Moderators

[Netserk]

Re:

Quick question mods/ ex mods/ other posters

Is there a way to see what my signature was like 5 years ago. I wanted to find a video i had linked in one of them many a year ago

I thought someone who claims to be a journalist with integrity would be able to dig that up! :lol:

But seriously, was it a Hitch vid? I don't really recall what you had as signature that far back, unfortunately.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

As a new member of the forum I don't seem to be able to send PMs at present - any other way I can submit my team?

I believe that you just need to make 5 posts to the forum before you can send PMs.

Would those who caused this problem be willing to do something about it?

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

As a new member of the forum I don't seem to be able to send PMs at present - any other way I can submit my team?

I believe that you just need to make 5 posts to the forum before you can send PMs.

Would those who caused this problem be willing to do something about it?

No, we’re very happy with the current limits. They’ve helped us keep a much tighter control on spam and problems we otherwise end up dealing with.

 

[Pricey_sky]

Re:

As a new member of the forum I don't seem to be able to send PMs at present - any other way I can submit my team?

I believe that you just need to make 5 posts to the forum before you can send PMs.

Would those who caused this problem be willing to do something about it?

No sorry, as those who are partly responsible for the problem are now permabanned. Its also just another way to help us keep an eye on new posters to see if they are up to no good, such as indirect spammers, salesman or sockpuppets. It shouldn’t take long for a new poster who wants to contribute to reach the required post count so they really shouldn’t need PM’s at that early stage. If they need to ask any questions, they can do so on here and one of us would be more than happy to help.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Perhaps the quotation misrepresents the rule that I am seeking clarification of. As I have mentioned before, a rule was introduced prohibiting the posting of messages for the purposes of increasing one's post count. One's post count is the key to being able to send PMs, and thus to be able to enter games.

So are new members to be sanctioned for making posts so that they can send PMs and enter the game, or is the rule flawed in the way I suggested months ago?

 

[Jspear]

Re:

Perhaps the quotation misrepresents the rule that I am seeking clarification of. As I have mentioned before, a rule was introduced prohibiting the posting of messages for the purposes of increasing one's post count. One's post count is the key to being able to send PMs, and thus to be able to enter games.

So are new members to be sanctioned for making posts so that they can send PMs and enter the game, or is the rule flawed in the way I suggested months ago?

I personally feel like a new member could post 5 times in such a way where it isn’t just about increasing post count. Many people post more than 5 times a day. This is a forum where conversation is had. I doubt they’ll get banned if they post 5 times, staying on topic, actually contributing to the thread, and interacting. There’s so many threads on this forum, I think you could post 10 times in a day and still be following the rules. It’s the way you do it.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

The rule (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=2194117#p2194117) is about the intent: that is why it is a bad rule. You can post dozens of posts that make perfectly valid points, but your motive for so doing might be increasing the post count, not generating discussion or sharing insights.

You cannot legislate for intention. This was introduced as a hammer specifically to hit telencefalus with, but as phrased has other effects, unless of course the UCI approach to rule application is employed. Specific cases make for bad rules.

If admins want to simply admit that, despite the rule being written as an absolute, they will ignore it, that's fine: that is the sort of clarification I asked for months ago.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

The rule (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=2194117#p2194117) is about the intent: that is why it is a bad rule. You can post dozens of posts that make perfectly valid points, but your motive for so doing might be increasing the post count, not generating discussion or sharing insights.

You cannot legislate for intention. This was introduced as a hammer specifically to hit telencefalus with, but as phrased has other effects, unless of course the UCI approach to rule application is employed. Specific cases make for bad rules.

If admins want to simply admit that, despite the rule being written as an absolute, they will ignore it, that's fine: that is the sort of clarification I asked for months ago.

We like the rule and will not be changing it.

Go to any other forum on the internet and you'll see similar rules in place. We were just late to the dance with respect to cracking down on "post count" inflators. We also have live moderation that uses forum policy, logic and common sense. A person inflating their post count by 5 posts to be able to use the PM function is different from someone trying to inflate their posts by the 100's or 1000's, which we are able to differentiate and obviously would not consider sanctioning a new member that wants to join a game or chat with their buddy but would, however, enforce a sanction if we believe a new member trying to inflate their post count in order to spam the forum or other nefarious purposes.

As KB has already said, it's best if a new member finds a thread that interests them and posts some comments to get over the 5 post threshold in order to begin using the PM function of the forum.

 

[macbindle]

Hi. What is the post count limit before posts from new members stop having to be vetted by moderators?

I've no objection to it as a procedure, but I'm thinking I'll have to stay out of high traffic threads so as not to cause confusion.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Hi. What is the post count limit before posts from new members stop having to be vetted by moderators?

I've no objection to it as a procedure, but I'm thinking I'll have to stay out of high traffic threads so as not to cause confusion.

I've answered this question already. I'm not sure why we're continuing this conversation.

