• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Moderators

Page 400 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
This was in the Landa clinic thread:

Irondan said:
This is a general announcement to the members posting comments in this thread.

It would be appreciated if you attempt to add commentary to any post that has a disparaging sarcastic remarks about the topic of this thread.

If all you want to do is make sarcastic remarks that add no value to the discussion I will delete it without warning, and possibly initiate action to repeat offenders.

Thank you for understanding.

Cheers
I want to thank Dan specifically and the mods in general for this post above. I've been trying to think of a way to ask that the clinic be moderated in such a way as to curtail some of the derailing of threads by folks insisting that doping doesn't exist, pros don't dope, teams don't dope, "you're just jealous" and nationalistically biased, too cynical, don't understand the sport, etc,etc,etc.

It seems unfair to me that doping is supposed to be kept out of the PRR section (which is understandable), but then when we go to the proper place to discuss doping, clinic threads get bogged down with folks who refuse to allow the joining of dots. I agree that there has to be some kind of leeway to allow posters to be skeptical of over-eager jumping to conclusions - sometimes posters can be wayyyyyy too quick to see doping in even the smallest occurrence. I don't think each poster has to buy every accusation in every situation, but I feel like, "it's the clinic. you're allowed to believe in doping here" should be the order of the day for that part of the forum. And keep the doping talk out of the PRR for the folks who don't want to hear about it.

If you open a rider/team's clinic thread, you shouldn't get to be incensed that accusations of doping are being discussed there. While saying that a particular situation/conclusion is not convincing to you is perfectly fine - saying something that amounts to "how dare you doubt this rider!" should not fly - at least not in the clinic.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Re:

Beech Mtn said:
This was in the Landa clinic thread:

Irondan said:
This is a general announcement to the members posting comments in this thread.

It would be appreciated if you attempt to add commentary to any post that has a disparaging sarcastic remarks about the topic of this thread.

If all you want to do is make sarcastic remarks that add no value to the discussion I will delete it without warning, and possibly initiate action to repeat offenders.

Thank you for understanding.

Cheers
I want to thank Dan specifically and the mods in general for this post above. I've been trying to think of a way to ask that the clinic be moderated in such a way as to curtail some of the derailing of threads by folks insisting that doping doesn't exist, pros don't dope, teams don't dope, "you're just jealous" and nationalistically biased, too cynical, don't understand the sport, etc,etc,etc.

It seems unfair to me that doping is supposed to be kept out of the PRR section (which is understandable), but then when we go to the proper place to discuss doping, clinic threads get bogged down with folks who refuse to allow the joining of dots. I agree that there has to be some kind of leeway to allow posters to be skeptical of over-eager jumping to conclusions - sometimes posters can be wayyyyyy too quick to see doping in even the smallest occurrence. I don't think each poster has to buy every accusation in every situation, but I feel like, "it's the clinic. you're allowed to believe in doping here" should be the order of the day for that part of the forum. And keep the doping talk out of the PRR for the folks who don't want to hear about it.

If you open a rider/team's clinic thread, you shouldn't get to be incensed that accusations of doping are being discussed there. While saying that a particular situation/conclusion is not convincing to you is perfectly fine - saying something that amounts to "how dare you doubt this rider!" should not fly - at least not in the clinic.

Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree.

I sense there was a bot onslaught complaining that there was an anti-sky bias with the creation of the Landa thread. But the last three days was just too much just to leave it to regular clinic posts. The guy ITTs out of his skin, then rest day and then drops his entire bundle on the mountain like it was 2002. Jaws will drop, cynicism will rise and people will post jokes because it was so ridiculous. I think it needs leeway because it just happened. Perhaps in a few days it's back to regular schedule programming discussing Landa but after today what else can the reaction be but W T actual F just happened?
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
Irondan posted this on another thread

"This is a general announcement to the members posting comments in this thread.

It would be appreciated if you attempt to add commentary to any post that has a disparaging sarcastic remarks about the topic of this thread.

If all you want to do is make sarcastic remarks that add no value to the discussion I will delete it without warning, and possibly initiate action to repeat offenders.

Thank you for understanding.

Cheers"

I just want to thank Irondan for telling me what stylistic form my posts should take, Also for imposing his own subjective appreciation on what posts stay and what posts are deleted and for warning us of imminent action to be taken. This is exactly the role a moderator should have and it will undoubtedly make cyclingnews forums a better place for all.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Re:

frenchfry said:
Irondan posted this on another thread

"This is a general announcement to the members posting comments in this thread.

It would be appreciated if you attempt to add commentary to any post that has a disparaging sarcastic remarks about the topic of this thread.

If all you want to do is make sarcastic remarks that add no value to the discussion I will delete it without warning, and possibly initiate action to repeat offenders.

Thank you for understanding.

Cheers"

I just want to thank Irondan for telling me what stylistic form my posts should take, Also for imposing his own subjective appreciation on what posts stay and what posts are deleted and for warning us of imminent action to be taken. This is exactly the role a moderator should have and it will undoubtedly make cyclingnews forums a better place for all.
You forgot to add an emoticon. I can't figure out what your meaning is without one.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Irondan posted this on another thread

"This is a general announcement to the members posting comments in this thread.

It would be appreciated if you attempt to add commentary to any post that has a disparaging sarcastic remarks about the topic of this thread.

If all you want to do is make sarcastic remarks that add no value to the discussion I will delete it without warning, and possibly initiate action to repeat offenders.

Thank you for understanding.

