Moderators

[Praying Mantis]

The answer was given by Pricey_Sky in private for some reason. My post was deemed off-topic (although my comment was about the OP) and summarily deleted. I strongly disagree with their arbitrary judgment and method, which they of course stand by without question. Apply this in a wider sense and half the forum would have to be deleted, including posts by the moderator in question.

It's a reprehensible way to "moderate" a discussion among adults by deleting posts, casually abusing what should be the last resort. I can't even think of an apt analogy in real life. It's rewriting history and denying other people in the forum a voice. Insulting. That such a harmless post was considered worth upsetting a productive poster over, shows how petty and zealous this "moderation" is. I can't continue posting in this joyless environment, so I won't. I'll spend my energy elsewhere. I'll stick to my word and finish the things I've started out of respect for other members and visitors.

 

[HelloDolly]

Re:

yesterday, any mention of contador was railed against, today any comparison of sky/usps or froome/Armstrong is railed against. how about just skipping or ignoring it if you don't like it? To me I always found Froome more like the chicken anyways, so is that what's on tomorrow's menu? Rabbit versus Chicken?

Maybe every comparison with Armstrong has just one intention ...to discredit Froome's win and ability and align him to a doper...the interntion is obvious..

I mean you would hardly compare a politican to Hitler and then say it is becasue they liked the same places to holiday and had the same speech technique

And as for mods saying ignore it...the same people were very quick to send anyone that metioned Contador and steak to the clinic but seem happy with the impliation that Froome is doping ...and make no mistake it is a very transparent implication...yet Contador has a doping violation

I am not a fan of SKY dominance or Froome dominance for that matter but just becasue he wins the Tour emphatically with no opposition and one of the strongst mountins trains ever does not indacte any nefarious activity

I know how these riders train so hard and it is obvious the Froome has immense talent. To not like his style , him, his team etc is fine
But to imply doping on nothing more that perforamance (while allowing for other riders exceptional performance at other times...Contador on the Mortirolo spring to mind ...as beyond question ) is unsportsman like , bised and small minded
Any any mod allowing this should look again

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

Can people stop comparing Armstrong to Froome! Can Mods stop these references please.

You can use the "report post" feature

I did. Report closed. That's how much it seems to matter today.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

yesterday, any mention of contador was railed against, today any comparison of sky/usps or froome/Armstrong is railed against. how about just skipping or ignoring it if you don't like it? To me I always found Froome more like the chicken anyways, so is that what's on tomorrow's menu? Rabbit versus Chicken?

Maybe every comparison with Armstrong has just one intention ...to discredit Froome's win and ability and align him to a doper...the interntion is obvious..

I mean you would hardly compare a politican to Hitler and then say it is becasue they liked the same places to holiday and had the same speech technique

And as for mods saying ignore it...the same people were very quick to send anyone that metioned Contador and steak to the clinic but seem happy with the impliation that Froome is doping ...and make no mistake it is a very transparent implication...yet Contador has a doping violation

I am not a fan of SKY dominance or Froome dominance for that matter but just becasue he wins the Tour emphatically with no opposition and one of the strongst mountins trains ever does not indacte any nefarious activity

I know how these riders train so hard and it is obvious the Froome has immense talent. To not like his style , him, his team etc is fine
But to imply doping on nothing more that perforamance (while allowing for other riders exceptional performance at other times...Contador on the Mortirolo spring to mind ...as beyond question ) is unsportsman like , bised and small minded
Any any mod allowing this should look again

So we should never, ever compare any cyclists with any riders that doped, in the PRR section? Or is it just Armstrong that is no-no?

Would you react the same way if someone compared Quintana with Pantani? Dumoulin with Indurain? Kittel with Cipo?

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

yesterday, any mention of contador was railed against, today any comparison of sky/usps or froome/Armstrong is railed against. how about just skipping or ignoring it if you don't like it? To me I always found Froome more like the chicken anyways, so is that what's on tomorrow's menu? Rabbit versus Chicken?

I mean you would hardly compare a politican to Hitler and then say it is becasue they liked the same places to holiday and had the same speech technique

Unless you're the UK's Foreign Secretary...or the New Yorker.

Now, Voldemort is a bad, bad man. I feel bad even mentioning him in passing. I think we should just forget about the guy altogether. Move right along. But he wasn't Hitler.

