Moderators

[MarkvW]

I should probably be looking at you. The forum's decline started when you became a mod with an agenda who saw himself as the new sheriff aiming to clean up this one horse forum. You brought with you soft focused memories of Usenet's golden age and antiquated ideas of changing modern Internet culture to the collegiate atmosphere of twenty-five years ago. The ensuing over moderation sucked the life out of the place.



Here is a prime example. Inflammatory? Argumentative? Really? Just how is one supposed to question the all too common and high handed suspensions that seem to be driven by a mod's ego? What purpose does suspending JRT accomplish other than attempting to prevent people from using the feedback forum?

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

So I have a few days to think about my actions...

If there is one thing I have taken away from my ban it is that I can (repeatedly) claim 'facts' with no evidence.

Lesson learnt.

 

[Cal_Joe]

So I have a few days to think about my actions...

If there is one thing I have taken away from my ban it is that I can (repeatedly) claim 'facts' with no evidence.

Lesson learnt.

Good post Hoggy.

 

[hiero2]

Lovely, just lovely.

I should probably be looking at you. The forum's decline started when you became a mod with an agenda who saw himself as the new sheriff aiming to clean up this one horse forum. You brought with you soft focused memories of Usenet's golden age and antiquated ideas of changing modern Internet culture to the collegiate atmosphere of twenty-five years ago. The ensuing over moderation sucked the life out of the place.

Here is a prime example. Inflammatory? Argumentative? Really? Just how is one supposed to question the all too common and high handed suspensions that seem to be driven by a mod's ego? What purpose does suspending JRT accomplish other than attempting to prevent people from using the feedback forum?

Since your assertions that the forum was dead precede ME by at least two YEARS, I think your current protestation lack substance, and reek of self-serving distortion of the facts and history.

i saw the jrt post before it was deleted...you are absolutely correct. Calling any poster, much less a mod (no matter how one views his/her worth) an idiot is worth a suspension. And that post was consistent with the style of the subject, insulted another hard working mod as the tallest of the midgets.

Does that mean the moderation was flawless ? Far from.

As i mentioned just few posts above, imo, in the chess thread ethoes was over-moderated. The allegedly antisemitic remark removed from his post totally ignored the context that he screamed in the other posts against bobby fischer's antisemitic rants. And to add to the imperfections, as i mentioned many times, i do not see the value of so many public suspensions concurrently, given that some of those who got into the offtopic vortex have actually rare infractions ( like kingr) and would be more than likely reasoned by a warning. Applying the same punitive measure to all found in the act is one of the persisting problems of the moderating team. I understand the 'equality before the law motive', but it is a false criteria ignoring the posters differing troll record...

So i think...

Python - you describe the dilemma of modding very well in this post. I would like to remind you to keep in mind that most everyone who has gotten censured with a ban HAS received a warning BEFORE they got censured. The acts of censure appear very consistent to the moderation team, and that team does discuss such measures. Generally. There MAY be some exceptions - but, for the most part, unction is discussed prior to action. THEREFORE, the FIRST thought that comes to my mind is that, in your comment, you are unaware of actions and discussions that occur behind the scenes. Which fits the definition of "behind the scenes", yes?

You fairly characterize my post. But it is plainly inappropriate for a specific mod to banter with posters, and then turn around and either sanction or threaten to sanction those same posters. The mod obviously ought to step aside and let another mod consider the appropriate response. That ought to be obvious to the crew here, but apparently it is not.

I feel bad because my post prompted JRTINMA to go off. He shouldn't have.

#1 - I sincerely doubt that JRTinMA "went off" as a result of one, or even a short series, of posts. JRTinMA has demonstrated clearly that he is a strong-minded poster, not influenced by passing phenomena. This discredits that argument.
#2 - If I may be generous, I think the misunderstanding, or mischaracterization, apparent in your communication is exhibited in this phrase:

But it is plainly inappropriate for a specific mod to banter with posters, and then turn around and either sanction or threaten to sanction those same posters. The mod obviously ought to step aside and let another mod consider the appropriate response.

#1 Since we are talking about a volunteer staff, with limited members, no, it is not inappropriate. If there were sufficient numbers of volunteer staff, then such considerations might be valid.
#2 The characterization of the mod's actions you describe, whilst you believe it to be true, is not supported by the VOLUNTEER mods' description of the same events. Meaning, I could take all the mods' stories to be partial, and collaborative, but given the composition of the mods staff, and their historic behavior, I do not find ANY validation for your description of mod motivation or mod action. Quite the contrary. I find validation for this particular mod acting in the manner that he has self-described - i.e. he lets other mods "oversee" his decisions when a conflict of interest might be present.

