Moderators

[Anonymous]

You do realize the extra work this would give us moderators? We are already short staffed as it is. Also such a part of the forum would have absolutely no purpose and would only encourage more trolling

I didnt realise moving posts was more time consuming than deleting them. But then I dont know how the admin backoffice works on here. On yabbse its pretty easy to select a bunch of posts and just click move rather than delete.

 

[Francois the Postman]

And this is my point, when people think someone is talking crap they attack them with the troll argument. AS said before, talking crap is not against the forum rules, if it was we would all be banned.

In case you have missed it, I have been stepping in a few times to knock that on the head. People are free to post opinions, even daft ones. As long as they are on topic, and sincerely held (not purely baiting, which would be trolling, etc).

I even gave pre-emptive warnings when I feared it was sliding in that direction, in a thread which involved some posters which have done that before, and haven't always been right (but who also have been very helpful in identifying real trolls - hence my request to notify us in private, rather than argue that in public, as we are not welcoming witch hunts here).

I get why it bothered you and others in the past, and I am not so interested in how accurate the perception was, and naming and shaming. My question is, have you noticed a more general interventionist tone on this one?

Modding is becoming more heavy handed in areas that we are not happy with (and were not happy with, impressions aside).

And one things comes back and back again: we don't read all posts or threads. No time, no interest.

If you feel something requires moderators, notify us. Be reasonable when using that facility, and when it is overkill, or simply used as a way to drive home a point to moderators. But if it is a genuine concern, use it.

Not saying it is you TCF, but I see a lot of people complaining who hardly ever, if at all, have notified us, and somehow just assume that "we are aware of their grievances about particular posts".

 

[Anonymous]

If you feel something requires moderators, notify us. Be reasonable when using that facility, and when it is overkill, or simply used as a way to drive home a point to moderators. But if it is a genuine concern, use it.

Not saying it is you TCF, but I see a lot of people complaining who hardly ever, if at all, have notified us, and somehow just assume that "we are aware of their grievances about particular posts".

To be honest, Ive stopped reporting stuff.

Can I suggest, when members they report a post they receive notification of any infraction as a result. You can report a post, and on the surface nothing happens. That can mean that for instance, if you report a long standing poster for something, and you see no obvious sign of disciplinary proceedings that either your report has been considered invalid, etc. Some feedback on reports would be helpful to those who do report posts.

Ithink the only person I reported recently was susan for starting a doping thread in the main section. I do hope she got her infraction

And yes, I have noticed that mods to show a tendancy to warn generally within the threads more and more (susan has always been a great one for this, i think public warnings have far more effect that private ones). Still think the buckwheat thing should have been nipped in the bud much earlier. Interesting that it was one of the "trolls" in thehog that requested it. Although he did have a rather unique was of suggesting it as one would expect.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Ithink the only person I reported recently was susan for starting a doping thread in the main section. I do hope she got her infraction

I am seriously considering giving myself a permanent ban.........

Susan

 

[patricknd]

Oh by the way.Set Buckwheat free.

+1

and while you're at it:

Free ChrisE

 

[Race Radio]

And this is my point, when people think someone is talking crap they attack them with the troll argument. AS said before, talking crap is not against the forum rules, if it was we would all be banned.

I have no problem with talking crap, it can add to the forum. It is when you follow up that crap with 50 posts in the space of 2 hours and 10 pm's that it becomes clear the goal is disruption, not comedy.

Just yesterday he sent me 4 nonsense pm's under his latest incarnation. This is not his first time he has done this. He trolled a different, non-cycling, forum for years until they succeeded in banning him. He then set up a website to spew garbage from. It is a funny read, basically the same garbage he does here but on a different topic.

He is a committed troll

 

[Francois the Postman]

Can I suggest, when members they report a post they receive notification of any infraction as a result. You can report a post, and on the surface nothing happens. That can mean that for instance, if you report a long standing poster for something, and you see no obvious sign of disciplinary proceedings that either your report has been considered invalid, etc. Some feedback on reports would be helpful to those who do report posts.

