Moderators

[red_flanders]

Hi, can we get some moderator thoughts on discussing the possibility that the UCI may still be colluding with teams or riders to suppress positives?

The usual legion of those who don't like disccussion, questions or yes, speculation about how Sky are able to dominate stage racing are calling such discussion WRT Froome "off topic" and attempting to alternately suppress or detail the discussion. Which is certainly off topic.

May we discuss this possibility in the Sky, Froome or other rider/team threads? Should we start a new topic? Get a ruling that it's not OK to speculate that what was going on for decades has not stopped?

Trying to explain why potential UCI collusion with Sky and/or Froome is on topic in the Froome thread has proved unsuccessful.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Afrank]

I don't see a problem with discussing that in the Sky or Froome threads as long as it is discussed as it pertains to Sky or Froome.

To discuss it in a more general sense; the history of it, UCI doing it with past riders, the possibility that other riders besides those on Sky having positives suppressed (as well as the possibility it's being done with Sky) I would say create a separate thread.

Best option might be to create a specific thread to discuss it to ensure discussion of it is on topic.

 

[red_flanders]

Thanks, much appreciated.

 

[the sceptic]

I find it amusing that people who think sky are clean are taking part in that discussion. whats the point?

if sky are clean then there is nothing for the UCI to protect and thus nothing to discuss. case closed.

 

[ebandit]

more smiles per miles

amusing

that's nice...........I expect to be cheered by your wonderful posts

no more doper...troll......sockpuppet......doper...... troll

thanks
Mark L

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Mostly out of line. I know you guys are still stinging from not being able to keep BPC off the board (by the way I am pretty sure he is back in multiple personalities), but some sort of level of expressive freedom still needs to be allowed without going completely overboard in favour of long time posters.
That Bagster guy was ultimately no more annoying than TFF or me (really ,to be honest) but it seems (to me) like he got cut much less slack because he had some sort of misguided need to defend The LAhole. Please let's not sink to RBR standards, but let us try to maintain a forum where all sort of opinions can be heard.
This rule with an iron hand thing that you are trying out right now is not a good idea IMO.
That's all I have to say about that.

Life is like a box of chocolates.

by the way In my opinion ChrisE is BPC.

 

[Beech Mtn]

This is not really about moderation, but it didn't seem to be worth starting a whole thread over - Can we please stop having so many polls on race-day threads? It means extra scrolling every time we go to a new page. Thoughts from other users?

Or can the mods/staff make it so polls only show up on page1 of a thread, and not on all the subsequent pages? That would seem like the best scenario.

 

[Afrank]

This is not really about moderation, but it didn't seem to be worth starting a whole thread over - Can we please stop having so many polls on race-day threads? It means extra scrolling every time we go to a new page. Thoughts from other users?

Or can the mods/staff make it so polls only show up on page1 of a thread, and not on all the subsequent pages? That would seem like the best scenario.

Doubt that would be possible.

IMO (opinion, not mod order or anything like that) we should only have polls on race threads if it's a big race or important stage. Like the Zoncolan stage of the Giro for example. But I'm not too bothered by the extra scrolling.

 

[Netserk]

This is not really about moderation, but it didn't seem to be worth starting a whole thread over - Can we please stop having so many polls on race-day threads? It means extra scrolling every time we go to a new page. Thoughts from other users?

Or can the mods/staff make it so polls only show up on page1 of a thread, and not on all the subsequent pages? That would seem like the best scenario.

Totally agree. Polls in race threads suck.

If people love polls, make a damn poll thread.

The LBL race thread was originally without a poll, but then someone suggested that one should be added to the race thread (instead of just making a new thread with a poll) to which I responded

BTW thank god for no poll in the race thread.

What happened? A poll came along...

My response when the poll was added

Booh! Make a poll thread instead. Now we have to scroll past the poll on every single page (which for the most part will be about the race and not the ****ing poll).

 

[Beech Mtn]

Totally agree. Polls in race threads suck.

If people love polls, make a damn poll thread.

<snipped>

Agree.

Polls are at their worst when they're in thread for a "big race or important stage. Like the Zoncolan stage of the Giro for example." Because those are the very threads that have 40 zillion posts and pages and therefore require even more scrolling.

 

[the sceptic]

Agree.

Polls are at their worst when they're in thread for a "big race or important stage. Like the Zoncolan stage of the Giro for example." Because those are the very threads that have 40 zillion posts and pages and therefore require even more scrolling.

Do you use 40 posts per page? That helps over whatever the default is.

I get your point though.

 

[darwin553]

Totally agree. Polls in race threads suck.