 

[macbindle]

could you point me to your answer then, please? I've read the posting guidelines and the FAQs, and I can see you've answered some stuff above about private messaging but that isn't what I'm asking about.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

could you point me to your answer then, please? I've read the posting guidelines and the FAQs, and I can see you've answered some stuff above about private messaging but that isn't what I'm asking about.

We're not comfortable in giving out any more information than what you've already read. Spammers and other destructive forces read these threads to try and gain information that could be of their benefit. We're not going to post any more information than we already have.

 

[macbindle]

Ah I see. Fair enough. I'll just grin and bear it until I'm deemed not a bot or suchlike

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

The rule (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=2194117#p2194117) is about the intent: that is why it is a bad rule. You can post dozens of posts that make perfectly valid points, but your motive for so doing might be increasing the post count, not generating discussion or sharing insights.

You cannot legislate for intention. This was introduced as a hammer specifically to hit telencefalus with, but as phrased has other effects, unless of course the UCI approach to rule application is employed. Specific cases make for bad rules.

If admins want to simply admit that, despite the rule being written as an absolute, they will ignore it, that's fine: that is the sort of clarification I asked for months ago.

We like the rule and will not be changing it.

Go to any other forum on the internet and you'll see similar rules in place. We were just late to the dance with respect to cracking down on "post count" inflators. We also have live moderation that uses forum policy, logic and common sense. A person inflating their post count by 5 posts to be able to use the PM function is different from someone trying to inflate their posts by the 100's or 1000's, which we are able to differentiate and obviously would not consider sanctioning a new member that wants to join a game or chat with their buddy but would, however, enforce a sanction if we believe a new member trying to inflate their post count in order to spam the forum or other nefarious purposes.

As KB has already said, it's best if a new member finds a thread that interests them and posts some comments to get over the 5 post threshold in order to begin using the PM function of the forum.

Fine. So it is a badly written rule that you do not intend applying as written. That's fine, that is what I asked 3 months ago.

 

[python]

Reluctantly decided to post here about 2 recent acts of moderation i witnessed. Both in the same rarely attended by the mods thread. One - the real moderation - timely, measured, objective and most importantly effective. And another - untimely, overcooked and (based on the available evidence) biased and vengeful...

B/c it is about the mods, i wont mention the posters involved but will have to mention the mods...btw, i compared the 2 ACTS of moderation. NOT the mods per se.

anyways, a poster X (not myself) frequently posts his views in defense of a particular nation whose athletes are involved in numerous doping cases. One day recently a poster Y after several less offensive jabs, finally cross the line and called the poster X a paid agent, shill etc.

pay attention, very soon after the personal attack by a poster Y a mod appeared right on time and posted a public warning, that the paid troll/agent accusations must stop.

and they did. no one was banned, no posts were deleted ! But it did not end there...

poster Z came to the defense of the warned poster Y and posited a provocative lil question to the mod about trolls. reasonably, the mod did not take the bate. Then the poster Z (btw, he often posits those little Qs) baited the mod AGAIN and even answered his own question: 'should I take it for yes, poster X is trolling? (note the lil baiting Qs again !)

Poster Z did NOT get reprimanded for baiting a mod. he did not get punished for calling another poster a troll (which is strictly against the rules as recently reiterated). did not even have his offensive off-topic deleted !

likely encouraged by the mod he baited restarint and patience, he went into a direct personal attack on to the poster X over the same subject of doping by the said nation.

'...you are smarter than that ? why are you acting stupid ? '..how many here would doubt that the lil Q was a poorly disguised insult ? ...this was reported.

and here starts the poor moderation act. unlike the timely warning that stopped the personal attacks on the poster X by poster Y, the reported insult by poster Z on poster X was let stand for several days.

only at that point i decided to remind the poster Z that the INTENT in his lil baiting Qs can be questioned, that throwing stones while living in a glass house is not good etc.

suddenly king boonen appears in the thread which by his own admission he does not attend. oblivious to the tread nuances and pulse, oblivious to the previous moderating actions, without any warnings he deletes a bunch of posts, including the reported offense on poster X and bans only the poster who consistently criticized his actions in the past.

everything here is based on the still available evidence and the one deleted by king boonen.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Reluctantly decided to post here about 2 recent acts of moderation i witnessed. Both in the same rarely attended by the mods thread. One - the real moderation - timely, measured, objective and most importantly effective. And another - untimely, overcooked and (based on the available evidence) biased and vengeful...

B/c it is about the mods, i wont mention the posters involved but will have to mention the mods...btw, i compared the 2 ACTS of moderation. NOT the mods per se.

anyways, a poster X (not myself) frequently posts his views in defense of a particular nation whose athletes are involved in numerous doping cases. One day recently a poster Y after several less offensive jabs, finally cross the line and called the poster X a paid agent, shill etc.

pay attention, very soon after the personal attack by a poster Y a mod appeared right on time and posted a public warning, that the paid troll/agent accusations must stop.

and they did. no one was banned, no posts were deleted ! But it did not end there...

poster Z came to the defense of the warned poster Y and posited a provocative lil question to the mod about trolls. reasonably, the mod did not take the bate. Then the poster Z (btw, he often posits those little Qs) baited the mod AGAIN and even answered his own question: 'should I take it for yes, poster X is trolling? (note the lil baiting Qs again !)