Some notifications are more valid than others, but all of them get processed and evaluated. The vast majority gets acted upon one way or the other. They will become part of the "awareness pool", even when they are not acted upon directly too.

Speaking for myself, I have been giving those that reported issues that I dealt with feedback when it wasn't publicly visible, or at least tried to acknowledge the receipt. I might have missed one or two as it adds yet another layer of not being on the site for fun to my day, but I know where you are coming from.

And yes, I have noticed that mods to show a tendancy to warn generally within the threads more and more (susan has always been a great one for this, i think public warnings have far more effect that private ones).

Maybe it would be helpful to start looking forward more than bringing up how you felt it was, as if that is still the reality out there at the moment? I know that long-standing posters have built up frustrations and ways-of-doing-things over time, but sometimes it is justifiable to revisit an impression and check if it is still a frustration that is worth hanging on to? Or if it is better to give feedback on current progress (or not) on what it is like now?

I always preferred a public appeal to common sense, over intervention and infractions, bans, etc. Polite appeal also tends to be the first line of communication with posters, publicly and privately.

I have made many a public post appealing to common courtesy of users, long before I became a mod here. I can say without hesitation that intervening is the last thing we want to do here, with our time. It isn't always (directly) effective, but even then it makes it clearer to all at which point, on the whole, we do want to curb behaviour (when we stumble across it).

One frustration I have is that people tend to debate even the most simple appeal, and small things get blown up and become unwelcome distractions in their own right.

A simple "move on" (with no edits, modding, warnings, infractions) can trigger several follow up posts.

But I do agree, it is probably more effective in the long run, and hopefully makes those public interventions rarer over time.

If anything, it makes people aware that there are behavioural rules they agree to when they use the forum to make posts, and flags to people who are being targeted that it is not acceptable behaviour, and we don't condone it.

At the same time there are people who get the feeling they are being watched by Big Brother. So there has to be a balancing act of sorts. Even if I personally think that that impression is a bit much given what we do let through unchallenged, and the level of actual interventions that we engage in.

People also invent mantras that don't resemble reality at all, and fly away with it. We have dealt with exactly one incident, one poster who engaged us through a route that used an external service to engage us on "our terrain", and somehow it has become "opinions of posters elsewhere about CN is also taboo and monitored". That is laughable.

First, once again: the thing that we frowned upon had nothing to do with content, but with actual behaviour. And second, we do decide in the end if people are welcome to come through our door. This is not some Free Speech Geneva Concention gathering where you can say anything off-topic that you want, where you are free to insult others as you see fit, where you can subject people to pester campaigns, and anything goes.

We have a cycling website that people can use for their posts if they accept the rules that apply to all of us, and users are welcome if they get what is reasonable behaviour, and what isn't. Escalating unreasonable behaviour has consequences. We probably don't have rules for everything, and we sometimes need to act after someone has found yet another way to be unreasonable that we don't have "guidelines for", but it is always with people that we run into time and time again, and take up far too much of our attention without showing enough consideration, if any, from their end.

By all means, debate the principle here, but don't portray a single incident into some golden rule that applies to all. That is nonsense on speed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Agreed. This forum is turning very one sided, the ones who dont agree with the majority are gradually disappearing. Either scared away or banned. Reminds me of the situation with Al Capone. Up to no good but taken to court of technicalities.



Agreed. I long argued for a troll hole., A section of them forum where "trolling" posts were moved to rather than deleting. That request fell on death ears. Removing posts removes all evidence of arguments so that what actually happened becomes purely hearsay rather than hard fact.



And this is my point, when people think someone is talking crap they attack them with the troll argument. AS said before, talking crap is not against the forum rules, if it was we would all be banned.

Im not deliberately causing trouble on this one. Yes BPC is a pain in the ****, yes, Buckwheat did it would seam overstep the line, but not everyone here is an innocent party. There are those that goad, and encourage the "trolls" knowing a ban will result. There are those that when faced with things they do not agree with, insult and goad until the person in question is written off as a troll. And the mods largely seem to fall in line with the bulk of the posters.

