Moderators

[RedheadDane]

The hog has been banned for a week for trolling.

You sure it wasn't because he hadn't been banned in a long time.

 

[Stingray34]

Re: Re:

I gave an explanation on why the lemond thread was closed.

Any conspiracy theories that are generated are just plain false.

Irondan,

Are you sure it wasn't you on the grassy knoll?

Not entirely.

Thank you, Irondan, for closing the Lemond clinic thread for the reasons you listed - no new info, just butt-hurting speculation.

I was bummed a week or two ago when you gave me a warning for making a joking post about parakeets when you thought I was trolling - I wasn't: I'm a part-time stand-up comedian for fun and I was trialling a bit (parakeets - such discrimination, they should be full keets) from which in my bit I segued into the poet John Keats...blah blah...la belle bird sans Mercedes (it was an educated audience.)

Anyone still trying to pin doping on Lemond needs to get a somewhat-worthwhile life. It ain't gonna happen.

Again thanks, Irondan, for your judgement.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Classicomano's reprehensible post in the Paris Nice thread sent me looking for a set of forum rules to check that conduct like that is explicitly prohibited: all I could find was something quoted 2 1/2 years ago as being 'New Rules'.
Could rules be stickied somewhere where they will be clear and easily found?

 

[Carols]

Re:

Classicomano's reprehensible post in the Paris Nice thread sent me looking for a set of forum rules to check that conduct like that is explicitly prohibited: all I could find was something quoted 2 1/2 years ago as being 'New Rules'.
Could rules be stickied somewhere where they will be clear and easily found?

Yes Please, post the rules where they are easy to find. Thanks!

 

[ferryman]

Re:

Classicomano's reprehensible post in the Paris Nice thread sent me looking for a set of forum rules to check that conduct like that is explicitly prohibited: all I could find was something quoted 2 1/2 years ago as being 'New Rules'.
Could rules be stickied somewhere where they will be clear and easily found?

I've been away from Moderating for a while and yes, agree it was a disgraceful post but it did not go unnoticed. I can assure you it won't be tolerated.

 

[bobbins]

'irondan' seems to be a ban-happy at the moment. Maybe the power of moderation has gone to his head.

I got banned for apparently being off topic, yet I only replied to off topic posts and as far as I can tell other posters off topic posts are let there and they are not banned.

Do rules apply equally to all posters or are they selectively applied depending on what mood a moderator is in?

 

[bobbins]

Re:

'irondan' seems to be a ban-happy at the moment. Maybe the power of moderation has gone to his head.

I got banned for apparently being off topic, yet I only replied to off topic posts and as far as I can tell other posters off topic posts are let there and they are not banned.

Do rules apply equally to all posters or are they selectively applied depending on what mood a moderator is in?

I've messaged 'ironman' asking for clarification around the ban as the emails I sent went unanswered. A very polite email but it would be nice to know what rules each poster has to stick to.

Whilst awaiting a reply I'll make sure to flag any off topic posts.

 

[King Boonen]

So many people complaining about bans, yet the vast majority of users seem to get on just fine and never even enter a mods cross-hairs. Maybe some self-reflection is required?


Mods, if someone spams the forum, how many of their posts do we need to report. The latest one I reported all of them but I don't know if this overloads your system, helps you find all the posts or what? I'm guessing if you delete the user all of their posts are gone but I'm not sure? If so, do you just need a couple reported to show the pattern?

 

[Irondan]

Re:

So many people complaining about bans, yet the vast majority of users seem to get on just fine and never even enter a mods cross-hairs. Maybe some self-reflection is required?


Mods, if someone spams the forum, how many of their posts do we need to report. The latest one I reported all of them but I don't know if this overloads your system, helps you find all the posts or what? I'm guessing if you delete the user all of their posts are gone but I'm not sure? If so, do you just need a couple reported to show the pattern?

I usually go through a spammers posting history to make sure there aren't a bunch more spam comments scattered throughout the forum.

You can just report one of them, we'll find the rest.

 

[King Boonen]

Great, thanks for the reply.

 

[sniper]

Re:

So many people complaining about bans, yet the vast majority of users seem to get on just fine and never even enter a mods cross-hairs. Maybe some self-reflection is required?

