Moderators

[Afrank]

Can the mods please break the current Catalunya thread into separate threads for each stage? Initial posts have all the profiles and preview stuff for all stages lumped together in one thread. With the field this race has attracted, one master thread for the whole week will probably get huge and unwieldy. Thanks

Will do, thread for stage 1 created. And feel free to go ahead and create the next days stage threads as the stages approach if you wish.

 

[MarkvW]

Gentle(wo)men, I am loathe to edit this thread, but have no choice to delete the nazi references. I know they were in jest, but please refrain in future. This subject - along with child abuse - is not negotiable.

Cheers
Bison

In the Soviet Union, the references negotiate you.

 

[hiero2]

Is Stalin fair game?

Dude, even in arrears, I'd rather mess with the leftovers of the 3rd Reich than the memory of THAT one. At least, with the folks of the crooked cross, you knew you were a target. Under the Iron Marshal, you had no idea if you were a target or not.


Strictly speaking, Godwin's law does not mention the Iron Marshal. However, I think think in this case, it should be the spirit of the law that reigns. Especially given that Godwin's law is not strictly codified, nor does it hold a place in any legal framework.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Will do, thread for stage 1 created. And feel free to go ahead and create the next days stage threads as the stages approach if you wish.

Many thanks

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Dude, even in arrears, I'd rather mess with the leftovers of the 3rd Reich than the memory of THAT one. At least, with the folks of the crooked cross, you knew you were a target. Under the Iron Marshal, you had no idea if you were a target or not.


Strictly speaking, Godwin's law does not mention the Iron Marshal. However, I think think in this case, it should be the spirit of the law that reigns. Especially given that Godwin's law is not strictly codified, nor does it hold a place in any legal framework.

Pol Pot then?

 

[sittingbison]

I suggest you have a VERY serious think about just what you are posting.

Making quips about the greatest mass murderers in history is in EXTREMELY poor taste, and frankly not something I wish to be associated with...and I am sure that goes for most members and certainly the owners.

Draw your own conclusions from the bolded

 

[Hugh Januss]

Better to pretend he never existed.

 

[MarkvW]

I suggest you have a VERY serious think about just what you are posting.

Making quips about the greatest mass murderers in history is in EXTREMELY poor taste, and frankly not something I wish to be associated with...and I am sure that goes for most members and certainly the owners.

Draw your own conclusions from the bolded

In former Soviet Union, conclusions drew people.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Better to pretend he never existed.

Who's pretending he never existed

 

[sittingbison]

In former Soviet Union, conclusions drew people.

and...the present Soviet Union?

Better to pretend he never existed.

Nobody is pretending anything in regards to history, those political institutions, or those despicable people.

Gents, I am serious on this issue. Please desist

cheers
bison

 

[Netserk]

Yes it was.

I have gone back and checked the entire exchange, and Netserk was NOT banned for the quite he gave above, certainly not a smiley. He felt obliged to TWICE interject in a personal way into a combative developing fight between others, making zero effort at contributing to discussion, or commentary on another post.

And no, none of them deserved yet another warning.... Especially In the sky thread...to play the ball not the man.

1) you were the one who chose to make this discussion public.
2) I'd be fine with this new set of standards if it was applied to everyone. Given no mass-banning since then and clearly worse offences, it's obvious that it's not.
3) I can no longer see deleted posts. Sorry if I can't remember exactly what I wrote, but I only read it once (when I posted it) and it wasn't exactly something I expected would be important to remember. I like that you then think it's fair to call it disingenuous BS. IIRC I had posted two posts in that exchange. Perhaps three. I honestly do not remember. Does that make me disingenuous? I do remember the last of those post it was something near:

Actually it was you who started with the OT posting. Hint: [something with Spanish stage endings, I'm not sure exactly what I wrote here, but it was a hint to "meta", red.]

I'm also quite sure that the other of my posts in that exchange was something near, but I'm not certain:

Oh, that's ironic coming from you

Now this might not be exactly what I rode, but it is honestly the closest to it I can remember. I don't think that is disingenuous BS.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I suggest you have a VERY serious think about just what you are posting.

Making quips about the greatest mass murderers in history is in EXTREMELY poor taste, and frankly not something I wish to be associated with...and I am sure that goes for most members and certainly the owners.