This forum is rapidly becoming very one sided and sanitised.

Nobody got any thoughts on this one?

I agree (to a point) on the highlighted - and that would be regrettable, as what I enjoy about this forum is that it allows many diverse views -which is what a forum should be about.

I probably don't agree with you though on why posters are "scared away and banned" - I think there are a number of reasons why it has become a little more one sided.
A lot have stopped posting since May - I would guess that the Landis confession and Fed investigation was the last straw for some.
Also because of the extra stuff since May some posters who continue to support LA have become somewhat desperate, irrational and frustrated.

We have seen this now with some Contador fans - it is just a natural reaction when someone has supported a particular rider, so I do feel sympathy for some of the genuine posters.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I have no problem with talking crap, it can add to the forum. It is when you follow up that crap with 50 posts in the space of 2 hours and 10 pm's that it becomes clear the goal is disruption, not comedy.

Just yesterday he sent me 4 nonsense pm's under his latest incarnation. This is not his first time he has done this. He trolled a different, non-cycling, forum for years until they succeeded in banning him. He then set up a website to spew garbage from. It is a funny read, basically the same garbage he does here but on a different topic.

He is a committed troll

I think TSF wasn't talking about BPC. I'm sure we all pretty much agree that BPC isn't welcome, and I am fed up talking about him too.

TSF was talking about a more general attitude, where people, especially low-count posters, but not excusively so, were treated as trolls, rather than posters who have as much right to be here as you and I.

I think meant Accusing/treating people who weren't BPC as if they were BPC, or just "trolling", "drunk", "immature", "***" in general.

You yourself have been doing that, and although you have hit the BPC nail on the head quite often, you have been wrong at times too, meaning that you were treating am innocent user in away that isn't acceptable.

When mods were flooded and overwhelmed with troll behaviour, things probably slipped through the cracks that shouldn't have. But the waters are a bit less choppy now, maybe only because we are off-season, but also because some of the new troll-dykes in the making are already having an impact.

But the general principle stand: treat each other with respect, regardless. And notify us when you think we have another troll on board. Don't hound people in public when no-one knows for sure who we are dealing with.

And this is where the real world is always more complicated than the principle: at the same time, when it is beyond doubt that we are dealing with a troll, public appeals by long-standing users to ignore someone as they are probably just trolling and trying to derail a thread have been helpful in the past, and will remain helpful in the future. We don't have eyes everywhere 24/7. Sometimes real trolls are on the forum in a mod black spot, for whatever reason.

Apply common sense.

 

[Ferminal]

I think TSF wasn't talking about BPC. I'm sure we all pretty much agree that BPC isn't welcome, and I am fed up talking about him too.

TSF was talking about a more general attitude, where people, especially low-count posters, but not excusively so, were treated as trolls, rather than posters who have as much right to be here as you and I.

I will only troll when people try and "discuss" the "forum" (hi SpeedWay) when it's nothing but a strawman because they realise they cannot contribute anything to the existing discussion.

For me, things like "You guys are all obsessed and crazy nothing will change your mind" or "welcome to the typical *** CN forum consensus" etc should be completely off limits anywhere but this forum. Of course this works the same way where sometimes members are instantly labelled "typical fanboy/PS monkey".

 

[Race Radio]

I think TSF wasn't talking about BPC. I'm sure we all pretty much agree that BPC isn't welcome, and I am fed up talking about him too.

TSF was talking about a more general attitude, where people, especially low-count posters, but not excusively so, were treated as trolls, rather than posters who have as much right to be here as you and I.

I think meant Accusing/treating people who weren't BPC as if they were BPC, or just "trolling", "drunk", "immature", "***" in general.

You yourself have been doing that, and although you have hit the BPC nail on the head quite often, you have been wrong at times too, meaning that you were treating am innocent user in away that isn't acceptable.

When mods were flooded and overwhelmed with troll behaviour, things probably slipped through the cracks that shouldn't have. But the waters are a bit less choppy now, maybe only because we are off-season, but also because some of the new troll-dykes in the making are already having an impact.

