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

Moderators

Page 428 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
To be honest it seems incredibly mis-guided to attempt to pick a moderator with specific criteria for which riders/teams they support, moderation should be devoid of any bias if at all possible and I think we manage that very well within the current team (that includes our out-going mods too).

I've pointed it out several times before I believe but I'll make the point again. We are not here to moderate opinion (unless it is particularly abhorrent and has no place on the forums). People are free to express their opinions as much as they want, in a non-trolling way of course.., and if they do it in a calm and polite manner they will likely never hear from the mod team.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
Benotti69 has been banned for one month - per management decision.
just about 100% of bans above contained a fair provision 'banned for...'

would it be not fair to expect that even a 'management decision' contain a reason ?

most posters know that this site is british owned and that benotti was often critical of a a certain british team and its lead rider...

to exclude the uncomfortable speculation of a bias, particularly when it was NOT the mods but a 'management decision' i think (and i do realize the potential hammer for me speaking my mind), would it not be fair to include the banning reason ? like in 100% other cases....
 
Re: Re:

RedheadDane said:
Brullnux said:
RedheadDane said:
Brullnux said:
what's with the blue mods
Blue mods? I can only see the usualy red and green ones.
Valv.Piti has become blue
Looks just black to me.
Or maybe he retired from mod-duties in the meantime.
I'll have to go check out what color Valv.Piti's handle ended up because I was doing some things with groups that changed it briefly (or so I thought). Hopefully there wasn't too much confusion but the main reason that Valv.piti's handle changed colors and I should include Tonton too, is that they both retired from active duty moderation recently.
 
Re:

python said:
Benotti69 has been banned for one month - per management decision.
just about 100% of bans above contained a fair provision 'banned for...'

would it be not fair to expect that even a 'management decision' contain a reason ?

most posters know that this site is british owned and that benotti was often critical of a a certain british team and its lead rider...

to exclude the uncomfortable speculation of a bias, particularly when it was NOT the mods but a 'management decision' i think (and i do realize the potential hammer for me speaking my mind), would it not be fair to include the banning reason ? like in 100% other cases....
Short answer is that someone not affiliated with the website complained to CN management about a comment that Benotti69 had posted and without getting into any specifics I was asked to ban Benotti for a month by the people above me at the website.
 
Re:

python said:
Benotti69 has been banned for one month - per management decision.
just about 100% of bans above contained a fair provision 'banned for...'

would it be not fair to expect that even a 'management decision' contain a reason ?

most posters know that this site is british owned and that benotti was often critical of a a certain british team and its lead rider...

to exclude the uncomfortable speculation of a bias, particularly when it was NOT the mods but a 'management decision' i think (and i do realize the potential hammer for me speaking my mind), would it not be fair to include the banning reason ? like in 100% other cases....
Wow - that is some (implied) accusation. Benotti is a good poster most of the time in my view, and yeah we don't agree, but for you to indirectly claim he has been banned as he is critical of Sky / Brits because this is a Brit owned site is a bit far fetched. As far as I am aware this is the first ban for him in the 4 years I have been here and his posting style & content hasn't changed one bit in that time. Of course I am intrigued as to the ban - like I am for all bans.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Benotti is a good poster most of the time in my view, and yeah we don't agree, but for you to indirectly claim he has been banned as he is critical of Sky / Brits because this is a Brit owned site is a bit far fetched.
What makes a good poster? Claiming that everyone is doped all the time? One of his last comments was about the Irish rider Dan Martin. So why the assumption that the complaint is a Sky thing? Agenda, somewhat?
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
For what it's worth, while the Clinic often oversteps the mark quite dramatically with regards what it considers adequate evidence of doping, I've seen an awful lot of comments on the "in favour of Froome/Sky" side of the debate that are clearly designed with no intention other than provocation too, it's been far from one-way traffic in that respect.
Plus one on this.