Draw your own conclusions from the bolded

Barack Obama then?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I suggest you have a VERY serious think about just what you are posting.

Making quips about the greatest mass murderers in history is in EXTREMELY poor taste, and frankly not something I wish to be associated with...and I am sure that goes for most members and certainly the owners.

Draw your own conclusions from the bolded

This is that point where I just don't get the mentality. I had a go at one of the other moderators because he closed a thread that had no need to be closed. It would have died quickly, and was just a harmless diversionary thought (that was grounded in a real observation I might add. Just look at the picture of Cancellara at the finish and you tell me it doesn't look like MTMNBN-->Moustache that must not be named). I have no idea why it was closed...so I came to the moderators thread to question why, and make another joking reference and it was nixed. Then others came in an joked about the subject, and I made a couple of other jokes. Now I come in to see if anyone else had joked about it, and find that joking is not allowed. I have two suggestions here: 1. Decaf. 2. Lighten the **** up (I typed 4 "*'s" because I'm unsure if typing a word I know is banned by the word filter even though I know it will end up with asterisks is a bannable offense...I don't think "bannable" is a word...I hope that doesn't get me banned...)

Draw your own conclusions from the bolded

 

[sittingbison]

Chewie, for your bolded I'm going to do a pre-Zen thehog:

Gentle(wo)men, I am loathe to edit this thread, but have no choice to delete the nazi references. I know they were in jest, but please refrain in future. This subject - along with child abuse - is not negotiable.

Cheers
Bison

Nazi/Stalin/Polpot are not something to be joked about on this forum. Capiche?

Obama on the other hand....

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Chewie, for your bolded I'm going to do a pre-Zen thehog:



Nazi/Stalin/Polpot are not something to be joked about on this forum. Capiche?

Obama on the other hand....

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make.

 

[Netserk]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make.

He'd look nice with a Chaplin moustache.

 

[MarkvW]

Chewie, for your bolded I'm going to do a pre-Zen thehog:



Nazi/Stalin/Polpot are not something to be joked about on this forum. Capiche?

Obama on the other hand....

No problem. Professional cycling is more an Edward VIII kind of thing, anyway.

 

[Eshnar]

This is that point where I just don't get the mentality. I had a go at one of the other moderators because he closed a thread that had no need to be closed. It would have died quickly, and was just a harmless diversionary thought (that was grounded in a real observation I might add. Just look at the picture of Cancellara at the finish and you tell me it doesn't look like MTMNBN-->Moustache that must not be named). I have no idea why it was closed...so I came to the moderators thread to question why, and make another joking reference and it was nixed. Then others came in an joked about the subject, and I made a couple of other jokes. Now I come in to see if anyone else had joked about it, and find that joking is not allowed. I have two suggestions here: 1. Decaf. 2. Lighten the **** up (I typed 4 "*'s" because I'm unsure if typing a word I know is banned by the word filter even though I know it will end up with asterisks is a bannable offense...I don't think "bannable" is a word...I hope that doesn't get me banned...)

Draw your own conclusions from the bolded

And when exactly in that timeline did you get the brilliant idea to start a basically equal thread in another section? Did you ask someone? I do hope so. But unfortunately when I asked the other mods no one could tell me.

Let me remind you, if you didn't remember, that when people repost deleted material mods tend to get very angry. Don't tell me you never knew it. Yes, your wonderful thread was just closed, not deleted, but that's a very little difference.

Generally I tell this kind of stuff via PM, but since many people seem not to get it this time I'll do it publicly. First contact the mods, then wait for them to reply, then (if allowed) act.

In this case, sorry but this forum doesn't want that kind of threads. Very bad publicity, apparently. Shocking, isn't it?

 

[Christian]

He'd look nice with a Chaplin moustache.

Lol, nice one Netserk, I hadn't seen this yet!

 

[hrotha]

How low must your body count be to qualify to be joked about? Is Genghis Khan fair game?

 

[Eshnar]

How low must your body count be to qualify to be joked about? Is Genghis Khan fair game?

Nah, I guess the issue is how much time has passed. People tend to be more sensible to bad things happened relatively recently rather than a thousand years ago, you know.

 

[Granville57]

In this case, sorry but this forum doesn't want that kind of threads. Very bad publicity, apparently. Shocking, isn't it?

