Moderators

[Anonymous]

Its nice to have TFF back..

Id take ten Tff's over one Daotec any day of the week. (although ten dao's could be amusing. they would fight with each other and nobody would be wrong)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Wow someone new locks the DAOTEC thread. One new opinion and boom the thread is shut down. That had been going on for a while with the old moderators commenting etc.

That shows that sometimes Moderating is just opinion. Much like everyone who posts here who has opinions on different topics. Funny insight…in my opinion. .

 

[pedaling squares]

Wow someone new locks the DAOTEC thread. One new opinion and boom the thread is shut down. That had been going on for a while with the old moderators commenting etc.

That shows that sometimes Moderating is just opinion. Much like everyone who posts here who has opinions on different topics. Funny insight…in my opinion. .

Hi Glenn. That thread was brought to our attention by users and then discussed among the new mods. I supported its closure. But the closure does not single out any "one new opinion". The salient points had been made in that thread long ago and the admins had mentioned that DAOTEC might be considered for return. So we had to consider, were we doing him any favours by allowing users to bring up his old posts as subjects of mild teasing? Potentially no, and it was in my opinion better to close the thread. And I am one who contributed to that thread in a manner that DAOTEC might not have appreciated. You will note that the posts were not deleted, there was no censorship or punitive action, but merely a decision to let something go that appeared to have passed its 'best before date'.

 

[Spare Tyre]

I guess there is a difference in culture at play here, deep down. Free speech is a great mantra, but will from time to time ignores the freedom of an individual to go in peace, and not to be aggressively bullied by a **** with an opinion, etc. There are subtly different cultural attitudes in play here.

But in the end it is immaterial, as it is trumped by the one that is mightier in both: this is not a free speech site, but a forum on a privately owned server.

One of the rules is that people are expected to address each other respectfully. There are other rules. The moment you post here, you accept to abide by those rules.

The merits of absolute Freedom of Speech is an interesting discussion, but there are simply rules here.

And in practise, you are free to give just about ANY opinion you want here. You might need to think about HOW to say it, but on the whole, there is VERY little that you can't say. And I can't think of many commercial sites that let posters get away with half the stuff that people are free to insinuate here.

If you can't "figure out who the cranks are", even based on their less colourful wording, I find that hard to believe.

Thank you Francois.

When I first joined I thought this place was a lawless wild west. For some people "free speech" seems to mean "licence to insult". It can be entertaining, sure, but it can also be brutal.

Thanks to the mods. I don't agree with every decision I see, but I certainly appreciate the turn towards civility and think, on the whole, they perform a largely thankless service very well.

 

[Beech Mtn]

I asked the moderators to consider shutting down the Daotec thread. It seems to me that since we have a rule to not insult other users, then a whole thread about one particular user, once it ends up being mainly messages mocking that person, violates the rules. It's one thing to have the odd comment here and there in threads about other topics, but a whole thread devoted to one individual seems too much, especially when it's been almost a month since the guy was banned.

When you get banned, you can't post, you can't PM, you can't reply in any way. The person can't defend themselves during a ban. I agree that Dao put up some bad posts, but he also contributed quite a lot of good posts to the forum, in my opinion. He shouldn't be treated like BPC v.92.0.

I don't understand why anyone would have much of problem with the Daotec thread being closed. The discussion of his ban had petered out and the thread was just insults and mockery. And full disclosure - yes, I have one post in that thread.

 

[BroDeal]

What are the obvious reasons we cannot discuss a rider, whose team is paying him two million quid a year, effectively saying that the road does not matter and he is just killing time between the Olympics?

 

[Martin318is]

Busted.

But this also illustrates the point I have been trying to make.

I know you and the other mods have not been arbitrary in your decisions to ban people. But you can see from what I wrote that I tried to make clear that I wasn't talking about the mod who gave me a warning and was doing my best not to risk offending another. This perceived need for self-censorship is what takes away the fun of participating in any forum.


The people who moderate the forum are doing a lot of work for free and little or no gratitude. I understand and appreciate your efforts. But as I have tried to explain to the best of my limited abilities, a lighter touch would go a long way to making this a better forum.

Yeah but you didn't really make your point by doing that though. You see, if you had simply said: "I am concerned by the moderation style of Barrus for these reasons: 1.2.3., etc"

You would have got a simple and well reasoned response (just like you eventually did once we got past the query of who you meant). Nobody would have attacked you or edited your posts etc just because you named the moderator.

