Moderators

[Red Rick]

The thread is in PRR. I'd say Andy Schleck's post retirement weight gain and upper body strenght has little do with his exploits in races.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re:

We've discussed race design thread, and decided to leave it be. We think it adds a lot to the forum, and posters put in a lot of effort in their races and write ups, so we think it's better in PRR, rather than in G&FC where it might be kinda forgotten about

It is difficult to read that as anything other than grossly insulting. Do you have any idea how many hours go into setting up and running the games that take place here? But because that is not something that the moderators take an interest in, it does not add anything to the forum, so it does not matter that it is in a different section.

It is clear that you consider the PRR to be some kind of prime estate, and by implication the rest to be an inferior location where you tolerate things being posted, but it does not matter if they "might be kinda forgotten about."

I am disgusted at your attitude.

The race design is staying in the PRR. It's not really a game in itself (the race design challenge for example is, and it is indeed in the Games subforum), and it's more of a showcase of what can be done with cycling parcours. Furthermore, the thread was born there and was always there, and considering its success it should not be moved anywhere else.
However, we can argue about whether it should be stuck or not. Personally I'm cool with both options.

But it has absolutely nothing to do with real life professional racing, and is based purely in the realm of fantasy in which you imagine that you have the authority to be a race director. It has a lot less to do with Professional Road Racing than the games, which are all about professional riders in real life (not fantasy) races. Before the games were summarily shovelled off, with no consultation with those involved, and no apology for the total botch-up over the process, they had always been in the PRR section. And yet those of us involved were not administrators, so were shown an absolute lack of respect.

Your opening sentence is written with outstanding arrogance: have you really distinguished between your roles as a contributor and administrator in speaking thus?


I would ask both of you to explain what it is about the G&FC sub-forum that makes it an unsuitable location for the race design thread, and why those threads that are there deserve what you clearly consider an inferior profile.

 

[BigMac]

With all due respect to Libertine and those who often partake in the Race Design Thread, I think it should be unstickied. In fact, it was never deliberated among the mods whether it should have been pinned or not: one of us at the time, who's not even part of the team anymore, did it without much input from the rest. The thread itself is so popular it's bound to always stay in first page anyway.

Cheers.

 

[thehog]

Mods, can the thread in the Clinic titled; "Team Garmin getting dropped....", be changed from Garmin to Cannodale?

 

[Eshnar]

Re: Re:

Your opening sentence is written with outstanding arrogance: have you really distinguished between your roles as a contributor and administrator in speaking thus?


I would ask both of you to explain what it is about the G&FC sub-forum that makes it an unsuitable location for the race design thread, and why those threads that are there deserve what you clearly consider an inferior profile.

Arrogance? Look it's a very common way of writing: you first make a statement, and then you elaborate on that. Where's the arrogance? How is it any more arrogant than your whole post?

That thread has been in the PRR since it's opening, almost 5 years ago, during which nobody has ever complained about it to my knowledge. I've always seen it more as an informative thread (look at these climbs - look at these places) rather than a game. Evidence is that when I wanted to create a game on that, I did it in the games sub-forum.
Also, if you find Red's post insulting I should also feel insulted by your claim that "that is not something that the moderators take an interest in", since if you have two eyes you'll see you're not the only one who ever contributed to that subforum.
Finally, about considering the PRR the prime estate, I would point out that it's not us who consider it so, it's the users. You can just look at the viewing figures of both. PRR and Clinic are the most viewed and trafficated subforums by far - that's not really an opinion is it.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re:

Moderators often say: "we don't care what you say as long as you say it respectfully".

In reality, it looks like posts will be deleted and ban threats will be issued to suppress the inconvenient truth of the benefits of upper-body training for cyclists.

I'm sure the thread being swept under the "Form & Fitness" rug on the exact same day is purely coincidental.

 

[RedheadDane]

Then claim the thread. Make it an awesome thread full of advice of how to train your upper body.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yeah take it over.

And make sure to Check your Pecks! :lol:

These days at 47 my pecks look more like flat old man.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re:

Then claim the thread. Make it an awesome thread full of advice of how to train your upper body.

The problem is that thread specifically deals with upper-body training for pro cyclists (look at the actual content, not the title). Therefore its natural place is the PRR forum.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

Your opening sentence is written with outstanding arrogance: have you really distinguished between your roles as a contributor and administrator in speaking thus?


I would ask both of you to explain what it is about the G&FC sub-forum that makes it an unsuitable location for the race design thread, and why those threads that are there deserve what you clearly consider an inferior profile.