Rather than believing in the impossibility of truly impartial moderation - it doesn't exist in the real world, let's not pretend it should exist here - maybe it's time the Clinic had rules about backing statements up and efforts were made to police those who deliberately state that black is why and up is down, on both sides of the debate.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Libertine Seguros said:
For what it's worth, while the Clinic often oversteps the mark quite dramatically with regards what it considers adequate evidence of doping, I've seen an awful lot of comments on the "in favour of Froome/Sky" side of the debate that are clearly designed with no intention other than provocation too, it's been far from one-way traffic in that respect.
Plus one on this.

Rather than believing in the impossibility of truly impartial moderation - it doesn't exist in the real world, let's not pretend it should exist here - maybe it's time the Clinic had rules about backing statements up and efforts were made to police those who deliberately state that black is why and up is down, on both sides of the debate.
I think there already is kinda.
 
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
RedheadDane said:
Brullnux said:
RedheadDane said:
Brullnux said:
what's with the blue mods
Blue mods? I can only see the usualy red and green ones.
Valv.Piti has become blue
Looks just black to me.
Or maybe he retired from mod-duties in the meantime.
I'll have to go check out what color Valv.Piti's handle ended up because I was doing some things with groups that changed it briefly (or so I thought). Hopefully there wasn't too much confusion but the main reason that Valv.piti's handle changed colors and I should include Tonton too, is that they both retired from active duty moderation recently.
The saga of the mysterious powers of the handle of Valv.Piti which eats letters when put in genitive continues.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33255&p=2131079&hilit=trying+to+pull#p2131079
 
Posters who publically refer to riders or team staff, etc. ... as PsOS or C**nts (despite how benign some may see those descriptors in their own vernacular) ... leave themselves open to criticism for going over the top even within the scope of spirited sports banter.

Content comments that stretch the integrity of argument ("Armstrong never tested positive" or "Froome uses a motor for every race") are to be expected despite lacking credibility.

Moderator bias: Reasonable expectation that Mods be biased on issues (ie pro Froome vs anti Froome) ... real question is ... can posters on each side of the argument feel secure that their arguments (notwithstanding bona fide trolling, baiting or personal attacks) will not predispose them to biased "moderating" and banning.

About banning .... what's the trigger? Being reported? Rumor was, at one point, that pro Armstrong posters were more regularly "reported" for their posts than anti Armstrong posters.

Are pro Froome posters "reported" more frequently by anti Froome posters than vice versa? To what degree is the complaint/reported post assessed ... or is it pretty much a guaranteed ban?

Again ... these are just questions ... trying to clarify 'practice' while hoping to keep debate fluid, yet fair.
 
There was a period when I was arguing against the drift of many anti-Armstrong posters (in terms of what I thought the outcome for cycling and him would be), and it’s reasonable to think there were a lot of reports: I received several warnings and a few bans. Some were unwarranted (“trolling” which I wasn’t) and some for insults (as may have been, but most interlocutors weren’t exactly genteel either); Merckx was and a few others such as CD gave support even though they detested Armstrong. It can’t be overstated though how nuts the anti-Armstrong crowd went and the work the mods had to put in locking and cleaning the thread.

I think the spectrum of Froome detractors and supporters is roughly the same with those on the extreme edges being about as unknowledgable, but the mods having lived through the Armstrong debacle are generally more balanced. Froome is ridiculous, yes, but it’s hard to think the issues would go away with him and the mods don’t get pulled into the heated suggestion that it would. He seems to keep his nastiness a bit more submerged as well.
 
I can try answer some of Alpes questions.

Trigger for banning. This seems fairly simple, it’s the content of a post/posts. In the vast majority of cases it is reports that make us aware of posts but we may also see posts ourselves and deal with them.

I’m not going to outline who is reporting or what is reported, even in generalities, that would not be fair at all on posters who use it and it’s a vital part of forum moderation.