I'm not trying to be a smarta$$ is all this, and for that you'll just have to take my word. But I have to ask about the bolded. Are your truly speaking "for the forum" in some official capacity? What I mean is, obviously, as an administrator, you "represent" the forum to a certain degree. But are you citing an official policy as handed down by CN/Future Publishing?
Or is this something decided on by the current mods?
Or is it based on your own, personal assumptions?

Look, I'm not saying that any one of the above reasons wouldn't necessarily be a valid reason for taking action. I understand that not every, single rule and possible violation needs to be spelled out. I believe there should be some room for personal interpretation and for judging each incident within its given context. But it can also very easy to fall back on a "this forum doesn't want" type of response to a hot-button topic without really realizing if...

A) This forum (not sure if that means a majority of the members or the owners of the site) really cares or not.

B) It's just a knee-jerk response based on the assumption that it is not condoned by the powers-that-be.

C) It's meant to head off the inevitable screeches from what might only be a vocal minority.

For the sake of argument, I'm putting aside the specifics of the Hitler/Nazi references and simply pointing out that biases may arise based on concerns that may not necessarily be valid but that can easily seem valid due to social conditioning, even when such concerns may be outdated.

Now to specifically address the Nazi issue:
I admit to posting one of the images myself. It was meant as a joke, but it was interesting to see a Nazi bicycle brigade. Being a cycling forum, I would hope that the topic of war-time use of bicycles is not off limits (should a thread on that topic appear).

Also, my mother, aunt and uncle were all young children living outside of London during World War II. The Nazis actually did drop bombs on them (although I've no reason to believe that Uncle and Aunty Granville were specific targets). They survived, and they didn't object to any of the previously posted images. But the "forum" does?

 

[Benotti69]

I'm not trying to be a smarta$$ is all this, and for that you'll just have to take my word. But I have to ask about the bolded. Are your truly speaking "for the forum" in some official capacity? What I mean is, obviously, as an administrator, you "represent" the forum to a certain degree. But are you citing an official policy as handed down by CN/Future Publishing?
Or is this something decided on by the current mods?
Or is it based on your own, personal assumptions?

Look, I'm not saying that any one of the above reasons wouldn't necessarily be a valid reason for taking action. I understand that not every, single rule and possible violation needs to be spelled out. I believe there should be some room for personal interpretation and for judging each incident within its given context. But it can also very easy to fall back on a "this forum doesn't want" type of response to a hot-button topic without really realizing if...

A) This forum (not sure if that means a majority of the members or the owners of the site) really cares or not.

B) It's just a knee-jerk response based on the assumption that it is not condoned by the powers-that-be.

C) It's meant to head off the inevitable screeches from what might only be a vocal minority.

For the sake of argument, I'm putting aside the specifics of the Hitler/Nazi references and simply pointing out that biases may arise based on concerns that may not necessarily be valid but that can easily seem valid due to social conditioning, even when such concerns may be outdated.

Now to specifically address the Nazi issue:
I admit to posting one of the images myself. It was meant as a joke, but it was interesting to see a Nazi bicycle brigade. Being a cycling forum, I would hope that the topic of war-time use of bicycles is not off limits (should a thread on that topic appear).

Also, my mother, aunt and uncle were all young children living outside of London during World War II. The Nazis actually did drop bombs on them (although I've no reason to believe that Uncle and Aunty Granville were specific targets). They survived, and they didn't object to any of the previously posted images. But the "forum" does?

It was my post suggesting they were wheeling treks

 

[hrotha]

Nah, I guess the issue is how much time has passed. People tend to be more sensible to bad things happened relatively recently rather than a thousand years ago, you know.

Of course time plays a role. But ok. How about Bush?

YES I WENT THERE.

 

[Eshnar]

I'm not trying to be a smarta$$ is all this, and for that you'll just have to take my word. But I have to ask about the bolded. Are your truly speaking "for the forum" in some official capacity? What I mean is, obviously, as an administrator, you "represent" the forum to a certain degree. But are you citing an official policy as handed down by CN/Future Publishing?
Or is this something decided on by the current mods?
Or is it based on your own, personal assumptions?

Believe it or not, Dan and Susan are still here reading the forum and giving us advices about moderation issues.
So yes, since I regard them as "the forum", I say "the forum doesn't want that". I have no clue what Future wants, frankly speaking.