Moderators

[Dr. Maserati]

Will I find more posts from Daniel Benson warning people to stop (allegedly) harassing another poster? In all my time here that's the first one I've seen.

You do realise it is part of the rules? Right?

So yes, Daniel and the other mods should enforce them, if they are not enforced people will ignore them. Simple stuff.

... Chasing / harassing / flaming other users, regardless of who instigated it.
• Harassing other users by having a continuous negative or bitter attitude towards them.
• Harassing the moderators or administrators. Cooperation with moderators is expected. If you have a complaint about a moderator, write directly to a different moderator.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Way too heavy handed on the bans.
The clinic threads was free flowing, no problem.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think we will leave it at that red_flanders. I have bolded the pertinent portions to remind you of the inherent problem

cheers
bison

IMO, you got this interpretation wrong, it is not personal if someone uses the word you when responding to a specific post or poster.

A simple rule of thumb - can the word 'you' be substituted with 'your point/opinion' - if so, it is then not actually a post on the person, just on their personal opinion.

 

[sittingbison]

IMO, you got this interpretation wrong, it is not personal if someone uses the word you when responding to a specific post or poster.

A simple rule of thumb - can the word 'you' be substituted with 'your point/opinion' - if so, it is then not actually a post on the person, just on their personal opinion.

In this instance I believe I got the interpretation correct. Especially given the recent history of that thread.

Guidelines for Posting
Post, not the poster. If you don't like what a post says, counter the post. Do not attack the poster...If you are using the word "you", you are probably engaging in a personal attack.

Bolded the pertinent word for this case.

red_flanders could have responded in a variety of ways, with something like this perhaps less personal:

quote what race radio posted

"Frankie, who knows exactly what happened, offers a different perspective/begs to differ/disagrees take your pick"

quote frankie

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In this instance I believe I got the interpretation correct. Especially given the recent history of that thread.


Bolded the pertinent word for this case.

red_flanders could have responded in a variety of ways, with something like this perhaps less personal:


"Frankie, who knows exactly what happened, offers a different perspective/begs to differ/disagrees take your pick"

Ok, but that isn't what you waded in to the thread for - you (yes you) said "I think we will leave it at that red_flanders. I have bolded the pertinent portions to remind you of the inherent problem".

You are basically asking RF not to post a perfectly legitimate question to someone who has offered their personal opinion.
As well as that in no way shape or form can RFs question be interpreted as a 'personal attack'.

 

[BroDeal]

You have to be freaking kidding me. Now we cannot use the word "you" when referring to a poster whose post we are responding to. It's like some kind of bizarro world here.

Bring back the "This forum blows" thread. It is desperately needed.

 

[sittingbison]

...You are basically asking RF not to post a perfectly legitimate question to someone who has offered their personal opinion...

red_flanders did not ask a perfectly legitimate question, or any other kind of question.

...in no way shape or form can RFs question be interpreted as a 'personal attack'.

I understand that, which is why red_flanders was not warned/threatened/sanctioned in any way other than a polite request to desist from continuing in that vein. I have bolded the pertinent aspect of the guidelines namely "probably", so before the situation AGAIN gets out of hand with hounding another member and making it all about them and not about the topic I have chosen to nip it in the bud.

And as I said above, there are more than one way to skin a cat, red_flanders could have chosen other methods to disagree with what race radio wrote without making it all about race radio.

 

[sittingbison]

You have to be freaking kidding me. Now we cannot use the word "you" when referring to a poster whose post we are responding to. It's like some kind of bizarro world here.

Bring back the "This forum blows" thread. It is desperately needed.

of course you can, provided the context of the post is about what they post and not about them.

Play the ball not the man. Shoot the message not the messenger. Simple

 

[Dr. Maserati]

red_flanders did not ask a perfectly legitimate question, or any other kind of question.

Ok then - answer this, what was wrong with RFs question??


RR offered his opinion, as he is entitled to do so, and RF queried that, as he is entitled to do so. Pretty basic stuff.

I understand that, which is why red_flanders was not warned/threatened/sanctioned in any way other than a polite request to desist from continuing in that vein. I have bolded the pertinent aspect of the guidelines namely "probably", so before the situation AGAIN gets out of hand with hounding another member and making it all about them and not about the topic I have chosen to nip it in the bud.

And as I said above, there are more than one way to skin a cat, red_flanders could have chosen other methods to disagree with what race radio wrote without making it all about race radio.

No - this is simply wrong.
If you want to stop the 'hounding' then hit them (the hounders) with a ban - what you are doing is asking someone to desist from rightly querying someone for others trolling. You have basically flipped from one extreme to the other.

I do feel some sympathy for you having to interpret 'rules' effectively on your own - but when you are wrong I will point it out.

 

[MarkvW]

of course you can, provided the context of the post is about what they post and not about them.

Play the ball not the man. Shoot the message not the messenger. Simple

When the same ball is put into play, over and over and over, isn't the messenger asking to be played?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

When the same ball is put into play, over and over and over, isn't the messenger asking to be played?

Hold on - are we being trolled here? I agree with you as well as Bro.
Perhaps SB is engaging in reverse moderation?

The pity is SB is about to be banned by Berzin for taking the LA thread OT.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

perhaps an indication that said harassing had gone so far that even BENSON of all people sent a message? That's some kind of record innit?

we'll have to agree to disagree on the use of the word "harassing" to describe what was going on.

find it hard to believe Benson read any of the posts in the thread. hard to believe mods felt the situation was out of control and asked him to step in. hard to believe Benson saw multiple post flags and decided to take action personally.

easy to believe someone complained directly to Benson and he stepped in.

happy to be corrected, as always.

