Moderators

[Netserk]

This is a crazy idea I know, but- if OT stuff gets in to a thread, maybe move it to the appropriate thread.
Maybe the software that could do that hasn't been invented yet.

Or maybe delete it.
Or maybe post a warning (and follow up on it).

On the other hand, if the entire clinic was closed for a week, I'm sure the mods would have less to do. Seems like a good plan

 

[ebandit]

wtf

wtf? did I miss something.............did someone post something about lance

all I read was pages of what members thought big george said

or b!itchin about what other members thought big george really intended

Mark L

 

[mewmewmew13]

24 hour shutdown is more than a minor plunging problem…

it seems before there were some warning shots fired before the sinking

 

[Netserk]

As for closing threads. Why punish everybody? Who does that help?

If I was a skybot and wanted to silence all discussion in the clinic re Sky, why should the mods help me? With this approach all I'd have to do would be to take the thread(s) off topic for some time, and then a mod would come and close it, so all those who wants to discuss the topic can't. I could then move on to the next thread and with the help from the mods get that closed as well.

Can't you see that you punishing the wrong ones?

 

[Netserk]

24 hour shutdown is more than a minor plunging problem…

it seems before there were some warning shots fired before the sinking

So instead of following up on those warnings, it's better to punish everybody? Really?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Or maybe delete it.
Or maybe post a warning (and follow up on it).

On the other hand, if the entire clinic was closed for a week, I'm sure the mods would have less to do. Seems like a good plan

I wasn't going to respond as I initially agreed with you, but actually, nope - not delete posts. If something is merely OT, then pop in the appropriate thread or create a new one. If the topic has merit then the thread thrives if it isn't it dies.

24 hour shutdown is more than a minor plunging problem…

it seems before there were some warning shots fired before the sinking

You don't need to close a thread to to plug a problem.
What's posted is posted, and long since debated, discussed or trolled.

Closing a thread in this manner is at best petulance. At best.

 

[ebandit]

poor bairn

Why punish everybody?

poor bairn...................it's a tough life

plenty of other threads

your caring skybot

 

[Netserk]

Another thing regarding closing of threads.

Please learn from the BoB mistake.

 

[Scott SoCal]

I want to congratulate the mods on another fine piece of moderating. For once some spirited debate breaks out, with people who are normally aligned taking different sides, and the mods decide they would rather have no discussion. Fine fine work.

Easy.

You keep this up they will show you real power and shut this one down (again).

 

[MarkvW]

Easy.

You keep this up they will show you real power and shut this one down (again).

Hard for me to figure out where Berzin is going with this one. The thread wasn't particularly uncivil--especially to Berzin (who lambasted me when I argued for civility).

I can only guess that Berzin didn't like what was being said and that the limit of his mod authority was the authority to terminate the thread for a day.

This kind of moderation is extremely poor because we're left to guess at the reasons for it.

 

[hiero2]

Is it against the rules to publish what has been written in the Staff Room?

You're trolling, dude. That is a distraction from the topic. But, the answer is "no". Keep in mind a training principle: "consequences".

Hold on now, lets not rush to judgement - the rapid response unit is on scene and I think it only prudent to wait and see what has happened.

Obviously as the thread is closed for 24 hours it is catastrophic.
This is more than mentioning Sheryl Crow, this is serious - I fear someone may have written something bad about Betsy, or worse LeMond.

Dr Mas for forum mod!

I wasn't going to respond as I initially agreed with you, but actually, nope - not delete posts. If something is merely OT, then pop in the appropriate thread or create a new one. If the topic has merit then the thread thrives if it isn't it dies.


You don't need to close a thread to to plug a problem.
What's posted is posted, and long since debated, discussed or trolled.

Closing a thread in this manner is at best petulance. At best.

Dr Mas for forum mod!

Hard for me to figure out where Berzin is going with this one. The thread wasn't particularly uncivil--especially to Berzin (who lambasted me when I argued for civility).

I can only guess that Berzin didn't like what was being said and that the limit of his mod authority was the authority to terminate the thread for a day.

This kind of moderation is extremely poor because we're left to guess at the reasons for it.

Huh. Yeah. Makes sense.

 

[Netserk]

You're trolling, dude. That is a distraction from the topic. But, the answer is "no". Keep in mind a training principle: "consequences".

No I'm not. There are some parallels between the two, which was why I asked. Both are legal, and both are not explicitly against the rules. And they are more or less the same. Private messages. Either directly between two posters, or in a forum for a specific number of posters.

Which was why I earlier asked you this: "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?"

And here is a second question: If a former mod published several pages from the staff room, do you think any of the current mods will act? What do you think the response will be, and what do you think it should be?

 

[Netserk]

Dr Mas for forum mod!

Does this mean that you agree with Mas?

 

[Christian]

And here is a second question: If a former mod published several pages from the staff room, do you think any of the current mods will act? What do you think the response will be, and what do you think it should be?

Tough one. On the one hand, it seems like in football for example, where what is said in the locker room is never meant to reach the public, and when it does, clubs get really angry and hunt the rat who snitched it to the press. This feels like a similar situation. Of course for you there would be no possibility to remain an "anonymous source", especially since you announced it in this thread. I think other posters might not interprete this positively, and you might not coming out of this looking good.

On the other hand, it depends on the information. If the information is truly outrageous and shocking - say, CN secretely spies on us through the webcams on our computers - then you would be seen as an Edward Snowden of sorts, a traitor for the greater good, a hero.

In either scenario, however, it will almost certainly result in a permanent ban, meaning you will have to hope the miniature Putin over at velorooms will grant you asylum, but I'm sure you are aware of this. The question now is whether you consider the information important enough to be banned for life, and having to move to the Siberia of cycling forums. Careful though - you made a mistake by threatening the mods, thus informing them of the fact that you hold potentially damning evidence over them, and are willing to dispell it. If they know what it is, they might be shaking in their boots, and looking for any excuse to ban you before you get the chance to reveal the secrets.

And, quite frankly, by your recent posting you are making it relatively easy for them to ban you - it would be a bit of a stretch, but definitely not the least warranted ban that has ever occured on this forum. Which, of course, you also know a thing or two about: by setting the bar for bans extremely low during your modship, you might now trip over it yourself.

So my advice would be to try and stay low for a while, otherwise you might already start thinking of a new alias for dimface's kingdom.... (that is, if you don't already have one).

 

[Netserk]

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not threatening to do anything. Just like I never will publish PMs (other than in the Staff Room when they were send to me as a mod, where it was something directed towards the whole crew, and not myself only), I will of course not publish what has been written in the Staff Room.

I agree with you that if a former mod published what has been written there, the former mod should be banned. It's something I expect and agree with.

I disagree that I so far have done anything ban worthy. Is it not allowed to draw parallels between the Staf Room and PMs?

Can you figure out why I asked the question to Hiero2?

...

Hiero2 argues that it's not illegal to publish PMs, nor is it mentioned in the rules that it's not allowed. I draw the parallel that Staff Room material is also legal to publish, and that the rules also don't mention that this is not allowed.

However, just because it's not explicitly mentioned in the rules, doesn't mean that it's allowed.

I used this line of reasoning to argue why it's not allowed to publish PMs. That just as I expect the mods to take action if private material from the Staff Room would be published, I also expect them to take action if private material from PMs would be published.

 

[Christian]

Ah, my bad! I thought the reason for you asking about the Staff Room was because you intended to post something out of it if you were allowed to. Since this is not the case, I assume it was a rhetorical question - maybe reminding hiero that he once drank wine in the Staff Room while preaching water in the forum? Since I don't know the content (and don't want to know, since it was Staff Room talk), I can only speculate, and it is futile to speculate.

The reason I said your posting was getting close to ban-worthy was that I felt an anti-authoritarian, provocative touch to it lately (in this specific thread), which I thought might be heading down a road that is not appreciated here (though I personally don't disagree with it). Though it was certainly also a little hyperbolic irony on my part as well.

/edit: disregard speculation in first paragraph, thanks for clarification
/edit2: regardless it might have been good to clear this up, since it seems hiero also misinterpreted your question, hence his accusation of you "trolling", which - as we all know - is a bannable offense....

 

[Netserk]

No it doesn't have anything to do with anything in the Staff Room, or anything Hiero has said.

Just that imho Staff Room and PMs are similar, and similar rules should apply.

edit:

And that I can't understand why Hiero2 think it's against the rules to publish what has been written in the Staff Room (okay he doesn't say this, but his "consequences" clearly suggest that he thinks so), but it's not against the rules to publish what has been written in PMs. His reasoning re. the PMs, should also mean that it'd be okay to publish what has been written in the Staff Room, no?

 

[Christian]

Just that imho Staff Room and PMs are similar, and similar rules should apply.

True! ten more characters

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ah to be an untouchable.

 

[Netserk]

Ah to be an untouchable.

Wasn't he banned for a week recently?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No it doesn't have anything to do with anything in the Staff Room, or anything Hiero has said.

Just that imho Staff Room and PMs are similar, and similar rules should apply.

edit:

And that I can't understand why Hiero2 think it's against the rules to publish what has been written in the Staff Room (okay he doesn't say this, but his "consequences" clearly suggest that he thinks so), but it's not against the rules to publish what has been written in PMs. His reasoning re. the PMs, should also mean that it'd be okay to publish what has been written in the Staff Room, no?

If the person had a problem, they could have flagged the post and had it removed. Instead, they accused me of being a sock puppet, posted a bunch of personal and derogatory stuff and then posted the actual content of the PM vs my subjective precis / interpretation of same.

I get you don't like it, but there were 2 in this tango, and he gave as good or even better, with subsequent jibes about not having a life, etc.

 

[Netserk]

If the person had a problem, they could have flagged the post and had it removed. Instead, they accused me of being a sock puppet, posted a bunch of personal and derogatory stuff and then posted the actual content of the PM vs my subjective precis / interpretation of same.

I get you don't like it, but there were 2 in this tango, and he gave as good or even better, with subsequent jibes about not having a life, etc.

The discussion predates your affair with RR, so it has nothing to do with that.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

As for staffroom vs PMs, to my mind the closest analogy is being on the board of a company and publishing closed board meeting minutes vs publishing an email someone sent you from work. Ignoring of course any corporate or employee - employer rules or law.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The discussion predates your affair with RR, so it has nothing to do with that.

Apologies, the timing seemed more than coincidental.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Wasn't he banned for a week recently?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1393541&postcount=23472