Great point. Especially from the mods, I would add.

If the mods treat everybody the same, there will be no, or less, complaints.
I think that's obvious.
if the mods apply certain rules in some cases, but not in other cases, of course people are gonna feel unfairly treated. I think that's obvious too.
Sure, the mods cannot treat everybody the same; there's too much for them to look at, and too few mods to do the work. That's similarly obvious!
But the point is: there should be room for complaining and subsequent reflection on mod-actions. Currently, there seems to be no room for such reflection whatsoever. All you get is a "move on".
Which creates a kind of a totalitarian atmosphere in here, which is not really 21st century imo.

bobbins ban imo was misplaced, considering we get tons of offtopic posts on a daily basis.
If you think it was warranted, that's faiur enough, but I think at the very least then bobbins has the right to wonder why other offtopic postings weren't met with similar bans.

Your post sounds like you're saying that "all complaints are per definition baseless and wrong", but correct me if wrong.

 

[King Boonen]

I think it's pretty obvious that's not what I'm saying and I also think it's pretty obvious what my point is. I also didn't bring up Bobbins and have no opinion on that users ban.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

So many people complaining about bans, yet the vast majority of users seem to get on just fine and never even enter a mods cross-hairs. Maybe some self-reflection is required?

Great point. Especially from the mods, I would add.

If the mods treat everybody the same, there will be no, or less, complaints.
I think that's obvious.
if the mods apply certain rules in some cases, but not in other cases, of course people are gonna feel unfairly treated. I think that's obvious too.
Sure, the mods cannot treat everybody the same; there's too much for them to look at, and too few mods to do the work. That's similarly obvious!
But the point is: there should be room for complaining and subsequent reflection on mod-actions. Currently, there seems to be no room for such reflection whatsoever. All you get is a "move on".
Which creates a kind of a totalitarian atmosphere in here, which is not really 21st century imo.

bobbins ban imo was misplaced, considering we get tons of offtopic posts on a daily basis.
If you think it was warranted, that's faiur enough, but I think at the very least then bobbins has the right to wonder why other offtopic postings weren't met with similar bans.

Your post sounds like you're saying that "all complaints are per definition baseless and wrong", but correct me if wrong.

It’s never going to be perfect. I actually think it’s got a lot better. There was a time when the reporting system was used by some as a means to get others banned. Posters from other Sky-friendly forums would drop in, stir up some trouble then start reporting posts. Most of them have gone once they started getting banned and found out for using multiple accounts, posting the same responses on two different forums under two user names. It was obvious to all those who spent time on the forum but mods can’t watch every post on 12 different sub forums. Not possible. So sometimes it helps sending them a message and giving them the time to investigate.

Sometimes people go too far, get too annoyed and persistently push the agenda. One week off won’t hurt and the issue goes away. Coming back to seek justice and revenge is not the means to do it. Just a quick mail to a mod and hopefully they’ll get around to replying. Maybe they won’t, they are not a 24/7 call centre – and that’s why some self moderation works best.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
It’s never going to be perfect. I actually think it’s got a lot better. There was a time when the reporting system was used by some as a means to get others banned. Posters from other Sky-friendly forums would drop in, stir up some trouble then start reporting posts. Most of them have gone once they started getting banned and found out for using multiple accounts, posting the same responses on two different forums under two user names. It was obvious to all those who spent time on the forum but mods can’t watch every post on 12 different sub forums. Not possible. So sometimes it helps sending them a message and giving them the time to investigate.

Sometimes people go too far, get too annoyed and persistently push the agenda. One week off won’t hurt and the issue goes away. Coming back to seek justice and revenge is not the means to do it. Just a quick mail to a mod and hopefully they’ll get around to replying. Maybe they won’t, they are not a 24/7 call centre – and that’s why some self moderation works best.

agreed on all accounts.
it's not possible.
and therefore it's normal that some posters will feel unjustly treated.
and therefore it should be normal that someone comes in to ask for clarification from time to time.
call it 'complaining' if you will.
what we often see is that such 'asking for clarification/complaining' is rebutted with a "move on or get banned" type of message. I don't think that's the right response.
let people complain as long as they complain in the right thread, and, whilst complaining, don't insult anybody and don't derail threads.
Sometimes a "yeah, see what you mean" message suffices to get the 'complainer' quiet.

all that said, my previous post was too harsh towards the mods. I shouldn't have used the word "totalitarian", and surely I should, like you, have stressed the good work they're doing at the same time.

 

[bobbins]

Re:

So many people complaining about bans, yet the vast majority of users seem to get on just fine and never even enter a mods cross-hairs. Maybe some self-reflection is required?


Mods, if someone spams the forum, how many of their posts do we need to report. The latest one I reported all of them but I don't know if this overloads your system, helps you find all the posts or what? I'm guessing if you delete the user all of their posts are gone but I'm not sure? If so, do you just need a couple reported to show the pattern?

There are some inconsistent bans being placed here. Posters banned for no reason and certainly not given an reason for being banned.

You are lucky you didnt get banned for reporting spam posts, I just got banned for flagging off topic posts.

I have a feeling there is more to the recent bans.

 

[TheSpud]

Some months ago there was a request for new mods, maybe in this thread - i cant remember. Some people publically declared their interest, and others obviously privately. A selection process was then undertaken by (i presume) existing mids & editorial team, not the members which i am ok with - i cant see how that would have been practical. The new mods were then announced to the forum.

Lately it seems there have been a number of expressions of disquiet about the modding being heavy handed, etc. So, my question is - what process is undertaken behind the scenes to look in to these claims and adjust modding behaviour if necessary?

 

[sniper]

Sweeping statements along the lines of "the moderation sucks" don't bring much.
Personally, I think they're making a lot of good calls, but also some more dubious calls.
That's all perfectly fine, normal, and to be expected, of course. Moderation is not a black and white kind of science. But imo it should therefore be possible to put certain instances of moderation up for discussion/reflection.
And I don't think there's enough room for that, I mean the mods don't seem to encourage such reflection, more like the opposite, even though the appropriate threads do seem to already exist (this one and the member suspension/appreciation thread).

Take for instance bobbins' ban, i personally would like to know what he got banned for.
I never saw him post up anything harmful to be honest, but i might be wrong.

On the other hand, there are cases like pmcg76's constant insults, begging the question why s/he never got banned.
Same for Race Radio and the obvious baiting he's performed over the years. Again, it would be good to reflect on why that was tolerated (to my knowledge s/he never got banned).

This is not about being bitter or having an axe to grind. (Take Race Radio: in spite of the baiting tactics, i think most posters incuding me would like him to return.) It's simply about increasing our understanding of how the moderation works, which i think this thread was meant to achieve.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

Sweeping statements along the lines of "the moderation sucks" don't bring much.
Personally, I think they're making a lot of good calls, but also some more dubious calls.
That's all perfectly fine, normal, and to be expected, of course. Moderation is not a black and white kind of science. But imo it should therefore be possible to put certain instances of moderation up for discussion/reflection.
And I don't think there's enough room for that, I mean the mods don't seem to encourage such reflection, more like the opposite, even though the appropriate threads do seem to already exist (this one and the member suspension/appreciation thread).

Take for instance bobbins' ban, i personally would like to know what he got banned for.
I never saw him post up anything harmful to be honest, but i might be wrong.

On the other hand, there are cases like pmcg76's constant insults, begging the question why s/he never got banned.
Same for Race Radio and the obvious baiting he's performed over the years. Again, it would be good to reflect on why that was tolerated (to my knowledge s/he never got banned).

This is not about being bitter or having an axe to grind. (Take Race Radio: in spite of the baiting tactics, i think most posters incuding me would like him to return.) It's simply about increasing our understanding of how the moderation works, which i think this thread was meant to achieve.

You see, the problem is that straight off the bat, you are making things up and exaggerating as per usual and then you wonder why I don't get banned. Constant insults??? 10 posts by me in 2016, one of which I think I posted out your style of posting which was agreed on by a few others. Then you have to go back to November for previous postings, just over 3000 posts since the forum started in 2009 yet you claim constant insults

Yes, I call people out when they are spouting BS, like when Helmut Roole was claiming it was impossible to beat dopers whilst clean in the 80s. I gave an example of this happening by naming a rider who was considered clean. It was clear Helmut Roole had no idea who I was talking about which is why he was talking nonsense. Rather than address my point, we had Hog jumping in to set up a baiting thread. BTW it was not me who reported Helmut Roole despite your very clear baiting accusation that it was me.

