Moderators

[python]

nowadays i try to stay away from the armstrong threads. mainly because imo once he king doper was exposed and punished my interest in him went to almost zero.

i could care less about his whining, his personal life or his finances...but when i noticed another set of simultaneous bans, imposed, considered and reconsidered, than i reluctantly scanned the couple pages of the subject thread... i do have my own opinion about the hug and rr and dr mass etc.

whatever their faults were that caused the punishment, and the mods likely had their good reasons, what seemed absolutely unclear to me was HOW the bans length was determined and if it was proportional to the misdeeds. again, this is not to dump on the mods, but i am honestly confused by the banning criteria they use. it seems utterly non-transparent and chaotic. i am hardly the only one with such a perception.

my point simply is that if their was a clearer more obvious way for a poster to figure out the severity of his next potential punishment, there would likely be fewer of the bans...can't speak for others, but that's how my mind works.

but not everything is that bad. we've made some progress. few day ago it was five simultaneous bans bans, down to only 3.

a 40% improvement

 

[sittingbison]

A couple of days ago it was five simultaneous bans...
And then two simultaneous bans....one of whom was thehog

Perhaps rather than looking at me, the spotlight should be on why five, two then three members, all very experienced and from different perspectives, earned a ban.

I determine bans from the offense, poster history, warnings sent vs time of posts, private conversation,. So thehog was already up the scale, went thermonuclear because of #361, but I decided I over reacted on that one and went back to my original thought. Race radio likewise was in a similar vein to thehog with posts but has a cleaner record, but upon refection after reading the convo in its entirety again his posts were far more aggressive and insulting that I first thought so I upped the ban. Could well have been longer but his record came into play again. Chewie has some record issues plus warnings, and upped the ante being third man in with insulting thehog. He got what the famous five... Secret seven??... Got.

It's not mandatory sentencing, and it's subjective not objective. It's impossible to quantity sentences as some suggest. On this forum we have many nationalities, language problems, cultural differences, sexes, age differences. And it's cycling, divisive by nature. A juggling act.

 

[Ferminal]

I don't see that as a problem unless the mods have something to hide. If something is worthy of a ban then the poster should be banned, but mods are meant to be impartial and if a mod is constantly banning people on one side of an argument, the side they are most likely to disagree with, and not the other then this is a problem and the suspension thread would draw attention to it.

It's not so much about having something to hide as wanting to avoid certain appearances. Why would a mod want to have it look like they are victimising certain members or groups of members? Whether or not they are doesn't matter because appearances are enough to spark the sorts of "discussions" you want to avoid. If you thought about it then there's no reason why mods wouldn't have already thought about it so it may linger in minds. If you're not FtP then you probably don't see the top post count in this thread as a worthwhile pursuit.

 

[the sceptic]

RR elevated it, by going pedantic on investment return %'s. He even kept baiting me to respond to his nitpicks on hog's posts and I wouldn't bite. I explained the issue to him in the simplest terms, and he kept on.

Hog's original premise was correct IMO, in that LA is not really losing as much on paper as RR believes in his dreams. And, most of you know I am not a fan of the hog so there's also that. Knowing I was agreeing with hog, in general, did make me reconsider for a few minutes.

Giving RR the benefit of the doubt after 20 pages of BS, just because of his standing in the forum, is not the way to view it and is a big problem with many posters IMO. I even stated so in a post....BS gets so thick default prejudices just win out in the day. Even HJ upthread was going down this route, just knowing that RR was in a fight with somebody so RR must be right.

RR is not beyond reproach, and the dude is hanging on too hard, so much that an unneeded meltdown happened in that thread, and several people get banned. His whole life is LA 24/7, and LA is having a big laugh over it.

Maybe the mods should have this in mind the next time the post reports start flying in from RR.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

We become what we think about all day long?

 

[red_flanders]

Good for Sitting Bison and the mods. Forum should be eminently readable for a couple of weeks.

 

[Alpe73]

I am in agreement that thehog's ban and duration seems unfair vs RR and other participants who received no punishment whatsoever.

On this we can surely agree.

Seriously, equal pay for equal work. Inequitable punishment is glaring and smacks of favourtism. Do the right thing, Mookie.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Is it really not possible to IP-ban ianstannard?

 

[Netserk]

Is it really not possible to IP-ban ianstannard?

Possible =/= Something CN can be arsed to do anything about

 

[hiero2]

Is it really not possible to IP-ban ianstannard?

Yes, but no. The problem is not banning a particular IP. As I recall - i can't get to those screens anymore, remember - it can be done. The problem is that it is rare for a poster to have a fixed IP. We all use IP providers. The IP providers assign us an IP out of a range they have, for an hour or a day, depending on their policy. Which means you frequently, usually, show up as coming from multiple IPs. But they all come from one provider.

Thus, if you ban one IP - you are in practice probably banning someone else, and not the person who is your target.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Is it really not possible to IP-ban ianstannard?

Why care? Just have a good laugh at it, is really good for you.

I havent followed all of the latest hog vs race radio showdown but double standards could fit the bill.

Perhaps moderators/admins could be a bit more pro active and just put both of these girls in a perma ignore list for each other?

Cheers.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Yes, but no. The problem is not banning a particular IP. As I recall - i can't get to those screens anymore, remember - it can be done. The problem is that it is rare for a poster to have a fixed IP. We all use IP providers. The IP providers assign us an IP out of a range they have, for an hour or a day, depending on their policy. Which means you frequently, usually, show up as coming from multiple IPs. But they all come from one provider.