Arrogance? Look it's a very common way of writing: you first make a statement, and then you elaborate on that. Where's the arrogance? How is it any more arrogant than your whole post?

That thread has been in the PRR since it's opening, almost 5 years ago, during which nobody has ever complained about it to my knowledge. I've always seen it more as an informative thread (look at these climbs - look at these places) rather than a game. Evidence is that when I wanted to create a game on that, I did it in the games sub-forum.
Also, if you find Red's post insulting I should also feel insulted by your claim that "that is not something that the moderators take an interest in", since if you have two eyes you'll see you're not the only one who ever contributed to that subforum.
Finally, about considering the PRR the prime estate, I would point out that it's not us who consider it so, it's the users. You can just look at the viewing figures of both. PRR and Clinic are the most viewed and trafficated subforums by far - that's not really an opinion is it.

That a contributor to a thread can assume that he can fairly rule as an administrator in a matter relating to that thread is highly inappropriate. If your opening statement is preparatory to presenting reasons why you think it should be able to stay where it is, it shouldn't be presented as an assertion of what will happen, which comes across as arrogant; if it is you speaking in your role as a moderator, then failing to recuse yourself from the matter is arrogant in the extreme.

Please explain what you find arrogant in my post.

Games were not given the choice of remaining in the forum that they were created in: there was no discussion or canvassing of opinion. Its placement in the PRR section has indeed been challenged, within 2 days of it starting: no defence of its presence in PRR pertaining to relevance was proferred. That the thread in question has been in a forum for an amount of time does not mean that it was correctly placed. Whether it is a game is besides the point: it is based on pure fantasy, a point that you decided not to reply to, and which is clear in the OP of the thread: "The grand concept of this thread is that we all have our ideas of what kind of race we want to see, or places we wish races would go, or races we wish existed. So here's the chance for us to post up these ideas."

"if you have two eyes": really not the way to conduct an adult conversation. I apologise for overlooking the fact that you have entries in that subforum.

If practical considerations lead to subdivision of a forum into section, that can be a sensible organisational decision, but the placing of threads within that should be based on their content, not their contributors or the desire of those with influence to occupy the prime estate.

 

[Eshnar]

Re: Re:

Your opening sentence is written with outstanding arrogance: have you really distinguished between your roles as a contributor and administrator in speaking thus?


I would ask both of you to explain what it is about the G&FC sub-forum that makes it an unsuitable location for the race design thread, and why those threads that are there deserve what you clearly consider an inferior profile.

Arrogance? Look it's a very common way of writing: you first make a statement, and then you elaborate on that. Where's the arrogance? How is it any more arrogant than your whole post?

That thread has been in the PRR since it's opening, almost 5 years ago, during which nobody has ever complained about it to my knowledge. I've always seen it more as an informative thread (look at these climbs - look at these places) rather than a game. Evidence is that when I wanted to create a game on that, I did it in the games sub-forum.
Also, if you find Red's post insulting I should also feel insulted by your claim that "that is not something that the moderators take an interest in", since if you have two eyes you'll see you're not the only one who ever contributed to that subforum.
Finally, about considering the PRR the prime estate, I would point out that it's not us who consider it so, it's the users. You can just look at the viewing figures of both. PRR and Clinic are the most viewed and trafficated subforums by far - that's not really an opinion is it.

That a contributor to a thread can assume that he can fairly rule as an administrator in a matter relating to that thread is highly inappropriate. If your opening statement is preparatory to presenting reasons why you think it should be able to stay where it is, it shouldn't be presented as an assertion of what will happen, which comes across as arrogant; if it is you speaking in your role as a moderator, then failing to recuse yourself from the matter is arrogant in the extreme.

Please explain what you find arrogant in my post.

Games were not given the choice of remaining in the forum that they were created in: there was no discussion or canvassing of opinion. Its placement in the PRR section has indeed been challenged, within 2 days of it starting: no defence of its presence in PRR pertaining to relevance was proferred. That the thread in question has been in a forum for an amount of time does not mean that it was correctly placed. Whether it is a game is besides the point: it is based on pure fantasy, a point that you decided not to reply to, and which is clear in the OP of the thread: "The grand concept of this thread is that we all have our ideas of what kind of race we want to see, or places we wish races would go, or races we wish existed. So here's the chance for us to post up these ideas."

"if you have two eyes": really not the way to conduct an adult conversation. I apologise for overlooking the fact that you have entries in that subforum.

If practical considerations lead to subdivision of a forum into section, that can be a sensible organisational decision, but the placing of threads within that should be based on their content, not their contributors or the desire of those with influence to occupy the prime estate.