He's also the most comparable rider to Froome in the last 30+ years. So yeah, while I won't expound on it myself, I do think it's pefectly legit. Yes, many forumites might do it just in order to establish guilt by association. But that's a false argument that's on the readers to critically asses and dismiss. It's not something that should be prima facie censored, IMHO.

 

[BigMac]

It's not the comparison per se, it's what's implied. A comparison alone is perfectly fine when it doens't have a clinic side to be inferred. There were pretty obvious ones.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

It's not the comparison per se, it's what's implied. A comparison alone is perfectly fine when it doens't have a clinic side to be inferred. There were pretty obvious ones.

It's up to you what you infer. Most comparisons to top riders from the past are going to have some kind of clinic connotations that you can infer if you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean all such posts are implying that. If not Armstrong, which TdF champion of the past 20-30 years (i.e the cycling watching lifetime of most people in this forum) would you compare Froome's style with? The similarities in abilities, team structure and dominance make the comparison an obvious one to make.

 

[BigMac]

You can be disingenuous all you want but most of us weren't born yesterday. I'm talking about the obvious insinuations of doping. I don't give a crap if people want to call him out, but do it in the proper place and preferably explicitly.

 

[carton]

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.

You will be missed. For real. But I'd consider cutting the unpaid moderators some slack, it seems like a hard gig, particularly during the Tour. A series of subjective calls, to be sure, but I think they're doing an altogether pretty fair job. This is coming from someone who was also similarly (well, not quite to the same extent) frustrated by an unexplained deleted post not all that long ago. I actually think an explanatory PM is progress in that regard.

 

[peloton]

Re: Re:

yesterday, any mention of contador was railed against, today any comparison of sky/usps or froome/Armstrong is railed against. how about just skipping or ignoring it if you don't like it? To me I always found Froome more like the chicken anyways, so is that what's on tomorrow's menu? Rabbit versus Chicken?

Maybe every comparison with Armstrong has just one intention ...to discredit Froome's win and ability and align him to a doper...the interntion is obvious..

I mean you would hardly compare a politican to Hitler and then say it is becasue they liked the same places to holiday and had the same speech technique

And as for mods saying ignore it...the same people were very quick to send anyone that metioned Contador and steak to the clinic but seem happy with the impliation that Froome is doping ...and make no mistake it is a very transparent implication...yet Contador has a doping violation

I am not a fan of SKY dominance or Froome dominance for that matter but just becasue he wins the Tour emphatically with no opposition and one of the strongst mountins trains ever does not indacte any nefarious activity

I know how these riders train so hard and it is obvious the Froome has immense talent. To not like his style , him, his team etc is fine
But to imply doping on nothing more that perforamance (while allowing for other riders exceptional performance at other times...Contador on the Mortirolo spring to mind ...as beyond question ) is unsportsman like , bised and small minded
Any any mod allowing this should look again

I'm rarely in the race threads when the race is live. We have discussed about this today, I wouldn't allow any Lance talk in race threads, as I know it can flame the conversation, and really any Lance talk is irrelevant in a race thread.
Please report the posts so they are easier to look up, I'll be online partly tomorrow and weekend during the stages.

 

[peloton]

Re: Re:

It's not the comparison per se, it's what's implied. A comparison alone is perfectly fine when it doens't have a clinic side to be inferred. There were pretty obvious ones.

It's up to you what you infer. Most comparisons to top riders from the past are going to have some kind of clinic connotations that you can infer if you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean all such posts are implying that. If not Armstrong, which TdF champion of the past 20-30 years (i.e the cycling watching lifetime of most people in this forum) would you compare Froome's style with? The similarities in abilities, team structure and dominance make the comparison an obvious one to make.

True, but you can talk about that in the clinic, not in race threads.

 

[ggusta]

Re:

You can be disingenuous all you want but most of us weren't born yesterday. I'm talking about the obvious insinuations of doping. I don't give a crap if people want to call him out, but do it in the proper place and preferably explicitly.

So which top riders other than Froome are not insinuated to be doping by posters? You can be disingenuous all you want but most of us weren't born yesterday. The sport is rife with riders who have had ped suspensions, and Lance (among many many others) never OFFICIALLY tested positive so you tell me who is disingenuous by fans who weren't born last night. I don't know how to clean up the sport and am very saddened to see the state it's in, but usps/sky is not the answer.

Go read what Lemond thinks of Froome and Sky.

Why does Froome get such vocal and thin skinned defenders when there is ample insinuation for EVERYONE ELSE? Perhaps his shrill and hypocritical defenders need to be compared with Lance's shrill and hypocritical defenders..... If anyone says a word about Froome that isn't absolutely complimentary there are cries of 'Clinic, Clinic' from a vocal group. It's a message board.

Go through each rider's threads and see how much connotation and explicit accusation there is for each one. No such 'If you were a real fan you'd say just what you mean' self righteous indignation for them, but anyone on Sky or Froome and watch out... No problem for me, I just like to let it slide and roll with the punches but the phoniness is laughable.

 

[ggusta]

Re: Re:

It's not the comparison per se, it's what's implied. A comparison alone is perfectly fine when it doens't have a clinic side to be inferred. There were pretty obvious ones.

It's up to you what you infer. Most comparisons to top riders from the past are going to have some kind of clinic connotations that you can infer if you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean all such posts are implying that. If not Armstrong, which TdF champion of the past 20-30 years (i.e the cycling watching lifetime of most people in this forum) would you compare Froome's style with? The similarities in abilities, team structure and dominance make the comparison an obvious one to make.

True, but you can talk about that in the clinic, not in race threads.

So where does it end? Because it goes on constantly in race threads for all the other riders too. Surely you have noticed it?

 

[peloton]

The whole point of the no clinic talk (Lance, steaks, whathaveyou) esp. in race threads is that it becomes unreadable very quickly with many people posting, and sometimes ending in ridiculous arguments, which no one, who is interested of the race, wants to read about.

You can always go to the clinic to vent any frustrations. Please don't do it in the race (or any RRR) threads.
Thanks

 

[peloton]

Re: Re:

It's not the comparison per se, it's what's implied. A comparison alone is perfectly fine when it doens't have a clinic side to be inferred. There were pretty obvious ones.

It's up to you what you infer. Most comparisons to top riders from the past are going to have some kind of clinic connotations that you can infer if you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean all such posts are implying that. If not Armstrong, which TdF champion of the past 20-30 years (i.e the cycling watching lifetime of most people in this forum) would you compare Froome's style with? The similarities in abilities, team structure and dominance make the comparison an obvious one to make.

True, but you can talk about that in the clinic, not in race threads.

So where does it end? Because it goes on constantly in race threads for all the other riders too. Surely you have noticed it?

Like I said, I'm not often in race threads. Report the posts and they will be dealt with asap. We're not here 24/7, so we need your help too.

 

[BigMac]

Re: Re:

You can be disingenuous all you want but most of us weren't born yesterday. I'm talking about the obvious insinuations of doping. I don't give a crap if people want to call him out, but do it in the proper place and preferably explicitly.

So which top riders other than Froome are not insinuated to be doping by posters? You can be disingenuous all you want but most of us weren't born yesterday. The sport is rife with riders who have had ped suspensions, and Lance (among many many others) never OFFICIALLY tested positive so you tell me who is disingenuous by fans who weren't born last night. I don't know how to clean up the sport and am very saddened to see the state it's in, but usps/sky is not the answer.

Go read what Lemond thinks of Froome and Sky.

Why does Froome get such vocal and thin skinned defenders when there is ample insinuation for EVERYONE ELSE? Perhaps his shrill and hypocritical defenders need to be compared with Lance's shrill and hypocritical defenders..... If anyone says a word about Froome that isn't absolutely complimentary there are cries of 'Clinic, Clinic' from a vocal group. It's a message board.

Go through each rider's threads and see how much connotation and explicit accusation there is for each one. No such 'If you were a real fan you'd say just what you mean' self righteous indignation for them, but anyone on Sky or Froome and watch out... No problem for me, I just like to let it slide and roll with the punches but the phoniness is laughable.

It's not about defending Froome. It's about rules and respect for those who don't want to read about it outside its proper place. Doping talk outside the Clinic is not allowed. Your post has nothing to do with the issue at hand and is, quite frankly, irrelevant. Accusing me of defending Froome is laughable and shows you not only don't know me but also managed to miss the point.

When a poster says Froome reminds them of Armstrong and then someone says something along the lines of ''let's wait a few more years to see who's the winner of these tours'', what is it if not doping accusations? The majority of people acknowledges Froome dopes, including myself. I don't get the need to spread these lies about an overly vocal group of defenders when it's the exact opposite.