Poster Z did NOT get reprimanded for baiting a mod. he did not get punished for calling another poster a troll (which is strictly against the rules as recently reiterated). did not even have his offensive off-topic deleted !

likely encouraged by the mod he baited restarint and patience, he went into a direct personal attack on to the poster X over the same subject of doping by the said nation.

'...you are smarter than that ? why are you acting stupid ? '..how many here would doubt that the lil Q was a poorly disguised insult ? ...this was reported.

and here starts the poor moderation act. unlike the timely warning that stopped the personal attacks on the poster X by poster Y, the reported insult by poster Z on poster X was let stand for several days.

only at that point i decided to remind the poster Z that the INTENT in his lil baiting Qs can be questioned, that throwing stones while living in a glass house is not good etc.

suddenly king boonen appears in the thread which by his own admission he does not attend. oblivious to the tread nuances and pulse, oblivious to the previous moderating actions, without any warnings he deletes a bunch of posts, including the reported offense on poster X and bans only the poster who consistently criticized his actions in the past.

everything here is based on the still available evidence and the one deleted by king boonen.

Yeah, so poster 'Z' did not get reprimanded for "baiting a mod" because the mod in question has been away on holiday for the time after the original warning that was posted up until a few days ago. This would be why King Boonen went into a thread that he doesn't normally read and do moderation duties.

You may not agree with the moderation that happened after the fact but I can assure you and anyone else reading this that King Boonen is as fair and impartial as any moderator you'll find anywhere. We're lucky to have him moderate in this forum.

 

[python]

king boonen:

Kokoso was banned for three days for insulting another user

viewtopic.php?p=2215071#p2215071

was this a joke ?

between the time stamp of the publicly announced ban (30 Dec 2017 11:52) and his last post (30 Dec 2017 19:18) , that is, over just 6 hours, the 'banned' poster managed at least 5 posts in the xc skiing threads alone

i noticed only b/c right now i read only those 2 threads on the entire forum.

has the ban trigger got the mind of its own ?

 

[King Boonen]

Kokoso was banned on the 27th for 3 days. I wasn’t the one that banned them, the mod who did forgot to announce it. I did as we use that thread to track suspensions at times.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Kokoso was banned on the 27th for 3 days. I wasn’t the one that banned them, the mod who did forgot to announce it. I did as we use that thread to track suspensions at times.

I'm the mod that forgot to make the announcement. It was an honest mistake and KB's right, we can keep track of bans through the suspension thread so bans must be announced even if it's timestamped after the actual ban takes place.

 

[python]

Re: Re:

Kokoso was banned on the 27th for 3 days. I wasn’t the one that banned them, the mod who did forgot to announce it. I did as we use that thread to track suspensions at times.

I'm the mod that forgot to make the announcement. It was an honest mistake and KB's right, we can keep track of bans through the suspension thread so bans must be announced even if it's timestamped after the actual ban takes place.

OK. BUT...
something does not jive with the reality of the board...king boonen siad the dude is banned for 2 weeks afresh. not retrospectively, i guess
viewtopic.php?p=2215162#p2215162

but remarkebly he just posted in the doping and seems in the same spirit.

either this dude has some magic or he enjoys the new years laxity that we ALL now experience..

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

Kokoso was banned on the 27th for 3 days. I wasn’t the one that banned them, the mod who did forgot to announce it. I did as we use that thread to track suspensions at times.

I'm the mod that forgot to make the announcement. It was an honest mistake and KB's right, we can keep track of bans through the suspension thread so bans must be announced even if it's timestamped after the actual ban takes place.

OK. BUT...
something does not jive with the reality of the board...king boonen siad the dude is banned for 2 weeks afresh. not retrospectively, i guess
viewtopic.php?p=2215162#p2215162

but remarkebly he just posted in the doping and seems in the same spirit.

either this dude has some magic or he enjoys the new years laxity that we ALL now experience..

Was just about to come and tell the same. Strange a guy in 2 weeks ban wrote a post 20 minutes ago calling other people stupid again.

 

[Irondan]

The ban on Kokoso is for a new infraction.

I'm not sure why Kokoso was still able to post a comment other than the moderator control panel "banning" function is very clunky, especially from a smartphone. It's entirely possible that King Boonen thought he had completed the ban but the forum software did not actually complete the transaction. It happens from time to time to all the mods.

I made sure to fix the Kokoso ban, it's working correctly now.

 

[King Boonen]

Yeah, it was from my phone. Very possible it didn’t go through due to patchy signal or something, thanks for letting a know. And yes, it was a new infraction, not the previous one they had already served a bad for.

 

[thehog]

Can the Froome talk thread be changed to the “The Disgraced Chris Froome” thread?

 

[Pricey_sky]

Can the Froome talk thread be changed to the “The Disgraced Chris Froome” thread?

Only if we change the name of every riders thread who’s been popped to ‘the disgraced...’ :lol:

In short, no we won’t.