Every report is assessed by the moderator who sees it. For obvious rule breaking the mod will usually deal with it and alert the rest of the group, it’ll then be announced. I’ll make the point here that it’s not always the mod who announces the ban that has carried it out. For more complex situations it will be discussed in the group, other mods who are more aware of the situation will be asked etc. Past posting, warnings and bans will be taken into account, so if a poster is constantly warned and banned for the same thing they may find the length of the bans increase.

A report absolutely does not guarantee a ban. It’s not happened while I don’t think it’s happened while I have been a mod but I believe posters have been banned before for abusing the report system.

It’s been said before but I will reiterate it. The majority of forum users manage to posts their opinions on cycling and never hear from the moderators. This includes posters who post opinions both pro and anti Froome (as this seems to be the main issue here. There are many posters who either don’t care or don’t post about it). If people follow the rules they can post pretty much whatever they want.
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
I can try answer some of Alpes questions.

Trigger for banning. This seems fairly simple, it’s the content of a post/posts. In the vast majority of cases it is reports that make us aware of posts but we may also see posts ourselves and deal with them.

I’m not going to outline who is reporting or what is reported, even in generalities, that would not be fair at all on posters who use it and it’s a vital part of forum moderation.

Every report is assessed by the moderator who sees it. For obvious rule breaking the mod will usually deal with it and alert the rest of the group, it’ll then be announced. I’ll make the point here that it’s not always the mod who announces the ban that has carried it out. For more complex situations it will be discussed in the group, other mods who are more aware of the situation will be asked etc. Past posting, warnings and bans will be taken into account, so if a poster is constantly warned and banned for the same thing they may find the length of the bans increase.

A report absolutely does not guarantee a ban. It’s not happened while I don’t think it’s happened while I have been a mod but I believe posters have been banned before for abusing the report system.

It’s been said before but I will reiterate it. The majority of forum users manage to posts their opinions on cycling and never hear from the moderators. This includes posters who post opinions both pro and anti Froome (as this seems to be the main issue here. There are many posters who either don’t care or don’t post about it). If people follow the rules they can post pretty much whatever they want.
Thanks for that, KB. When you get a chance, a clarification of what generally constitutes ‘trolling’ and ‘baiting’ ... in the particular context of CN forums ... would be helpful and greatly appreciated. Cheers.
 
That’s an incredibly difficult thing to define as it may depend on the poster and the subject. I’d say that in general, if a post advances a discussion and isn’t aimed at getting a negative reaction/denigrating another post/poster then it’ll be ok. Again, the majority of posters never trip the line, so it seems fairly easy to stay within the boundaries.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
Re:

King Boonen said:
That’s an incredibly difficult thing to define as it may depend on the poster and the subject.
funny, you mentioned the subject, but i have a proof, a written statement by you to the contrary that i can release to the forum public, IF you agree, of course.

it was private, thus i wont go into the details w/o your permission. But you insisted that following the thread/complaint/argument subject was not necessary (it was my point to be aware of the subject b/c baiting is often hidden deliberately). Moreover, you said you wont care to follow the subject/sport.

the offender i reported and you basically ignored was banned several times afterwards by another mod.
----
i really dont want nor enjoy bothering the old stuff. as a former mod myself, i do appreciate ALL mods, including you,
as I know firsthand the thankless role. when i do decide to make a critical input re. modding it is NEVER spontaneous. i think over several times. But if and when I decide to enter, it is b/c of the inconsistencies i sited above are not jiving at all with my experience as a mod nor as a warned/banned poster. I did receive my fair share, and I usually do not whine and take it. but when, sorry to repeat i see the obvious disconnects, i decide to speak.
surely, my opinion is just that - an opinion, which i never insist on being a fact. unless, i do insist having the proof.

wont return to debating this... it is thankless.
 
