Moderators

[MarkvW]

And that is Hiero's opinion. was he a moderator at the time? Did he have access to full unadulterated information on the matter?

Just because you have not seen evidence doesn't mean that others haven't seen it or witnessed it first hand. But like I say, last I read the forum rules they didn't state anywhere that evidence had to be provided publicly to you.

I'm out of this one now before I blow my top and say things I really shouldn't be sharing, nor do I need to share WITH YOU

That's all.

Yeah, hiero2 was a mod. I trust him on this.

 

[MarkvW]

And that is Hiero's opinion. was he a moderator at the time? Did he have access to full unadulterated information on the matter?

Just because you have not seen evidence doesn't mean that others haven't seen it or witnessed it first hand. But like I say, last I read the forum rules they didn't state anywhere that evidence had to be provided publicly to you.

I'm out of this one now before I blow my top and say things I really shouldn't be sharing, nor do I need to share WITH YOU

That's all.

Yeah, hiero2 was a mod. I trust him on this.

 

[the sceptic]

So you dont think Gaimon would have dropped Froome on Ventoux?

This post gets me an infraction, while said mod is busy making unfunny homophobic jokes.

Another fine example of CN moderation.

 

[MarkvW]

This post gets me an infraction, while said mod is busy making unfunny homophobic jokes.

Another fine example of CN moderation.

Which mod?

 

[Netserk]

Which mod?

Check the Armstrong thread for the gay pics

 

[hiero2]

Check the Armstrong thread for the gay pics

Huh? Where? I don't see anything like what the topic of controversy might be.

 

[Netserk]

Huh? Where? I don't see anything like what the topic of controversy might be.

I think they might have been deleted then. Can't really see what the problem was with them though.

 

[the sceptic]

Speak of the devil and in Sky coloured bottle to boot Marketing genius!!

And here are roomies Chris and Ritchie applying said special aerodynamic lotion

Hopefully he infracted himself after that post.

 

[Netserk]

Ah thanks. I remembered wrongly then. It was in the Froome thread.

Still can't see anything wrong with his post.

 

[hiero2]

. . .On the "secret about PM's", the very phrase "private message" gives that away. And yes, there is an issue with attempting to sell peoples RL details. . .

About PM's: you don't have to take my word on this, you can look up the legal precedents. I have yet to get another poster who resides in a country whose legal system descends from Germanic law to LOOK THIS UP, I have looked it up for UK, US, Aus. PM's are not private. They are the property of the recipient. The recipient can do what they want to with the info. Not being a lawyer, but that is my understanding. I do not know if countries whose legal systems are descended from Germanic law are different. I expect that countries with Romance languages (France, Spain, Italy) will be similar to the UK/US law on the matter. I have been told, anecdotally, that Germanic legal systems are somewhat more inclined to protect privacy.

So, if you don't want to see it in the news tomorrow, DO NOT WRITE IT, IN ANY FORM, EVER. Good. Now, got that? I don't care if you LIKE what I've just said - this is not opinion. If you don't LISTEN and HEED what I've just said, then you are avoiding verifiable truth. Does it seem like I'm getting a bit irritable on this topic? Yeah, prescient of you. I AM getting tired of repeating this - and very tired of people not realizing how important and vital it is to realize that PRIVACY that involves two people is a secret that involves two people. It is no longer a secret. Period.

“Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack

Rant over.

Now, as to selling RL info - to my knowledge - in the case under discussion - there is NO proof that this occurred. That is the situation. So, one has an alleged infraction - and a very nasty infraction - of forum rules - and of good manners - although not a legal matter, I think. But, it is alleged, with no proof, and no ajudication.

So what do YOU think Legal would say? I'll bet it was something like: "Say nothing and AVOID THIS LIKE THE PLAGUE." Having worked for a couple of big firms, I think I have a pretty good idea about this.

Anyway, moving on, just trying to be polite.

 

[hiero2]

Hopefully he infracted himself after that post.

Ow. Wow - well -even my somewhat my somewhat stunted sense of humor realizes that was meant as humor. But talk about being, ahem, controversial? Yeah, I could say it was in questionable taste.

Ah thanks. I remembered wrongly then. It was in the Froome thread.

Still can't see anything wrong with his post.

