Moderators

[Hugh Januss]

when do we start?

Way ahead of you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

if they have joined for no other purpose than to hijack and derail a thread, then yes. IMO....and like it or lump it it IS my opinion that counts in this situation....this was a new member who joined for exactly that purpose, not genuinely interested in honest debate or discussion.

It's abundantly clear you made no effort to PM them, or actually find out if they would abide by the rules (the written ones, or the made up on the spot ones).

And as Tom points out - they were not exactly scoring hits with their technique.
In most cases they were rebuffed with sound enough posts.
And as long as they are on topic - they are not derailing a thread. The topic was Sky, people are allowed believe or not believe, they can even be stupid, intelligent.

 

[patricknd]

if they have joined for no other purpose than to hijack and derail a thread, then yes. IMO....and like it or lump it it IS my opinion that counts in this situation....this was a new member who joined for exactly that purpose, not genuinely interested in honest debate or discussion.

That's ****ing nuts.

 

[The Hitch]

Oh come on I understand if you want to contest the ban but don't pretend it was naive poster, it was clearly a troll account and most likely Joachim or one of his students. The exact same mo. as Joachim used a year ago with the poliyeness, the constant changing of subject and the unbudged stand on the - you've got no evidence and never will, line. The only exception was that he didn't try this time to claim to be a foreigner (incidentally on the other side after trying initially to pass of as Belgian Joachim accidentally let slip he's fully British afterall).

And it's not that he was rehashing arguments but that he was rehashing clinic baits such as asking why people bother watch cycling if they think it's doped. That's a comment that's been made a thousand times in the clinic and 99.9% of times by trolls.
The very first post was a clinic bait to begin with- saying the clinic had convicted sky purely on performance. that's not someone asking a question that's someone egging for a particular reaction.

No surprise that he went the - so lets ban all winners, route. Usually takes trolls a few weeks to cover all 3 not half a day.

And pretty much every post brought up another one of the tired clinic sky debates, at times met with immediate responses from several posters at once. From a new poster just after registering, that's some coincidence.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh come on I understand if you want to contest the ban but don't pretend it was naive poster, it was clearly a troll account and most likely Joachim or one of his students. The exact same mo. as Joachim used a year ago with the poliyeness, the constant changing of subject and the unbudged stand on the - you've got no evidence and never will, line. The only exception was that he didn't try this time to claim to be a foreigner (incidentally on the other side after trying initially to pass of as Belgian Joachim accidentally let slip he's fully British afterall).

And it's not that he was rehashing arguments but that he was rehashing clinic baits such as asking why people bother watch cycling if they think it's doped. That's a comment that's been made a thousand times in the clinic and 99.9% of times by trolls.
The very first post was a clinic bait to begin with- saying the clinic had convicted sky purely on performance. that's not someone asking a question that's someone egging for a particular reaction.

No surprise that he went the - so lets ban all winners, route. Usually takes trolls a few weeks to cover all 3 not half a day.

And pretty much every post brought up another one of the tired clinic sky debates, at times met with immediate responses from several posters at once. From a new poster just after registering, that's some coincidence.

I am not disagreeing with much that you say.

Indeed, it was you who spotted that it was likely Joachim - regardless, does any of that deserve a perma ban?

 

[the sceptic]

permaban seems harsh at first, but trolls like that have only one purpose and theyre not going to change or listen to any arguments to their troll posts. Id rather nuke them too early than too late, like with Joachim.

If by some chance it was a real person, im sure he will find his way to his natural habitat over on BikeRetard.

 

[sittingbison]

..it was likely Joachim - regardless, does any of that deserve a perma ban?

now THAT DR.Maserati is a very interesting topic...for a thread of its own. In which I would gladly participate in my capacity as a fellow forum member

 

[sittingbison]

... but I assume from your comments that this was not a replica account of Joachim etc... Just you and sceptic felt it ???...

It wasn't just me and the sceptic who felt it. And yes, it is a sockpuppet account.

"...I thought the responses he got from people that say "Sky are doping" were mostly intelligent , to the point and would have been generally thought provoking if you came into the Sky thread blinkered and a bit naive (as is possible with the new member). Particularly thought the posts of Red Flanders were very good....

problem is Tom375 that trolling like this takes advantage of people like red_flanders and liberty seguros good natures, inciting them to give full and accurate answers to disingenuous questions. Also winds up the usual suspects, so the thread becomes circular.