You seem to have made lots of assumptions here.
First you assumed that I decided this by myself, which is not the case, as most decisions are taken by the mods as a team (or at least as a kind of). I just posted to elaborate on Red Rick's original post, which had already mentioned the decision. And yes, I can state things that will happen in this way, because that's what will happen. I think it kinda makes sense.
Secondly you assume there's some kind of rule that a mod cannot take decisions about threads he has interest in which is a rule that was never there, in any form, not written nor spoken. That would leave no mods able to do their job, as all of us still want to be engaged as users.
As for the arrogance of your post, well, assuming how things work without actually knowing it is a bit arrogant right? Accusing Red Rick and the mods in general to not care about the Games subforum, when the simple fact you had no idea there were games organized by me demonstrates you don't look at that forum at all besides your own game, does come across as a bit arrogant. This without mentioning sentences like "I am disgusted at your attitude" which I would consider straight up insulting.

As for the "original sin" of the split between games and PRR, I was not a mod at the time, as I was not when the race design thread was born and was allowed to stay in the PRR. I do think it is good where it is, especially because I am a conservative kind of person. I also did concede it shouldn't be stick'd, and that's why it is not anymore.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

It is basic decency to recuse yourself if there is a matter of contention in which you have a personal interest.

I never suggested that it was a unilateral decision: I replied to RR before I did so to you.

If somebody is disgusted at your attitude, perhaps you ought to consider the propriety of your conduct, not be insulted.

I never said that you were responsible for the separation of Games into a separate subforum: that does not mean that it was done well, or that other people were given the right to choose the subforum that they think will generate most traffic, rather than the one in which it clearly belongs.

You have now twice declined to explain why the clearly imaginative fantasy parcours that occupy the thread, detailing professional races that have never happened, should not be in the subforum defined as including fantasy.

I would still expect Red Rick to justify his comments,

 

[Beech Mtn]

The solution to many problems might be to get the developers to move the "new posts" button somewhere higher up, where it can be accessed from any screen, any thread, any post - whether one is logged in or not. It feels like lots of threads that aren't in the PRR or the Clinic used to be way more active in the past on the old platform, but now, if a thread isn't on one of the big subforums, few people find it and contribute. For example, the "Caption This" thread is just about dead.

When we went to the new platform, I found that at first I really wasn't clear which subforum many threads were in, other than obvious ones like the clinic or politics being in the cafe. I always used the new posts button exclusively. But now that you have to go through extra screens to get to that new posts listing, it matters a lot more how threads are separated out, as far as how much traffic they appear to get. New posts button should be the big high traffic feature of any forum anyway.

 

[Jspear]

Re:

It is basic decency to recuse yourself if there is a matter of contention in which you have a personal interest.

I never suggested that it was a unilateral decision: I replied to RR before I did so to you.

If somebody is disgusted at your attitude, perhaps you ought to consider the propriety of your conduct, not be insulted.

I never said that you were responsible for the separation of Games into a separate subforum: that does not mean that it was done well, or that other people were given the right to choose the subforum that they think will generate most traffic, rather than the one in which it clearly belongs.

You have now twice declined to explain why the clearly imaginative fantasy parcours that occupy the thread, detailing professional races that have never happened, should not be in the subforum defined as including fantasy.

I would still expect Red Rick to justify his comments,

Why do you care so much now after all these years?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

It is basic decency to recuse yourself if there is a matter of contention in which you have a personal interest.

I never suggested that it was a unilateral decision: I replied to RR before I did so to you.

If somebody is disgusted at your attitude, perhaps you ought to consider the propriety of your conduct, not be insulted.

I never said that you were responsible for the separation of Games into a separate subforum: that does not mean that it was done well, or that other people were given the right to choose the subforum that they think will generate most traffic, rather than the one in which it clearly belongs.

You have now twice declined to explain why the clearly imaginative fantasy parcours that occupy the thread, detailing professional races that have never happened, should not be in the subforum defined as including fantasy.

I would still expect Red Rick to justify his comments,

Why do you care so much now after all these years?

Partly because what I have long thought has been raised again by others.

Much more so because of the comments of Red Rick, essentially saying that it is the "lot of effort" that posters have put in, and that " We think it adds a lot to the forum" that determine the location of a thread; betraying an implication that those involved in the creation and management of games either do not put in hours of effort, or that such effort is not appreciated and does not "add to the forum", and that the G&FC subforum is where ideas are put to be "kinda forgotten about".