But the general principle stand: treat each other with respect, regardless. And notify us when you think we have another troll on board. Don't hound people in public when no-one knows for sure who we are dealing with.

And this is where the real world is always more complicated than the principle: at the same time, when it is beyond doubt that we are dealing with a troll, public appeals by long-standing users to ignore someone as they are probably just trolling and trying to derail a thread have been helpful in the past, and will remain helpful in the future. We don't have eyes everywhere 24/7. Sometimes real trolls are on the forum in a mod black spot, for whatever reason.

Apply common sense.

I agree. A few months ago the latest BPC incarnation was often allowed to stay for weeks, now he is usually gone within hours. Months ago I would confront him now I just report him and he is gone in a couple of hours. It appears most have taken this approach unless he sticks around for a few days.

To be fair I can only recall one occasion where I was wrong. When I realized my mistake I apologized to the poster, explained why, and encouraged him to continue to post. I think the issue of low post count posters being confronted is largely in the past.

BTW, it would be good to see Chris E back

 

[Ferminal]

I think the issue of low post count posters being confronted is largely in the past.

I agree with this, there isn't the mob mentality like things were when Arbiter wasn't getting banned, or the constant suspicion of new accounts daily.

I think we can all improve the situation by being a bit more tolerant of "low post counters" and assuming that they haven't been lurking on the forum long enough to see previous discussions. We can direct them to the most relevant discussions because usually their comments are not unique.

Perhaps the only exception I can think of was when 20 people in a month registered to say LeMond is bitter...

 

[Francois the Postman]

Im not deliberately causing trouble on this one. Yes BPC is a pain in the ****, yes, Buckwheat did it would seam overstep the line, but not everyone here is an innocent party. There are those that goad, and encourage the "trolls" knowing a ban will result. There are those that when faced with things they do not agree with, insult and goad until the person in question is written off as a troll. And the mods largely seem to fall in line with the bulk of the posters.

I do have an issue with this. It's the sort of blanket statement that I think doesn't square up with reality at all.

I am not saying it has never happened ever. I hope I have never done it ever, but that is besides the point. To characterise mod behaviour that I see around me, in front and behind the scenes, as falling in line with goading, insulting, escalating potential conflicts, or encouraging it, is frankly bizarre.

We are human, and after a day of fire-battling (visble and invisble), maybe some fuses are shorter than they should be, but I think you are turning incidents with some into a blanket statement for all.

Spend half the time that Martin spends here the way he does, voluntary, and wonder what it is like to see a possible moment of not-being-totally-perfect-all-the-time, something he has readily admitted in the past, blow up into a final straw moment for another user and you might get my pov, that I think you are gonna have to accept that rolling with the punches when they land, and talk 'em out rather than turn it into "Orwellian" hyperbole, might be a far more effective way to create a place that works even better.

If people want 100% perfection all the time, and High Court rulings backed up by watertight rules that are applied perfectly all the time, and are also administered every time they occur, than they might want to reassess how realistic that is for a cycling website staffed mostly by a handful volunteers, when the real world out there hasn't even be able to figure out how to do that using the best lawyers and police force on the planet.

I invite everyone to judge what is possible and tolerated here on the site, and how mods behave and have behaved, and I frankly think, on the whole, you are rather well served.

I am all for trying to make it better. We invite suggestions and feedback. But it has to remain realistic and workable too. And it would help if the starting point by all parties was a fair assessment of the situation now, over here. rather than drag up the past as a problem and then say at the same time that what you ant to see is actually happening already.

And ponder if something is a problem caused by (only/smostly) mods, or (also) by poster demographics. That's a discussion you can have, btw. The vast majority of sites don't allow any, they just lay out the rules as they see fit. I know you know this Dim, I am just restating it for those that forget how not-Stanford-prison-like this place actually is.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I agree. A few months ago the latest BPC incarnation was often allowed to stay for weeks, now he is usually gone within hours. Months ago I would confront him now I just report him and he is gone in a couple of hours. It appears most have taken this approach unless he sticks around for a few days.