Maybe a more relevant question would be why was a perma-banned member allowed to return to the forum? or why posters, who have almost 50 bans, mostly for trolling are not perma-banned? I think they are more relevant queries than trying to get someone who doesn't post here very often banned, just because they call you out.

I have been here from the start, zero bans. A handful of warnings and thats it. If you don't understand why I don't get banned, you clearly need to look in the mirror a bit more.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
You see, the problem is that straight off the bat, you are making things up and exaggerating as per usual and then you wonder why I don't get banned. Constant insults??? 10 posts by me in 2016, one of which I think I posted out your style of posting which was agreed on by a few others. Then you have to go back to November for previous postings, just over 3000 posts since the forum started in 2009 yet you claim constant insults

Yes, I call people out when they are spouting BS, like when Helmut Roole was claiming it was impossible to beat dopers whilst clean in the 80s. I gave an example of this happening by naming a rider who was considered clean. It was clear Helmut Roole had no idea who I was talking about which is why he was talking nonsense. Rather than address my point, we had Hog jumping in to set up a baiting thread. BTW it was not me who reported Helmut Roole despite your very clear baiting accusation that it was me.

Maybe a more relevant question would be why was a perma-banned member allowed to return to the forum? or why posters, who have almost 50 bans, mostly for trolling are not perma-banned? I think they are more relevant queries than trying to get someone who doesn't post here very often banned, just because they call you out.

I have been here from the start, zero bans. A handful of warnings and thats it. If you don't understand why I don't get banned, you clearly need to look in the mirror a bit more.

sure, you play ball, but you also play the man, and not once, but more like all the time.
Finding posts where you insult the poster is like shooting fish in a barrel. It really is.
Look i don't mind. i dont want you to get banned. When i see you rant again mainly i just smile.
All i'm saying: the fact that you havent been banned, ever, begs the question why others get banned for lesser offenses. It exposes an inconsistency in the moderation which, imo, deserves some reflection.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

...
You see, the problem is that straight off the bat, you are making things up and exaggerating as per usual and then you wonder why I don't get banned. Constant insults??? 10 posts by me in 2016, one of which I think I posted out your style of posting which was agreed on by a few others. Then you have to go back to November for previous postings, just over 3000 posts since the forum started in 2009 yet you claim constant insults

Yes, I call people out when they are spouting BS, like when Helmut Roole was claiming it was impossible to beat dopers whilst clean in the 80s. I gave an example of this happening by naming a rider who was considered clean. It was clear Helmut Roole had no idea who I was talking about which is why he was talking nonsense. Rather than address my point, we had Hog jumping in to set up a baiting thread. BTW it was not me who reported Helmut Roole despite your very clear baiting accusation that it was me.

Maybe a more relevant question would be why was a perma-banned member allowed to return to the forum? or why posters, who have almost 50 bans, mostly for trolling are not perma-banned? I think they are more relevant queries than trying to get someone who doesn't post here very often banned, just because they call you out.

I have been here from the start, zero bans. A handful of warnings and thats it. If you don't understand why I don't get banned, you clearly need to look in the mirror a bit more.

sure, you play ball, but you also play the man, and not once, but more like all the time.
Finding posts where you insult the poster is like shooting fish in a barrel. It really is.
Look i don't mind. i dont want you to get banned. When i see you rant again mainly i just smile.
All i'm saying: the fact that you havent been banned, ever, begs the question why others get banned for lesser offenses. It exposes an inconsistency in the moderation which, imo, deserves some reflection.

Tell you what, why don't you go and find all these terrible insults I post. As they are constant, I would suggest it is rather easy.

I would wager most are calling people out on posting BS and no worse than most of what goes on here on any given day. I dont troll or don't call people bots all the time so I guess I know where the line is. You are right though, if the moderation was consistent, you would not even be here so maybe you should be thankful for inconsistent moderation.

