Moderators

[Don't be late Pedro]

Oh, my, well done. Reported as a direct attack on other posters.

Great, hopefully you will have more luck then myself.

You are being disengenuous. And you are avoiding the question.

Why am I being disingenuous? How can I respond to the question if I do not know who you are talking about?

Again, we come to a basic perception problem. YOU perceive that . But, apparently other people do not perceive these posts in the same way.

I do perceive that. Hence me posting. Can't get much past you. So are you saying no one should flag an issue they perceive unless every other poster does so as well?

Oh, my, again - well done. Well replied, dblP! Score one for rational, sober faculties present. However, you left some questions unanswered, and dodged others. Care to elucidate?

I did not answer was the one about daotec. Since I do not know who he is and you failed to give me an answer I am not sure how I am meant to respond?

What were the other ones... unanswered, dodged or otherwise?

 

[Netserk]

I think one of the things Pedro refers to is thehog's habit of being a little 'create' with facts. Often done to bait. Example from the stage thread yesterday(14:46):

Contador crashed badly on stage 2 last year. He didn't complain.

My response two minutes after:

Stage 1, and it's not like Froome has complained either...

Note how this was thehog's only post in that thread. He got what he wanted, several replies. Later he posted the exact same in the clinic, though tbf to the mods they did delete that one (which I only realized after I was midway with my post, so maybe the point is lost now? )

All in all though I do think they do a great job, and I can remember how many reports they get in July, so there simply isn't time to take good care of every single report (at least not individually). However I don't think Hiero is being helpfull at all in this instance.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Now, all that done, I will say it is my opinion that the whole modding process would be better and more responsive if replies were sent out to the folks doing the reporting. But I never got anywhere with that change. In part because it would represent a massive increase in mod workload, the way things are set up now.

I think there's a lot that could be done wrt automating the mod's job. No money in it, though, so unlikely it will ever be done.

 

[sittingbison]

We tried posting messages of editing, also sending PMs. Afrankly it didnt work well, and automation reply isnt possible. And apparently members cannot see when editing occurs, so are not necessarily aware of result of their reporting.

System ain't perfect, we do what we can when we can. And cop it in the neck no matter what we do.

 

[Benotti69]

We tried posting messages of editing, also sending PMs. Afrankly it didnt work well, and automation reply isnt possible. And apparently members cannot see when editing occurs, so are not necessarily aware of result of their reporting.

System ain't perfect, we do what we can when we can. And cop it in the neck no matter what we do.

I think the system works fine considering how much members pay for it

 

[King Boonen]

I don't mind the run along thing guys, it's the sign of someone who knows they are wrong and is getting defensive.


It is clear that mods are acting on reports, people are suspended and banned, posts are edited (you only realise this if you have seen the previous post) and they are around and discussing things, particularly in this thread.

The issue seems to be that specific things Pedro has a problem with aren't being changed to his liking (TheHog posting half-truths and out and out wrong statements? that's half the point of TheHog!), but that's not the way a forum works. the mods make the decision, you either live with it or walk.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I don't mind the run along thing guys, it's the sign of someone who knows they are wrong and is getting defensive.

Well, aren't you brave? As far as I am concerned there is little (to nothing) to deter repeat offenders. You may be happy to accept it but then that is your problem.

It is clear that mods are acting on reports, people are suspended and banned, posts are edited (you only realise this if you have seen the previous post) and they are around and discussing things, particularly in this thread.

Most posters that get banned are sock puppets. Most recent suspensions seem to be because someone has insulted a mod. As to how much editing goes on of course there is stuff you may not see but most of it goes on after the fact. That of course can't be helped but if people were deterred in the first place then it probably would not happen so much in the first place.

The issue seems to be that specific things Pedro has a problem with aren't being changed to his liking (TheHog posting half-truths and out and out wrong statements? that's half the point of TheHog!), but that's not the way a forum works. the mods make the decision, you either live with it or walk.