To be fair I can only recall one occasion where I was wrong. When I realized my mistake I apologized to the poster, explained why, and encouraged him to continue to post. I think the issue of low post count posters being confronted is largely in the past.

I know, and I notice you and others have indeed adjusted low-poster behaviour as a consequence of the changing tides.

It's why there has been only the odd (public) nudge to keep doing that. Partly to stop something from sliding (withou saying it would), partly to remind all of us that we are working with better tools, and some stuff isn't tolerated and will be confronted.

Not all that we say is a run-up to infractions and conflict situations with users. Or even -really- aimed at the people I am addressing directly. Public comments are reminders to all, and a great tool to flag up that we are aware of known (past) issues and how they currently will be addressed when they occur and cross the line.

It is all intended to never get into trouble spots in the first place.

 

[AussieGoddess]

god I cant beleive you guys are seriously suggesting that someone who harrassed an employee on twitter, sledged abuse about a moderator there and was already banned several times for other issues ..... should be given yet ANOTHER chance!!!!

Honestly - I like this forum, the rules are pretty simple. If you cant manage to stay in the rules .... ****** off and find an unmodded forum.

Abusing mods isnt on.
Ever.

Without mods you have a free-for-all slag-fest between trolls, paid PR people and spammers. If they are seriously subjected to this kind of crap all day every day, you wont get anyone to mod it.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I perhaps the only exception I can think of was when 20 people in a month registered to say LeMond is bitter...

I kinda disagree. It is a perfectly fine position to have, one opinion amongst many. And 20 new posters in a month for a high-profile news story in itself isn't exactly the sort of figure that would worry me. I would almost be disappointed if we didn't get 20 new (genuine) posters who find our site as a consequence who held that point of view, if you get my drift.

If it is a genuinely held opinion, we should, in principle, have space to vent that.

However, and this I know is where you are coming from, if there is a campaign set up to disrupt the discussion, and those 20 posters are involved with this, that isn't tolerated.

I would still prefer that mods would be notified when there is a suspicion that this troll-behaviour is taking place first and foremost, so we know we have something to look at and can deploy the tools we have to see if there is some co-ordination going on, or if it is a smaller group of people with multiple accounts.

Do not always presume that others will have done that for you. You'd be amazed.

There will be a role to play for long-standing posters in those threads, in absence of mods on hand. Again, apply common sense, and always presume that innocence is still a possability, if not for all, than still for some.

I expect another influx for the obvious looming cloud on the horizon, whichever way that cookie crumbles. Things probably will flare up, but there will also be some posters amongst the one(s) seizing the moment, who started off just like you and me, knowing jack all and just being a bit too enthusiastic or disappointed, one way or the other. Some of those will be the great posters in the future. I'd rather deal with a troll a bit longer than put them off for life.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

god I cant beleive you guys are seriously suggesting that someone who harrassed an employee on twitter, sledged abuse about a moderator there and was already banned several times for other issues ..... should be given yet ANOTHER chance!!!!

Honestly - I like this forum, the rules are pretty simple. If you cant manage to stay in the rules .... ****** off and find an unmodded forum.

Abusing mods isn't on.
Ever.

Without mods you have a free-for-all slag-fest between trolls, paid PR people and spammers. If they are seriously subjected to this kind of crap all day every day, you wont get anyone to mod it.

I agree with all you say - and in particular the highlighted.

The only point I will make re Buckwheat - he was a pretty good poster. It is one of these issues that escalated quickly and might have gone differently if cooler heads prevailed.

What I objected to with BW was when he tweeted to Laura that he had been 'censored', this was just after he had started his second ban but before he was permanently banned.
What he fails to acknowledge is he wasn't censored, his OT remarks were removed and after ignoring many warnings he was eventually banned, which is punishment for breaking rules, not censorship.

If BW accepted that then I would not be against him being reinstated, unfortunately I don't see him accepting that.

 

[Barrus]

If BW accepted that then I would not be against him being reinstated, unfortunately I don't see him accepting that.

