleaned from the members participating here. Quite frankly that you are off attempting to set up new 'rules' or whatever without consulting the members is amazing.
Also - there is little wrong with the 'current' rules that were fair and balanced and put together by Alpe d'Huez. The problem is that they were not enforced.


Quite frankly, it looks as though these new rules are an attempt to tackle current perceived problems - a common mistake made by those who do not grasp a problem.

 

[Race Radio]

hard to wade through Hiero's post but to pretend my 2-3 questionable posts are the problem is absurd. It is clear to most my posts were an attempt to point out the hypocrisy of allowing derogatory nicknames for some posters but not for others. Most here understood this. Sorry you did not.

 

[ElChingon]

Can someone explain this warning to me?

...

Since I'm not told what rules I broke, nor where the rulebreak was (its a 1000 word post and nothing is highlighted), I'm guessing it was a pm accidentally sent as a warning?

I got a similar one for joking with the OP about his topic and username, somehow mentioning the two was offensive no reply by the mod of course which leads me to believe they know they're grasping at straws.

 

[Eshnar]

My wild guess is that the warning was meant to tell you that the mod agrees with you
No harm intended. I think.

 

[ElChingon]

My wild guess is that the warning was meant to tell you that the mod agrees with you
No harm intended. I think.

Communication through confusion... not sure that works

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Tread lightly, when Netserk says something is a "blatant lie," he's telling you that he considers it a bannable offense!

You're just mad that your constant trolling got you a ban. Deal with it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It appears the mods do not want it pointed out that Dr. Masarati is the only poster on the forum that it is ok to give an insulting nickname to.

Wonder what they are scared of?

People say it's a "vortex" because he continues to ask questions after people side-step them and engage in all manner of logical fallacies to avoid answering honestly. I'm sure it gets frustrating to posters who are trolling.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Good post Hitch. I miss the Postman.....but no way he could keep up those massive, long PM. Nobody would have the time

Yea, NS. He and I had our differences, but I respected him in the end. But his posts took too long to read.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

hard to wade through Hiero's post but to pretend my 2-3 questionable posts are the problem is absurd.

You know what is absurd? You reading this in Hiero's post.

Reading comprehension please.

Just like your [=Race Radio] interpretation of the termonology ''the Vortex''.

The Vortex is when Doc M. [the best in vortexing but you can fill in any name here], goes of nitpicking posts. Sentence for sentence nitpicking posts, and, subsequently [because people do not know when to stop in a discussion because it is useless] kill a thread.

''The Vortex'' is a discussion technique, nothing more, nothing less.

When I sense 'a vortex' I move on, mhhhh, most of the time...

But, when you, Race Radio, a well respected figure here, and for me, are telling porkies you will be called upon. It is just a shame that then you, Race Radio, call out people being trolls when dissagreeing with your questionable assumptions.

You vortexed the windy mountain threat for instance, take a look in the mirror, WE all should.

That is what Hiero was telling, the bold part.