”All Of This Has Happened Before And Will Happen Again”

 

[Dr. Maserati]

now THAT DR.Maserati is a very interesting topic...for a thread of its own. In which I would gladly participate in my capacity as a fellow forum member

Sure.

Now would be a good time to discuss are perma bans effective - we could ask BPC as he is back on another thread now.

 

[sittingbison]

Sure.

Now would be a good time to discuss are perma bans effective - we could ask BPC as he is back on another thread now.

effective? nothing to discuss

nuked

BTW censored_cyclist sent me a tweet yesterday lol

 

[End Corrupt Bannings]

It wasn't just me and the sceptic who felt it. And yes, it is a sockpuppet account.



problem is Tom375 that trolling like this takes advantage of people like red_flanders and liberty seguros good natures, inciting them to give full and accurate answers to disingenuous questions. Also winds up the usual suspects, so the thread becomes circular.

Classic. After saying you didn't know, you now through in the usual moderator smear that it was a sock account.

Why don't you be clear that you think it MIGHT have been a sock account because he said some things you didn't like that somebody else also said before. Just covering your back with that, pretending you've got some data when it's clear you don't, is utterly disingenuous. It's a cowardly smear on someone you appear to have banned for no reason whatsoever.

 

[sittingbison]

Classic. After saying you didn't know, you now through in the usual moderator smear that it was a sock account.

Why don't you be clear that you think it MIGHT have been a sock account because he said some things you didn't like that somebody else also said before. Just covering your back with that, pretending you've got some data when it's clear you don't, is utterly disingenuous. It's a cowardly smear on someone you appear to have banned for no reason whatsoever.

au contraire

Graham_S was not banninated for being a sockpuppet. It turns out he WAS a sockpuppet though, revealed after a more exhaustive check. Whodathunkit.

See the difference?

 

[red_flanders]

It wasn't just me and the sceptic who felt it. And yes, it is a sockpuppet account.



problem is Tom375 that trolling like this takes advantage of people like red_flanders and liberty seguros good natures, inciting them to give full and accurate answers to disingenuous questions. Also winds up the usual suspects, so the thread becomes circular.

So here's the thing. I am not asking for moderators to defend me, if that's what you mean. Are you suggesting that "inciting" me to give full and accurate answers to disingenuous questions is a bad thing? It was an opportunity to discuss the topic of the thread. I knew full well that this person was either a genuinely new member asking questions or a troll.

I think it's fair to give people the benefit of the doubt and welcome new members. I thought the questions were pretty good at allowing us to discuss the topic in a full and thoughtful manner, rather than the bickering and one-liners that had been the staple of the thread for some time. Disingenuous or not.

It became clear after a bit that this person wasn't really interested, but maybe I just liked hearing myself prattle on about the topic. Isn't that what discussion boards are for? Surely it was a content improvement over the previous banter?

I get that you had to ban him/her if they were a sockpuppet, but at least the discussion was interesting for a bit again. At least to me. I think a perma-ban for being disingenuous is an over-reaction, and sounds like that was the reason for the ban. Too bad.

 

[Netserk]

I am not disagreeing with much that you say.

Indeed, it was you who spotted that it was likely Joachim - regardless, does any of that deserve a perma ban?

Either you ban sock puppets (harshly) or you don't ban anyone at all.

 

[sittingbison]

So here's the thing. I am not asking for moderators to defend me, if that's what you mean. Are you suggesting that "inciting" me to give full and accurate answers to disingenuous questions is a bad thing? It was an opportunity to discuss the topic of the thread. I knew full well that this person was either a genuinely new member asking questions or a troll.

I think it's fair to give people the benefit of the doubt and welcome new members. I thought the questions were pretty good at allowing us to discuss the topic in a full and thoughtful manner, rather than the bickering and one-liners that had been the staple of the thread for some time. Disingenuous or not.

It became clear after a bit that this person wasn't really interested, but maybe I just liked hearing myself prattle on about the topic. Isn't that what discussion boards are for? Surely it was a content improvement over the previous banter?

I get that you had to ban him/her if they were a sockpuppet, but at least the discussion was interesting for a bit again. At least to me. I think a perma-ban for being disingenuous is an over-reaction, and sounds like that was the reason for the ban. Too bad.

I saw all the red_flanders, and I also liked the erudite responses that posted. They actually refocused some of the underlying issues from the quagmire. Problem is that it ends up as a train wreck....think Joachim and laura lyn. So I nipped it in the bud, especially as the weekend is approaching.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

permaban seems harsh at first, but trolls like that have only one purpose and theyre not going to change or listen to any arguments to their troll posts. Id rather nuke them too early than too late, like with Joachim.