 

[Martin318is]

What are the obvious reasons we cannot discuss a rider, whose team is paying him two million quid a year, effectively saying that the road does not matter and he is just killing time between the Olympics?

because (as had been reported to me by others) it was already degenerating into off topic doping conversation outside the clinic. I may be incorrect in my recollection but I think your post was the only one taht was ON topic.

I of course did have the option to perhaps have moved it to the clinic, but the fact that only about 4 posts in nobody was actually discussing the topic made it pretty obvious that it was just going to be yet another thread to kick Wigans randomly.

If someone other than yourself wants to get the topic re-opened for a valid reason then I will happily edit out the existing posts and re-open it.


EDIT:

Actually I went back and checked. We have your post that links his comments to alcohol, Hitch saying that he was glad he read that before the thread is closed, someone posting an image of Charlie Sheen's head, and a comment about Wigans cheating his way to 4th place while at Garmin...

I stand by the "obvious reasons" comment on the face of that little list...

 

[BroDeal]

because (as had been reported to me by others) it was already degenerating into off topic doping conversation outside the clinic. I may be incorrect in my recollection but I think your post was the only one taht was ON topic.

I of course did have the option to perhaps have moved it to the clinic, but the fact that only about 4 posts in nobody was actually discussing the topic made it pretty obvious that it was just going to be yet another thread to kick Wigans randomly.

If someone other than yourself wants to get the topic re-opened for a valid reason then I will happily edit out the existing posts and re-open it.


EDIT:

Actually I went back and checked. We have your post that links his comments to alcohol, Hitch saying that he was glad he read that before the thread is closed, someone posting an image of Charlie Sheen's head, and a comment about Wigans cheating his way to 4th place while at Garmin...

I stand by the "obvious reasons" comment on the face of that little list...

So, closed before any serious discussion could be added. Gotcha.

 

[Martin318is]

Cute - how about you go with something a little more honest?


and if your intention really is to discuss your rephrasing of the topic as per above. Why not open THAT topic and see if someone wants to discuss that with you.... just sayin

 

[BroDeal]

Cute - how about you go with something a little more honest?


and if your intention really is to discuss your rephrasing of the topic as per above. Why not open THAT topic and see if someone wants to discuss that with you.... just sayin

I don't want to open a thread with a boring title. Let one of Wigan's defenders explain how he went from targeting a win at the TdF to just hanging out in Europe until the next Olympics. Maybe someone can come up with a explanation aside from him being back on the sauce.

And to me it looked like the meaning of Hitch's post was that he is holding out hope that Wigans can pull off a win at P-N and salivating over the prospect of sticking it to detractors like me.

 

[Martin318is]

okay comprimise - I will re-open it, kill the junk posts, change the title a teeny bit, and put a statement about being on topic in there.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I asked the moderators to consider shutting down the Daotec thread. It seems to me that since we have a rule to not insult other users, then a whole thread about one particular user, once it ends up being mainly messages mocking that person, violates the rules. It's one thing to have the odd comment here and there in threads about other topics, but a whole thread devoted to one individual seems too much, especially when it's been almost a month since the guy was banned.

When you get banned, you can't post, you can't PM, you can't reply in any way. The person can't defend themselves during a ban. I agree that Dao put up some bad posts, but he also contributed quite a lot of good posts to the forum, in my opinion. He shouldn't be treated like BPC v.92.0.

I don't understand why anyone would have much of problem with the Daotec thread being closed. The discussion of his ban had petered out and the thread was just insults and mockery. And full disclosure - yes, I have one post in that thread.

I have no interest in Dao at all and I dammm sure was not insulting him or mocking him. I just thought it was odd that suddenly the thread was closed. I posted my opinion on the closure if my opinion is off then that is what it is. I think I also only have one post in the thread and it was not to insult Dao at all it was in reply to someone posting a link to the GI joe Public service s****s. I thought it was funny.

It is also funny how certain people can be brought up over and over with regards to making a mockery of them. Yet nothing happens to that same asshat who keeps bringing the same old tired *** complaints and reports.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I have no interest in Dao at all and I dammm sure was not insulting him or mocking him. I just thought it was odd that suddenly the thread was closed. I posted my opinion on the closure if my opinion is off then that is what it is.

