Moderators

[Granville57]

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

Been spending time in The Powercrank Thread?

 

[Granville57]

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.

Why so cryptic?

Race Radio and thehog.

There. I said it.

 

[Netserk]

Why so cryptic?

Race Radio and thehog.

There. I said it.

Try with a hamster and a cat

 

[Granville57]

Try with a hamster and a cat

Are you sure you're logged into the correct forum?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

That "are you on the right forum?" comment for some reason made me think of this...

 

[Granville57]

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

Just following orders?





Trying...to resist...Htiler cat...pic...

 

[Race Radio]

apparently "last chance" doesn't mean sh!t

It doesn't. Have heard that one tossed around many times, seldom happens.

I understand their challenge. It is increasingly hard to figure out who is a troll and who has a cognitive disorder

 

[python]

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.

Try with a hamster

hmmm, interesting

both of you are formerly voluntary mods who must know something we, the regular posters, only suspect thru our posting experience.

btw, net, i associate with your insight on berzin and sb..quite close to what i thought

 

[Race Radio]

It is very clear the mods want a forum based on conflict. They have no problem with posters who daily post absolute nonsense in hopes that it will bait others into responding. The mods issue various lines in the sand but when these lines are crossed over and over they do nothing. At the most it results in a temporary ban for everyone who posted on the thread.

The message is clear. If you are here largely to invent nonsense in hopes that someone will respond, this is your place. If you want to discuss a topic.....call your friends as it will not happen here.

 

[Afrank]

It is very clear the mods want a forum based on conflict. They have no problem with posters who daily post absolute nonsense in hopes that it will bait others into responding. The mods issue various lines in the sand but when these lines are crossed over and over they do nothing. At the most it results in a temporary ban for everyone who posted on the thread.

The message is clear. If you are here largely to invent nonsense in hopes that someone will respond, this is your place. If you want to discuss a topic.....call your friends as it will not happen here.

Really? We do nothing? A certain poster who've you've butted heads with a number of times is currently serving a ban if you didn't notice. And I'll let you in on something, the ban just happened to be for baiting yourself.

Or as an example of us not letting posters post untrue things, in the JTL thread recently both myself and Sittingbison at length tried to get Hog to post the evidence he supposedly had for Sky paying for JTL's defense. and multiple times posts containing untrue things, or baiting posts, or whatever else have been deleted. After they are reported a lot of the time. Sure, sometimes a few posts or occurrences will go by without action taken, but more often then not some kind of action will occur.
__________________________________________________________________________

Sometimes, I feel that many posters here (I'm talking in a general sense and not about any specific poster) invest themselves too emotionally in what get's posted by people and treat the forums too seriously.

 

[Puzzled and Upset]

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'?

I am NOT suicidal. I am NOT going to kill myself. I would appreciate an apology for this outrageous suggestion.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Or as an example of us not letting posters post untrue things, in the JTL thread recently both myself and Sittingbison at length tried to get Hog to post the evidence he supposedly had for Sky paying for JTL's defense. and multiple times posts containing untrue things, or baiting posts, or whatever else have been deleted.

A genuine question... what was actually achieved? Would you really say repetition of this behaviour was in anyway deterred?

It seemed to me you were both ignored (on numerous occasions) with no consequence and it was business as usual.

 

[laurel1969]

I am NOT suicidal. I am NOT going to kill myself. I would appreciate an apology for this outrageous suggestion.

I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm not suggesting you are actually suicidal, it was an analogy. It was commenting on posts you made asking to be banned.

I apologise if it has upset you and I shall go back and rephrase the offending post if, despite my explanation, it still upsets you.

 

[Puzzled and Upset]

I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm not suggesting you are actually suicidal, it was an analogy. It was commenting on posts you made asking to be banned.

I apologise if it has upset you and I shall go back and rephrase the offending post if, despite my explanation, it still upsets you.

Thank you for the apology. You apology is accepted and I will move on as though it was never said.

 

[MarkvW]

Thank you for the apology. You apology is accepted and I will move on as though it was never said.

So... is Puzzled and Upset a sockpuppet for Kotar_Rhakoz? You are easily the most bizarre poster here since DAOTEC. Keep up the insanity!

 

[dbrmuz]

So... is Puzzled and Upset a sockpuppet for Kotar_Rhakoz? You are easily the most bizarre poster here since DAOTEC. Keep up the insanity!

I'm eagerly awaiting his fifth identity in roughly a week. Though I wouldn't dare question his sanity.