 

[The Hitch]

I am not disagreeing with much that you say.

Indeed, it was you who spotted that it was likely Joachim - regardless, does any of that deserve a perma ban?

I don't know if it deserves a perma ban. I was mainly responding to the posters who tried to say the account was innocent.

Whether it deserves a perma ban, I can understand both sides of the coin. Its better for the forum in the long run but on the other hand also dangerous to not make clear what the standards are how they are broken in order for a perma ban.

What I would say however is that its been discussed for years now on this forum that new posters maybe should get treated a little differently, because of how many times trolls just kept registering new accounts.

A new poster (one who registered 24 hours earlier) really has a lot less to lose if they get perma banned, so the mods can be a little more free with that option. There's no identity yet, no posting history and they can always just reregister with a new account without any difference.

The more restraint a troll has to show from the get go on the other hand, the less likely they are to come on.

 

[red_flanders]

I saw all the red_flanders, and I also liked the erudite responses that posted. They actually refocused some of the underlying issues from the quagmire. Problem is that it ends up as a train wreck....think Joachim and laura lyn. So I nipped it in the bud, especially as the weekend is approaching.

I thought an old thread was a bit re-invigorated and you came in early, but not a big deal. You're right it would have eventually ended in the same place. Just wonder if you all can wait 'till it becomes a problem moving forward. Thanks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So here's the thing. I am not asking for moderators to defend me, if that's what you mean. Are you suggesting that "inciting" me to give full and accurate answers to disingenuous questions is a bad thing? It was an opportunity to discuss the topic of the thread. I knew full well that this person was either a genuinely new member asking questions or a troll.

I think it's fair to give people the benefit of the doubt and welcome new members. I thought the questions were pretty good at allowing us to discuss the topic in a full and thoughtful manner, rather than the bickering and one-liners that had been the staple of the thread for some time. Disingenuous or not.

It became clear after a bit that this person wasn't really interested, but maybe I just liked hearing myself prattle on about the topic. Isn't that what discussion boards are for? Surely it was a content improvement over the previous banter?

I get that you had to ban him/her if they were a sockpuppet, but at least the discussion was interesting for a bit again. At least to me. I think a perma-ban for being disingenuous is an over-reaction, and sounds like that was the reason for the ban. Too bad.

Bu all kinds of crazy could break out - you may have forced the other person to address your points, put up a well thought out reply to counter or correct your excellent points.
This then may have had you coming up with another reply......

Best to nip it in the bud, just call him a skybot or tell them to shut up and if the trolling does not work then seek a perma ban.

 

[BroDeal]

In the past I have given Daniel Benson a hard time about stonewalling about the Papp situation. Now that I know the real story, what I wrote was not warranted.

 

[Granville57]

In the past I have given Daniel Benson a hard time about stonewalling about the Papp situation. Now that I know the real story, what I wrote was not warranted.

I'm guessing that's why your inbox is full?

 

[BroDeal]

I'm guessing that's why your inbox is full?

Nope. That is because this forum only allows 50 PMs. That has always been annoying.

 

[red_flanders]

In the past I have given Daniel Benson a hard time about stonewalling about the Papp situation. Now that I know the real story, what I wrote was not warranted.

Good on you for bringing it up and the mea culpa.

I'll be honest, in my time behind the scenes, I would say that 90% of what the members think is some kind of plot or conspiracy on the part of the staff or mods is completely off-base. Few will believe that, but it is my experience.

We'd all be better off assuming no malice and trying to problem solve.

Dr. Mas has a good idea with the Sidebar thread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good on you for bringing it up and the mea culpa.

I'll be honest, in my time behind the scenes, I would say that 90% of what the members think is some kind of plot or conspiracy on the part of the staff or mods is completely off-base. Few will believe that, but it is my experience.

We'd all be better off assuming no malice and trying to problem solve.

Dr. Mas has a good idea with the Sidebar thread.

I was always in the 10% - to me it seemed a classic "he said, she said", I know who to believe but, CN were not in position to do much, and perhaps someone even made it 'legal' (If it wasn't going to be buried, that will bury it)

But now a new twist - if Bro is insinuating something, he should put up or shut up.

 

[Granville57]

Nope. That is because this forum only allows 50 PMs. That has always been annoying.

Could you clear a few out then?