If people love polls, make a damn poll thread.

Thank you. For once I can agree with you!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This is the cleaned up version? Tit for tat is all there is on the last couple pages...can't imagine the full version...

Reminds me of a 3 day ban I received for suggesting certain people start things. That same person is still starting things - mocking posts deliberately because "they deserve to be mocked", injecting f*ck into posts often, clogging threads with arguments about OT subjects.

And WTF: I post a new article supporting the POV that Wiggo never intended / expected to win the TdF -- best he could hope for was maybe winning the prologue in London.

So someone insults me and the post - flagged but no, nothing happens. I take it from the lack of action that
1. moderators agree with the poster
2. moderators are relaxing the tone you can supply in posts

If it's #1 then that's a pity. I attempt to add new material, and in an existing thread rather than starting a new one. It would seem this is both interesting / informative and efficient.

If #2, then I look forward to more consistent moderating as people more and more often bicker and bully people into not posting.

 

[Beech Mtn]

(snipped)

If #2, then I look forward to more consistent moderating as people more and more often bicker and bully people into not posting.

This is the part that is most concerning to me. It was especially noticeable recently when three separate posters all decided to take separate shots at Libertine Seguros, all within less than 24hours. And as usual, LS was nothing but polite in her/his posts.

There is not enough policing of the trolling going on. The forum has become significantly weaker as a result.

 

[Mellow Velo]

In both cases, that was me.
No personal attacks, I called both posts for what they were.
(Although in LS's case I did think others were too quick to use my response as a stick)

There were 6 personal attacks (by name) against me, in no time at all, after what had been a fairly sensible debate over the Brian and Oli Cookson situation.
I didn't flag or whine about them. Nothing was done or altered.

Call for consistent moderation, you say.
A closed shop where the rhetoric isn't questioned, more like.

 

[Ferminal]

Which rhetoric?

 

[red_flanders]

Reminds me of a 3 day ban I received for suggesting certain people start things. That same person is still starting things - mocking posts deliberately because "they deserve to be mocked", injecting f*ck into posts often, clogging threads with arguments about OT subjects.

And WTF: I post a new article supporting the POV that Wiggo never intended / expected to win the TdF -- best he could hope for was maybe winning the prologue in London.

So someone insults me and the post - flagged but no, nothing happens. I take it from the lack of action that
1. moderators agree with the poster
2. moderators are relaxing the tone you can supply in posts

If it's #1 then that's a pity. I attempt to add new material, and in an existing thread rather than starting a new one. It would seem this is both interesting / informative and efficient.

If #2, then I look forward to more consistent moderating as people more and more often bicker and bully people into not posting.

My view is that it's #2. When I was a mod I really tried to focus on the name-calling and the personal attacks, as I think that's where it all starts.

I found trying to keep on top of that with any consistency impossible. Too many of the members are either OK with it or actually enjoy that as part of their experience on the site.

Probably just practical if not wise to let some of it happen.

That said, the Sky fans have basically taken over those threads and certainly attacking and insults have been a big part of that. Pointless and tiresome to try and post in there any more as each critical post launches a set of accusations both personal and against the clinic as a whole.

It used to be that if a poster consistently brought up arguments that had been summarily dismissed (not that there are a lot of those, but enough) they would get sanctioned for obviously and intentionally regurgitating settled arguments.

Probably not horrible that the new mods have backed off that a bit, the price is that trolling wins more often, but I don't see how it can be consistently enforced.

Net effect is that I post here a lot less. Debating with people who simply rehash old, tired and oft-disproven arguments is a waste of time. Oh well. Not the most important part of my day.

 

[Digger]

My view is that it's #2. When I was a mod I really tried to focus on the name-calling and the personal attacks, as I think that's where it all starts.

I found trying to keep on top of that with any consistency impossible. Too many of the members are either OK with it or actually enjoy that as part of their experience on the site.

Probably just practical if not wise to let some of it happen.

That said, the Sky fans have basically taken over those threads and certainly attacking and insults have been a big part of that. Pointless and tiresome to try and post in there any more as each critical post launches a set of accusations both personal and against the clinic as a whole.

It used to be that if a poster consistently brought up arguments that had been summarily dismissed (not that there are a lot of those, but enough) they would get sanctioned for obviously and intentionally regurgitating settled arguments.

Probably not horrible that the new mods have backed off that a bit, the price is that trolling wins more often, but I don't see how it can be consistently enforced.

Net effect is that I post here a lot less. Debating with people who simply rehash old, tired and oft-disproven arguments is a waste of time. Oh well. Not the most important part of my day.

Well a large reason I don't post here anymore is down to what Dear Wiggo is alluding to. Some people seem to get away with an awful lot on here regarding personal insults, swearing etc...

 

[Digger]

In both cases, that was me.
No personal attacks, I called both posts for what they were.
(Although in LS's case I did think others were too quick to use my response as a stick)

There were 6 personal attacks (by name) against me, in no time at all, after what had been a fairly sensible debate over the Brian and Oli Cookson situation.
I didn't flag or whine about them. Nothing was done or altered.

Call for consistent moderation, you say.
A closed shop where the rhetoric isn't questioned, more like.

And you've never personally attacked anyone?

 

[Mellow Velo]

And you've never personally attacked anyone?

We are all guilty of it at one time or another.
Doesn't mean it's acceptable for one side, but not the other.

You will note that I also said I didn't complain or call for any ban.
That seems to have become the first port of call for certain posters,
when faced with debate they find unpalatable.

 

[red_flanders]

We are all guilty of it at one time or another.
Doesn't mean it's acceptable for one side, but not the other.

You will note that I also said I didn't complain or call for any ban.
That seems to have become the first port of call for certain posters,
when faced with debate they find unpalatable.

I know it feels lame to report posts, but as a former mod, I can assure you it's easier to deal with a report than a stupid flame-war in a thread.

I rarely have seen a report that asked for a ban when I was a mod. I would consider it a fallacy to assume people are doing that in reports. I dealt with one person that implied it was the answer in most of their reports and complaints, but 99% of people just report the incident and don't ask for any particular action.

Not that it matters much what people ask for, the mods are going to do what they think correct.

 

[the sceptic]

My view is that it's #2. When I was a mod I really tried to focus on the name-calling and the personal attacks, as I think that's where it all starts.

I found trying to keep on top of that with any consistency impossible. Too many of the members are either OK with it or actually enjoy that as part of their experience on the site.

Probably just practical if not wise to let some of it happen.

That said, the Sky fans have basically taken over those threads and certainly attacking and insults have been a big part of that. Pointless and tiresome to try and post in there any more as each critical post launches a set of accusations both personal and against the clinic as a whole.

It used to be that if a poster consistently brought up arguments that had been summarily dismissed (not that there are a lot of those, but enough) they would get sanctioned for obviously and intentionally regurgitating settled arguments.

Probably not horrible that the new mods have backed off that a bit, the price is that trolling wins more often, but I don't see how it can be consistently enforced.

Net effect is that I post here a lot less. Debating with people who simply rehash old, tired and oft-disproven arguments is a waste of time. Oh well. Not the most important part of my day.

I dont have anything in particular against some banter and name calling myself, I have laughed many times when people have thrown names at me. Obviously, I wish I would be able to keep my cool rather than taking part in these things, but its difficult sometimes and its tempting to try and fight fire with fire. I do of course realize that you and probably others find this to be a complete waste of time and would rather not have to wade through those kinds of posts.

The biggest problem in my opinion, is those who use it as a tool to clog up threads and have them descend into flame wars. That is much more harmful for the forum than some light banter/trolling/name calling, whatever you want to call it.

So, a good solution would be for the mods to come down harder on name calling and posters getting personal. Just kill it off before it gets out of hand and let the posters know its unacceptable. I think right now the posters feel like they can get away with too much. (I certainly think that).

I do think it would be a shame if the clinic lost posters like you. Its not many of us who are able to argue rationally without getting heated and personal these days.

 

[Netserk]

The problem is that the line is constantly moving back and forth. Ebb and flow. SB has been mostly inactive for some time now, and it has had it's effect on the clinic (that is a compliment to SB). Atm you can get away with about anything, which results in most posters going further than they usually do. Once the general level goes up to a certain point, (most) posters on all sides follow up. Not because they are so bad, but because they are allowed to, and most of the time 'just responds in kind'. Threads clog and goes majorly OT for longer periods of time, and either the mods don't care, or they act too late. I guess at some point between now and the Tour mods will be more strict again (very suddenly and not gradually I fear) leading to a temporary **** storm here in the mod thread, but on the mid and long term better environment in the clinic.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Note to Dear Wiggo - please note my previously stated suspicions of Sir Brad. The question above is just a question not a religiously held belief that Sir Brad is the Second Coming.

If you think "some people are wearing rose coloured glasses" is the equivalent of writing someone thinks Brad is the Second Coming then you must be a hypersensitive sooky lala.



Good to see the mods setting the example their countrymen will no doubt plunge beneath in terms of tone.

 

[King Boonen]

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my posts in the Cadel thread. Who deleted them and why?