Thus, if you ban one IP - you are in practice probably banning someone else, and not the person who is your target.

Thanks hiero, I didn't realize that

 

[Alpe73]

Props to SB for reconsidering and being more equitable in his assessment of the original bans. A step in the right direction.

 

[BigMac]

Yes, but no. The problem is not banning a particular IP. As I recall - i can't get to those screens anymore, remember - it can be done. The problem is that it is rare for a poster to have a fixed IP. We all use IP providers. The IP providers assign us an IP out of a range they have, for an hour or a day, depending on their policy. Which means you frequently, usually, show up as coming from multiple IPs. But they all come from one provider.

Thus, if you ban one IP - you are in practice probably banning someone else, and not the person who is your target.

Herm... No? One's IP is associated with the contract with the ISP and most of the times it is a static one. Even if one changes internet provider that IP cannot be assigned (by law afaic) to anyone else in the future. So even if it is a dynamic IP (quite rare) you won't end up banning anyone else other than the actual target.

I have been using the same IP for a couple of years.

If one's IP was to change every hour or day there was no way police would track criminals over the internet. There is a chance, however, of banning the wrong person, if ianstannard or whatever other spammer or troll was under a proxy when he/she registered (I guess the site only keeps track of the registration IP).

 

[Eshnar]

Herm... No? One's IP is associated with the contract with the ISP and most of the times it is a static one. Even if one changes internet provider that IP cannot be assigned (by law afaic) to anyone else in the future. So even if it is a dynamic IP (quite rare) you won't end up banning anyone else other than the actual target.

I have been using the same IP for a couple of years.

If one's IP was to change every hour or day there was no way police would track criminals over the internet. There is a chance, however, of banning the wrong person, if ianstannard or whatever other spammer or troll was under a proxy when he/she registered (I guess the site only keeps track of the registration IP).

You'd be surprised of how many people use proxys.
And there are actually a few providers that assign dynamic IPs.
Anyway no, the site keeps track of every IP you use, not only the registration.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Herm... No? One's IP is associated with the contract with the ISP and most of the times it is a static one. Even if one changes internet provider that IP cannot be assigned (by law afaic) to anyone else in the future. So even if it is a dynamic IP (quite rare) you won't end up banning anyone else other than the actual target.

I have been using the same IP for a couple of years.

If one's IP was to change every hour or day there was no way police would track criminals over the internet. There is a chance, however, of banning the wrong person, if ianstannard or whatever other spammer or troll was under a proxy when he/she registered (I guess the site only keeps track of the registration IP).

In Australia the complete opposite is true. Your IP is dynamic and you have to pay extra if you want a static IP. However this bit:

If one's IP was to change every hour or day there was no way police would track criminals over the internet.

Before you can use an IP address, the ISP allocates it to you, when you try to connect to their servers, with your username and password.

 

[Hugh Januss]

nowadays i try to stay away from the armstrong threads. mainly because imo once he king doper was exposed and punished my interest in him went to almost zero.

i could care less about his whining, his personal life or his finances...but when i noticed another set of simultaneous bans, imposed, considered and reconsidered, than i reluctantly scanned the couple pages of the subject thread... i do have my own opinion about the hug and rr and dr mass etc.

whatever their faults were that caused the punishment, and the mods likely had their good reasons, what seemed absolutely unclear to me was HOW the bans length was determined and if it was proportional to the misdeeds. again, this is not to dump on the mods, but i am honestly confused by the banning criteria they use. it seems utterly non-transparent and chaotic. i am hardly the only one with such a perception.

my point simply is that if their was a clearer more obvious way for a poster to figure out the severity of his next potential punishment, there would likely be fewer of the bans...can't speak for others, but that's how my mind works.

but not everything is that bad. we've made some progress. few day ago it was five simultaneous bans bans, down to only 3.

a 40% improvement

...............

 

[Beech Mtn]

i do have my own opinion about the hug and rr and dr mass etc.

Innocent typo or Freudian slip?

 

[Fatclimber]

Maybe the mods should have this in mind the next time the post reports start flying in from RR.

There was a time in the not so distant past when the opposite was true. I literally almost got into fist fights for 'questioning the myth.' Sports are polarizing, emotional, & irrational by nature, it's part of the deal. I think SB pointed that out already. Not that I condone RR's behavior (nor Hog's), but he's had much more personal dealings with this topic than most.

As for the mods, if you ask somebody to shovel shizt on their own time for free, just be happy they speak English. Their efforts shouldn't be criticized, I'd buy any one of them a beer if I ran into them.

 

[ChrisE]

edit: never mind.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Maybe the mods should have this in mind the next time the post reports start flying in from RR.

You have definitely diagnosed the issue with Race Radio.

 

[sittingbison]

Gentle(wo)men,
this thread is about abusing the moderators decisions, it is not about insulting other members.

Although several members are perhaps pertinent to the current discussion this topic is NOT about race radio, thehog or any other single member but rather my method of dsealing with the situation so please desist from singling them out, and most certainly resist the urge to denigrate or insult them.

A lot of leeway is given in this thread to have a dig at mods, ZERO leeway will be given doing the same to other members

Capiche?

cheers
bison

 

[King Boonen]

SB sucks



Do I get that much leeway??!!?


Please don't ban me.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The Member Suspensions thread is an entertaining read. Thanks Mods!

 

[Benotti69]

..............

A lot of leeway is given in this thread to have a dig at mods.........
Capiche?

cheers
bison

So when someone posts SB sucks and they dont get a ban, does that mean you really are a professional fluffer?

Capisco