Cheers"

I just want to thank Irondan for telling me what stylistic form my posts should take, Also for imposing his own subjective appreciation on what posts stay and what posts are deleted and for warning us of imminent action to be taken. This is exactly the role a moderator should have and it will undoubtedly make cyclingnews forums a better place for all.
You forgot to add an emoticon. I can't figure out what your meaning is without one.
True.

I sure hope you did not get your feelings hurt? It will all pass.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Irondan posted this on another thread

"This is a general announcement to the members posting comments in this thread.

It would be appreciated if you attempt to add commentary to any post that has a disparaging sarcastic remarks about the topic of this thread.

If all you want to do is make sarcastic remarks that add no value to the discussion I will delete it without warning, and possibly initiate action to repeat offenders.

Thank you for understanding.

Cheers"

I just want to thank Irondan for telling me what stylistic form my posts should take, Also for imposing his own subjective appreciation on what posts stay and what posts are deleted and for warning us of imminent action to be taken. This is exactly the role a moderator should have and it will undoubtedly make cyclingnews forums a better place for all.
You forgot to add an emoticon. I can't figure out what your meaning is without one.
True.

I sure hope you did not get your feelings hurt? It will all pass.
I was attempting to be ironic, but tried to hide this from Irondan who might not appreciate that form of posting.

No hurt feelings, I don't often feel critical of moderators but thought Irondan went far beyond a moderator's role with that comment. Shades of ChrisH.

PS I don't like emoticons, but maybe Irondan will decree that all posts must contain them.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Probably isn't the right place to ask here, but I don't want to create a new thread, but can't we delete the rolling eyes smiley?
...in this forum?.... :rolleyes: ....

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
RedheadDane said:
Also posted about it over there. But... I've noticed some pictures disappearing from the Should BoB have been removed? thread.
Don't like pictures of half-naked guys?
They were obviously off topic.
Awww... we were just using some photo-evidence to disprove the statement that there are no podium boys. :p
But I suppose they were a little distracting. :)
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
Brullnux said:
What happened to afrank? He hasn't been around for a while now
He asked to be made a standard forum member, and will no longer be an Admin. I'm pretty sure his university studies became a priority, if I'm remembering correctly.
Boy has he got his priorities all wrong! :D
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
Irondan wrote:
Let's shelve this conversation until ray gets back to defend himself please. :)

frenchfry wrote:
Since this is the "Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread", virtually all comments are post-suspension and are made when the member in question is already suspended. Your comment would therefore appear to be off-topic, which is already something that seems to offend you. If you wish to suspend the discussion on Ray, then maybe you should shelve the entire thread in order to be consistent.
This exchange happened in the "Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread". I received an "off topic" warning, so am posting it in the "Moderators" thread as suggested by Irondan.

Personally I thought my post made a lot of sense. If we shouldn't discuss Ray during his suspension, then we really shouldn't be discussing anyone during their suspension - so the "Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread" should logically be closed if we apply Irondan's directive. I am not saying Irondan is wrong, but pointing out a certain incoherence.
 
Re:

frenchfry said:
Irondan wrote:
Let's shelve this conversation until ray gets back to defend himself please. :)

frenchfry wrote:
Since this is the "Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread", virtually all comments are post-suspension and are made when the member in question is already suspended. Your comment would therefore appear to be off-topic, which is already something that seems to offend you. If you wish to suspend the discussion on Ray, then maybe you should shelve the entire thread in order to be consistent.
This exchange happened in the "Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread". I received an "off topic" warning, so am posting it in the "Moderators" thread as suggested by Irondan.

Personally I thought my post made a lot of sense. If we shouldn't discuss Ray during his suspension, then we really shouldn't be discussing anyone during their suspension - so the "Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread" should logically be closed if we apply Irondan's directive. I am not saying Irondan is wrong, but pointing out a certain incoherence.

I shouldn't think the fact I didn't volunteer to be a mod should disqualify me from commenting on mod's directives.
They were not discussing ray's suspension, the discussion was moving towards how ray is "mentally disturbed at times".

That's the rhetoric that I thought ray should have a say in, but since he's not here I suggested shelving the discussion until he can defend himself.

That's fine if you think it's okay to discuss someones mental capacity while they're not around to partake in the discussion but I don't share in that opinion.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
frenchfry said:
Irondan wrote:
Let's shelve this conversation until ray gets back to defend himself please. :)

frenchfry wrote:
Since this is the "Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread", virtually all comments are post-suspension and are made when the member in question is already suspended. Your comment would therefore appear to be off-topic, which is already something that seems to offend you. If you wish to suspend the discussion on Ray, then maybe you should shelve the entire thread in order to be consistent.
This exchange happened in the "Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread". I received an "off topic" warning, so am posting it in the "Moderators" thread as suggested by Irondan.

Personally I thought my post made a lot of sense. If we shouldn't discuss Ray during his suspension, then we really shouldn't be discussing anyone during their suspension - so the "Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread" should logically be closed if we apply Irondan's directive. I am not saying Irondan is wrong, but pointing out a certain incoherence.

I shouldn't think the fact I didn't volunteer to be a mod should disqualify me from commenting on mod's directives.
They were not discussing ray's suspension, the discussion was moving towards how ray is "mentally disturbed at times".

That's the rhetoric that I thought ray should have a say in, but since he's not here I suggested shelving the discussion until he can defend himself.

That's fine if you think it's okay to discuss someones mental capacity while they're not around to partake in the discussion but I don't share in that opinion.
I think maybe FrenchFry was not clear why you suggested to await RJ's return.

AnyWho thanks for the clarification.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS