Moderators

[Barrus]

The problem with Tshame was more that there was absolutely nothing that would warrant his outburst, no measure had been taken with him, yet the first post in the thread he accuses moderators of doing something. That combined with his later attack of Alpe and the subsequent ignoring of personal approaches by me for an explanation about his actions ****ed me off and thus I gave him another chance to come up with an explanation and if he does, no foul, however it appears as though he only attacked the moderation to attack the moderation. Now that's all fine and dandy but don't open up a thread in the clinic just to do that

Examples of things that are out of line, to state without any real reason:

If you are an administrator, we don't need your opinion. Delete a few of the trolls here, but let us have our own discussions without some 'supervisor' thinking he knows better than all of us. You should be fired for threatening a poster who sees Landis is untrustworthy.

There is nothing in that thread or anything in the posting history of Shame to indicate that Alpe did anything like that. Nor do I think it is likely that Alpe did it to any other poster.

First, I am appalled by moderators statements. Can I not state my opinion without jeopardy? I am not making baseless accusations or posting hateful personal attacks. I do not want this thread buried in some miscellaneous thread about Armstrong or Landis. This is a separate, major issue using logic and basic human nature.

This again does not correspond with anything in the posting history of the guy and I do not believe that there is any case where an opinion in itself created jeopardy for the person who posted it.

If he had a real grievance I would not have been so strict, I would have been a lot more understanding. Yet this guy hardly posts and comes out stating these things, I get annoyed. Then ignoring when I psoe him questions about it.

 

[Francois the Postman]

A comment to the mods about their replies to TShame in his lame 'I believe Lance' thread. I thought his critique of the mod(s) was off-base but was not really a harsh or personal attack. Didn't in my opinion deserve the attention it got from other mods.

I read it when the thread started and assumed it alluded the sticky I put in that was a cue for the Clinic to stop creating a new thread for each news item. And to see if the topic you were broaching wasn't already covered well by another existing thread.

The sticky's title is an instruction to read the sticky and then figure out how it applies to the post you were planning to make.

He read the sticky and totally missed the plank, since he wasn't posting a media link (the main objective of the sticky), nor did we stop him form posting his opinion.

He then went into some rant about us trying to stop his freedom to create a new thread for his opinion on a general issue.

I completely ignored it, as I thought it would be obvious to a casual observer who was way off base and over the top. I am so oppressed here.

Still, with that intro, I expected that we would get something good and new after that. It was regurgitated so often (and never moderated either), that it almost made me laugh. I pretty much ignored that too, although I would have preferred to stick it in a place that had covered that. There were so many, I thought I would just let it die, as I assumed that our regulars would be bored to tears of these sort of OPs.

I am almost amazed how keen folk are to set everyone "right" here (whatever that is in their eyes).

I hate the put down facepalm pictures, but hey, it really is not a thread that bothers me. Not worth my time. I think most people will take one look and leave it be too. Or ought to.

I then read an accusation of what a mod here is supposed to have done, without giving me any substantiation, just a random accusation. It doesn't rhyme with the behaviour of any o the mods I see posting here at the moment, but it does rhyme with someone who doesn't always seems to see what is actually written.

We work flat-out here trying to keep everyone happy, and keep the Clinic interesting, attractive, and entertaining. It doesn't help if people start to depict moderation here by inventing actions, or at best totally overstate the importance of maybe one post in relation to the vast amount of posts and work that is actually taken place.

I take this is indeed what drew Barrus in, I more than understand where is coming from, and why he insists on getting to the bottom of it.

There are some cracking threads up just now, I'd rather get petty and pedantic in those, to help keep the substance in those to a certain level.

It appears the poster has an issue with us of his own making. If he just wanted to vent and get on with things, instead of wanting to drive a point that wasn't there for starters home, I guess he wouldn't have got the attention he now has volunteered for.

Barrus has been dealing with it. I am sure that if Tshame engaged with the attempt by Barrus to get clarification and communication going, things will be resolved reasonably.

At this moment, NO ACTION has been taken, although he has been given a clear indication that we won't leave it hanging, since he appeared to have picked the wrong area to have a tizzy in.

let's not put more coals on the fire before we are all stuck on positions that give us no space to show flexibility.

So it's all a bit of a storm in tea cup, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Just a note to thank the mods - the clinic has been much more readable recently, threads staying more on topic, etc.

 

[Race Radio]

The problem with Tshame was more that there was absolutely nothing that would warrant his outburst, no measure had been taken with him, yet the first post in the thread he accuses moderators of doing something. That combined with his later attack of Alpe and the subsequent ignoring of personal approaches by me for an explanation about his actions ****ed me off and thus I gave him another chance to come up with an explanation and if he does, no foul, however it appears as though he only attacked the moderation to attack the moderation. Now that's all fine and dandy but don't open up a thread in the clinic just to do that

Examples of things that are out of line, to state without any real reason:


There is nothing in that thread or anything in the posting history of Shame to indicate that Alpe did anything like that. Nor do I think it is likely that Alpe did it to any other poster.