 

[sittingbison]

Ok then - answer this, what was wrong with RFs question??...

red_flanders did not ask a question, ha made a statement.

...RR offered his opinion, as he is entitled to do so, and RF queried that, as he is entitled to do so. Pretty basic stuff....

In principle I agree. However red_flanders did not query anything, he made a statement, and did it in a personal manner which he is not entitled to do

...If you want to stop the 'hounding' then hit them (the hounders) with a ban - what you are doing is asking someone to desist from rightly querying someone for others trolling. You have basically flipped from one extreme to the other...

I am asking them to desist from doing so in a manner that focuses on the poster and not the post. I have never changed my position on that. DrMas, you often use terminology like "rightly querying", I am suggesting this case was not "rightly", or was borderline. So instead of hitting a possible hounder with a ban like you suggest, I politely asked him to desist. And given the recent history of that thread, and that poster, I consider it a legitimate request.

As I indicated above, red_flanders could pose exactly the same challenge to race radios post without making it about race radio.

 

[MarkvW]

Hold on - are we being trolled here? I agree with you as well as Bro.
Perhaps SB is engaging in reverse moderation?

The pity is SB is about to be banned by Berzin for taking the LA thread OT.

Wir musst unsere Berzin-befehlen folgen!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

red_flanders did not ask a question, ha made a statement.



In principle I agree. However red_flanders did not query anything, he made a statement, and did it in a personal manner which he is not entitled to do

Ok, it was a statement, not a question - I still do not see anything that makes it not legitimate to make, nor is it personal.
He is merely disagreeing with someone.

I am asking them to desist from doing so in a manner that focuses on the poster and not the post. I have never changed my position on that. DrMas, you often use terminology like "rightly querying", I am suggesting this case was not "rightly", or was borderline. So instead of hitting a possible hounder with a ban like you suggest, I politely asked him to desist. And given the recent history of that thread, and that poster, I consider it a legitimate request.

As I indicated above, red_flanders could pose exactly the same challenge to race radios post without making it about race radio.

Again - RF did not attack RR.
he made no mention of RR in a personal way, he rightly pointed out a counterpoint to RRs (personal) interpretation.

The highlighted is pretty much for me, where you are misreading this. Forget the posters, it is not about them. All members should be afforded the same protection.
Judge posts on their actual content, not the subject and definitely not the author.

 

[sittingbison]

we'll have to agree to disagree on the use of the word "harassing" to describe what was going on...

yup, we will have to disagree

...find it hard to believe Benson read any of the posts in the thread....

this time Benson read them all

...hard to believe mods felt the situation was out of control and asked him to step in.....

correctomundo

...hard to believe Benson saw multiple post flags and decided to take action personally...

incorrectomundo. Benson saw the 40 odd post flags, just like I did, and for a change decided to take action personally

...easy to believe someone complained directly to Benson and he stepped in.

happy to be corrected, as always.

easy to believe, but in this case you would be wrong

happy to correct you, as always

 

[sittingbison]

..Forget the posters, it is not about them. All members should be afforded the same protection. Judge posts on their actual content, not the subject and definitely not the author.

On this we completely agree DrMas, and on that note it will have to be it 'till next week. Unless Berzin banninates my arse for taking the LA thread OT

 

[Dr. Maserati]

On this we completely agree DrMas, and on that note it will have to be it 'till next week. Unless Berzin banninates my arse for taking the LA thread OT

Cool, I will say - that I do appreciate what you do here, because you do have a genuine interest in this place and yet are left very much on your own with little input or direction from Future HQ - and thats not right or fair.
But, that is also the reason why if I think you have erred, I will say so.

We may not always agree, but we can certainly remain civil - enjoy your weekend.

 

[red_flanders]

As I said in PM, you're wrong on this one. It happens. This is the post I responded to. Note the phrasing.

It appears you missed the part where George says Frankie was "Demanding" drugs or Lance says Frankie doped " like all of us".....The title of the story was "Armstrong, Hincapie say there is more to the Andreus' story"

I simply repeated the phrasing as a device. It was not personal. It was a response to an argument that had pointedly been ignored a couple of times, while more inflammatory content was responded to which of course set off more flaming.

I pointedly have kept to the topic and not made it personal. I hope you can step back and see this, and I hope you all can level-set on this a little better as a team.

No biggie, it happens and I will think about your point of view. But if you were to actually enforce what you're calling a personal attack in this case, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it would be nearly impossible for people to disagree on this board.

Hope that helps.

 

[Netserk]

In this instance I believe I got the interpretation correct. Especially given the recent history of that thread.


Bolded the pertinent word for this case.

red_flanders could have responded in a variety of ways, with something like this perhaps less personal:


"Frankie, who knows exactly what happened, offers a different perspective/begs to differ/disagrees take your pick"

Tbh The Guidelines For Posting sucks major donkey balls.

Maybe that has something to do with how it was implemented.

 

[the sceptic]

Why is hog banned? Free hog.

 

[Daniel Benson]

For constantly ignoring warnings from the moderators, as it says in another thread.

 

[Netserk]

Hi Dan will you answer this?

Here goes a question for Dan (or any mod who can answer it):

What constitutes 'contact' in Future's T&C 5.19?

If you can't or won't answer, will you then tell me who to ask?

 

[Daniel Benson]

There is a contact address at the end of the T&Cs.

 

[Roude Leiw]

Mods should sticky / unsticky the races in the road race forum on a regular basis. Ftm this is kind of sloppy