Moderators

[djpbaltimore]

After reading the last few pages....

1) It is a wonder that anyone volunteers to moderate this forum.
2) Despite that fact, the current mod team is doing a terrific job.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

Finally, it seems like a decision has been made to moderate the politics thread (and maybe other threads in the general section too) more strictly than in recent years. I assume this is going on in concert with Alpe being removed as a mod. Notice I said seems and assume. The politics thread has had more leeway for years, and this was publicly discussed on this forum and announced back when Alpe said he'd moderate those threads. If things are changing now as far as rule enforcement, bans, and what is expected of posters in those threads, it would be appropriate for the mod team to make some sort of visible announcement in the "general" subforum about the changes so that posters know what to expect.

You've hit the nail on the head there, its always been a question to me over the years how the politics thread has been given freedom compared to most other threads on this forum. We've decided no more free passes in there. It should be moderated the same as the other 100 or so other threads we have to moderate on this message board, we shouldn't give any leeway just because 'that's the way its always been'.

If members want the thread to remain open, they will have to adhere to the rules in the politics thread like everyone else, otherwise it may get locked.

I have no issue with the moderation of Semper to the extent it's been relayed to me. Like myself, I think he generally knows when the line has been blatantly crossed, has admitted it publicly more than once, like me accepts the bans and has no issues with the mods.

There have always been potential inconsistencies in modding. The Clinic could be very unkind to some who couldn't or didn't formulate their concerns clearly and cogently as they might deviate from certain group consensuses. Complaints by members could bring fast warnings and infractions w/o much attention to what was actually being said. Yes there's a time issue. That said, as others have noted, the current group of mods is one of the most balanced and even handed overall that I remember.

I have no problem with a consistent application of policies in the politics thread, but like Beech was wondering if there would be some announcement. It's a useful resource and even the most vehement disagreements can be conveyed in civil (or civically acceptable) political discourse and vernacular

 

[Pricey_sky]

Re: Re:

I have no problem with a consistent application of policies in the politics thread, but like Beech was wondering if there would be some announcement. It's a useful resource and even the most vehement disagreements can be conveyed in civil (or civically acceptable) political discourse and vernacular

Thanks for the feedback, I will discuss this with the mod team.

Although it shouldn't be too hard to pick up, I trust everyone is aware of the basic rules of the forum.

 

[aphronesis]

It is not. I think the blurred areas are that anything can be made political not just personal and thereby some names or insinuations can be used as political beliefs or convictions and not personal attacks.

 

[python]

yeah a valid concern... let's take some recent examples i have observed in the politics but chose to ignore.

some poster is repeatedly posting some links and their informative contents. several. in a row. obviously a more efficient way exists to combine all the inputs, but none of the rules nor a malicious intent could be discerned. IMO at least

another poster, who seems not too impressed by the serial postings, in the mirror frequency, is responding with one-liners like 'pls impress us, what else is new, what else you got etc etc etc. such exchanges can go for pages.

where's the line crossed here ? and how to tell a line indeed was not blurred.

too me, such exchanges are a norm, not a biggy, and they subside soon enough w/o much damage, IF an overactive mod UNFAMILIAR WITH THE THREAD DYNAMICS makes an appearance and starts' applying the rules'.

what follows is bans, complaints, and not all that much usefulness.

my point is simply that 'the rules' are is a fallback line for some hasty mods. an example would be king boonen. sorry. and i seriously doubt it is going to be admitted publicly.

though, i doubt not for a second such a moderation would be intentional.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

Finally, it seems like a decision has been made to moderate the politics thread (and maybe other threads in the general section too) more strictly than in recent years. I assume this is going on in concert with Alpe being removed as a mod. Notice I said seems and assume. The politics thread has had more leeway for years, and this was publicly discussed on this forum and announced back when Alpe said he'd moderate those threads. If things are changing now as far as rule enforcement, bans, and what is expected of posters in those threads, it would be appropriate for the mod team to make some sort of visible announcement in the "general" subforum about the changes so that posters know what to expect.

