Moderators

[Netserk]

Why did you change my quote? Not that it's a biggie (or even close), but it does puzzle me somewhat.

Can someone enlighten me and point out where the attack is in the post quoted?

 

[cineteq]

Can someone enlighten me and point out where the attack is in the post quoted?

So your point is to continue to make pointless remarks over the discussion at hand, which is way more inportant that this.

Can somebody answer his question please.

 

[Granville57]

After the fact, so what's the point? The decision stays.

Yes, the debate is after the fact, but that doesn't mean a reversal can not occur. There have been several times when debate here has resulted in the changing of a decision elsewhere on the forum.

So a paid mod will make a better decision?

No. I only meant to suggest that a volunteer mod is operating on more limited time, and with probably less patience than would someone who was paid for the job.

 

[Netserk]

So your point is to continue to make pointless remarks over the discussion at hand, which is way more inportant that this.

Can somebody answer his question please.

I just want you to point out where my attack is. You have used several of the last posts to put stamps on me, yet you haven't been able to back it up at all. You claim I make something up out of nothing, yet when Granville points out that that isn't true you just make a new claim. I now asked you to back up where my attack is and what happens? You make a new remark about how all of my remarks are pointless.

So please stop framing me and instead put up, don't just make some remark that I attacked you, show me where I did so. If not, then it's clear as day that I did in fact not attack you, but you just claimed I did so.

 

[cineteq]

There have been several times when debate here has resulted in the changing of a decision elsewhere on the forum.

When the mods leave no room for discussion ("it's my way or the highway"), then it will be no change. That's the attitude I've seen as of late.

@Netserk, take your irrelevant discussion elsewhere. I have no time for you.

 

[The Hitch]

Does anyone doubt the intention of this new poster who registered a month ago, that is dragging out every single thread, picking out every single post in the exact same way BPC always did?

I mean I understand you will never be able to stop them from returning, BPC has done so for 5 years and about 200 accounts. But it shouldn't be this easy. at least make them have to go through the process of pretending to be a genuine user for a few months like stutue did.

This one doesn't even bother. Full trolling and baiting from the day it was registered.

 

[Afrank]

I dont belive there were any accusations of doping or any speculations here. Only discussion is whether a person who was doping should keep the trophy.
Anyway, thats the part you get rid of but you keep the ****hole that Florecita and RedRick created here intact?

The thing is even though a discussion may not be accusing riders of doping it can still be a discussion that should be in the clinic or can quickly turn more so into a clinic discussion. For example if your saying the rider doping should give back all the winnings, then another poster comes in with the rider that got the trophy after the disqualification was doping too though. That's definitely a clinic discussion.

IMO, it's better to create a thread to discuss it in in the clinic and leave it out of PRR entirely.

As for the posts, I deleted the ones about doping that violated the rules. If I missed any posts that also were in violation of the rules, please let me know.

 

[Red Rick]

Agree with the mods on this one.

disagree with the claim that I'm accused of "creating this ****hole". Only thing I did was tell someone clearly and knowingly posting in the wrong subforum to shut up.

 

[damian13ster]

Well, with that logic there would be hardly anything to discuss because whenever someone wants to, they can interpret anything as a reason to start discussion about doping, insulting etc.

Dont know if it brakes any rules per se, but posts like this:

'I only wish Alberto could have pushed that stupid trophy down Andy's throat.'

Should at least result in a temporary break from anything trigerring such emotions.


I think the more worrying matter is keeping the discussion civil and PG rated than speculating whether some argument can lead to incorrect interpretation by other users which would prompt them to post clinic- worthy stuff.

It is only my personal opinion though.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Dont know if it brakes any rules per se, but posts like this:

'I only wish Alberto could have pushed that stupid trophy down Andy's throat.'

Should at least result in a temporary break from anything trigerring such emotions and prefferably a psychotic/iatric intervention.

Lol, shut up

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So anyone remember LauraLyn or whatever its name was? Did we end up working out who that was?

Coz it smells familiar.

 

[cineteq]

The thing is even though a discussion may not be accusing riders of doping it can still be a discussion that should be in the clinic or can quickly turn more so into a clinic discussion. For example if your saying the rider doping should give back all the winnings, then another poster comes in with the rider that got the trophy after the disqualification was doping too though. That's definitely a clinic discussion.

IMO, it's better to create a thread to discuss it in in the clinic and leave it out of PRR entirely.

Pertinent question: if i member writes Contador has won 8 GT titles, then it's a clinic post or not?

Btw, please stop saying IMO when you act upon and delete posts based on that very IMO. It's hypocresy. It doesn't make sense. It's misleading.

 

[the sceptic]

So anyone remember LauraLyn or whatever its name was? Did we end up working out who that was?

Coz it smells familiar.

Wasn't that an Armstrong bot?

I don't think there is any overlap between those and skybots but I could be wrong.

 

[veganrob]

Does anyone doubt the intention of this new poster who registered a month ago, that is dragging out every single thread, picking out every single post in the exact same way BPC always did?