My friend, I have been embarrassed in my life. When I am embarrassed, I tend to act like most people do - I deny. I have been through many situations that I felt to be unfair, but I knew, deep inside, rationally, that there was justification for the "authorities" (who varied, according to the circumstances) to act as they had. MOST people try to push this barrier when they meet it. Eg. you get in an accident. You aren't responsible. Even when you were, in reality, exceeding the speed limit. Etc. I am sure you will understand the concepts I have minimally outlined here. But, if you want, I COULD go into Francois' legendary detail.

Best Regards;
H

 

[python]

Python - you describe the dilemma of modding very well in this post. I would like to remind you to keep in mind that most everyone who has gotten censured with a ban HAS received a warning BEFORE they got censured.

i admit to not being abreast with the details of the thread in subject. perhaps there was a public warning, perhaps there were some warning pms as well. you're right, the back room communications are not known to me as well...hiero, you're a wise, experienced man. as you may recall from our personal communications, i advocate a different moderating style. imo, a poster, any poster, is no more than his/her record, his/her personal posting history, both positive and negative. a moments infraction i my view is but an integral part of the individual posting profile/passport.

all i meant by that remark was the differing human reactions to 'being publicly banned as a part of some mass list' . some content-enhancing, rarely faulted posters may choose to take thier output elsewhere if they perceive being over moderated. no one wins. a softer approach to such would be my action, even if they were caught in the vortex. as an example, i'd increase their warning points rather than a short term ban. that's what i meant. of course, i pander from the outside.

 

[hiero2]

. . . i pander from the outside.

Yeah, at this point, so do I!

I liked the "softer approach" you just described, but in my experience, it did not work particularly well. There were a few cases where it did. But we also got a lot of feedback from others who seemed to feel that the short ban was a preferred method.

As for kibbutzing - "pandering" from the outside - not being a mod gives me the advantage of being able to speak my mind openly. I have no obligation or need any longer to be diplomatic or persuasive. As you've probably noticed. And I've noticed as I get older that my patience has gotten shorter.

While I always hope that I persuade, rather than just insult, where I have stepped on toes recently it has been because I believe those feet were sticking out into the road with the intent of tripping passersby.

This year's Tour had a better example out of England - a rider knocked somebody standing in the road on his tookas - but I can't find it - so Nibali will have to do:

http://gfycat.com/ImpassionedShamelessCapybara

Edit: Found it! Watch, and enjoy!
http://www.sportingnews.com/sport/story/2014-07-09/tour-de-france-selfie-struck-by-rider-knocked-down-stupid-decision?eadid=outbrain

 

[kingjr]

perhaps there were some warning pms as well.

For me there wasn't, don't know about the rest. Anyway, I don't have a problem when a mod just takes a clean sweep, and afaik there is no rule that says you have to be warned before you're banned, the only thing that surprised me was the time gap, I hadn't written anything in this thread for hours before the bans were handed out. And apparently "last chance" doesn't mean sh!t when the next ban is handed out by a different mod, which is good to know

 

[laurel1969]

Maybe the moderator who banned you is in a different hemisphere to you? Or was busy doing something in the real world.

As for your 'last chance' I wouldn't publicise it or complain about it!

 

[mrhender]

Maybe the moderator who banned you is in a different hemisphere to you? Or was busy doing something in the real world.

As for your 'last chance' I wouldn't publicise it or complain about it!

You might want to know that he is not talking of himself...

 

[Afrank]

For me there wasn't, don't know about the rest. Anyway, I don't have a problem when a mod just takes a clean sweep, and afaik there is no rule that says you have to be warned before you're banned, the only thing that surprised me was the time gap, I hadn't written anything in this thread for hours before the bans were handed out. And apparently "last chance" doesn't mean sh!t when the next ban is handed out by a different mod, which is good to know

That ban and length was actually requested by Dan and I just carried out the request.

 

[laurel1969]

Oh right, that makes sense then. I did wonder why he was highlighting it but then I've been conditioned by Khoroz Rotars strange suicidal ban requests

Just out of interest, who and why is on their last chance then, or have they had several 'last chances'?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Oh right, that makes sense then. I did wonder why he was highlighting it but then I've been conditioned by Khoroz Rotars strange suicidal ban requests

Just out of interest, who and why is on their last chance then, or have they had several 'last chances'?

This thread is probably the one for you. Might be better to start from the end and work backwards.

 

[laurel1969]

I'm only very mildly curious and certainly not enough to make me want to plough through this thread!

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I'm only very mildly curious and certainly not enough to make me want to plough through this thread!

Fair enough. Though I do hope you have changed your settings for 'Number of Posts to Show Per Page' so you can see 40 posts per page (makes a huge difference).

 

[mrhender]

I'm only very mildly curious and certainly not enough to make me want to plough through this thread!

Curious enough to perform two false assumptions, but not enough to do some research..

Anyway, wrong thread...

 

[laurel1969]

Thanks for the tip. I've discover the user cp so I'll go and have a look

 

[BroDeal]

Since your assertions that the forum was dead precede ME by at least two YEARS, I think your current protestation lack substance, and reek of self-serving distortion of the facts and history.

This place has always suffered from poor decisions by moderators and neglect by management but it maintained a critical mass of posters, enough to make it interesting even if the signal to noise ratio was often frustrating. The mods brought on board in early 2013 have steadily hacked away at that critical mass. Now, especially after one of SB's ever more frequent night of long knives, hours can go by with few if any new posts to The Clinic. That sort of inactivity is not sustainable in the modern Internet environment, where people expect instantaneous feedback and where people expect to be able to take a break at any time and read something new on their list of "go to" sites. The result is mostly a merry-go-round of inanity.

Three out of five of those 2013 moderators proved to be less than ideal mods. Luckily the damage and bland postings from a self-important blowhard did not last the year. Unluckily the damage from the drive-by moderation of the other two continues.

 

[sniper]

This place has always suffered from poor decisions by moderators and neglect by management but it maintained a critical mass of posters, enough to make it interesting even if the signal to noise ratio was often frustrating. The mods brought on board in early 2013 have steadily hacked away at that critical mass. Now, especially after one of SB's ever more frequent night of long knives, hours can go by with few if any new posts to The Clinic. That sort of inactivity is not sustainable in the modern Internet environment, where people expect instantaneous feedback and where people expect to be able to take a break at any time and read something new on their list of "go to" sites. The result is mostly a merry-go-round of inanity.

Three out of five of those 2013 moderators proved to be less than ideal mods. Luckily the damage and bland postings from a self-important blowhard did not last the year. Unluckily the damage from the drive-by moderation of the other two continues.

that's pretty well-said and objectively a very good reason to revise (lets say temper) the current banning policy, imo.

guys like sceptic and thehog, it's superfluous to point out their value to the clinic. they provoke debate, they attract readers and (new) posters.
i think most prefer to read through their occasional bickering than to see them banned.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Fair enough. Though I do hope you have changed your settings for 'Number of Posts to Show Per Page' so you can see 40 posts per page (makes a huge difference).

Believe it or not, I use 10ppp. So does Hitch.

 

[Netserk]

This place has always suffered from poor decisions by moderators and neglect by management but it maintained a critical mass of posters, enough to make it interesting even if the signal to noise ratio was often frustrating. The mods brought on board in early 2013 have steadily hacked away at that critical mass. Now, especially after one of SB's ever more frequent night of long knives, hours can go by with few if any new posts to The Clinic. That sort of inactivity is not sustainable in the modern Internet environment, where people expect instantaneous feedback and where people expect to be able to take a break at any time and read something new on their list of "go to" sites. The result is mostly a merry-go-round of inanity.

Three out of five of those 2013 moderators proved to be less than ideal mods. Luckily the damage and bland postings from a self-important blowhard did not last the year. Unluckily the damage from the drive-by moderation of the other two continues.

I don't think it's fair to lump sb in the same category as Berzin. Was it June or July where there were ~two weeks without him? Anyway the difference was remarkable and not for the better. I don't think he's perfect, but I do think he adds real value and I also think that he'll continue to get even better. There are several times where I disagree with him, but I do try my best to let him know in a constructive way as I'm sure that he'll use his experiences to make (even) better decisions in the future. Berzin on the other hand.... The single best thing about him is that he isn't that active. He adds absolutely nothing positive to the mod team. Even worse he is deaf to inputs, and since Dan won't ever 'fire' him, he'll continue as a mod for a very long time I fear.

 

[red_flanders]

This place has always suffered from poor decisions by moderators and neglect by management but it maintained a critical mass of posters, enough to make it interesting even if the signal to noise ratio was often frustrating. The mods brought on board in early 2013 have steadily hacked away at that critical mass. Now, especially after one of SB's ever more frequent night of long knives, hours can go by with few if any new posts to The Clinic. That sort of inactivity is not sustainable in the modern Internet environment, where people expect instantaneous feedback and where people expect to be able to take a break at any time and read something new on their list of "go to" sites. The result is mostly a merry-go-round of inanity.