So you can safely assume that your post in that thread was not a contributory reason for closing it Glenn. Rather then getting defensive about it. Maybe it was the nature of other and more recent posts that triggered the feedback we were getting?

What you have had is the mod who closed it stating why it was done, you even had one member who reported it stating what prompted him to post it.

If you start diving into this sub forum, you'll see that this isn't the first time we have stopped people discussing individual members here, and their posting styles. This forum is about us, not you guys. We cannot stop people from making a comment about others, and sometimes I will address the person who addresses me about their style if it touches upon the issue they raise with us, but the moment people start to comment at length we tend to shut that down.

Since we have given a clear signal that as far as we are concerned Daotec might well return at some point in the future, if the circumstances are right, we have actually done the opposite of what we have done in the past, and allowed people to have their say.

Partly because of the strong (and opposing) feelings Daotec triggers with many, mostly because we were dealing with an exceptional circumstance. We let people have their say.

Since then, time has passed, and the new posts were no longer about our modding action, but purely about the poster. Mostly highlighting quirks and peculiarities. All repeating posts long made. Without Doatec's ability to comment on it. And not looking to die any time soon.

Closing the thread was very appropriate to my eyes. The thread's nature and purpose has changed over time. So a new attitude is not inconsistent, it's simply reflective of the water that has passed under the bridge since it was created.

So there is no inconsistency between us being in favour of keeping it open then, and us (including new eyes) being in favour of closing it now. This isn't done on the whim by a different mod who judges it differently, as you appeared to conclude.

The circumstances by which the thread's ongoing purpose are judged have altered significantly enough.

 

[Hugh Januss]

okay comprimise - I will re-open it, kill the junk posts, change the title a teeny bit, and put a statement about being on topic in there.

Clearly though any thread about Wigans belongs in the clinic, whether he is currently on peds or Boddingtons.

 

[The Hitch]

I don't want to open a thread with a boring title. Let one of Wigan's defenders explain how he went from targeting a win at the TdF to just hanging out in Europe until the next Olympics. Maybe someone can come up with a explanation aside from him being back on the sauce.

And to me it looked like the meaning of Hitch's post was that he is holding out hope that Wigans can pull off a win at P-N and salivating over the prospect of sticking it to detractors like me.

Actually since the title of the thread is "Is Wiggins back on the booze" and the quote is "I just do things in the other four years to keep myself busy really" I thought you were having a light joke at the expense of Wiggins well known problems with alcohol.
The joke being that if he says he does other things to keep him occupied, what he means by "other things" is drink.

I found the joke funny hence wrote
"lol"
before predicting correctly that the thread would be closed.

But eager to put some one down, and predicting, presumably because my location says "London", that i must be a Wiggins fan, and "salivate over the prospect of sticking it to detractors" you create an opponent where there is none.

Its quite ironic because you are always the first to jump on anyone for the slightest misunderstanding.

What is it that they say about glass houses

 

[BroDeal]

But eager to put some one down, and predicting, presumably because my location says "London", that i must be a Wiggins fan, and "salivate over the prospect of sticking it to detractors" you create an opponent where there is none.

Its quite ironic because you are always the first to jump on anyone for the slightest misunderstanding.

What is it that they say about glass houses

I seem to recall you berating me in the past for bagging on Wigans, but maybe I am thinking of another poster...

Regardless, I think it is very important that we discuss the latest in Wigans' hopeless quest to stand on the TdF's final podium. The British Tommy D. is always good for a laugh. Maybe that comparison is not apt. TD actually won a few stage races.

 

[red_flanders]

The British Tommy D...

Sir, you go too far!

 

[Anonymous]

Just so people know, it was I reported the Wiggins thread, mainly because by post 4 it had already got onto to discussing blood doping outside of the clinic.

Something i was served an infraction for.
#
Of course what the mods decided to do has nowt to do with me.

 

[Anonymous]

Its nice to have TFF back..

Id take ten Tff's over one Daotec any day of the week. (although ten dao's could be amusing. they would fight with each other and nobody would be wrong)

Thank's Dim.

 

[BroDeal]

Just so people know, it was I reported the Wiggins thread, mainly because by post 4 it had already got onto to discussing blood doping outside of the clinic.

Something i was served an infraction for.
#
Of course what the mods decided to do has nowt to do with me.

That TERMINATOR post came out of nowhere. He could have made a similar post in any thread.