I mean I understand you will never be able to stop them from returning, BPC has done so for 5 years and about 200 accounts. But it shouldn't be this easy. at least make them have to go through the process of pretending to be a genuine user for a few months like stutue did.

This one doesn't even bother. Full trolling and baiting from the day it was registered.

You are right on about this person. From the very first post he knew exactly what the deal was and how to push buttons.

 

[the sceptic]

You are right on about this person. From the very first post he knew exactly what the deal was and how to push buttons.

Don't worry, the mods are investigating and he will get banned in about 500 posts.

 

[Afrank]

Well, with that logic there would be hardly anything to discuss because whenever someone wants to, they can interpret anything as a reason to start discussion about doping, insulting etc.

Some topics are more inclined to head more so in the clinic direction then they already are though. I think this is one of them. And when I was re-reading it some of the posts in it did come off as saying that Contador was the dirty one and Andy was the rightful clean winner. Clean being the key word there.

Dont know if it brakes any rules per se, but posts like this:

'I only wish Alberto could have pushed that stupid trophy down Andy's throat.'

Should at least result in a temporary break from anything trigerring such emotions.


I think the more worrying matter is keeping the discussion civil and PG rated than speculating whether some argument can lead to incorrect interpretation by other users which would prompt them to post clinic- worthy stuff.

It is only my personal opinion though.

For those kind of posts as long as the poster doesn't go off posting lots of angry posts and isn't disrupting the thread I don't think it goes against any rules or should result in too much action taken.

 

[Afrank]

Pertinent question: if i member writes Contador has won 8 GT titles, then it's a clinic post or not?

Btw, please stop saying IMO when you act upon and delete posts based on that very IMO. It's hypocresy. It doesn't make sense. It's misleading.

IMO () that's not something that needs to go in the clinic unless a discussion directly involving the doping evolves from it.

And I said IMO because I am open to others opinions of a different course of action that could be taken. Posts don't always need to remain deleted and the first word is often far from the last word on most moderator cases/decisions.

I'm thinking I might restore a few posts in fact and amend my mod note saying to keep discussion in the new thread in the clinic created for the topic.

Edit: Okay, restored a handful of posts (only left 2 deleted I think), but see my edited mod note as well and keep further discussion in the "Keep the winnings?" thread. Thanks you damian13ster for creating a proper thread to discuss it in the clinic in BTW.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Some topics are more inclined to head more so in the clinic direction then they already are though. I think this is one of them. And when I was re-reading it some of the posts in it did come off as saying that Contador was the dirty one and Andy was the rightful clean winner. Clean being the key word there.



For those kind of posts as long as the poster doesn't go off posting lots of angry posts and isn't disrupting the thread I don't think it goes against any rules or should result in too much action taken.

I BEG your pardon?

My reply ("lol, shut up " ) gets deleted but the post I replied to in which it is implied I should see a psychiatrist is perfectly fine?

 

[Afrank]

I BEG your pardon?

My reply ("lol, shut up " ) gets deleted but the post I replied to in which it is implied I should see a psychiatrist is perfectly fine?

Your right, missed that on first read through. My bad, guess I need more coffee this morning.

damian13ster, please do not post such judgments about other members. Too personal and it is insulting.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Your right, missed that on first read through. My bad, guess I need more coffee this morning.

damian13ster, please do not post such judgments about other members. Too personal and it is insulting.

that explains it
no problem

 

[Bluenote]

I vote CN provide mods with a coffee stipend.

AFrank, appreciate that you are fair minded not "my way or the highway."

 

[cineteq]

IMO () that's not something that needs to go in the clinic unless a discussion directly involving the doping evolves from it.

That's the issue with you guys. Suggesting that AC has 8 GT titles is a trigger, thus that post should be deleted as well. If you allow that kind of posts, responses to it should be allowed as well. All I'm saying is: pick a side, be consistent, stop the double standard. Above all, use common sense.

 

[Afrank]

That's the issue with you guys. Suggesting that AC has 8 GT titles is a trigger, thus that post should be deleted as well. If you allow that kind of posts, responses to it should be allowed as well. All I'm saying is: pick a side, be consistent, stop the double standard. Above all, use common sense.

Is there a reason you can't respond to a post suggesting he has 8 titles and have a discussion on it in the clinic though?

One could even post in the original thread saying "see my post in ____ thread" (referring to a thread in the clinic). Like I did in the Schleck thread to move the discussion here.

Of course determining if such a conversation would be better in the clinic would also depend on the exact wording of the first post and post responding too it.


@Bluenote, I may just have to petition Dan for that.

 

[cineteq]

Is there a reason you can't respond to a post suggesting he has 8 titles and have a discussion on it in the clinic though?

Disagree. This who suggests the 8 titles should be in the clinic as well. It should be in one subforum, not two. Pick a side is all we ask.

 

[damian13ster]

Your right, missed that on first read through. My bad, guess I need more coffee this morning.

damian13ster, please do not post such judgments about other members. Too personal and it is insulting.

I missed a point where there was a judgement there on specific member. The judgment was on a specific quote, nothing more.

Oh well, there is really no point in continuing this