You've hit the nail on the head there, its always been a question to me over the years how the politics thread has been given freedom compared to most other threads on this forum. We've decided no more free passes in there. It should be moderated the same as the other 100 or so other threads we have to moderate on this message board, we shouldn't give any leeway just because 'that's the way its always been'.

If members want the thread to remain open, they will have to adhere to the rules in the politics thread like everyone else, otherwise it may get locked.

There was exactly no problem in the politics thread. There was a mod there who had the respect of most, if not all, of those posting there and his suggestions/advice were adhered to with very few exceptions.

So this is another 'fix what isn't broken' moment on this board. BOB thread part deux.

So just close it. No drama. In fact close the Cafe. Very little discussion there has anything to do with cycling, which if isn't strictly against the 'rules', should be.

 

[red_flanders]

I've looked around quite a bit, and can't find any post explaining or stating that Alpe was removed as a mod. Was there an announcement? I've not been around much lately, but can't find anything. First post in this thread which appears to reference it is here: viewtopic.php?p=2193448#p2193448

I'm curious what happened. Thanks for any info.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

I've looked around quite a bit, and can't find any post explaining or stating that Alpe was removed as a mod. Was there an announcement? I've not been around much lately, but can't find anything. First post in this thread which appears to reference it is here: viewtopic.php?p=2193448#p2193448

I'm curious what happened. Thanks for any info.

I've asked. It apparently will not be discussed, run out the clock style.

Alpe felt as though he had been fired and the one response from a mod seemed to not only confirm his feeling but to be miffed that Alpe would bring it to public attention.

At any rate Alpe is history as a mod and time will tell if he chooses to post here. My guess is you've seen the last of him.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Finally, it seems like a decision has been made to moderate the politics thread (and maybe other threads in the general section too) more strictly than in recent years. I assume this is going on in concert with Alpe being removed as a mod. Notice I said seems and assume. The politics thread has had more leeway for years, and this was publicly discussed on this forum and announced back when Alpe said he'd moderate those threads. If things are changing now as far as rule enforcement, bans, and what is expected of posters in those threads, it would be appropriate for the mod team to make some sort of visible announcement in the "general" subforum about the changes so that posters know what to expect.

You've hit the nail on the head there, its always been a question to me over the years how the politics thread has been given freedom compared to most other threads on this forum. We've decided no more free passes in there. It should be moderated the same as the other 100 or so other threads we have to moderate on this message board, we shouldn't give any leeway just because 'that's the way its always been'.

If members want the thread to remain open, they will have to adhere to the rules in the politics thread like everyone else, otherwise it may get locked.

There was exactly no problem in the politics thread. There was a mod there who had the respect of most, if not all, of those posting there and his suggestions/advice were adhered to with very few exceptions.

So this is another 'fix what isn't broken' moment on this board. BOB thread part deux.

So just close it. No drama. In fact close the Cafe. Very little discussion there has anything to do with cycling, which if isn't strictly against the 'rules', should be.

First of all, you're opinion that

"There was exactly no problem in the politics thread"

is completely wrong and your judgement is clouded due to the fact that you are a regular poster, or a better term would be "resident" poster that doesn't spend much time posting comments in the cycling forums, if at all. Needless to say, because of that I feel your strong opinion on the matter is skewed.

What I have a problem with is the fact that the staff knew the cafe threads were not being moderated to the standards set for the rest of the forum so when we go about fixing that issue we're told by the people who post in that section of the forum (almost exclusively) that we're not allowed to do anything without "ruining" the cafe and we should all be fired ourselves and if we ban a member for grossly abusing forum rules the forum will "empty" in response. I also have a problem with the "leeway" for the politics threads being construed as an open invitation to say anything without interference from moderators. That's just ludicrous.