My main beef is not with Eshnar, although I think it is reprehensible that he did not distinguish between his roles as contributor and administrator, and equally reprehensible that administrators acting collectively did not insist that he do so, implying that they will not do so in matters that involve them. Having asserted that a change will not happen, I believe that he has singularly failed to provide sufficient reason to back that up, thus reinforcing my impression that the reason is more to do with traffic than content.

Finally, although I acknowledge that it is a different group of personnel, the contrast between Irondan's suggestion that he would be happy enough to see the thread moved but that he would essentially give Eshnar a veto over the decision, and my experience of finding a thread into which I had put dozens of hours of work totally mangled in a move that had had no prior discussion or warning, to reflect such a difference in respect shown that I cannot but be disgusted by it.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re:

The solution to many problems might be to get the developers to move the "new posts" button somewhere higher up, where it can be accessed from any screen, any thread, any post - whether one is logged in or not. It feels like lots of threads that aren't in the PRR or the Clinic used to be way more active in the past on the old platform, but now, if a thread isn't on one of the big subforums, few people find it and contribute. For example, the "Caption This" thread is just about dead.

When we went to the new platform, I found that at first I really wasn't clear which subforum many threads were in, other than obvious ones like the clinic or politics being in the cafe. I always used the new posts button exclusively. But now that you have to go through extra screens to get to that new posts listing, it matters a lot more how threads are separated out, as far as how much traffic they appear to get. New posts button should be the big high traffic feature of any forum anyway.

I would agree with this strongly. The main route to the forum should alert the visitor to activity and fresshness of threads, not subdivisions.

 

[Eshnar]

Fantasy Cycling is a game. Like Fantasy Football. It doesn't mean "hypothetical cycling".

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Professional Road Racing means road races in which professionals take part. It doean't mean "Roads, that could have races on them, that hypothetically might include professionals".


Why are you so determined not to see the thread move?

 

[King Boonen]

Is this serious..?

 

[ebandit]

....exactly....as though it makes any difference

i commend mods for their inner strength/patience

Mark L

 

[Pricey_sky]

Re:

Professional Road Racing means road races in which professionals take part. It doean't mean "Roads, that could have races on them, that hypothetically might include professionals".


Why are you so determined not to see the thread move?

It does not need to move, compared to the many posters and mods that want the thread to say in the PRR your the only one kicking up a stink about it.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Although I believe the reasons given to be unconvincing to say the least, my main beef is with the disgustingly dismissive attitude exhibited by Red Rick towards the Games forum (which he has not had the decency to either defend or retract), and the farcical management whereby Admins get to rule on disputed matters that they are involved in. Really difficult to have any respect for the editorial policy here now, although I want to be able to appreciate the voluntary input.

 

[Brullnux]

The Race Design Thread is one of the distinguishing features of this forum, no? I'm not an expert of other forums but it seems to me that here there is a bigger group of people that contribute and design races compared to other forums. For that reason, I think whatever sub-forum it should be in, it should be stickied.

I also think it should be in the PRR forum partly because it's always been there, and it is sort of its home, but also because it does base around professional road racing. Who else is going to ride the races? For sure, it isn't a game; I don't think it's fantasy either, because these courses could and sometimes should be reality. It is hypothetical courses using professional parameters and professional climbs and roads and using professional ideas. Having said that, it is neither strictly professional nor fantasy cycling. The CQ manager thread is fantasy cycling, similar to its counterpart fantasy football. This is in between. Had it been created in the G&FC sub forum, then not many would've complained. Not many had complained until now about it being in the PRR thread. It should be in the PRR thread for two reasons IMO: it was born there; and these are PRR races bein designed. I hope one day it will be restickied.

 

[Praying Mantis]

A post of mine was recently deleted in my stage 18 thread. What rule did I break and what justification did you have for deleting it?

I'd like a very satisfactory answer to even consider continuing my contributions here.

It's unnerving having to keep an eye on your post count while browsing the forum, suddenly things just disappear. The new mod team is creating a poor atmosphere of arbitrary censorship in the forum, and those who care should be aware of this.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

A post of mine was recently deleted in my stage 18 thread. What rule did I break and what justification did you have for deleting it?

I'd like a very satisfactory answer to even consider continuing my contributions here.

It's unnerving having to keep an eye on your post count while browsing the forum, suddenly things just disappear. The new mod team is creating a poor atmosphere of arbitrary censorship in the forum, and those who care should be aware of this.

I'll check on this but I can't promise anything because once a comment is deleted it's gone for good. I know one of the mods accidentally deleted a comment recently, it may have been yours.