Well, see my comment above. Now, tell me truly, don't you see how some people might take offense at this? On multiple levels? Work at it for a minute - I think you will get it if you just try and think to yourself "How many people could get insulted by this? And how would they be insulted?" Put it through that filter. You're smart enough.

So, next, the question is, less that whether it should be permitted on the forum - but is it "moderate" in the sense of dignity that a moderator needs to maintain?

 

[Netserk]

About PM's: you don't have to take my word on this, you can look up the legal precedents. I have yet to get another poster who resides in a country whose legal system descends from Germanic law to LOOK THIS UP, I have looked it up for UK, US, Aus. PM's are not private. They are the property of the recipient. The recipient can do what they want to with the info. Not being a lawyer, but that is my understanding. I do not know if countries whose legal systems are descended from Germanic law are different. I expect that countries with Romance languages (France, Spain, Italy) will be similar to the UK/US law on the matter. I have been told, anecdotally, that Germanic legal systems are somewhat more inclined to protect privacy.

So, if you don't want to see it in the news tomorrow, DO NOT WRITE IT, IN ANY FORM, EVER. Good. Now, got that? I don't care if you LIKE what I've just said - this is not opinion. If you don't LISTEN and HEED what I've just said, then you are avoiding verifiable truth. Does it seem like I'm getting a bit irritable on this topic? Yeah, prescient of you. I AM getting tired of repeating this - and very tired of people not realizing how important and vital it is to realize that PRIVACY that involves two people is a secret that involves two people. It is no longer a secret. Period.

If it were illegal, then there wouldn't be any doubt. It would not be allowed. I think that is obvious.

However, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it should be allowed on a forum.

Eg: It's perfectly legal (at least in Denmark) to share and create animated children pornography. HOWEVER I'm absolutely certain that I'll get banned if I posted such things here.

In the same way, just because it's perfectly fine and legal to share PMs, doesn't mean that it should be okay on this forum.

Why else have rules? Why not just say: If it's legal it's fine, if it's not it's not fine.

Please answer this.

 

[Cyivel]

I like that picture, it's nice.

Can't just all be about babes on bikes.

 

[Netserk]

Well, see my comment above. Now, tell me truly, don't you see how some people might take offense at this? On multiple levels? Work at it for a minute - I think you will get it if you just try and think to yourself "How many people could get insulted by this? And how would they be insulted?" Put it through that filter. You're smart enough.

So, next, the question is, less that whether it should be permitted on the forum - but is it "moderate" in the sense of dignity that a moderator needs to maintain?

So some people might take offence. So ****ing what? I'm sure some people here take offence from what is posted in the BoB thread.

If people took offence from idiotic posts, should we then delete all those?

 

[hiero2]

If it were illegal, then there wouldn't be any doubt. It would not be allowed. I think that is obvious.

However, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it should be allowed on a forum.

Eg: It's perfectly legal (at least in Denmark) to share and create animated children pornography. HOWEVER I'm absolutely certain that I'll get banned if I posted such things here.

In the same way, just because it's perfectly fine and legal to share PMs, doesn't mean that it should be okay on this forum.

Why else have rules? Why not just say: If it's legal it's fine, if it's not it's not fine.

Please answer this.

Ok, so we say it is legal to share PM's, even in Denmark? So, we will not further worry about the legality of it. Then that leaves the forum rules, and personal manners, and power. The forum rules do not prohibit sharing PM's, as I recall. Please refresh my memory if I've forgotten something. What does that leave us? Personal manners, yes? How many people do you trust with your secrets? How many people are good enough friends to you that you can trust them with your secrets? Ah, perhaps you are a lucky man, and those friends whom you can trust are multitude, but I assure you that most people do not have such friends. If they do have such friends, I assure you, such friends will likely be counted on the fingers of one hand, with fingers left over. So what other possibilities do we have? Are you powerful? Then people will keep your secrets so long as they think you can fire them or hurt them in some way. Is that likely when you send someone a PM?

Even if it were to be made against the rules - have you not observed how artful some people are at pushing the limits of the rules beyond what they were intended to prevent? And, in the worst case, one could share at least ONE PM before one was banned. If it was a juicy share, how "private" would it remain? If you come to the conclusion of "not at all", then we are at the same place.

So some people might take offence. So ****ing what? I'm sure some people here take offence from what is posted in the BoB thread.

If people took offence from idiotic posts, should we then delete all those?

Ok - you agree then, that some people might take offence? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[the sceptic]

So some people might take offence. So ****ing what? I'm sure some people here take offence from what is posted in the BoB thread.

If people took offence from idiotic posts, should we then delete all those?

The post isnt offensive because of the picture, its offensive because he is making a homophobic joke.

• Using racist, sexist, homophobic or hateful language.

The rules are pretty clear on that, and for good reason. That stuff shouldnt be acceptable.

 

[Netserk]

Ok, so we say it is legal to share PM's, even in Denmark? So, we will not further worry about the legality of it. Then that leaves the forum rules, and personal manners, and power. The forum rules do not prohibit sharing PM's, as I recall. Please refresh my memory if I've forgotten something. What does that leave us? Personal manners, yes? How many people do you trust with your secrets? How many people are good enough friends to you that you can trust them with your secrets? Ah, perhaps you are a lucky man, and those friends whom you can trust are multitude, but I assure you that most people do not have such friends. If they do have such friends, I assure you, such friends will likely be counted on the fingers of one hand, with fingers left over. So what other possibilities do we have? Are you powerful? Then people will keep your secrets so long as they think you can fire them or hurt them in some way. Is that likely when you send someone a PM?

Even if it were to be made against the rules - have you not observed how artful some people are at pushing the limits of the rules beyond what they were intended to prevent? And, in the worst case, one could share at least ONE PM before one was banned. If it was a juicy share, how "private" would it remain? If you come to the conclusion of "not at all", then we are at the same place.

Is it legal according to British law (which is the only law that matter)? Yes. Is it *explicitly* stated in the rules that it's forbidden? No.

Is it *explicitly* against the rules for a former mod to publish what has been written in the staff room? Is it against the law? No to both.

If you were a mod and saw someone reported that a former mod had published conversations from the staff room, would you with the current sets of rules moderate it or let it be?

Do you think it should be okay to publish PMs? I don't. I think one should be allowed to publish those you send, but not those you receive. What is your opinion on this matter?

Ok - you agree then, that some people might take offence? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I don't know. I'm not a mind reader. Perhaps some would take offence. Maybe it's even highly likely.

Maybe there are people who take offence from this post. I don't know. Should I delete it because of that?

 

[Netserk]

The post isnt offensive because of the picture, its offensive because he is making a homophobic joke.



The rules are pretty clear on that, and for good reason. That stuff shouldnt be acceptable.

Would you have reported it if it was me and not sb who had posted it? I think not.

Just because a joke involves the topic of homosexuality doesn't make it homophobic.

 

[hiero2]

Is it legal according to British law (which is the only law that matter)? Yes. Is it *explicitly* stated in the rules that it's forbidden? No.

Is it *explicitly* against the rules for a former mod to publish what has been written in the staff room? Is it against the law? No to both.

If you were a mod and saw someone reported that a former mod had published conversations from the staff room, would you with the current sets of rules moderate it or let it be?

Do you think it should be okay to publish PMs? I don't. I think one should be allowed to publish those you send, but not those you receive. What is our opinion on this matter?



I don't know. I'm not a mind reader. Perhaps some would take offence. Maybe it's even highly likely.

Maybe there are people who take offence from this post. I don't know. Should I delete it because of that?

Nets; I've got to make this real quick - cuz I've got work to do. It may not, therefore, but adequate as an answer. However --

Publishing PM's - I write my PM's as though the receiver WILL publish it. Why? Because I CAN NOT prevent them from doing so. IT IS NOT MY CHOICE. It is THEIR choice. Therefore, I don't have a problem with it if they DO publish it. Regardless of what you do, even when you become the King of Denmark, you will not be able to prevent all the people from sharing what you said. Based on that, what is the wisest course of action? Simply, don't share what you can't bear. I don't care if you play the Red Queen: "Off with their heads!" - someone is going to tell. Why act after the fact?

Offence, and taste: Is style something that is mandated by rules? I think not. Thus, you have to realize that not everything can be written into rules.

As for taking offence, I sincerely believe that you DO understand that some people WILL take offence at the picture. After all - you have REAL-TIME replies that indicate a sense of being offended, yes? If some people really DO take offence, does that mean it should be deleted? How are those two thoughts connected?

