Moderators

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

Who did Miburo upset?

As it says in the suspension thread, miburo was banned for trolling.

The comments that he was banned for have been deleted.

I saw those comments, he was simply questioning LF's double standards regarding Sky

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Who did Miburo upset?

As it says in the suspension thread, miburo was banned for trolling.

The comments that he was banned for have been deleted.

I saw those comments, he was simply questioning LF's double standards regarding Sky

I saw them too, he was trolling. Nothing more, nothing less. He has also been warned numerous times about trolling, but ignored those chances to correct himself.

Furthermore, he posted off topic and attacked the poster, not the post.

 

[Red Rick]

So I got a warning for off topic posting, but when I click the link I can't see the specific post. Kinda confusing

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

So I got a warning for off topic posting, but when I click the link I can't see the specific post. Kinda confusing

Probably the post in question later got deleted, I have the same issue

 

[hrotha]

Me too. I don't have the SLIGHTEST idea what got me a warning.

*cough*

So anyway, about them dogs...

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Re:

Me too. I don't have the SLIGHTEST idea what got me a warning.

*cough*

So anyway, about them dogs...

I hate them dogs...filthy.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Me too. I don't have the SLIGHTEST idea what got me a warning.

*cough*

So anyway, about them dogs...

I hate them dogs...filthy.

Are you more of a cat person?

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

So I got a warning for off topic posting, but when I click the link I can't see the specific post. Kinda confusing

Probably the post in question later got deleted, I have the same issue

Obviously, but I want to know the specific thing that's apparently over the line when I see some other stuff not getting deleted

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

So I got a warning for off topic posting, but when I click the link I can't see the specific post. Kinda confusing

Probably the post in question later got deleted, I have the same issue

Obviously, but I want to know the specific thing that's apparently over the line when I see some other stuff not getting deleted

Nothing different from the stuff NOT getting deleted. There will never be consistency with the mods.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

So I got a warning for off topic posting, but when I click the link I can't see the specific post. Kinda confusing

Probably the post in question later got deleted, I have the same issue

Obviously, but I want to know the specific thing that's apparently over the line when I see some other stuff not getting deleted

So I got a warning for off topic posting, but when I click the link I can't see the specific post. Kinda confusing

Probably the post in question later got deleted, I have the same issue

Obviously, but I want to know the specific thing that's apparently over the line when I see some other stuff not getting deleted

Nothing different from the stuff NOT getting deleted. There will never be consistency with the mods.

I pick a point in time in the thread and delete from there. Reason: I don't want to spend the rest of my life editing the AC Discussion thread. So on the other side of my point in time you will doubtless find some stuff you think needs deleting. Live with it.

This last time there were about five pages of off topic posts that got deleted. Everyone who participated in the off topic discussions got a warning.

First come polite requests, then come warnings, then come bans. Keep it on topic and there won't be any bans. Keep it off topic and the banhammer will fall.

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

So I got a warning for off topic posting, but when I click the link I can't see the specific post. Kinda confusing

Probably the post in question later got deleted, I have the same issue

Obviously, but I want to know the specific thing that's apparently over the line when I see some other stuff not getting deleted

Nothing different from the stuff NOT getting deleted. There will never be consistency with the mods.

I agree that consistency is something that we can work on. On the other hand, having a few mods who are heavy-handed is not a bad thing, We don't want to end up like YouTube, do we? I know from experience how one can get sucked into arguing, wasting time, with unproductive talks. And viewers wanting to become members get cold feet.

From the interviews I read, many of the UCI, team DS, even riders, respond to what CN and its forums discusses. If we want to have an impact, there's no room for trolling. If we want to be taken seriously, we have to be credible. I truly believe that you can appoint (and pay) MerckxIndex, Libertine Seguros, others including acoggan and offer change.

Riding a bike is the best work-out. Low impact on the knees, great cardio, spandex and outfits looking good. When did we miss the opportunity to market it?

I can keep going...do you see truth to it, or am I a nostalgic dreamer?

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

So I got a warning for off topic posting, but when I click the link I can't see the specific post. Kinda confusing

Probably the post in question later got deleted, I have the same issue

Obviously, but I want to know the specific thing that's apparently over the line when I see some other stuff not getting deleted

Nothing different from the stuff NOT getting deleted. There will never be consistency with the mods.

I agree that consistency is something that we can work on. On the other hand, having a few mods who are heavy-handed is not a bad thing, We don't want to end up like YouTube, do we? I know from experience how one can get sucked into arguing, wasting time, with unproductive talks. And viewers wanting to become members get cold feet.

From the interviews I read, many of the UCI, team DS, even riders, respond to what CN and its forums discusses. If we want to have an impact, there's no room for trolling. If we want to be taken seriously, we have to be credible. I truly believe that you can appoint (and pay) MerckxIndex, Libertine Seguros, others including acoggan and offer change.

Riding a bike is the best work-out. Low impact on the knees, great cardio, spandex and outfits looking good. When did we miss the opportunity to market it?

I can keep going...do you see truth to it, or am I a nostalgic dreamer?

Great stuff Tonton, keep going!

 

[Netserk]

If I may ask for clarification, for how long time (both in actual time passed and/or measured in number of posts/pages since) does a polite request last? I'm not asking for an exact figure, but some ballpark number or an explanation on how you feel about it.

About a week? A day? A month? When it is buried several pages back?
I mean, surely there comes a point where someone active in the thread will no longer be aware of such a polite request having been issued, no? Will you differentiate between those 'present' at the time of the request and those who joined the discussion after it was no longer on the last page?

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

If I may ask for clarification, for how long time (both in actual time passed and/or measured in number of posts/pages since) does a polite request last? I'm not asking for an exact figure, but some ballpark number or an explanation on how you feel about it.

About a week? A day? A month? When it is buried several pages back?
I mean, surely there comes a point where someone active in the thread will no longer be aware of such a polite request having been issued, no? Will you differentiate between those 'present' at the time of the request and those who joined the discussion after it was no longer on the last page?

You were a mod once as I recall. Just use common sense, be responsible for your own posts, and, if you're of a mind to, look out for the common interest. Problem solved.

 

[Netserk]

Common sense is quite different depending on whom you ask. I don't really see what my prior modship has to do with anything, the reason I asked in this thread was because I thought the question and the answer to it would be relevant for others as well.

As I said, I'm not asking for an exact figure, but I do think it's very fair to ask for clarification regarding this. Do you think it's fair that before just casually cruising the border of a thread's topic (like it's done in pretty much every thread and has always been done) you would have to check X number of pages back to make sure there hadn't been issued any warning/polite request, or do you think it would be fair to assume that if you weren't present when/if that was given and could not reasonably be expected to be aware of it that you then wouldn't have anything to worry about it?

 

[Eshnar]

How can you be "present" in a thread? that's a very artificial wording

There is no exact figure. A day, maybe more, it depends on the amount of traffic that thread has. As a rule of thumb, it is fair to expect somebody to read at least the most recent posts of the thread s/he is going to post in.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

How can you be "present" in a thread? that's a very artificial wording

Yeah, but I can't really come up with a better way to describe what I mean atm. I guess that you know what I mean. Being active/engaged in the current discussion of the thread.

There is no exact figure. A day, maybe more, it depends on the amount of traffic that thread has. As a rule of thumb, it is fair to expect somebody to read at least the most recent posts of the thread s/he is going to post in.

Okay, thanks. So if it was a few pages back and a similar amount of days, it would have 'faded'? (at least for new participants, who weren't 'present' at the time of the warning)

 

[Eshnar]

Re: Re:

How can you be "present" in a thread? that's a very artificial wording

Yeah, but I can't really come up with a better way to describe what I mean atm. I guess that you know what I mean. Being active/engaged in the current discussion of the thread.

There is no exact figure. A day, maybe more, it depends on the amount of traffic that thread has. As a rule of thumb, it is fair to expect somebody to read at least the most recent posts of the thread s/he is going to post in.

Okay, thanks. So if it was a few pages back and a similar amount of days, it would have 'faded'? (at least for new participants, who weren't 'present' at the time of the warning)

If it was a few days old but still 'active', I would just quote it.
In any case, no one has ever been banned for casually scrolling a thread and missing a warning of a few days before.

 

[Netserk]

Cool.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

If I may ask for clarification, for how long time (both in actual time passed and/or measured in number of posts/pages since) does a polite request last? I'm not asking for an exact figure, but some ballpark number or an explanation on how you feel about it.

About a week? A day? A month? When it is buried several pages back?
I mean, surely there comes a point where someone active in the thread will no longer be aware of such a polite request having been issued, no? Will you differentiate between those 'present' at the time of the request and those who joined the discussion after it was no longer on the last page?

Obviously the polite request pertains to everyone the request was made of (just as the warnings pertain to everyone they were given to), plus everyone who could reasonably be expected to have seen the request (so, as Eshnar said, in the last page or two). That's where the "common sense" part comes in.

As to the relevancy of your having been a mod: unlike someone who hasn't had that job, you know better than most that we mods want only to see the threads go smoothly, with the minimum of disruption, that we can't be everywhere at once, and that we rely on the more mature members to look out for themselves and for the quality of conversation.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Would you care to elaborate the pattern ? I'm not sure I get it.

No, I don't think I do care to elaborate. Just see my post directly above yours, take it to heart, and all will be revealed.

Ok. First, that's not helping since it was a genuine question. I don't know if I read english badly (I really don't see the pattern you see) or write it badly (were you offended by my question ?) or both but that's not helping.

Second, my english must be really bad because I interpret your post as an attempt to ridicule me, which, you stated twice, is forbidden. I'm not ironic, I really wish to understand. Sorry.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Would you care to elaborate the pattern ? I'm not sure I get it.

No, I don't think I do care to elaborate. Just see my post directly above yours, take it to heart, and all will be revealed.

Ok. First, that's not helping since it was a genuine question. I don't know if I read english badly (I really don't see the pattern you see) or write it badly (were you offended by my question ?) or both but that's not helping.

Second, my english must be really bad because I interpret your post as an attempt to ridicule me, which, you stated twice, is forbidden. I'm not ironic, I really wish to understand. Sorry.

I moved your post to the moderators thread, where it belongs. This conversation is off topic in the LeMond thread and disrupts it.

The pattern I'm seeing is using ridicule in place of argument, misrepresenting previous posts by characterizing them in a certain way but not quoting them and not providing a link to them, and calling into question the integrity of other posters and their motivation. That's a good way to have a fight and drive moderators crazy, but it's not a good way to have a discussion.

In no way were you singled out or even mentioned. That's why, instead of elaborating, I merely referred you to this post, and suggested you read it, or re-read it, along with everyone else:

Let me just point out here that I'm not taking sides in this debate, just as I didn't take a side before I became a moderator. It's true that I initially took the side of those who say, "LeMond doping? No way", but once I looked further into the question I decided to suspend judgement on the matter. Since then I've merely tried to see the argument from both sides and play devil's advocate.

Now that I'm a moderator I'm even more committed to remaining objective. I don't really feel I have a dog in this fight, except insofar as the debate remains fair and impersonal.

One thing that will help in this regard is to cite your sources. If your source is an article or a book, provide a quote and a link. If your source is a previous post, again, provide a quote and a link. This is actually a rule on the forum, even though it's often not enforced. In this thread it will be enforced wherever possible.

Also, as we mods have stated numerous times in the past, avoid attacking the integrity or motivations of the poster, and don't try to make fun of each other. I like to let debate rage, and so I've kept hands-off in this regard, for the most part, up to now. Going forward, though, ridicule of any kind will be treated as what it is, baiting and trolling, and will be dealt with accordingly.

Keep it civil, keep it polite, stick to the facts.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Would you care to elaborate the pattern ? I'm not sure I get it.

No, I don't think I do care to elaborate. Just see my post directly above yours, take it to heart, and all will be revealed.

Ok. First, that's not helping since it was a genuine question. I don't know if I read english badly (I really don't see the pattern you see) or write it badly (were you offended by my question ?) or both but that's not helping.

Second, my english must be really bad because I interpret your post as an attempt to ridicule me, which, you stated twice, is forbidden. I'm not ironic, I really wish to understand. Sorry.

I moved your post to the moderators thread, where it belongs. This conversation is off topic in the LeMond thread and disrupts it.

The pattern I'm seeing is using ridicule in place of argument, misrepresenting previous posts by characterizing them in a certain way but not quoting them and not providing a link to them, and calling into question the integrity of other posters and their motivation. That's a good way to have a fight and drive moderators crazy, but it's not a good way to have a discussion.

In no way were you singled out or even mentioned. That's why, instead of elaborating, I merely referred you to this post, and suggested you read it, or re-read it, along with everyone else:

Let me just point out here that I'm not taking sides in this debate, just as I didn't take a side before I became a moderator. It's true that I initially took the side of those who say, "LeMond doping? No way", but once I looked further into the question I decided to suspend judgement on the matter. Since then I've merely tried to see the argument from both sides and play devil's advocate.

Now that I'm a moderator I'm even more committed to remaining objective. I don't really feel I have a dog in this fight, except insofar as the debate remains fair and impersonal.

One thing that will help in this regard is to cite your sources. If your source is an article or a book, provide a quote and a link. If your source is a previous post, again, provide a quote and a link. This is actually a rule on the forum, even though it's often not enforced. In this thread it will be enforced wherever possible.

Also, as we mods have stated numerous times in the past, avoid attacking the integrity or motivations of the poster, and don't try to make fun of each other. I like to let debate rage, and so I've kept hands-off in this regard, for the most part, up to now. Going forward, though, ridicule of any kind will be treated as what it is, baiting and trolling, and will be dealt with accordingly.

Keep it civil, keep it polite, stick to the facts.

Ok, then we agree. I thought you were referring to a LeMond pattern. I kept looking for it and couldn't find it.

Would you agree that your "take it to heart, and all will be revealed" comment was sarcastic too ?

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Ok, then we agree. I thought you were referring to a LeMond pattern. I kept looking for it and couldn't find it.

Would you agree that your "take it to heart, and all will be revealed" comment was sarcastic too ?

No, it wasn't sarcastic at all. I very much meant it. If you read what I wrote in that post, and take it to heart, you or anyone else reading it will see exactly what a constructive dialog should look like, and how to recognize when a dialog is less constructive than it could be.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Ok, then we agree. I thought you were referring to a LeMond pattern. I kept looking for it and couldn't find it.

Would you agree that your "take it to heart, and all will be revealed" comment was sarcastic too ?

No, it wasn't sarcastic at all. I very much meant it. If you read what I wrote in that post, and take it to heart, you or anyone else reading it will see exactly what a constructive dialog should look like, and how to recognize when a dialog is less constructive than it could be.

Sorry, I saw a religious choice of word that sounded patronizing to me. My bad, then.

EDIT : by the way I liked this message and I'm trying very hard to behave ;-)