Re: Re:

python said:
King Boonen said:
That’s an incredibly difficult thing to define as it may depend on the poster and the subject.
funny, you mentioned the subject, but i have a proof, a written statement by you to the contrary that i can release to the forum public, IF you agree, of course.

it was private, thus i wont go into the details w/o your permission. But you insisted that following the thread/complaint/argument subject was not necessary (it was my point to be aware of the subject b/c baiting is often hidden deliberately). Moreover, you said you wont care to follow the subject/sport.

the offender i reported and you basically ignored was banned several times afterwards by another mod.
You seem to have missed the word may in that sentence. It’s really important.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
i may have, but i was editing my post to clarify my concern and my attitude. the knowledge of a subject of the discussion is paramount to a mod action given the difficult nuance.

you seem to recognize it. and we dont seem to disagree. everything else is water under the bridge.
 
Re:

python said:
i may have, but i was editing my post to clarify my concern and my attitude. the knowledge of a subject of the discussion is paramount to a mod action given the difficult nuance.

you seem to recognize it. and we dont seem to disagree. everything else is water under the bridge.
Yes, I do agree and I pointed out exactly why none of the mods were really able to do it in these very specific threads that are nothing to do with cycling.


So everyone is aware of the kind of things we are discussing. If the mods do not have the knowledge to know if someone is trolling or not due to the specific nature of a thread and the possibly nuanced ways in which people can troll, we can only mod the thread at face value, i.e. obvious insults and clear baiting etc. This is unlikely to occur in any cycling related threads but may occur in threads discussing other sports, politics etc. We do our best but we’re not going to invest a large amount of our free time becoming knowledgable in a subject we have no interest in. In these cases we would always suggest that you take the high road and ignore the troublesome poster, as unfortunately you are much more likely to face action if you rise to the bait as this is more obvious to us.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
Re: Re:

agreed until you once again reverted to the below
as unfortunately you are much more likely to face action if you rise to the bait as this is more obvious to us
it CAN NOT be obvious to king boonen who stateted he refused nor cared to understood the sport/subject. to remind, w/o getting into the PM details, my vigorous objection was that if someone in a cycling thread questioned 'who is armstrong or froome' it would be considered a bad joke or trolling.

that was EXACTLY the issue. the poster at hand trolled by questioning an obvious grand name of the sport. to my reply of being surprised of the questining the grand name - i was banned by you.

again, i can bring the details to the public, if you agree. but i will not agree to the generalities AFTER you basically acknowledged the difficulty of the mod decision.

if in doubt, and it was NOT a case of the outright insults, step back. you chose to ban me, where as another mod chose to ban the offender.
 
I’m pretty sure you were warned, not banned, that’s what the PM title was anyway. My only issue with you posting the PMs is they make it clear who the other poster is and I don’t think that’s fair.

If someone baits you in a non-obvious way and you rise to it, I’m afraid you’re likely to be the one moderated. This is the only way we can mod threads like these. If you don’t like this I can only suggest you don’t post in them or you don’t rise to the bait.

I will repeat this to you for the last time, as it’s been said enough. The mods do not generally act alone. We discuss actions amongst ourselves but obviously a single mods name will be attached to any action. Just because a mods name is attached to an action does not mean they made that decision alone. Another mod was even copied into our discussion by myself.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
you are incorrect. ENTIRELY. YOU, king boonen banned me in exactly the circumstances i described. the sherlock holmes can still unsurface much by going back to the banning thread and the subject thread.

upon my vigorous complaints, and in the face of the multiple bans delivered to a poster i had an issue with -by another mod -you later became more circumspect. the consultative decision making is a weak cover. i was a mod and know EXACTLY the peer environment...

i do not feel comfortable returning to the issue, but if you post incorrect information, i feel little choice. you being a mod with the power of stopping my concern is not a deterrent as i can bring the hard evidence.

i wont w/o you permission.
 
You’ll have to forward me the PMs then. The only PMs I have from you are entitled board warning issued and discuss this very subject. I have been the mod who has banned you in the past, but I don’t believe we ever exchanged PMs about it?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS