Moderators

[Hugh Januss]

Just like bro and others comments in the Wigans thread!
I have little to no web skills like you!

TOUCHE!

 

[Anonymous]

not being funny, but can everyone stop dragging this thread off topic. its meant to be about moderators

 

[auscyclefan94]

No, you're skirting the issue entirely. I quoted that thread because you defended someone who contravened forum rules and not because of your Evans appreciation.

And yes, there are other offenders as well but none of them have bothered to make a thread complaining about moderators. You have, hence the target.

well, then criticise me because of the thread rather than the things I do. That makes you the hipocrit.

 

[auscyclefan94]

fine.. i was going to buy it for you for your birthday

it was in april! I guess you are still a bit sensitive over the wigans thread.

 

[Anonymous]

it was in april! I guess you are still a bit sensitive over the wigans thread.

i thought it was in february

 

[Hugh Januss]

not being funny, but can everyone stop dragging this thread off topic. its meant to be about moderators

Actually from the gitgo it has been the 'ACF whining about the mods' thread. So we are pretty much right on topic, no matter where we go.

 

[auscyclefan94]

i thought it was in february

- no that is my husband's!

 

[flyor64]

not being funny, but can everyone stop dragging this thread off topic. its meant to be about moderators

Fair enough.

I think the Mods do a damn fine job here considering the dynamics...I like Martin's definition of "moderation" and making the judgment call and it's a constant challenge doing just that.

They seem to strike a relatively even balance in most cases between enforcement and allowing us to speak our minds. Of course there are going to be exceptions and some will get upset and some will get their feelings hurt on occasion...but on the whole they're tops over the other forums I've been to...which ultimately boil down one of two types: 1) total over-the-top police state...ala Coolhand or 2) anarchy like forums run rampant

Considering that Mods do this out some sort of feeling of responsibility towards the forum and nothing else (the last I hear it's an unpaid position) furthers my original comment...they're doing a damn fine job in my book.

I think ACF got upset over some perceived slight by one particular Mod in one particular situation...and is possibly hunting for an apology that I don't think he's going to get.

And, btw, ACF you called someone a hypocrite earlier up thread...I'm not sure you are using that word correctly.

For example...continuing to call for consistency in forum rules, moderation, and enforcement, while continually acting inconsistently would be a pretty good example of a hypocrite... Just sayin'

 

[Oldman]

well, then criticise me because of the thread rather than the things I do. That makes you the hipocrit.[/QUOTE]

Hipcrit. Is that a large, blood-producing mammal?

 

[Oldman]

Hipocrit.Now I'm doing it too.

 

[trompe le monde]

Hipocrit.Now I'm doing it too.

I know, it's hard to untangle ACF's posts sometimes. They make my brain hurt a little too.

If anything ACF, you can claim that I was being discriminatory rather than hypocritical, which may be more correct but still no less accurate. But, and that's the pivotal word here, nobody else who has engaged in trollish behaviour, let's say Polish for example, has created a thread in which he criticizes the moderators for essentially not doing their job. You have created such a thread, so you can't really accuse me of being hypocritical because nobody else who has baited/trolled has created a thread complaining about mods where I can laugh a little at their hypocrisy. You unfortunately have, hence the replies have only been addressed to you. That's not exactly hypocrisy now is it? I mean it's really, really pretty elementary logic. I essentially can't really reply to a thread of similar nature that effectively doesn't exist, can I? So why hold me to an impossible standard? If I can reply to that which doesn't exist and you can tell me how, I'd really, really like to know. Just the same, no other posters who troll/bait have come in to this thread to share your concerns on mods not doing their job, so I can't address them in this thread either.