Three out of five of those 2013 moderators proved to be less than ideal mods. Luckily the damage and bland postings from a self-important blowhard did not last the year. Unluckily the damage from the drive-by moderation of the other two continues.

So what are you going to do to help solve it? Certainly we've all heard a million times how bad it is. Problem identification is pretty easy. Problem solving is harder.

Personally, I think you like to come in here and ***** about how bad it all is, but I don't think you're interested in solving anything. I think you just are looking to create the "I told you so" scenario.

I don't see a cycling forum with this kind of traffic anywhere else. Yes, some posters have left, but these things happen to all forums over time. I've tried the other ones and they're either filled with folks who don't know much about the sport, or so quiet as to be un-interesting to me.

I think this place is the best cycling forum on the net right now. Despite the efforts of some members to continually slag it and offer nothing positive.

 

[kingjr]

Fair enough. Though I do hope you have changed your settings for 'Number of Posts to Show Per Page' so you can see 40 posts per page (makes a huge difference).

Wow thanks for that. I'm not kidding, clicking on the next page is really annoying.

 

[mrhender]

So what are you going to do to help solve it? Certainly we've all heard a million times how bad it is. Problem identification is pretty easy. Problem solving is harder.

Personally, I think you like to come in here and ***** about how bad it all is, but I don't think you're interested in solving anything. I think you just are looking to create the "I told you so" scenario.

I don't see a cycling forum with this kind of traffic anywhere else. Yes, some posters have left, but these things happen to all forums over time. I've tried the other ones and they're either filled with folks who don't know much about the sport, or so quiet as to be un-interesting to me.

I think this place is the best cycling forum on the net right now. Despite the efforts of some members to continually slag it and offer nothing positive.

To quote DW from another issue, in another thread -I do think it identifies a general issue here...

It's so easy to pick flaws in things. Simple. So much easier to tear something down. Much more difficult to create something, to grow something. To innovate. See beyond the obvious.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Believe it or not, I use 10ppp. So does Hitch.

I do too. Any more would be like getting a load of garbage from a truck dumped on your head.

 

[hiero2]

that's pretty well-said and objectively a very good reason to revise (lets say temper) the current banning policy, imo.

guys like sceptic and thehog, it's superfluous to point out their value to the clinic. they provoke debate, they attract readers and (new) posters.
i think most prefer to read through their occasional bickering than to see them banned.

Although, unfortunately, I cannot quote sources, I know for a fact that the opposite has often been true. I do not know, on the other hand, how often your case HAS been true - since nobody ever contacted me saying "What wonderful posts these are!".

Let me put this to you - I know of big-name posters who firmly believe other big-name posters (big-name meaning well known to the local posting populace) are nothing more than major trolls. When I looked around, I saw that, ultimately, there are plenty of big-name posters who post in a destructive manner, as much as little-name posters who have been run off or jeered by more "regular" posters, or banned. And you know what else I did? I went through the entire history of mod communication when I started modding - and read it. I learned some very interesting things I would not have otherwise known. But anyway, big-name or no-name, since there was no difference in the "fault" level, then the only honest option is to treat all posters consistently.

Which is exactly what I see happening. And, I think there has been an improvement in the general atmosphere. I haven't seen anybody sniping Dan in ages. It seems to me that the general levels of sniping and snark are down. Perhaps the levels of posting in the Clinic are down, but I would NEVER take BroDeal's word for that any more. Not for a New York second. Somebody wants to post statistics, and verifiable numbers, fine. That would get some respect from me. But, you know, since the USADA decision - there ISN'T as much new source material for discussion in the clinic. I'm not saying there isn't any news, but there isn't as much news.

What I am seeing is people reaping a harvest of ill-will that they have sown. Some, obviously, do not believe they have been ill-mannered or destructive. But that is always the way of things, and those given the power to judge hopefully do the best they can without prejudice.

The activity I see from the mods today appears to me to be exactly that. They are doing the best they can with the tools they have (one of those tools being their own selves). If they are occasionally human, and err, well, life is like that. But I see mods maintaining an even-handed approach to consistently work with ALL posters to maintain productive and civil conversations.

And I, also, do disagree with some of the decisions, but like I just said, and it is worth repeating, doing the best they can with the tools.

Afaic, anybody wants to abuse that would do better to first step up and put in volunteer time to help out. And see if you can get them to accept your help. For some of the posters, that alone would be the biggest step.