 

[sniper]

you seen that movie with sandler and nicholson? it's good, you'll like it.

to be sure, when i say it would be good to 'reflect' on those inconsistencies, i'm sure as hell not talking to you.
i'm not expecting any kind of reflection from you.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

you seen that movie with sandler and nicholson? it's good, you'll like it.

to be sure, when i say it would be good to 'reflect' on those inconsistencies, i'm sure as hell not talking to you.
i'm not expecting any kind of reflection from you.

This is very simple sniper.

You have personally named me in a few posts which have not involved me at all. That is very much a personal crusade against me despite what you think. In this thread and when you claimed it was me who got Helmut Roole banned.

You are claiming I 'contantly insult' people, I want you to back that claim up.

You are claiming it is inconsistent moderation that I have not been banned. Again you need to show some sort of proof of that and why I should be banned.

I have asked you if think it is inconsistent that only one perma-banned member has ever been allowed to return here. You have ignored that question. Why do you refuse to address that?

Time to start answering those questions.

 

[sniper]

if the mods show interest in reflecting on it, we can start reflecting on it.
they haven't thus far (which is fair enough, btw), and there's no use in the two of us going around in circles along the lines of "did not, did too".

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

if the mods show interest in reflecting on it, we can start reflecting on it.
they haven't thus far (which is fair enough, btw), and there's no use in the two of us going around in circles along the lines of "did not, did too".

So you thinks mods should retrospectively go back through my posts to see if they can find reason to ban me just because you don't like me calling you out

It was you who mentioned me personally and made claims against me but refuse to back them up. Stop trying to shift it to the mods. You brought up the subject of Mod inconsistencies so I will ask you again. Is it inconsistent moderation that only one poster has ever been allowed return after a perma-ban?

If you make a claim, back it up

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Sweeping statements along the lines of "the moderation sucks" don't bring much.
Personally, I think they're making a lot of good calls, but also some more dubious calls.
That's all perfectly fine, normal, and to be expected, of course. Moderation is not a black and white kind of science. But imo it should therefore be possible to put certain instances of moderation up for discussion/reflection.
And I don't think there's enough room for that, I mean the mods don't seem to encourage such reflection, more like the opposite, even though the appropriate threads do seem to already exist (this one and the member suspension/appreciation thread).

Take for instance bobbins' ban, i personally would like to know what he got banned for.
I never saw him post up anything harmful to be honest, but i might be wrong.

On the other hand, there are cases like pmcg76's constant insults, begging the question why s/he never got banned.
Same for Race Radio and the obvious baiting he's performed over the years. Again, it would be good to reflect on why that was tolerated (to my knowledge s/he never got banned).

This is not about being bitter or having an axe to grind. (Take Race Radio: in spite of the baiting tactics, i think most posters incuding me would like him to return.) It's simply about increasing our understanding of how the moderation works, which i think this thread was meant to achieve.

You see, the problem is that straight off the bat, you are making things up and exaggerating as per usual and then you wonder why I don't get banned. Constant insults??? 10 posts by me in 2016, one of which I think I posted out your style of posting which was agreed on by a few others. Then you have to go back to November for previous postings, just over 3000 posts since the forum started in 2009 yet you claim constant insults

Yes, I call people out when they are spouting BS, like when Helmut Roole was claiming it was impossible to beat dopers whilst clean in the 80s. I gave an example of this happening by naming a rider who was considered clean. It was clear Helmut Roole had no idea who I was talking about which is why he was talking nonsense. Rather than address my point, we had Hog jumping in to set up a baiting thread. BTW it was not me who reported Helmut Roole despite your very clear baiting accusation that it was me.

Maybe a more relevant question would be why was a perma-banned member allowed to return to the forum? or why posters, who have almost 50 bans, mostly for trolling are not perma-banned? I think they are more relevant queries than trying to get someone who doesn't post here very often banned, just because they call you out.

I have been here from the start, zero bans. A handful of warnings and thats it. If you don't understand why I don't get banned, you clearly need to look in the mirror a bit more.

Are you still going on about Gilles Delion? What is it about Delion that makes you repeat his name 347 times? Seriously, it's weird, just plain weird

You use him as some form or arugment cancelling bot. Mention his name and it supposedly beats any other argument about dopers. Strange.