Moderators

[djpbaltimore]

Personally, Maxiton's words came off as either quite patronizing (at worst) or just quite flippant (at best). Overall, based on Maxiton's posts there, I question the notion of 'neutrality' in the LeMond thread. YMMV

EDIT: My opinion IS the neutral opinion Glenn.

viewtopic.php?p=1774226#p1774226

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

Personally, Maxiton's words came off as either quite patronizing (at worst) or just quite flippant (at best). Overall, based on Maxiton's posts there, I question the notion of 'neutrality' in the LeMond thread. YMMV

You don't agree with Maxiton that he is sitting in the middle. Only because of your own opinion on the matter. YMMV

 

[red_flanders]

If there were evidence of Maxiton applying the same filter to sniper's and damiano's posts in the thread that he/she seems to be applying to others, then it would be OK to assume an even hand.

The reality is probably that posts are getting reported and the mods are responding to those posts rather than looking at every post in the thread, which no mod has the time to do.

I've been asked to document rather than just summarize patterns of troll-kraft and disingenuous arguments. I'm sorry but I don't have that much time. It's there for all to see, so apparently if I point it out it will be deleted. So be it. Not a battle I have time to wage, I have 15 minute chunks of time once or twice a day. Oh well.

There is a poster on a campaign to present a certain view. The only way apparently to discount it is to report posts every time a fallacy, strawman, or the myriad techniques appear. And then the already-used "ignore the counter-argument and keep repeating what's already been refuted" strategy which we've already seen numerous times will still work.

Back in the day we used to call this kind of work troll-kraft. I guess it's ok now.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

If there were evidence of Maxiton applying the same filter to sniper's and damiano's posts in the thread that he/she seems to be applying to others, then it would be OK to assume an even hand.

The reality is probably that posts are getting reported and the mods are responding to those posts rather than looking at every post in the thread, which no mod has the time to do.

There is a poster on a campaign to present a certain view. The only way apparently to discount it is to report posts every time a fallacy, strawman, or the myriad techniques appear. And then the already-used "ignore the counter-argument and keep repeating what's already been refuted" strategy which we've already seen numerous times will still work.

Back in the day we used to call this kind of work troll-kraft. I guess it's ok now.

I can assure you that Maxiton is looking at every comment in the Lemond thread. At least in the last few pages anyway.

He's not taking sides and although reports are being filed that doesn't mean he/we're automatically taking the reporting persons side of any argument.

We're just trying to keep the peace, that's all.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

If there were evidence of Maxiton applying the same filter to sniper's and damiano's posts in the thread that he/she seems to be applying to others, then it would be OK to assume an even hand.

The reality is probably that posts are getting reported and the mods are responding to those posts rather than looking at every post in the thread, which no mod has the time to do.

There is a poster on a campaign to present a certain view. The only way apparently to discount it is to report posts every time a fallacy, strawman, or the myriad techniques appear. And then the already-used "ignore the counter-argument and keep repeating what's already been refuted" strategy which we've already seen numerous times will still work.

Back in the day we used to call this kind of work troll-kraft. I guess it's ok now.

I can assure you that Maxiton is looking at every comment in the Lemond thread. At least in the last few pages anyway.

He's not taking sides and although reports are being filed that doesn't mean he/we're automatically taking the reporting persons side of any argument.

We're just trying to keep the peace, that's all.

The last few pages being key. He's actually been part of the discussion much longer than that. I don't think he's taking sides, as I said I think he's just responding to reports.

I'm being asked that in order for me to point out a pattern of strawman arguments, fallacies, ignoring counter-arguments and then repeating the same point which has been debunked, I have to document it with links. Just as he has no time to go back through the thread and find them, neither do I.

Which is fine and not unreasonable. .

But the effect is of course that the person reporting all the posts is going to move the moderation in a certain direction.

I hate people throwing out the word "trolling" lightly–as a moderator it was INCREDIBLY annoying. But after weeks of watching this pattern, there is IMO no other word for what's going on in that thread.

Fine. I'll live. But the system is being gamed right now. Not much to be done about it. But I'll call it out here and take my lumps for doing so.

 

[GJB123]

Re:

Personally, Maxiton's words came off as either quite patronizing (at worst) or just quite flippant (at best). Overall, based on Maxiton's posts there, I question the notion of 'neutrality' in the LeMond thread. YMMV

EDIT: My opinion IS the neutral opinion Glenn.

viewtopic.php?p=1774226#p1774226

This and then some. And yes I received which in itselc could be justified but then seeing what others get away with is quite sobering.

 

[GJB123]

I fully and totally agree with just about everything red_flanders has advies here. I very, very much would like to think maxiton is acting impartially in moderating these particular threads but there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest that would be best avonded by having someone else mod that thread.

 

[pmcg76]

Agree with Red completely.

A few weeks ago, I reported a poster for deliberatley trying to get me banned and making false claims against me. I wasn't even posting frequently at the time.

In this very thread on 15 April, I pointed out the very obvious trolling form the same poster that was happening, with questions being ignored regularly. Apparently the mods didn't see it and I was asked to collect evidence of this. I posted 3-4 examples of this is the thread. It is there in my posts on the same date.

It was either yesterday or the day before I reported a post from the same poster again for very obvious distortion of facts that was clear trolling. This report was "closed" whatever that means.

Red, you are being asked to do what I was aksed to do which was collect evidence. Ridiculous. If anyone is reading the thread, the answers are obvious unless you are biased which I consider the main problem here.

I have come to the conclusion the mods simply run to their own agenda and have no intention of banning certain people regardlss of what they do.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

I fully and totally agree with just about everything red_flanders has advies here. I very, very much would like to think maxiton is acting impartially in moderating these particular threads but there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest that would be best avonded by having someone else mod that thread.

I appreciate the support, but to be clear I'm not advocating for changing mods on that thread or anything like it. It doesn't really work like that anyway.

Just pointing out what I'm seeing. The mods can reflect on our thoughts and make their decisions. They're all adults and they're in charge. I'm fine with that.

 

[sniper]

Agree with Red completely.

A few weeks ago, I reported a poster for deliberatley trying to get me banned and making false claims against me. I wasn't even posting frequently at the time.

who was that?
can you provide a link or are you making stuff up?

 

[GJB123]

Agree with Red completely.

A few weeks ago, I reported a poster for deliberatley trying to get me banned and making false claims against me. I wasn't even posting frequently at the time.

who was that?
can you provide a link or are you making stuff up?

You must be joking.

 

[sniper]

Agree with Red completely.

A few weeks ago, I reported a poster for deliberatley trying to get me banned and making false claims against me. I wasn't even posting frequently at the time.

who was that?
can you provide a link or are you making stuff up?

You must be joking.

no i'm not.
i'm challenging pcmg76 to provide a link to any poster "deliberatley trying to get me [pcmg76] banned".
otherwise i can only assume he's making false claims.

bring out the popcorn

 

[GJB123]

Agree with Red completely.

A few weeks ago, I reported a poster for deliberatley trying to get me banned and making false claims against me. I wasn't even posting frequently at the time.

who was that?
can you provide a link or are you making stuff up?

You must be joking.

no i'm not.
i'm challenging pcmg76 to provide a link to any poster "deliberatley trying to get me [pcmg76] banned".
otherwise i can only assume he's making stuff up.

Since he is clearly and correctly reffering to yourself you are either rather disingenuous or competely naive.

 

[sniper]

...
Since he is clearly and correctly reffering to yourself you are either rather disingenuous or competely naive.

adhom noted.
now i think pcmg76 can answer for himself.

 

[Irondan]

Hey guys, take into the Lemond thread if your just going to discuss him, please.

 

[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 mean this post where you specifically name me, wanting to know why I wasn't banned.

I challenged you to find all those insulting posts, you declined of course but suggested the mods might be interested in going back through my post history.

If you were not looking to get me banned, why would you name me specifically?

 

[sniper]

thanks!
so you were indeed making stuff up.
irony much.

 

[GJB123]

Re:

thanks!
so you were indeed making stuff up.
irony much.

Why did you name him specifically in connection to questioning why he has never been banner yet?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

thanks!
so you were indeed making stuff up.
irony much.

Why did you name him specifically in connection to questioning why he has never been banner yet?

well to look at this from the outside. If I said by your posting style I'm not sure why you have never been banned yet ,,,,,I don't necessarily intend for you to get banned. It is just a matter of opinion by one person. On the other hand it could also be perceived as someone trying to flag down a LeModerator to take action. So there really is two opinion's here. Thank Gawd there is no strawmen hanging around.

 

[thehog]

I think it's great the LeMond thread has evolved. There was a time, when any mention of LeMond doping was met with a ban or lobbying for a ban. The Mods are doing an excellent job on this one.

 

[GJB123]

How is pointing out someone's inconsistencies using his own words worth a board warning? How come that is deemed to be poster not post. Personally I find the modding in the LeMond-related threads atrociously inconsistent. But then again I am probably just a butthurt LeMond-fanboy.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

How is pointing out someone's inconsistencies using his own words worth a board warning? How come that is deemed to be poster not post. Personally I find the modding in the LeMond-related threads atrociously inconsistent. But then again I am probably just a butthurt LeMond-fanboy.

Because It's a simple rule, attack the post, not the poster.

You were not warned over being a Lemond fan, save the hyperbole.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

thanks!
so you were indeed making stuff up.
irony much.

Why did you name him specifically in connection to questioning why he has never been banner yet?

well to look at this from the outside. If I said by your posting style I'm not sure why you have never been banned yet ,,,,,I don't necessarily intend for you to get banned. It is just a matter of opinion by one person. On the other hand it could also be perceived as someone trying to flag down a LeModerator to take action. So there really is two opinion's here. Thank Gawd there is no strawmen hanging around.

I think when you single someone out specifically like that, you are most definitely doing it to draw attention to that person. I asked sniper to back up his claim of multiple insults by me, he refused and said it was up to the mods to go back through my posts to find these insults. Why would anyone want the mods to retroactively moderate posts I wonder? I wasn't even posting very much at the time.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

How is pointing out someone's inconsistencies using his own words worth a board warning? How come that is deemed to be poster not post. Personally I find the modding in the LeMond-related threads atrociously inconsistent. But then again I am probably just a butthurt LeMond-fanboy.

Because It's a simple rule, attack the post, not the poster.

You were not warned over being a Lemond fan, save the hyperbole.

How is pointing out inconsistencies by a poster using his exact own words tantamount to attacking the poster?

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

How is pointing out someone's inconsistencies using his own words worth a board warning? How come that is deemed to be poster not post. Personally I find the modding in the LeMond-related threads atrociously inconsistent. But then again I am probably just a butthurt LeMond-fanboy.

Because It's a simple rule, attack the post, not the poster.

You were not warned over being a Lemond fan, save the hyperbole.

How is pointing out inconsistencies by a poster using his exact own words tantamount to attacking the poster?

What post were you pointing out? All of them? Or, any specific post?

The fact that you just went after him without arguing any of his posts is by definition "attacking the poster, not the post", which is an infraction in this forum and has been for a very long time.