People can post what they want. If I think that is it wrong or misleading I will chime in as will many people. However, some people do this repeatedly and on purpose, and everyone knows it. Yet nothing is done. That to me is poor moderation because it does not stop them from repeating the behaviour (Which is quite different from you implying i.e. that I am complaining just because I did not get my own way). You even acknowledge it happens and even seem quite accepting of it which goes to show me that your input is not really worth anything on this topic.

Oh, and your comment about either living with mods decisions or walking sounds to me that you have not even read the OP.

 

[kingjr]

People can post what they want. If I think that is it wrong or misleading I will chime in as will many people. However, some people do this repeatedly and on purpose, and everyone knows it. Yet nothing is done.

Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous. I think after several slaps on the wrist which haven't changed a thing someone should get the banhammer already...

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous. I think after several slaps on the wrist which haven't changed a thing someone should get the banhammer already...

You previous post on here re:Froome and the Zig-zagging shows just what a farce it sometimes is.

 

[hiero2]

Great, hopefully you will have more luck then myself.


Why am I being disingenuous? How can I respond to the question if I do not know who you are talking about?


I do perceive that. Hence me posting. Can't get much past you. So are you saying no one should flag an issue they perceive unless every other poster does so as well?


I did not answer was the one about daotec. Since I do not know who he is and you failed to give me an answer I am not sure how I am meant to respond?

What were the other ones... unanswered, dodged or otherwise?

As for Daotec, a simple forum search gets me this: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12430&page=19, BUT, that is not really the point is it? Please reread the question. Notice that daotec is merely an example. You could insert thehog, Hitch, Netserk, whomever - it doesn't matter - someone other than yourself. I was hoping to get you to read what you are writing from a broader viewpoint.

But speaking of viewpoint - if you fail to see action on your complaints, then you can probably be sure that the mods do not agree with your pov, not that they simply ignored you, or that there is some conspiracy to favor certain posters.

Also, because of the volunteer nature of the mod squad, it may be a few days before a report gets read, but is usually less than 24 hours. The mods do their best to enforce the rules. They are too diverse a group, geographically, socially, politically - in every way - to act in concert in a conspiracy.

And one of the guidelines is that all opinions are welcomed, until a poster clearly and repeatedly breaks the rules. There is a large contingent of posters who like to keep things "freewheeling".

I will say that when I was a mod, there were some regular posters who had gotten extremely good at skirting the rules, yet still pushing the envelope. I have taken note that they, too, have been reined in appropriately since that time. This is good, afaic.

So, as nearly as I can see, your questions and complaints here have been answered. Not just once, but several times. Clearly, and in readable English. Based on that, if one continues to disagree, or seems to refuse to recognize the validity of the answers? Would then the conclusion not be forced that they are not being reasonable and rational, but rather emotional and partisan?

I was trying to force some realization of this, using a rather snarkified version of Socratic questioning to point out the fallacies in the reasoning you presented. Well, nobody ever said I should get a day job as a stand-up comic, eh? And I never could have maintained a seat at the Algonquin round table, sure of that.

Anyway, cheers all, I've work to do.

. . .
All in all though I do think they do a great job, and I can remember how many reports they get in July, so there simply isn't time to take good care of every single report (at least not individually). However I don't think Hiero is being helpfull at all in this instance.

Hehe. Never said I was perfect, eh? And, no possibly not even helpful, as I simply felt completely snarky, and only managed to rein it in a little. Meh, it is what it is.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

As for Daotec, a simple forum search gets me this: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12430&page=19, BUT, that is not really the point is it?

Actually it is. Why on earth should I need to look up some poster I have not come across to answer some question that you made up?

Please reread the question. Notice that daotec is merely an example. You could insert thehog, Hitch, Netserk, whomever - it doesn't matter - someone other than yourself. I was hoping to get you to read what you are writing from a broader viewpoint.

He may be merely an example but given all the other posters then why pick him out and then call me disingenuous for not knowing who he is? And even then, I am still not really sure what you are asking?

But speaking of viewpoint - if you fail to see action on your complaints, then you can probably be sure that the mods do not agree with your pov, not that they simply ignored you, or that there is some conspiracy to favor certain posters.