 

[Race Radio]

Really? We do nothing?

My point was clear, the mods have claimed "last chance" over and over. It is pretty clear by now nothing is going to happen. The written rules of the forum are little more then a suggestion for some.

I do agree that some take it too seriously. To spend so much time inventing ways to provoke conflict is just odd.....an unhinged obsession

 

[Netserk]

hmmm, interesting

both of you are formerly voluntary mods who must know something we, the regular posters, only suspect thru our posting experience.

btw, net, i associate with your insight on berzin and sb..quite close to what i thought

Read a couple of hiero2's comments in this very thread, and you'll see what I was talking about. No privileged information needed for my observation

 

[Puzzled and Upset]

So... is Puzzled and Upset a sockpuppet for Kotar_Rhakoz? You are easily the most bizarre poster here since DAOTEC. Keep up the insanity!

I remember Daotec. He was at times a good poster. I wish I was as good as him.

 

[Puzzled and Upset]

I'm eagerly awaiting his fifth identity in roughly a week. Though I wouldn't dare question his sanity.

I will help you avoid the confusion.

My real first name is Scott, just call me Scott. That is my only real identity.

 

[red_flanders]

It is very clear the mods want a forum based on conflict. They have no problem with posters who daily post absolute nonsense in hopes that it will bait others into responding. The mods issue various lines in the sand but when these lines are crossed over and over they do nothing. At the most it results in a temporary ban for everyone who posted on the thread.

The message is clear. If you are here largely to invent nonsense in hopes that someone will respond, this is your place. If you want to discuss a topic.....call your friends as it will not happen here.

Still trying to get thehog banned, eh?

 

[sniper]

It is very clear the mods want a forum based on conflict. They have no problem with posters who daily post absolute nonsense in hopes that it will bait others into responding. The mods issue various lines in the sand but when these lines are crossed over and over they do nothing. At the most it results in a temporary ban for everyone who posted on the thread.

The message is clear. If you are here largely to invent nonsense in hopes that someone will respond, this is your place. If you want to discuss a topic.....call your friends as it will not happen here.

the forum would be dull as hell without regular heated discussions.

if thehog affirms Sky have paid for JTLs defence, it's obvious to me he doesn't have that black on white.
I haven't followed that debate closely but i don't see why anybody would get upset about such an affirmation.
Completely trivial, unless you have some bizarre interest in defending Sky on this forum.
It's a bit of speculation disguised as an affirmation, but there should be some room for that, imo.

some discussion is obviously more heated than other discussion, that's the charm of the forum, as long as posters refrain from superfluous insults.
i think the mods are doing a good job at filtering out the unpleasantries, although for reasons explained by Brodeal I too think there should be less bans, especially for steady contributors who make the place lively.

an idea, not sure if it's feasible:
if a poster misbehaves/trolls/insults in a certain thread, ban the poster for that thread only (unless of course there are clear grounds to ban him from the forum, e.g. in the case of suckpuppets or whatever).
the thread ban can be permanent or temporary.
it's a way to filter out trolls, and to stop certain circular debates that are getting out of control.
recently, the bickering between Race Radio and thehog could have ended easily by banning you guys from that one thread.
there was no need for a forumwide ban for either of you, i think.

 

[laurel1969]

Would I be correct in thinking that most (all?) of the issues and conflicts that arise do so in the Clinic section?

If that is the case then it seems to me that more rigour should be applied to the provision of evidence to back up claims. It is unverified claims that cause the offence in the first place, no? Without the evidence all you have is opinion.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Would I be correct in thinking that most (all?) of the issues and conflicts that arise do so in the Clinic section?

If that is the case then it seems to me that more rigour should be applied to the provision of evidence to back up claims. It is unverified claims that cause the offence in the first place, no? Without the evidence all you have is opinion.

Forum rules/guidelines already cover most of this

Proof of point, opinions, and common knowledge: you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping" as a fact. You can't claim your post as a fact unless you provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. If, on the other hand, it is in the realm of "common knowledge", then it is acceptable to make an unverified statement. Be careful - common knowledge would apply, for instance, at the time of this posting, to Lance Armstrong. But allegations of current doping, and current riders, would not be "common knowledge" at this point. To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, and widely agreed with. This point is particularly applicable in The Clinic.

 

[Netserk]

Forum rules/guidelines already cover most of this

Which is from the guidelines part of the post you're quoting.