Have a nice one.

 

[ggusta]

Re: Re:

You can be disingenuous all you want but most of us weren't born yesterday. I'm talking about the obvious insinuations of doping. I don't give a crap if people want to call him out, but do it in the proper place and preferably explicitly.

So which top riders other than Froome are not insinuated to be doping by posters? You can be disingenuous all you want but most of us weren't born yesterday. The sport is rife with riders who have had ped suspensions, and Lance (among many many others) never OFFICIALLY tested positive so you tell me who is disingenuous by fans who weren't born last night. I don't know how to clean up the sport and am very saddened to see the state it's in, but usps/sky is not the answer.

Go read what Lemond thinks of Froome and Sky.

Why does Froome get such vocal and thin skinned defenders when there is ample insinuation for EVERYONE ELSE? Perhaps his shrill and hypocritical defenders need to be compared with Lance's shrill and hypocritical defenders..... If anyone says a word about Froome that isn't absolutely complimentary there are cries of 'Clinic, Clinic' from a vocal group. It's a message board.

Go through each rider's threads and see how much connotation and explicit accusation there is for each one. No such 'If you were a real fan you'd say just what you mean' self righteous indignation for them, but anyone on Sky or Froome and watch out... No problem for me, I just like to let it slide and roll with the punches but the phoniness is laughable.

It's not about defending Froome. It's about rules and respect for those who don't want to read about it outside its proper place. Doping talk outside the Clinic is not allowed. Your post has nothing to do with the issue at hand and is, quite frankly, irrelevant. Accusing me of defending Froome is laughable and shows you not only don't know me but also managed to miss the point.

When a poster says Froome reminds them of Armstrong and then someone says something along the lines of ''let's wait a few more years to see who's the winner of these tours'', what is it if not doping accusations? The majority of people acknowledges Froome dopes, including myself. I don't get the need to spread these lies about an overly vocal group of defenders when it's the exact opposite.

Have a nice one.

My point, which you also chose to ignore, is about the uneven-ness and disparity of treatment. 'We'll choose to get exorcised over a Froome comment, but not [insert any other rider's name] innuendo on the next page.' So yes, it does certainly appear that their is ample hypocrisy. I am not accusing you personally of defending Froome, (like I am acquainted with whom you defend or what you say about anything?? please, sir, I give you a little more credit, I'd appreciate likewise) please read with a slightly more open interpretation. What lies are you referring to?

 

[CheckMyPecs]

You will be missed, Praying Mantis.

 

[Sciocco]

The answer was given by Pricey_Sky in private for some reason. My post was deemed off-topic (although my comment was about the OP) and summarily deleted. I strongly disagree with their arbitrary judgment and method, which they of course stand by without question. Apply this in a wider sense and half the forum would have to be deleted, including posts by the moderator in question.

It's a reprehensible way to "moderate" a discussion among adults by deleting posts, casually abusing what should be the last resort. I can't even think of an apt analogy in real life. It's rewriting history and denying other people in the forum a voice. Insulting. That such a harmless post was considered worth upsetting a productive poster over, shows how petty and zealous this "moderation" is. I can't continue posting in this joyless environment, so I won't. I'll spend my energy elsewhere. I'll stick to my word and finish the things I've started out of respect for other members and visitors.

I'd ask you to re-consider but it's true the moderation here is straight garbage.

Thank you very much for your Tour (& Vuelta) info threads and the Tour stage threads.

 

[King Boonen]

Moderating here is obviously hard, just reading through the last couple of pages makes that abundantly clear. The moderators are not paid, they do it because they enjoy using the forum and want to give something back. They won't always make the right call or the one you agree with and, this is pretty crucial, they do not read every post. They deal with the ones that are reported and the ones they happen across.

The funny thing is there are lots of posters here who manage to operate within the rules, it's really not hard.

Praying Mantis, that wasn't really directed at you, I can understand your frustration but if something is deemed off topic and deleted that's the moderators call. They have to deal with lots of stuff and maybe they delete something because they feel it could inflame something, has been reported or they just made a bad decision. Apparently with the new system once a post is gone it's gone so they can't do anything about it. I'd ask if you could cut them some slack, it's a tough gig and they're just trying to make the place as good as they can. You'll certainly be missed if you decide to leave.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

yesterday, any mention of contador was railed against, today any comparison of sky/usps or froome/Armstrong is railed against. how about just skipping or ignoring it if you don't like it? To me I always found Froome more like the chicken anyways, so is that what's on tomorrow's menu? Rabbit versus Chicken?