Pay attention, how are they connected? They are not, to my knowledge. Someone can take offense, it does not mean something needs to be deleted. To delete, first, we must have a sense that the COMMUNITY feels some offense. And, we must have a sense of HOW MUCH of the community feels offense. Let's say, hypothetically, we were a skinhead forum. Would we find such a post offensive? Probably not. Are we a skinhead forum? No. We are a bicycling forum. We might have some skinheads who are cyclists. They should feel as welcome as any dark-skinned Jewish Tutsi Nigerian from Armenia to post here. But they can not be allowed to dictate the contents of any posts.

My point is you are conflating "post deletion" with "good taste". You and I know that BroDeal and others are the target of frequent complaints. Yes? Why did we not delete the offending posts? Because, while they may not have been in "good taste", they were not against the rules, either. I may not be saying this as completely or as well as I would like - but I gtg, dude. Sorry. I really believe in your capacity and intelligence, and thus, I believe that you are capable of understanding exactly what I am saying. I recognize that you often do not WANT to fully recognize what I am saying, as you are still attached to what you WANT to be true.

gtg

cheers
M

 

[sittingbison]

This post gets me an infraction, while said mod is busy making unfunny homophobic jokes.

Another fine example of CN moderation.

Infraction? Did you get a warning? Accrue any infraction points? Where you threatened?

Or did you get zero infraction points, no warning, no threats, but instead a polite request to stop the baiting?

Homophobic joke? You took my jab at notorious roomies Chris and Ritchie as a homophobic? Eyes of the beholder thesceptic

 

[Netserk]

Nets; I've got to make this real quick - cuz I've got work to do. It may not, therefore, but adequate as an answer. However --

Publishing PM's - I write my PM's as though the receiver WILL publish it. Why? Because I CAN NOT prevent them from doing so. IT IS NOT MY CHOICE. It is THEIR choice. Therefore, I don't have a problem with it if they DO publish it. Regardless of what you do, even when you become the King of Denmark, you will not be able to prevent all the people from sharing what you said. Based on that, what is the wisest course of action? Simply, don't share what you can't bear. I don't care if you play the Red Queen: "Off with their heads!" - someone is going to tell. Why act after the fact?

I note that you despite the fact that you have time to write a wall of text, haven't answered my very simply question.

Would you act 'after the fact' if a mod published what was written in the staff room? You can stop it just as much as you can stop PMs, porn, insults etc.

So if I send threats to other posters here over PM, will a mod be able to prevent it? 'Why act after the fact'? What an absurd question.

 

[spalco]

Homophobic joke? You took my jab at notorious roomies Chris and Ritchie as a homophobic? Eyes of the beholder thesceptic

Don't be obtuse. Aside from that sort of joke being very childish indeed, of course it implies there being something wrong with homosexuality and thus is homophobic.

So what if Froome and Porte did enjoy rubbing lotion over each others' bodies, why would that make them a valid subject of mockery unless you think there's something icky about being gay?

Besides, even if you don't think it's homophobic to call someone gay who's never made any public indication whatsoever of that being factual, how is it even remotely on topic of the question of whether he's a doping cheat or not?

 

[timmers]

Don't be obtuse. Aside from that sort of joke being very childish indeed, of course it implies there being something wrong with homosexuality and thus is homophobic.

So what if Froome and Porte did enjoy rubbing lotion over each others' bodies, why would that make them a valid subject of mockery unless you think there's something icky about being gay?

Besides, even if you don't think it's homophobic to call someone gay who's never made any public indication whatsoever of that being factual, how is it even remotely on topic of the question of whether he's a doping cheat or not?

Well that's irrelevant on the CN forums as they are public figures so the community can accuse them of anything they like! Drug taking, lying and being homosexual. You view on what is worse may vary!

 

[BroDeal]

And another brilliant bit of moderation. A week after a post of Froome with a horrific sunburn is posted, proving that Sky's attention to detail has once again proved to be a con job, Eshnar decides to delete it and everything else connected to it. Good job at trying to close down all discussion.

The forum is on its last legs and the mods are doing their best to knock the remaining ones out from under us.

Bring back thehog.

 

[Eshnar]

And another brilliant bit of moderation. A week after a post of Froome with a horrific sunburn is posted, proving that Sky's attention to detail has once again proved to be a con job, Eshnar decides to delete it and everything else connected to it. Good job at trying to close down all discussion.

The forum is on its last legs and the mods are doing their best to knock the remaining ones out from under us.

Bring back thehog.

What if I told you thehog is not banned? Don't have to bring him back.