This again does not correspond with anything in the posting history of the guy and I do not believe that there is any case where an opinion in itself created jeopardy for the person who posted it.

If he had a real grievance I would not have been so strict, I would have been a lot more understanding. Yet this guy hardly posts and comes out stating these things, I get annoyed. Then ignoring when I psoe him questions about it.

Most likely his perception of injustice happened to one of his other banned usernames?

 

[Barrus]

Most likely his perception of injustice happened to one of his other banned usernames?

I doubt he is the person you are referring to, seeing as this username has existed for almost 2 years. One would expect he would've used it prior if it was him. But I must agree that was my first thought as well, but did some checking prior to doing anything else and frankly I doubt he is that guy

 

[Race Radio]

I doubt he is the person you are referring to, seeing as this username has existed for almost 2 years. One would expect he would've used it prior if it was him. But I must agree that was my first thought as well, but did some checking prior to doing anything else and frankly I doubt he is that guy

I do not think he is BPC, there are many who have the same persecution complex.

 

[pedaling squares]

Barrus & FtP thanks for the feedback. To me, the point was that he was not derailing a thread but instead put stupid comments into his own thread, which did have some merit to it along with the silliness. And I thought his comments, having not drawn any support from others, did nothing other than make him look like someone with few ideas, but a persecution complex. Especially when he took a stand against someone as rational and balanced as Alpe. I'm probably a little sensitive to the threat of a ban as I see that as a last resort and as this place has been accused, wrongly in my opinion, of being quick to dismiss those who support Lance Armstrong. Allowing debate with a guy like TShame negates that feeble line of thought. But I wouldn't call this a tempest in a teacup as TShame's rantings could barely whip up a ripple in a warm bath. And I'm sure that, having emerged from hibernation, he will give us further reason to bring out the Jesus Christ facepalm (loved that one by the way).

 

[Ferminal]

I wanted him to respond to my posts

But he "trolled his own thread" by not considering any of the replies.

 

[Anonymous]

I wanted him to respond to my posts

But he "trolled his own thread" by not considering any of the replies.

Same problem here. He raised some points, i answered his points with well thought out responses and he did the age old troll trick of replying to them without actually replying to them, and then in a later post claiming that he addressed all of the points.

Hes one of these people who likes the sound of his own voice and has no interest in listenening to other people.

People like that, invariably go to far and blow up, and then do something justifying a ban. It will happen eventually.

As for the mod thing, i dont have the slightest idea what he is talking about. Im guessing hes a middle aged american, slightly overweight, discovered cycling in about 2001 and bought himself a bike in about 2003 which he rides occasionally. He only beleives what he hears on versus and deliberately avoids any articles critical of lance, and is currently going through something of a breakdown. We should be supporting people like this not punishing them.

 

[Ferminal]

As for the mod thing, i dont have the slightest idea what he is talking about. Im guessing hes a middle aged american, slightly overweight, discovered cycling in about 2001 and bought himself a bike in about 2003 which he rides occasionally. He only beleives what he hears on versus and deliberately avoids any articles critical of lance, and is currently going through something of a breakdown. We should be supporting people like this not punishing them.

It's ok, just another one to add to the list of PM recipients when **** goes down.

 

[Cobblestoned]

So, who can stand the truth ?

I don't care if I will be excluded, but it would be a sign of sovereign power if not.
I get pox when I see what is going on here and who always jumps into the discussion - the club and its usual suspects.
This is what I call taking influence and leading the forum into a certain direction.
This forum is/was undermined by certain people with a certain standing.

So should I start with the real script now ?
After that you are free to ban me - or accept.

 

[Martin318is]

So, who can stand the truth ?

I don't care if I will be excluded, but it would be a sign of sovereign power if not.
I get pox when I see what is going on here and who always jumps into the discussion - the club and its usual suspects.
This is what I call taking influence and leading the forum into a certain direction.
This forum is/was undermined by certain people with a certain standing.

So should I start with the real script now ?
After that you are free to ban me - or accept.

I have no idea what most of that actually means.

What does it have to do with a discussion on Moderators?

 

[peloton]

I have no idea what most of that actually means.

What does it have to do with a discussion on Moderators?

Cstoned, as usual, makes no sense.

 

[BotanyBay]

Susan, you just gave me a stern (and IMHO, unjustified) warning about off-topic photos in the Mercury thread on The Clinic.

I'll admit, I sometimes get a bit goofy with the photos, but in general, I try and liven up the purple and grey with a bit of "oomph". It makes things more interesting. Sometimes I'll make a point not with words, but with an image.

Those photos illustrated my point. That JV "clips-in" and hangs, and that he works in a sea of rats. They are by no means "off-topic".

Now, if you're point was that I was out of line for the "Warrant, Cherry Pie" photo on the LieStrong thread, I'd be more amenable.

In other words, I think you should lighten up and not be so heavy handed. If you remove all photos that seem to fit this new measure of "off-topic", this place would be far more boring and seriously affect the mood in a negative way.

I get messages ALL THE TIME where people applaud my image-driven posting style.


My opinion is that Susan drops in (from time-to-time) and applies her own personal version of justice, while the other mods rarely (if ever) have a negative thing to say about my images. I think the only incident I can recall is being asked to re-size them to be smaller.

 

[BotanyBay]

Susan has gone around chopping more of my image links out of my posts. I would appreciate it if this issue could be settled. I'd like to see a consensus from the mods and admins as to what's going to happen from here on out

Her definition of "off topic" is so strict that it would seem that we're only permitted to include a photo if the post absolutely requires imagery.

My photos are rarely "off topic". Sometimes I include them for the sake of pure humor, but I'm far from alone in doing that.

I think I "add value" to these discussions. I'm not a troll who derails discussions, and I have good, positive view to add to the discussions.

So big deal, I'm different. Flashy in my style. But that's my style. If you have a problem with an individual image, just ask me, and I'll take it down myself.

I'm very upset by this, because (in all honesty) Ms Westermeyer is not exactly an active participant here. Her impact is usually more of the disciplinarian, not a moderator. Threats are a big part of her vocabulary, and I dislike this greatly.

 

[runninboy]

I just wanted to give my opinion on the moderation of mentioning trolling in threads.
While i understand the need for moderation at the same time we are supposed to remain opened minded and yet always come to the conclusion that people make their points sincerely and with good intentions.

I had a little exchange in one thread and then the bulb went off in my head. I was reminded of a certain culture that i was thrust into in my youth. People would go down to the pub to have a drink, interact and exchange ideals on a wide variety of subjects. Often on things they knew nothing about. There were a few stereotypes of people participating. People who's opinion came from experience and knowledge on the subject, people who might lack the knowledge but replaced that with a great passion for the subject and the last group who only came to wind the others up. I was amazed at how this process was repeated over & over, no one was ever really enlightened, people would argue the details but there was no objective to the argument really. As someone's position would gradually be eroded by the facts at hand they would resort to arguments of perception of reality, it became this sort of Monty Pythonesque sketch of Philosophy and its application to the everyday world of the common man. This is the time the baiters would jump in and pile on with some theological reason as to why"everyone" participates at some level to something alluded to in a deragotory fashion.And how no man can judge another blah blah blah
Not meant as a way to elevate the conversation but just to keep things going in a contentious direction so as to occupy the time it took to consume and order more beer.
While i enjoy the forums it seems sometimes it is OK and sometimes even encouraged to be allowed to be diverted by people in a direction that will come down to "chicken & egg"arguments
But to call into questions someones motivation for their responses is strictly verboten.
At least at the pub you could call out the pot stirrers for what you perceived them to be.

By and large i think the mods do a good job and i most certainly would not be good at the task. However i think sometimes the interjection actually perpetuates the problem they are trying to control. I realize it is not fair to silence a mod but it is hard to try to moderate and comment extensively and do them both well.
thanks for letting me vent. If any moderator thinks this is a personal attack it isn't , i have no problems with any of you, it's just a question of the format that as posters should give pause so too should moderators.
have a good day

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

We received complaints, with which I concurred, that the photos were off-topic and distracting. They added nothing to the forum. Therefore I removed them.

Susan

 

[BotanyBay]

We received complaints, with which I concurred, that the photos were off-topic and distracting. They added nothing to the forum. Therefore I removed them.

Susan

ALL of my photos, or just "certain" photos? I find this odd, as not one person has ever publicly asked for the photos to be tuned-down.

Without telling me who said it, can you quote the PM?

I'm not sure what was off-topic about a photo that literally illustrates an on-topic point.

So when does a photo (itself) go off-topic? My post was absolutely on-topic. I said that JV works in a rats nest (illustrated by Remy from a piaxar film). Did that bring the discussion off-topic? Not at all.

So I'm confused as to when I can use images and when not.

 

[pedaling squares]

Mods: is this a software glitch or did you pick up a duplicate IP address awfully fast?

Such a very amazing link!
Thanks you for the post.

This guy signed up in Dec 2010, made this first, only, and rather friendly post on Dec 16, and is banned. Didn't see a mention of it in the 'mbr susp' thread. Just wondering is all.

 

[Ferminal]

Sounds like an adbot.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Mods: is this a software glitch or did you pick up a duplicate IP address awfully fast?

Adbot abusing signature.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Adbot abusing signature.

If sentence structure and spelling is worse than Flicker or C'stoned then odds are it is an adbot.
Just sayin'

 

[pedaling squares]

Adbot abusing signature.

Ok. I didn't see a sign that text had been removed. I don't really know how those ad things work. I don't really know how Flicker works either, but...

 

[Francois the Postman]

Since we started the system, whenever any member gets a suspension/ban we do add it to the ban notifications thread, stating length and reason why.

If we don't bother, it is a spammer or spambot. They are not worth our breath.

 

[Barrus]

Since we started the system, whenever any member gets a suspension/ban we do add it to the ban notifications thread, stating length and reason why.

If we don't bother, it is a spammer or spambot. They are not worth our breath.

Or it is BPC or some other permanent banned member returning with a new username