Whatever happens now, he won't be reinstated. You can go quite far with me, however, he crossed the line

 

[pedaling squares]

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.

Hell no. This place is far more tolerable since the mods got the upper hand on BPC. When BPC version 1 (TheArbiter) was banned, he received some support from people who would later be among his biggest critics. He wasn't picked on from the start; he pushed the limits until the site was intolerable, and that's just the visible part, not the hundreds of PM's some people received. Eventually he became persona non grata and we're better off for it.

Modding certainly has become more heavy handed at one point than it had been before, in my time on the board at least (well before I became a mod).

It has made a noticeable difference on the overall atmosphere, certainly on a poster to poster interaction level. Most of it is welcome, some of it we probably regret too, but is simply a consequence of many people with different expectations of "normal and acceptable", and needing one mold that fits most, and especially those that "we would like to have this site for".

It has improved the atmosphere and is appreciated. This place has certainly improved when the most controversial topic in the forum is Jonathan Vaughters.

Agreed. This forum is turning very one sided, the ones who dont agree with the majority are graually dissapearing. Either scared away or banned. Reminds me of the situation with Al Capone.

Agreed. Only the modern digital gangster hijacks threads, murders common sense, and profits on attention.

This forum is rapidly becoming very one sided and sanitised.

I don't see it that way. The people who get banned, whether or not they at times make meaningful contributions to the forum, tend to circle the bowl for a while, testing the mods and disrupting threads, until they eventually take the plunge into the shit. I haven't seen anyone get banned for liking/disliking something, just for pushing their perspective beyond reasonable limits. Buckwheat is a classic example: he took a stand and when he started to get some heat from other posters he upped his game until the mods began to step in. Instead of cooling his jets, he pushed further and eventually took it too far. Too bad, because he did add some value to the forum before he picked up his cross.

Overall - the increased moderation is working. The only true retards left around here are those who volunteer to moderate us.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Thanks for your input pedaling squares.

Overall - the increased moderation is working. The only true retards left around here are those who volunteer to moderate us.

No argument there:

Indeed, I have crossed over to the dark side [and become a voluntary mod]. Which proves that I am
a) the sort of idiot who volunteers for a shooting gallery duck position.

 

[Martin318is]

I understand that much, but I'm not sure why historical posts from the likes of The Arbiter and BPC were deleted, when only a few months ago they were still there

No idea. I thought that they were only deleted from his more recent accounts created in the last 12 months.

 

[Martin318is]

The only true retards left around here are those who volunteer to moderate us.

Finally somebody gets it!

 

[Martin318is]

Martin 381is has given me a warning. Does anyone else think I insulted Barrus? I respect him quite a bit as a matter of fact. That wasn't clear?

Martin has also now decided that it's time to change my signature. Why now and not a few weeks ago when I made it? Has it all of a sudden become offensive or does it have something more to do with having a head full of steam?

I have a request too: cancel my membership.

At the time that I issued the warning regarding the school comments I stood by the decision as to me they appeared part of a trend of attack that has been used lately. Talking to Barrus today I am happy to reconsider it. However, the point is that I only issued a warning which has no ongoing consequences whatsoever.

A Warning is merely a quick mechanism for a moderator to contact a user and leave a record that they had done so (so the other moderator does not also do the same thing). If I sent a PM instead then none of this flagging would be available.

Also, the warning still applied to the circumvention of the language filter in the signature line (which I had not noticed till reading that particular post) which does still incur a warning so the net effect is zero.

I have replied to the PM requesting deletion with a request that you take some time to think about it and contact me on the weekend if you still want to be deleted.

 

[scribe]

The only true retards left around here are those who volunteer to moderate us.

I'd like to re-submit my application to become a admin. There has never been a better time to run for this position! Come on guys (and susan), what do you say???

 

[The Hitch]

I'd like to re-submit my application to become a admin. There has never been a better time to run for this position! Come on guys (and susan), what do you say???

If its between you and WonderLance, its got to be WonderLance. And i think we have a few mods (Martin, Barrus) on our side