Also, because of the volunteer nature of the mod squad, it may be a few days before a report gets read, but is usually less than 24 hours. The mods do their best to enforce the rules. They are too diverse a group, geographically, socially, politically - in every way - to act in concert in a conspiracy.

I maybe mistaken but didn't a mod post that he was not going to sanction someone because said poster said they would refuse to post again if they were. Someone can probably correct me on that one..?

And one of the guidelines is that all opinions are welcomed, until a poster clearly and repeatedly breaks the rules. There is a large contingent of posters who like to keep things "freewheeling".

I will say that when I was a mod, there were some regular posters who had gotten extremely good at skirting the rules, yet still pushing the envelope. I have taken note that they, too, have been reined in appropriately since that time. This is good, afaic.

That may be the guideline but it seems that it is rarely enforced from a poster point of view.

So, as nearly as I can see, your questions and complaints here have been answered. Not just once, but several times. Clearly, and in readable English. Based on that, if one continues to disagree, or seems to refuse to recognize the validity of the answers? Would then the conclusion not be forced that they are not being reasonable and rational, but rather emotional and partisan?

I was trying to force some realization of this, using a rather snarkified version of Socratic questioning to point out the fallacies in the reasoning you presented. Well, nobody ever said I should get a day job as a stand-up comic, eh? And I never could have maintained a seat at the Algonquin round table, sure of that.

Did I have questions? You were the one that chimed in with the questions and I am still not really clear what you are saying? I don't mean that in a snarky way.. I genuinely have no idea.

 

[hiero2]

Actually it is. Why on earth should I need to look up some poster I have not come across to answer some question that you made up?

You don't need to look anyone up. I clearly said that. The question is not dependent on the name used as an example.

He may be merely an example but given all the other posters then why pick him out and then call me disingenuous for not knowing who he is? And even then, I am still not really sure what you are asking?

The disingenuousness comes into play for not reading or demonstrating that you read a fairly simple question. Has little or nothing to do with knowledge of daotec or any other named personality.

I maybe mistaken but didn't a mod post that he was not going to sanction someone because said poster said they would refuse to post again if they were. Someone can probably correct me on that one..?

That may be the guideline but it seems that it is rarely enforced from a poster point of view.

Not from "A poster pov", from YOUR pov. Should it not be obvious by now? Apparently the mods do not share your pov, and you are not offering sufficient proof to get them to change their pov.

Did I have questions? You were the one that chimed in with the questions and I am still not really clear what you are saying? I don't mean that in a snarky way.. I genuinely have no idea.

After all the answers you've gotten, not just from me, if you truly still do not understand, then you must be choosing not to understand. Translate that as not even trying. And, that would make your posts trolling, and me the trollee. So, I'm done, as we are only going in circles here.

Now, if I'm WRONG - and you truly believe you ARE trying to understand, then go back and re-read the full exchange. Put in the effort to figure it out. You've been given good answers, afaic.

 

[the sceptic]

Actually it is. Why on earth should I need to look up some poster I have not come across to answer some question that you made up?

He may be merely an example but given all the other posters then why pick him out and then call me disingenuous for not knowing who he is? And even then, I am still not really sure what you are asking?

I maybe mistaken but didn't a mod post that he was not going to sanction someone because said poster said they would refuse to post again if they were. Someone can probably correct me on that one..?

That may be the guideline but it seems that it is rarely enforced from a poster point of view.

Did I have questions? You were the one that chimed in with the questions and I am still not really clear what you are saying? I don't mean that in a snarky way.. I genuinely have no idea.

You seem tense. Maybe you should try relaxing and stop taking the internet so seriously? Have a cup of coffee?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You seem tense. Maybe you should try relaxing and stop taking the internet so seriously? Have a cup of coffee?

Tense? Nope, not at all. Great cycling, a good world cup and I am soon off for a VIP trip to the Tour. Twas great last year.

It needs to be said.
These tour stages in britain confirms to me that there is a huge cycling boom going on there. Every cat 4 climb looking like alpe d'huez.. its too much.

Greats crowds in England for the Tour, eh? Although I hear it was just too much for you? Probably best you stay away from people.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You don't need to look anyone up. I clearly said that. The question is not dependent on the name used as an example.