Maybe every comparison with Armstrong has just one intention ...to discredit Froome's win and ability and align him to a doper...the interntion is obvious..

I mean you would hardly compare a politican to Hitler and then say it is becasue they liked the same places to holiday and had the same speech technique

And as for mods saying ignore it...the same people were very quick to send anyone that metioned Contador and steak to the clinic but seem happy with the impliation that Froome is doping ...and make no mistake it is a very transparent implication...yet Contador has a doping violation

I am not a fan of SKY dominance or Froome dominance for that matter but just becasue he wins the Tour emphatically with no opposition and one of the strongst mountins trains ever does not indacte any nefarious activity

I know how these riders train so hard and it is obvious the Froome has immense talent. To not like his style , him, his team etc is fine
But to imply doping on nothing more that perforamance (while allowing for other riders exceptional performance at other times...Contador on the Mortirolo spring to mind ...as beyond question ) is unsportsman like , bised and small minded
Any any mod allowing this should look again

I'm rarely in the race threads when the race is live. We have discussed about this today, I wouldn't allow any Lance talk in race threads, as I know it can flame the conversation, and really any Lance talk is irrelevant in a race thread.
Please report the posts so they are easier to look up, I'll be online partly tomorrow and weekend during the stages.

How can talk about him be irrelevant when Froome is using the team in a similar way, and is so similarly dominant in climbing and time trials? It's just a logical comparison to make. You (and the UCI) might try to airbrush Armstrong from history, but we all saw it with our own eyes - and they were the standout and most memorable performances in seven years of cycling - of course people will refer back to them when they see something similar. Are we allowed to refer to Pantani, Merckx, Ullrich, Valverde or Contador in a race thread as well - or is Armstrong the only rider that was banned who is now unmentionable?

 

[ebandit]

...cry me a river...forum has rules..those rules are expressed...how hard to follow?

Mark L

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Go read what Lemond thinks of Froome and Sky.

Why does Froome get such vocal and thin skinned defenders when there is ample insinuation for EVERYONE ELSE? Perhaps his shrill and hypocritical defenders need to be compared with Lance's shrill and hypocritical defenders..... If anyone says a word about Froome that isn't absolutely complimentary there are cries of 'Clinic, Clinic' from a vocal group. It's a message board..

Wow. That is the almost complete opposite of what I'm seeing.

I'm explicit in my opinion that Froome is a massive doper, with an almost impossible trajectory, backed up with a load of nonsense from Team Sky PR.

But because I dare question some of the ridiculous fantasies that get posted in the clinic thread I find myself regularly attacked by and accused of being some ignorant Sky fan who has only known about the sport since 2012 :lol:

I have seen maybe one, at most two, posters giving some sort of outright defence of Sky, and usually I have posted my disagreement with them, in what I hope is a friendly and non-aggressive manner.

There are some knowledgeable and mature posters on that board, but there are also a few nasty little bullies hiding behind their keyboards. That's life, and they are harmless enough because of course resorting to the Internet to pick and try and win pointless battles means that in real life they don't get so much going their way.

BUT....does it really matter? No, in my honest opinion.

I would agree with the comments made by King Boonen about moderation. It's unpaid, done whenever the volunteers can spare their time, is a largely thankless task, will rarely meet the approval of everyone, and is difficult. I say that as somebody who received two month long bans and was a bit perplexed as to why.

But it's only an Internet forum, a mild diversion from real life, a bit of fun to chat with hopefully like-minded people....so no need to take it so seriously, get het up about it, or spend time complaining.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

...cry me a river...forum has rules..those rules are expressed...how hard to follow?

Mark L

I've got no problem following them; I just was asking for clarification on why there seems to be an issue mentioning Amstrong specifically, but not other proven dopers in race thread. I realize his name has become somewhat synonymous with doping - but that doesn't erase the memory of the seven tours that he dominated. He won the most TdF on the road in history, and we can't mention him in a TdF race thread

 

[ebandit]

...and mods explain why....see above

Mark L