Moderators

[Irondan]

Re:

Perfectly civil request,introducing a subject of which many of us will have had experience, one frankly rude and dismissive reply, and then the thread is locked. Why?

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but I answered the comment with civility, modesty and most assuredly not rude.

The forum policy is that we are not able to give medical advice to those seeking it, which is precisely what that person was requesting.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

Perfectly civil request,introducing a subject of which many of us will have had experience, one frankly rude and dismissive reply, and then the thread is locked. Why?

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but I answered the comment with civility, modesty and most assuredly not rude.

The forum policy is that we are not able to give medical advice to those seeking it, which is precisely what that person was requesting.

Source for this policy?

 

[Irondan]

This comment was discussed with a senior administrator before it was locked.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

So is this a pre-existing, announced, policy, or policy making on the hoof?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

It seems to me that the actions of the mods were totally appropriate in locking down that thread. Everything about it seems disingenuous, and the only thing that surprises me is that there wasn't a direct link to some for-profit center/book/online program, etc. But I'd be willing to be bet that that's where the thread was headed.

Could it not be more obvious? A first time poster that seems to have gotten lost in the woods ends up looking for very specific medical advice with a story that doesn't quite wash. The OP supposedly already has an appointment for surgery, but instead of asking legitimate questions to their doctor, they come in here?

The telltale sign of BS is the last line of the post:
"i hope everyone on this thread have made full recoveries from this unfortunate injury..."

Who is that directed at? Who is "everyone," before anyone had even posted anything? Where had anyone even divulged having had this same injury? Why is it written in the past tense? It reads like a blanket post that was very likely scattered across multiple forums for what usually turns out to be some commercial promotion for a product or service.

If this is the only forum you've been on, then maybe it's not so obvious to you. But this is transparently disingenuous to anyone that's been around at all.

Here's a simple test:
If the author, "donneh" makes no attempt to ask why the thread was shut down (either here or through a PM to a mod) then it is mostly likely nothing more than commercial spam in the making. Don't hold your breath though.

 

[red_flanders]

Can we all just let the mods do their job? No amount of policy can account for every post or incident. They consulted one another, used some judgement and you don't agree. Let's move along.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Can we all just let the mods do their job? No amount of policy can account for every post or incident. They consulted one another, used some judgement and you don't agree. Let's move along.

I hate +1'ing. But... +1. It's getting ridiculous.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

If there was a good reason, by all means give the good reason; if there is such a policy, it should be available to see.

I don't necessarily object to a thread being closed: I do object to being lied to.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

If there was a good reason, by all means give the good reason; if there is such a policy, it should be available to see.

I don't necessarily object to a thread being closed: I do object to being lied to.

faq.php

 

[Irondan]

Re:

If there was a good reason, by all means give the good reason; if there is such a policy, it should be available to see.

I don't necessarily object to a thread being closed: I do object to being lied to.

You were not lied to at all, I'm not sure where this is coming from.

We closed a thread and gave you a reason when you asked for one, there was nothing deceptive at all about what I said or did.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

If there was a good reason, by all means give the good reason; if there is such a policy, it should be available to see.

I don't necessarily object to a thread being closed: I do object to being lied to.

You were not lied to at all, I'm not sure where this is coming from.

We closed a thread and gave you a reason when you asked for one, there was nothing deceptive at all about what I said or did.

You told me that the subject matter contravened policy: if there is no such policy, that was a lie, and posting a link to a FAQ page does not constitute evidence of relevant policy.

 

[thehog]

Mod's I think you should allow a new thread for Froome's testing.

It would be good to get into the detail of the actual testing, the results and methodology without the usual Froome talk.

Would that be ok on December 3rd?

 

[Irondan]

Mod's I think you should allow a new thread for Froome's testing.

It would be good to get into the detail of the actual testing, the results and methodology without the usual Froome talk.

Would that be ok on December 3rd?

I don't have an issue with starting a new thread as long as it doesn't cross over into a general discussion about Chris Froome.

 

[thehog]

Mod's I think you should allow a new thread for Froome's testing.

It would be good to get into the detail of the actual testing, the results and methodology without the usual Froome talk.

Would that be ok on December 3rd?

I don't have an issue with starting a new thread as long as it doesn't cross over into a general discussion about Chris Froome.

I think that's a good idea. Easier to get into the finer details of the data and the report.

Thanks Mods.

 

[King Boonen]

Usually I report any new Sky/Froome/Wiggins thread as it's just annoying. If it's well policed I'd fully support that though, would make it much easier to find the stuff that actually interests me!

 

[djpbaltimore]

Alternatively, we could just bump the thread about his physiological data leaked from Ventoux. Maybe rename it to be a more general discussion about the empirical data associated with Froome. JMO

'Froome's SRM data on Ventoux'

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Alternatively, we could just bump the thread about his physiological data leaked from Ventoux. Maybe rename it to be a more general discussion about the empirical data associated with Froome. JMO

'Froome's SRM data on Ventoux'

Cold work, but didn't that thread descend into a ridiculous, point scoring argument resulting in someone leaving? Or was that the tailwind thread?

 

[djpbaltimore]

Good points. Maybe it is better to start fresh after all.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Good points. Maybe it is better to start fresh after all.

***edited by mods*** Regardless of whether one feels Froome is doping or not I think the discussion on the data will be interesting. Not just the results but the types of testing that as conducted.

 

[Irondan]

The snide remarks and baiting tactics are not tolerated in this thread.

Please think before you post.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

The snide remarks and baiting tactics are not tolerated in this thread.

Please think before you post.

With respect to the Froomze power data / physical data info being buried in the Froomazoomzoom thread.
I saw where the poll about Froomze VO2 was locked but could we maybe add that poll to the original Froomazoom thread?

No big deal but once they release the really real data - this thread could become a mad house.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

The snide remarks and baiting tactics are not tolerated in this thread.

Please think before you post.

With respect to the Froomze power data / physical data info being buried in the Froomazoomzoom thread.
I saw where the poll about Froomze VO2 was locked but could we maybe add that poll to the original Froomazoom thread?

No big deal but once they release the really real data - this thread could become a mad house.

I don't have a problem with that but I believe 'the hog' wants to create the new thread, I think it if he agree's to merge the poll into his thread then I'll make it happen.

Is that fair?

 

[TheSpud]

I think a new thread on the data would work, but there would be a danger of crossover between that and the normal one.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

I think a new thread on the data would work, but there would be a danger of crossover between that and the normal one.

Let's be clear, any new Chris Froome Data thread will be monitored, and moderated according to forum rules.

 

[TheSpud]

Are public accusations of trolling (however subtle) still unacceptable?