So why then go on to show me to search results for that name? Just to confuse matters even more?

The disingenuousness comes into play for not reading or demonstrating that you read a fairly simple question. Has little or nothing to do with knowledge of daotec or any other named personality.

So why mention daotec, Hitch or anyone? You yourself have just said they have nothing to do with the question. You asked a badly worded question and are trying to pin the blame on me for not answering it.
Oh, and I see nothing wrong.

Not from "A poster pov", from YOUR pov. Should it not be obvious by now? Apparently the mods do not share your pov, and you are not offering sufficient proof to get them to change their pov.

And as demonstrated I am not the only poster who thinks this. Certainly a few people have responded but you seem to think you speak for everyone. I would probably reply to them but you take up most of my time recently.

After all the answers you've gotten, not just from me, if you truly still do not understand, then you must be choosing not to understand. Translate that as not even trying. And, that would make your posts trolling, and me the trollee. So, I'm done, as we are only going in circles here.

Now, if I'm WRONG - and you truly believe you ARE trying to understand, then go back and re-read the full exchange. Put in the effort to figure it out. You've been given good answers, afaic.

No, imo you have jumped in with some kind of post that is barely comprehensible and think that I should be thanking you. I did not need to be so rude to King Boonen (Apologies) but my points still stand. On the flip side I probably won't be bringing up the issue in a hurry for fear of having to read another one of your 'posts'.

So, as nearly as I can see, your questions and complaints here have been answered. Not just once, but several times. Clearly, and in readable English.

Really..?

I was trying to force some realization of this, using a rather snarkified version of Socratic questioning to point out the fallacies in the reasoning you presented.

Sure, you are...

However I don't think Hiero is being helpfull at all in this instance.

netserk's not wrong you know.

 

[ebandit]

troll on

You seem tense. Maybe you should try relaxing and stop taking the internet so seriously? Have a cup of coffee?

sceptic why copy a serial trollers posting style so much? is it because mods
turn a blind eye to their posts?

Mark L

 

[mrhender]

Hey Mods...

Is it possible to ban yourself? like a pause button or something?
If not, then please ban me a week for idiotic posting...

Cheers
B

 

[ebandit]

B

good point B.....................however imagine how many posts/members would remain if idiocy was cause to remove?

great avatar...........excusing dubious posts

I bet tin-tin never would use moisturiser / chamois creme

Mark L

 

[sittingbison]

Hey Mods...

Is it possible to ban yourself? like a pause button or something?
If not, then please ban me a week for idiotic posting...

Cheers
B

No problemo

Cheers
Bison

 

[Netserk]

No problemo

Cheers
Bison

Really? You banned him? I hope he confirmed his request over PM.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

It is the middle of the tdf do we really need to put the name of the race and the year?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Alrighty then. Mods, this is thehog trolling;

To be fair on Bernie (Madoff) he did have a lot people invest with him of their own accord. A lot of them were fairly thick not to realise that his year on year gains defied all known logic. He was not culpable alone. Along with the fact that every investment bank in town knew he was a shiester along with the SEC jumping into to bed with him along with the government.

Bernie was not actually all that bad. He was just too nice and wanted everyone to be rich. I don't have a whole lot of empathy that Brad Pitt avoided paying tax by investing with Madoff.

Lance in my mind was way worse than Bernie Madoff. Giving false hope to those stricken with cancer on a human level is very sick. Very sick indeed.

It's not super complicated.

 

[MarkvW]

Alrighty then. Mods, this is thehog trolling...It's not super complicated.

Using the moderator thread to attack another poster. Very uncool.

 

[sittingbison]

Alrighty then. Mods, this is thehog trolling....It's not super complicated.

this post was redacted (as shown in grey). I think the remainder could be construed as a personal opinion....which might even be thehogs

Using the moderator thread to attack another poster. Very uncool.

correctomundo

If you have a problem with a post, use the report function

cheers
bison

 

[Netserk]

What was wrong with the part in grey?

I also think that how Armstrong used those with cancer was quite sick, perhaps worse than Madoff (perhaps not). Is that opinion allowed?