Back on topic. In the main, I think the moderators do a reasonable job here considering the thorny nature this sport finds itself currently in. I don't think a forum on say basketball would be as difficult to moderate as this. Cycling is contentious simply due to it being layered with an unfortunate veneer of constant doping problems and it is easy to take a stand somewhere with regards to how much of it occurs and how systematic it is without having a quiver of arrows dipped in facts to back up your position. The fact that a certain American cyclist polarizes many makes it even more difficult to moderate because no middle ground exists when it comes to Levi Leipheimer, I mean, Lance Armstrong. It's an unenviable position to try and straddle, so I don't blame the moderators for not having a potable solution on where to draw a fair line in the ongoing Armstrong trench war.

 

[CPAvelo]

The moderation at CN is extreme.

I think the policy re: profanity is extreme when it exists in the news content of CN.com. For example, CN.com had a recent news story that quoted McQuaid referring to statements made by the AFLD as bull dung, only McQuaid used the vernacular. Then, there is Cavendish's "fooked" that I think is entertaining.

 

[CPAvelo]

Reading just this thread - let alone the rest of the forum its abundantly clear that there are some utterly conflicting opinions about how the site should be moderated. I would just hope that everyone could try to appreciate how difficult it actually is to apply a "moderate" view when determining what to do with posters and individual posts.

For instance, this thread resulted in several reports over the weekend. When I came here late last night I found some pretty poor behavior by more than one person. However, the conversation is directly criticizing the moderators.

So as a Mod, do I:
1) Carry out the wishes of those that reported it (as I normally would given the nature of the posts)?

OR

2) Leave them in place because as a moderator I have to recognize the conflict of interest in deleting a post that criticizes a moderator - and as a consequence therefore I have to leave another moderator their right to reply (but at the same time disappoint those that complained and frankly leave the forum in a poorer state overall)?

What I am trying to say is that moderators face these challenges in just about every situation with the exception of outright spamming or swearing. In all other cases there is more than one point of view and the difficulty is finding the mid-point. Beyond direct rules such as swearing however, the "mid-point" is a subjective and personal thing that cannot easily be set for all moderators.

In other words, different moderators WILL react in different ways to any given post. Expecting impersonal uniform behavior by all moderators is actually asking for the kind of dictatorial state that some of you are at the same time complaining already exists?...

This raises interesting questions about moderators. A moderator is an arbitrator or mediator, someone with authority to preside over a meeting or discussion, in the basic dictionary definition. I think forums such as CN need facilitators, that is, people who help to bring about civil communication by providing indirect or unobtrusive assistance, guidance, or supervision without concern for a particular agenda. I think this difference is more than semantics, although I don't know how practical it would be. It would require an unbiased pursuit of truth by people and a willingness to permit a freer flow of ideas and expressions. Perhaps, such an ideal is attainable.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Sorry about spelling of hypocrite!

 

[180mmCrank]

This raises interesting questions about moderators. A moderator is an arbitrator or mediator, someone with authority to preside over a meeting or discussion, in the basic dictionary definition. I think forums such as CN need facilitators, that is, people who help to bring about civil communication by providing indirect or unobtrusive assistance, guidance, or supervision without concern for a particular agenda. I think this difference is more than semantics, although I don't know how practical it would be. It would require an unbiased pursuit of truth by people and a willingness to permit a freer flow of ideas and expressions. Perhaps, such an ideal is attainable.

That's all fine but the main reason that posts get moderated is nothing to do with agenda or opinion it's generally because one poster is abusing another. I have no problem with letting people discuss issues but when they start throwing insults it crosses a line for me.

I have said this many times on this forum and I will no doubt have to say it many more times - and it's a little tiresome but that's ok.

Terry

Moderator

 

[CPAvelo]

That's all fine but the main reason that posts get moderated is nothing to do with agenda or opinion it's generally because one poster is abusing another. I have no problem with letting people discuss issues but when they start throwing insults it crosses a line for me.

I have said this many times on this forum and I will no doubt have to say it many more times - and it's a little tiresome but that's ok.

Terry

Moderator

Yeah, thanks for addressing my omission. I agree there is no place viscious insults and personal attacks. No easy task you and the other moderators have. Thanks.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Sorry about spelling of hypocrite!

One would think you would be able to get that right.

 

[Hugh Januss]

That's all fine but the main reason that posts get moderated is nothing to do with agenda or opinion it's generally because one poster is abusing another. I have no problem with letting people discuss issues but when they start throwing insults it crosses a line for me.

I have said this many times on this forum and I will no doubt have to say it many more times - and it's a little tiresome but that's ok.

Terry

Moderator

Yes but sometimes a little flaming is just fun. I enjoy a clever put down. I enjoy it the most when I come up with it myself, second best when someone else directs one at a poster who's point of view has annoyed me too, but if it's clever enough I even enjoy it when it is directed at myself (does that make me weird?).
A good put down makes people laugh, a bad one makes them report the post and poster, live with it.

 

[bobs nob]

That's all fine but the main reason that posts get moderated is nothing to do with agenda or opinion it's generally because one poster is abusing another. I have no problem with letting people discuss issues but when they start throwing insults it crosses a line for me.

I have said this many times on this forum and I will no doubt have to say it many more times - and it's a little tiresome but that's ok.

Terry

Moderator

whatever....the handling of these incidents is wildly uneven, it's better than no moderation at all, but not by much

 

[auscyclefan94]

Yes but sometimes a little flaming is just fun. I enjoy a clever put down. I enjoy it the most when I come up with it myself, second best when someone else directs one at a poster who's point of view has annoyed me too, but if it's clever enough I even enjoy it when it is directed at myself (does that make me weird?).
A good put down makes people laugh, a bad one makes them report the post and poster, live with it.

So only puniish those who make bad put downs? Good joke Hugh!

bobs *** is totally right, inconsistent moderation is almost as bad as no moderation. In incidents not involving me I have found it annoying about some of the moderation.

 

[CPAvelo]

whatever....the handling of these incidents is wildly uneven, it's better than no moderation at all, but not by much

Or, is it unevenly wild? Couldn't resist.

 

[Oldman]

Yes but sometimes a little flaming is just fun. I enjoy a clever put down. I enjoy it the most when I come up with it myself, second best when someone else directs one at a poster who's point of view has annoyed me too, but if it's clever enough I even enjoy it when it is directed at myself (does that make me weird?).
A good put down makes people laugh, a bad one makes them report the post and poster, live with it.

We all take ourselves too seriously sometimes or All of the time. Bicycling is a kid's first transportation option after walking so, keeping that in mind; we should all lighten it up once in awhile.
That we can discuss the thorny issues of the day that could financially affect CN is itself different from most venues.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So only puniish those who make bad put downs? Good joke Hugh!

bobs *** is totally right, inconsistent moderation is almost as bad as no moderation. In incidents not involving me I have found it annoying about some of the moderation.

Aus, you admitted you insulted someone - got an 'infraction' and now are complaining because of 'inconsistent moderation'?

How do you know who has or has not been hit with an 'infraction' to make that statement??

Earlier you were looking for clearer rules - seriously?? Do you have to have someone tell you how to behave to other forum users?

I am all for less moderation - indeed that is why I think this forum works well, it is not biased on its opinions and does crack down on personal insults.

 

[bobs nob]

I am all for less moderation - indeed that is why I think this forum works well, it is not biased on its opinions and does crack down on personal insults.

I generally agree with you, but not on this. Those who oppose the 'conventional wisdom' of the forum are much much more readily sanctioned/banned than those who are part of the pack.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I generally agree with you, but not on this. Those who oppose the 'conventional wisdom' of the forum are much much more readily sanctioned/banned than those who are part of the pack.

But again, we do not know who has or has not been sanctioned or been PM'ed by 'Mods' - so you can't possibly know which 'side' is or is not being contacted.

As for posters being banned -(my personal opinion) in principle I am against it, but of course it needs to be there as a last resort - ultimately it's CN's forum & we are their 'guests'.

But again how many posters have been banned recently??
Obviously BPC (& his multiple usernames) - other than that I can only think of ChrisE & OAR, who were caught using sockpuppets, given a short suspension - and then came back and did the same thing.