 

[gregod]

Yeah but you didn't really make your point by doing that though. You see, if you had simply said: "I am concerned by the moderation style of Barrus for these reasons: 1.2.3., etc"

Perhaps we are at cross purposes. In the previous post I was trying to make a point about moderation not the moderators, that is why I only alluded to Barrus. A further point that I was trying to make in the part you quoted was that moderation leads to self-censorship which is a more insidious form of censorship.

You would have got a simple and well reasoned response (just like you eventually did once we got past the query of who you meant). Nobody would have attacked you or edited your posts etc just because you named the moderator.

I didn't think anybody would attack me or edit any of my posts for naming a moderator. Again, I am trying to make a point about moderation in general, not the people doing it.

 

[Francois the Postman]

But your point is that you are self-censoring, and that is bad, so moderation should be less.

That is fine and well, but that means that either people:
1) self-moderate to the point that it all works better than the current modding accomplishes
and/or
2) accept a free for all and accept that as inherently better

That doesn't sit well with what was taking place just before moderation was stepped up a level. It doesn't sit well with the practice, which wasn't at all what your theory implied (that less moderation created a better quality and atmosphere on balance, not the same as a better quality and atmosphere for you).

Not that long ago we had less active moderation.

You said that you enjoyed it better, but that wasn't the only feedback we got. Plus the board is in constant flux and evolution anyway. To think that the tone only changes because of a change in modding is too simplistic.

But using less moderation (the little that we actually use), we would instantly see a few trouble spots get out of control again. Trouble spots that were tone-deaf to gentle request to tone it down a bit, or create a bit more space for the enjoyment of others.

Why should we apply less moderation if the real problem is that you are misjudging the level of self-censorshop required? I would suggest that the real solution is that you and others should stop self-censoring where it really isn't needed, as there really is far less need to on this particular forum than some people keep suggesting. Most of the self-censorship seems to be caused by bad judgement, not because it is warranted.

I deliberately named Barrus as you spend 15 paragraphs naming him, without doing so, when naming him would have had zero consequences. We have stated that over and over again. Talk to civilly, and pretty much anything goes here. If that is hard to understand or apply, the problem isn't with us.

The reason that the only real solution is that people should self-censor less is that we need moderation as a tool here. It will be used. If we relax moderation, as you suggest, we will only slide back to the place we wanted to pull back from.

There is some irony in that some of the people who moan most about more active modding were directly responsible for triggering it. I am not saying you are part of that group.

I don't care how people portray the level of censorship here, in reality it is quite a free speech forum. Not totally free, but if you take a it of care how you state your opinion, just about everything can be said here.

And the moderation that takes place is to create space for more people to join in and give their pov, and to have an atmosphere that doesn't deter the more respectful and considerate posters.

I know you think that less moderation does that. We found that the practice of a good few months back didn't square up with the theory.

I guess it is pretty obvious that we disagree about the theory about what is best here, the assessment of what went on, or how much the theory actually applies to the real-world forum that we have.

I do hear you, I get the angle of your argument. I just disagree about how it applies to the realities of this particular forum. I guess I also value pragmatism over theory, maybe that doesn't help with the debate about theory.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

I see gregod has problem with barrus. Barrus is not my favorite mod anymore because he ban me for talking politics and I hardly said anything except people are gullible or something. I really can't remember but then many posts after mine talk about alott of poltics in the same thread! Sarah palin and other people like that. I read it because I was hurt by this ban but still wanted to follow the thread then I was like wth no fair!

Maybe these new mods can help take pressure off of barrus so he won't have to flex his power so much by having uneven bully modding. I am an easy target because I'm new but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Barrus]

I see gregod has problem with barrus. Barrus is not my favorite mod anymore because he ban me for talking politics and I hardly said anything except people are gullible or something. I really can't remember but then many posts after mine talk about alott of poltics in the same thread! Sarah palin and other people like that. I read it because I was hurt by this ban but still wanted to follow the thread then I was like wth no fair!

Maybe these new mods can help take pressure off of barrus so he won't have to flex his power so much by having uneven bully modding. I am an easy target because I'm new but that doesn't make it right.

If you had read the reasoning of your ban you would have realized that this was but one of the many reasons and that that post was the straw that broke the camels back. If you cannot see this and do not understand it and do not amend your general behaviour here, there is a good chance that you will soon get another vacation