I can go through the politics threads right now and remove hundreds, if not thousands of posts that are against the TOS of Immediate Media, and then go through and remove countless more that are in violation of the forum rules so please stop lecturing forum staff about what is "broken" and what is not "broken". At some point someone at the website is going to just say "close the cafe" and that will be that because there's more bans and reports generated from that subforum than even the "clinic". We have all the numbers, reports, records of bans, and all the data that says the cafe has an issue, let's leave it at that and not make a bigger issue of it.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

Finally, it seems like a decision has been made to moderate the politics thread (and maybe other threads in the general section too) more strictly than in recent years. I assume this is going on in concert with Alpe being removed as a mod. Notice I said seems and assume. The politics thread has had more leeway for years, and this was publicly discussed on this forum and announced back when Alpe said he'd moderate those threads. If things are changing now as far as rule enforcement, bans, and what is expected of posters in those threads, it would be appropriate for the mod team to make some sort of visible announcement in the "general" subforum about the changes so that posters know what to expect.

You've hit the nail on the head there, its always been a question to me over the years how the politics thread has been given freedom compared to most other threads on this forum. We've decided no more free passes in there. It should be moderated the same as the other 100 or so other threads we have to moderate on this message board, we shouldn't give any leeway just because 'that's the way its always been'.

If members want the thread to remain open, they will have to adhere to the rules in the politics thread like everyone else, otherwise it may get locked.

There was exactly no problem in the politics thread. There was a mod there who had the respect of most, if not all, of those posting there and his suggestions/advice were adhered to with very few exceptions.

So this is another 'fix what isn't broken' moment on this board. BOB thread part deux.

So just close it. No drama. In fact close the Cafe. Very little discussion there has anything to do with cycling, which if isn't strictly against the 'rules', should be.

First of all, you're opinion that

"There was exactly no problem in the politics thread"

is completely wrong and your judgement is clouded due to the fact that you are a regular poster, or a better term would be "resident" poster that doesn't spend much time posting comments in the cycling forums, if at all. Needless to say, because of that I feel your strong opinion on the matter is skewed.

What I have a problem with is the fact that the staff knew the cafe threads were not being moderated to the standards set for the rest of the forum so when we go about fixing that issue we're told by the people who post in that section of the forum (almost exclusively) that we're not allowed to do anything without "ruining" the cafe and we should all be fired ourselves and if we ban a member for grossly abusing forum rules the forum will "empty" in response.

I can go through the politics threads right now and remove hundreds, if not thousands of posts that are against the TOS of Immediate Media, and then go through and remove countless more that are in violation of the forum rules so please stop lecturing forum staff about what is "broken" and what is not "broken". At some point someone at the website is going to just say "close the cafe" and that will be that because there's more bans and reports generated from that subforum than even the "clinic". We have all the numbers, reports, records of bans, and all the data that says the cafe has an issue, let's leave it at that and not make a bigger issue of it.

Look man, I've been here since the beginning. Because I've grown bored with the circular arguments in the clinic or don't feel the need to react to every attack on the Kwaremont doesn't mean I haven't been there. If I choose to post in the politics thread then that's just how this game has developed.

Simple solution Dan. Close it. This entire board is a bunch of people giving free content/free traffic to your 'employer.' No running numbers, no behind the scenes intrigue, no reports, no need.

Not too sure who has outgrown whom.

Immediate Media owns a cycling website. Maybe they should concentrate on that.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

Finally, it seems like a decision has been made to moderate the politics thread (and maybe other threads in the general section too) more strictly than in recent years. I assume this is going on in concert with Alpe being removed as a mod. Notice I said seems and assume. The politics thread has had more leeway for years, and this was publicly discussed on this forum and announced back when Alpe said he'd moderate those threads. If things are changing now as far as rule enforcement, bans, and what is expected of posters in those threads, it would be appropriate for the mod team to make some sort of visible announcement in the "general" subforum about the changes so that posters know what to expect.

You've hit the nail on the head there, its always been a question to me over the years how the politics thread has been given freedom compared to most other threads on this forum. We've decided no more free passes in there. It should be moderated the same as the other 100 or so other threads we have to moderate on this message board, we shouldn't give any leeway just because 'that's the way its always been'.

If members want the thread to remain open, they will have to adhere to the rules in the politics thread like everyone else, otherwise it may get locked.

There was exactly no problem in the politics thread. There was a mod there who had the respect of most, if not all, of those posting there and his suggestions/advice were adhered to with very few exceptions.

So this is another 'fix what isn't broken' moment on this board. BOB thread part deux.

So just close it. No drama. In fact close the Cafe. Very little discussion there has anything to do with cycling, which if isn't strictly against the 'rules', should be.

First of all, you're opinion that

"There was exactly no problem in the politics thread"

is completely wrong and your judgement is clouded due to the fact that you are a regular poster, or a better term would be "resident" poster that doesn't spend much time posting comments in the cycling forums, if at all. Needless to say, because of that I feel your strong opinion on the matter is skewed.

What I have a problem with is the fact that the staff knew the cafe threads were not being moderated to the standards set for the rest of the forum so when we go about fixing that issue we're told by the people who post in that section of the forum (almost exclusively) that we're not allowed to do anything without "ruining" the cafe and we should all be fired ourselves and if we ban a member for grossly abusing forum rules the forum will "empty" in response.

I can go through the politics threads right now and remove hundreds, if not thousands of posts that are against the TOS of Immediate Media, and then go through and remove countless more that are in violation of the forum rules so please stop lecturing forum staff about what is "broken" and what is not "broken". At some point someone at the website is going to just say "close the cafe" and that will be that because there's more bans and reports generated from that subforum than even the "clinic". We have all the numbers, reports, records of bans, and all the data that says the cafe has an issue, let's leave it at that and not make a bigger issue of it.

Look man, I've been here since the beginning. Because I've grown bored with the circular arguments in the clinic or don't feel the need to react to every attack on the Kwaremont doesn't mean I haven't been there. If I choose to post in the politics thread then that's just how this game has developed.

Simple solution Dan. Close it. This entire board is a bunch of people giving free content/free traffic to your 'employer.' No running numbers, no behind the scenes intrigue, no reports, no need.

Not too sure who has outgrown whom.

Immediate Media owns a cycling website. Maybe they should concentrate on that.

.....perfect point....though gotta admit am somewhat pi$$ed you beat me to it by a few seconds.... ....and oddly enough this was a key point in the brouhaha that eventually birthed the break-away republic of Velorooms ( which btw is an amazing site....w/lots of great people....and an extremely awesome Music Thread which oddly enough seems to function quite nicely with posting strings that are longer than two posts....)....

Cheers

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I've looked around quite a bit, and can't find any post explaining or stating that Alpe was removed as a mod. Was there an announcement? I've not been around much lately, but can't find anything. First post in this thread which appears to reference it is here: viewtopic.php?p=2193448#p2193448

I'm curious what happened. Thanks for any info.

I've asked. It apparently will not be discussed, run out the clock style.

Alpe felt as though he had been fired and the one response from a mod seemed to not only confirm his feeling but to be miffed that Alpe would bring it to public attention.

At any rate Alpe is history as a mod and time will tell if he chooses to post here. My guess is you've seen the last of him.

Thanks for the update, much appreciated. I hope the situation was handled professionally.

Personally want to thank Alpe for all of his contributions to the site. They have been outstanding as well as long-standing. He should be proud of what he's contributed here.

That said, for my part, I don't mind the moderation being more even across the forum. I'm hopeful it can benefit the Cafe. I see no reason to close it down and am hopeful it might prosper with some more active moderation.

 

[patricknd]

Re: Re:

Finally, it seems like a decision has been made to moderate the politics thread (and maybe other threads in the general section too) more strictly than in recent years. I assume this is going on in concert with Alpe being removed as a mod. Notice I said seems and assume. The politics thread has had more leeway for years, and this was publicly discussed on this forum and announced back when Alpe said he'd moderate those threads. If things are changing now as far as rule enforcement, bans, and what is expected of posters in those threads, it would be appropriate for the mod team to make some sort of visible announcement in the "general" subforum about the changes so that posters know what to expect.

You've hit the nail on the head there, its always been a question to me over the years how the politics thread has been given freedom compared to most other threads on this forum. We've decided no more free passes in there. It should be moderated the same as the other 100 or so other threads we have to moderate on this message board, we shouldn't give any leeway just because 'that's the way its always been'.

If members want the thread to remain open, they will have to adhere to the rules in the politics thread like everyone else, otherwise it may get locked.

There was exactly no problem in the politics thread. There was a mod there who had the respect of most, if not all, of those posting there and his suggestions/advice were adhered to with very few exceptions.

So this is another 'fix what isn't broken' moment on this board. BOB thread part deux.

So just close it. No drama. In fact close the Cafe. Very little discussion there has anything to do with cycling, which if isn't strictly against the 'rules', should be.

First of all, you're opinion that

"There was exactly no problem in the politics thread"

is completely wrong and your judgement is clouded due to the fact that you are a regular poster, or a better term would be "resident" poster that doesn't spend much time posting comments in the cycling forums, if at all. Needless to say, because of that I feel your strong opinion on the matter is skewed.

What I have a problem with is the fact that the staff knew the cafe threads were not being moderated to the standards set for the rest of the forum so when we go about fixing that issue we're told by the people who post in that section of the forum (almost exclusively) that we're not allowed to do anything without "ruining" the cafe and we should all be fired ourselves and if we ban a member for grossly abusing forum rules the forum will "empty" in response. I also have a problem with the "leeway" for the politics threads being construed as an open invitation to say anything without interference from moderators. That's just ludicrous.

I can go through the politics threads right now and remove hundreds, if not thousands of posts that are against the TOS of Immediate Media, and then go through and remove countless more that are in violation of the forum rules so please stop lecturing forum staff about what is "broken" and what is not "broken". At some point someone at the website is going to just say "close the cafe" and that will be that because there's more bans and reports generated from that subforum than even the "clinic". We have all the numbers, reports, records of bans, and all the data that says the cafe has an issue, let's leave it at that and not make a bigger issue of it.

with 52k + replies I'd say the US politics thread hasn't suffered to much being run the way it was for so long.

I'm sure it will be much better now though

 

[LaFlorecita]

So many Café-only posters arguing in this thread. Never see them in PRR subforum. Maybe they should move to a Politics forum.
In fact I don't really see the point of the Café if it causes so much trouble.

 

[blutto]

Re:

So many Café-only posters arguing in this thread. Never see them in PRR subforum. Maybe they should move to a Politics forum.
In fact I don't really see the point of the Café if it causes so much trouble.

....gosh, that is the best idea I've heard all morning....just splendid.....thank you so very much for bringing such clarity to this obviously vexing problem....

Cheers

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

So many Café-only posters arguing in this thread. Never see them in PRR subforum. Maybe they should move to a Politics forum.
In fact I don't really see the point of the Café if it causes so much trouble.

....gosh, that is the best idea I've heard all morning....just splendid.....thank you so very much for bringing such clarity to this obviously vexing problem....

Cheers

Wonderful idea! Drive that unwanted traffic away from the site! :idea:

 

[Jspear]

I don’t want to even imagine what a politics forum looks like.

 

[python]

Re:

So many Café-only posters arguing in this thread. Never see them in PRR subforum. Maybe they should move to a Politics forum.
In fact I don't really see the point of the Café if it causes so much trouble.

hey flo, had i not been alberto's huge fan and had the pythons been venous... i'd use those fangs you of course i never did with you and never will , but..

all that aside, your short and sweat post blatantly violates several rules, charmingly so, yet it does. to be very factual and - most importantly - to be dang on topic in the thread about the mods and modding, i will allow myself to quote those rules. what to do with your post is up to the likes of king boonen.

lets go...since you said nothing, zilch, about the mods and modding, but a lot about other posters and nothig specic about what they posted except a dismissive on a group of posters, i wonder if you have seen this:

Please keep the discussion on-topic. The is a thread about the moderators, it is not a surrogate member suspension appreciation/depreciation thread.

in case you did not, perhaps you've heard about this:

Post, not the poster (Play the ball, not the man

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=31010
frankly, if i read that you are suggesting a new board structure, it would be fine, i think . but you've suggested an entire group of posters, that seemingly dont post in your fave subforum (the prr - only one of the dozen plus subforums) to be moved elsewhere. sure you were not specific as to a particular url, but have you seen this:

Using the forum primarily to drive traffic to another website.

i'd agree, the rule was for a more deliberate pattern, yet, if you wish a traffic subtracted from here, it is by definition driven from here.

and some other things you said, aside from a moderating matter, seem inconsistent or perhaps not well thought thruu. such as, if you dont see someone in the PRR, it does NOT mean they are not there for instance, i read a lot that forum, particularly during the grand tours, sometimes i post. but when i see the flood of posts that buries mine, i move to 'just reading'. And it was a superb quality reading during the vuelta, for instance, including your contributions. other posters may also read the prr or chose to contribute in other subforums, like say the disk brakes etc.

to be clear, i dont want your post to be removed, but very recently some rules were applied so literally, that i wanted to draw some attention, using your post as an example

 

[fmk_RoI]

A serious modding questions that has nothing to do with anything that's been posted here: how far off topic is off topic? OT is cool by me, digressions are great, but not when it's simply repeating the stuff of other threads, derailing whatever little debate there might be and turning all threads into the same thread, which these days is that British Cycling/Sky/Froome/Brailsford cheat. Could you offer some guidance on this, please? GRMA.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I just cannot understand why someone would use a cycling forum just to argue about politics for days, weeks, months on end. It is quite telling to me that whenever I open this thread or the now-closed Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation thread, it's always a bunch of Politics thread regulars arguing either with mods or with each other.
Anyway, I hardly ever venture into the Café section so it doesn't bother me, but it does make me wonder.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

I don’t want to even imagine what a politics forum looks like.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

I just cannot understand why someone would use a cycling forum just to argue about politics for days, weeks, months on end. It is quite telling to me that whenever I open this thread or the now-closed Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation thread, it's always a bunch of Politics thread regulars arguing either with mods or with each other.
Anyway, I hardly ever venture into the Café section so it doesn't bother me, but it does make me wonder.

Replace "politics" with "doping" and there's little difference.

But I think you are right. Close the Cafe. This is a cycling forum.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

What the heck?!....When did Valv.Piti become a moderator?! Was this some undercover operation just in case people didn't like the decision? Under no circumstances can he moderate the AC forum.

Yeah, I hope they took that into consideration when they gave him the job. I'm not too comfortable with a mod who's repeatedly stated he dislikes me and my posts in the Contador thread.

Yes, because one of the requisites to be a moderator is to like everyone here and their posts...

No, but he has an obvious bias against many Contador fans on here and me in particular. So good luck to him, trying to remain objective will be hard.

The moderators of the forum, like the posters, have more diverse political formations than many fora. Brings down the focus at times, but is farvless heated and partisan.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

What the heck?!....When did Valv.Piti become a moderator?! Was this some undercover operation just in case people didn't like the decision? Under no circumstances can he moderate the AC forum.

Yeah, I hope they took that into consideration when they gave him the job. I'm not too comfortable with a mod who's repeatedly stated he dislikes me and my posts in the Contador thread.

Yes, because one of the requisites to be a moderator is to like everyone here and their posts...

No, but he has an obvious bias against many Contador fans on here and me in particular. So good luck to him, trying to remain objective will be hard.

The moderators of the forum, like the posters, have more diverse political formations than many fora. Brings down the focus at times, but is farvless heated and partisan.

Those are old posts...

 

[BigMac]

Re: Re:

Finally, it seems like a decision has been made to moderate the politics thread (and maybe other threads in the general section too) more strictly than in recent years. I assume this is going on in concert with Alpe being removed as a mod. Notice I said seems and assume. The politics thread has had more leeway for years, and this was publicly discussed on this forum and announced back when Alpe said he'd moderate those threads. If things are changing now as far as rule enforcement, bans, and what is expected of posters in those threads, it would be appropriate for the mod team to make some sort of visible announcement in the "general" subforum about the changes so that posters know what to expect.

You've hit the nail on the head there, its always been a question to me over the years how the politics thread has been given freedom compared to most other threads on this forum. We've decided no more free passes in there. It should be moderated the same as the other 100 or so other threads we have to moderate on this message board, we shouldn't give any leeway just because 'that's the way its always been'.

If members want the thread to remain open, they will have to adhere to the rules in the politics thread like everyone else, otherwise it may get locked.

There was exactly no problem in the politics thread. There was a mod there who had the respect of most, if not all, of those posting there and his suggestions/advice were adhered to with very few exceptions.

So this is another 'fix what isn't broken' moment on this board. BOB thread part deux.

So just close it. No drama. In fact close the Cafe. Very little discussion there has anything to do with cycling, which if isn't strictly against the 'rules', should be.

First of all, you're opinion that

"There was exactly no problem in the politics thread"

is completely wrong and your judgement is clouded due to the fact that you are a regular poster, or a better term would be "resident" poster that doesn't spend much time posting comments in the cycling forums, if at all. Needless to say, because of that I feel your strong opinion on the matter is skewed.

What I have a problem with is the fact that the staff knew the cafe threads were not being moderated to the standards set for the rest of the forum so when we go about fixing that issue we're told by the people who post in that section of the forum (almost exclusively) that we're not allowed to do anything without "ruining" the cafe and we should all be fired ourselves and if we ban a member for grossly abusing forum rules the forum will "empty" in response. I also have a problem with the "leeway" for the politics threads being construed as an open invitation to say anything without interference from moderators. That's just ludicrous.

I can go through the politics threads right now and remove hundreds, if not thousands of posts that are against the TOS of Immediate Media, and then go through and remove countless more that are in violation of the forum rules so please stop lecturing forum staff about what is "broken" and what is not "broken". At some point someone at the website is going to just say "close the cafe" and that will be that because there's more bans and reports generated from that subforum than even the "clinic". We have all the numbers, reports, records of bans, and all the data that says the cafe has an issue, let's leave it at that and not make a bigger issue of it.

with 52k + replies I'd say the US politics thread hasn't suffered to much being run the way it was for so long.

I'm sure it will be much better now though

With respect, patrick, but don't you ever wonder why it is always the same people participating in those threads? I understand some people have thick skin and don't mind being abused online, mainly because they do it too and it feels mutual, but I honestly think others refuse to discuss anything political here out of fear of being bullied and ganged up on. And it's not like moderators are creating a safe space for snowflakes or whatever.

Alpe was a good mod, but he was not flawless. Scott can stop pretending everything he did was the right thing. If it weren't for the other mods intervening nothing would have been done with regards to the Foxxy/Chewbacca incident, for instance. The mutual abuse and bullying (in which many others took part) would have dragged endlessly. Allowing constant breaking of the most basic rules of engagement is not good moderation. It was shoking and irondan and the rest of the team then (where I was included) still got abused after.

Just my two cents. I think that thread could do with stricter moderation. People are just forgetting stricter here means on par with the rest of the forum. Reading these replies one would think people were being censored here.