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

Moderators

Page 429 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
it feels like after you became a mod you forgot (or disassociated from) how a regular poster pms work or look...

if other non-mod posters receive a pm from a mod, a warning or another subject, it is the same pm system. responding to a mod warning/banning (with a delay) pm, is a ...........a pm. pm= a private message...does not it ? besides, i never really concerned with what you interpret as a pm, but the record of your pms in a pm system. just like you would likely, if not deleted for a space concern, have my pm responses to your mod pms..

i still have everything you sent me via the board pm. if you dont have my responses to your threats and warnings, i cant have a guess other than you may have deleted it. pls, contact me wrt to what you may want to have duplicated.
 
No, I know how it works. You responded to a warning. The text of the warning is quoted the message. If you check the dates on your user log you’ll see that they match up with a warning, not a ban. The PMs even have this line just before the quoted text:

This is a warning regarding the following post made by you (the link is likely dead as the posts usually get moved).


This is the only PM discussion I’ve had with you. I have been the mod who has banned you twice, the posts are still available to the mods. I don’t have any discussion about these posts from you, one was before our discussion, one after. If you have a discussion relating to these please forward it as I honestly don’t remember having it.
 
Bennoti69 banned? (Suspended is the correct term. Just a silly pet peeve of mine that I've meant to mention.)
Good lord. I can't go away for a few days without hearing the news about a long-time member being suspended (not banned).
I'm just starting to get over the grieving process with blackcat's ban (not suspension), and then I'm hit with another suspension of a long-time member.
Back in the day, the Clinic was an amazing read. Clearly there were a lot of insiders who chimed in, and the claims made were surprising, to say the least. It made for fascinating reading.
Question I have is: what changed? I've been reading Bennoti69 posts for years, and I can't imagine him saying something more incendiary than he has in the past.
 
the delgados said:
Bennoti69 banned? (Suspended is the correct term. Just a silly pet peeve of mine that I've meant to mention.)
Good lord. I can't go away for a few days without hearing the news about a long-time member being suspended (not banned).
I'm just starting to get over the grieving process with blackcat's ban (not suspension), and then I'm hit with another suspension of a long-time member.
Back in the day, the Clinic was an amazing read. Clearly there were a lot of insiders who chimed in, and the claims made were surprising, to say the least. It made for fascinating reading.
Question I have is: what changed? I've been reading Bennoti69 posts for years, and I can't imagine him saying something more incendiary than he has in the past.
As IronDan explained previously, it was the decision of management. We cannot give any more info than has been posted.
 
Re:

silvergrenade said:
The recent developments have led me to believe that there is a serious need to have mods who are Pro Froome or perhaps are atleast neutral.
Except pricey I do not think there is even one mod who is neutral.
Some of the posts I've read in the previous 2-3 days should have been immediate bans and even after reporting no bans have been issued on such comments.

PS: Tonton, you were a great mod but your comments on the Froome thread were illogical and so full of hate that I wondered what I'm doing on such a forum.
Then leave, it is your right. The mods are for the most part are fair and impartial. I believe the issue with the Froome/Sky contingent is that if a mod is not for them and what they believe then they don't believe they can be impartial. Moderating a board does not mean that one has to surrender their own opinions, it just means that when they make decisions in the capacity of their moderating roles that they be impartial and by the book.
To group all the moderators as one based on one moderators actions is juvenile.
 
Re: Re:

Bot. Sky_Bot said:
silvergrenade said:
The recent developments have led me to believe that there is a serious need to have mods who are Pro Froome or perhaps are atleast neutral.
Except pricey I do not think there is even one mod who is neutral.
Some of the posts I've read in the previous 2-3 days should have been immediate bans and even after reporting no bans have been issued on such comments.

PS: Tonton, you were a great mod but your comments on the Froome thread were illogical and so full of hate that I wondered what I'm doing on such a forum.
Agree
What a surprise. I have an idea: Why not all of these overly sensitive Froome/Sky aficionados create a little forum where only positive things are said about their heros, making any posts other than that outlawed, an environment of syncophantic joy, a virtual lovefest of Sky/Froome happiness and delight.
 
Re:

spalco said:
I have absolutely no problem with moderators having strong, emotional opinions, just saying.
It's total nonsense to suspect a mod would ban another user just for supporting the "wrong" rider.
I agree. Follow the rules and the mods won't ban you. If you can't accept the fact that a mod may not share the same opinions with you and yet still be able to fairly carry out their responsibilities then the problem lies with you and not the moderators.
 
the delgados said:
Bennoti69 banned? (Suspended is the correct term. Just a silly pet peeve of mine that I've meant to mention.)
Good lord. I can't go away for a few days without hearing the news about a long-time member being suspended (not banned).
I'm just starting to get over the grieving process with blackcat's ban (not suspension), and then I'm hit with another suspension of a long-time member.
Back in the day, the Clinic was an amazing read. Clearly there were a lot of insiders who chimed in, and the claims made were surprising, to say the least. It made for fascinating reading.
Question I have is: what changed? I've been reading Bennoti69 posts for years, and I can't imagine him saying something more incendiary than he has in the past.
“Seniority” ... in many endeavors is to be recognized ... sometimes commended ... but it should never lay the foundation for immunity against reprimand. Just cultivates the fixings of an old boys network. Posters are posters ... notwithstanding the novelty of long service badges.

That aside, Delgados, I like the cut of your jib with the tracking direction of the rest of your post. (That’s why you’re in Mike Trout land for your VOR on this forum, brutha. ;) ) Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re saying that Mods should lighten up a bit in terms of suspensions. I agree. But ... it may be more of an issue of ‘poster influence’ than ‘mod influence.’

See ... Mods are most often responding to reported messages ... and may feel compelled to act upon reported messages. Maybe it’s time for some posters to take their fingers of the “report this post” button. This is a “sports banter” board. Of course, personal attacks should not be tolerated. Even those posters using vulgarities against riders, team employees, family members should be warned. However, if posters cannot take a bit of spirited sports banter ribbing, humour, sarcasm, etc ... without seeing “trolling” or “baiting” dancing in their heads .... what’s the point? Perhaps ... far too sensitive for this type of board.

I do appreciate the work that mods do. However, this was a voluntary assumption of workload. And although it consumes mod’s time ... I can’t imagine the tasks being onerous. Again, voluntary assumption of risk. Within these parameters, the posters, some of whom will be customers .... there is a reasonable expectation of a standard of care, if you will. Within that standard is an expectation of consistency, fairness and review.

So, this is just a bit of customer feedback, if you will, just asking for consideration in reviewing ... and modifying ... if needs be ... moderation practice.
 
Alpe73 said:
the delgados said:
Bennoti69 banned? (Suspended is the correct term. Just a silly pet peeve of mine that I've meant to mention.)
Good lord. I can't go away for a few days without hearing the news about a long-time member being suspended (not banned).
I'm just starting to get over the grieving process with blackcat's ban (not suspension), and then I'm hit with another suspension of a long-time member.
Back in the day, the Clinic was an amazing read. Clearly there were a lot of insiders who chimed in, and the claims made were surprising, to say the least. It made for fascinating reading.
Question I have is: what changed? I've been reading Bennoti69 posts for years, and I can't imagine him saying something more incendiary than he has in the past.
“Seniority” ... in many endeavors is to be recognized ... sometimes commended ... but it should never lay the foundation for immunity against reprimand. Just cultivates the fixings of an old boys network. Posters are posters ... notwithstanding the novelty of long service badges.

That aside, Delgados, I like the cut of your jib with the tracking direction of the rest of your post. (That’s why you’re in Mike Trout land for your VOR on this forum, brutha. ;) ) Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re saying that Mods should lighten up a bit in terms of suspensions. I agree. But ... it may be more of an issue of ‘poster influence’ than ‘mod influence.’

See ... Mods are most often responding to reported messages ... and may feel compelled to act upon reported messages. Maybe it’s time for some posters to take their fingers of the “report this post” button. This is a “sports banter” board. Of course, personal attacks should not be tolerated. Even those posters using vulgarities against riders, team employees, family members should be warned. However, if posters cannot take a bit of spirited sports banter ribbing, humour, sarcasm, etc ... without seeing “trolling” or “baiting” dancing in their heads .... what’s the point? Perhaps ... far too sensitive for this type of board.

I do appreciate the work that mods do. However, this was a voluntary assumption of workload. And although it consumes mod’s time ... I can’t imagine the tasks being onerous. Again, voluntary assumption of risk. Within these parameters, the posters, some of whom will be customers .... there is a reasonable expectation of a standard of care, if you will. Within that standard is an expectation of consistency, fairness and review.

So, this is just a bit of customer feedback, if you will, just asking for consideration in reviewing ... and modifying ... if needs be ... moderation practice.
Thanks for the kind words, Alpe73.
You are correct--I think the mods should lighten up a little, but I see your point.
I may be getting way too ahead of myself by thinking management was threatened with a lawsuit by someone within the pro ranks; but until we have more information, it is obviously speculation.
Benotti69 is a staunch anti-doping advocate, and although I disagree with him on a lot of levels, I can't see why the member should be suspended. But we all know that the issue is hush-hush, so speculation is all we have to go on.
As for the "poster influence," I could not agree more. I've had several discussions with the dearly departed blackcat about the amount of times someone reported him merely because they didn't like or get the joke. That's just silly. We're not in elementary school.
I never understand why someone would go to teacher (mod) when they could just as easily overlook the "offending" post and be done with it.
I also totally agree with your sentiment regarding the mods.
I have always argued that they should be paid for what they do. After all, I'm pretty sure a majority of the traffic on this site is generated by those who participate in the forum. They deserve to be compensated for what I'm sure is a thankless job.
So to all you mods out there, happy mod day!
Flowers are on the way.
 
May 8, 2013
158
0
3,830
the delgados said:
Alpe73 said:
the delgados said:
Bennoti69 banned? (Suspended is the correct term. Just a silly pet peeve of mine that I've meant to mention.)
Good lord. I can't go away for a few days without hearing the news about a long-time member being suspended (not banned).
I'm just starting to get over the grieving process with blackcat's ban (not suspension), and then I'm hit with another suspension of a long-time member.
Back in the day, the Clinic was an amazing read. Clearly there were a lot of insiders who chimed in, and the claims made were surprising, to say the least. It made for fascinating reading.
Question I have is: what changed? I've been reading Bennoti69 posts for years, and I can't imagine him saying something more incendiary than he has in the past.
“Seniority” ... in many endeavors is to be recognized ... sometimes commended ... but it should never lay the foundation for immunity against reprimand. Just cultivates the fixings of an old boys network. Posters are posters ... notwithstanding the novelty of long service badges.

That aside, Delgados, I like the cut of your jib with the tracking direction of the rest of your post. (That’s why you’re in Mike Trout land for your VOR on this forum, brutha. ;) ) Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re saying that Mods should lighten up a bit in terms of suspensions. I agree. But ... it may be more of an issue of ‘poster influence’ than ‘mod influence.’

See ... Mods are most often responding to reported messages ... and may feel compelled to act upon reported messages. Maybe it’s time for some posters to take their fingers of the “report this post” button. This is a “sports banter” board. Of course, personal attacks should not be tolerated. Even those posters using vulgarities against riders, team employees, family members should be warned. However, if posters cannot take a bit of spirited sports banter ribbing, humour, sarcasm, etc ... without seeing “trolling” or “baiting” dancing in their heads .... what’s the point? Perhaps ... far too sensitive for this type of board.

I do appreciate the work that mods do. However, this was a voluntary assumption of workload. And although it consumes mod’s time ... I can’t imagine the tasks being onerous. Again, voluntary assumption of risk. Within these parameters, the posters, some of whom will be customers .... there is a reasonable expectation of a standard of care, if you will. Within that standard is an expectation of consistency, fairness and review.

So, this is just a bit of customer feedback, if you will, just asking for consideration in reviewing ... and modifying ... if needs be ... moderation practice.
Thanks for the kind words, Alpe73.
You are correct--I think the mods should lighten up a little, but I see your point.
I may be getting way too ahead of myself by thinking management was threatened with a lawsuit by someone within the pro ranks; but until we have more information, it is obviously speculation.
Benotti69 is a staunch anti-doping advocate, and although I disagree with him on a lot of levels, I can't see why the member should be suspended. But we all know that the issue is hush-hush, so speculation is all we have to go on.
As for the "poster influence," I could not agree more. I've had several discussions with the dearly departed blackcat about the amount of times someone reported him merely because they didn't like or get the joke. That's just silly. We're not in elementary school.
I never understand why someone would go to teacher (mod) when they could just as easily overlook the "offending" post and be done with it.
I also totally agree with your sentiment regarding the mods.
I have always argued that they should be paid for what they do. After all, I'm pretty sure a majority of the traffic on this site is generated by those who participate in the forum. They deserve to be compensated for what I'm sure is a thankless job.
So to all you mods out there, happy mod day!
Flowers are on the way.
As a guy who's a mod at another forum I'll say that it's better to report something that's breaking rules than to ignore it because, while you may be capable of just scrolling past and declining to comment, inevitably someone else will be unable to resist and a good discussion can be derailed very quickly and that takes more effort to clean up after the fact. However, it is absolutely true that just resisting the temptation to comment on an offending post is the most valuable thing that posters can do on a message board. If you do report something and it turns out you misunderstood the comment or context then the mod gets the opportunity to evaluate that for himself - it's not an automatic ban or anything.

Being a mod isn't always easy (it's also not always hard, fortunately). I appreciate the work the mods do here.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
KB from the sky clinic thread please clarify what doesn't belong in the clinic + specifics of forum rules in this area

riders performance/tactics are driven by doping matters

riders character displays propensity to or not to dope

can parameters easily be drawn?

thanks! Mark L
 
If it’s not discussing doping/cheating (as this seems to be moving into the clinic now) then it doesn’t belong in the clinic.

Example: team x will be doping riders y and z for this stage so I expect to see them at the head of the race belongs in the clinic.

Team x will use riders y and z to drive the pace in the peloton while rider a goes in the break does not belong in the clinic.


Honestly, it seems really simple to make the distinction in the vast majority of cases.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
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.
I wanted to pick up on this but I've been on holiday so not had much of a chance.

This was discussed and, I think, implemented before I was a mod and then quietly slipped away. I think it changed into "If you're asked for a link/reference then you should provide it" although it seems more of a guideline than a rule now.

The issue with rules like this is that it falls on the mods to judge the content and quality of the links provided. In many cases this should be fairly easy but in others, particularly if people are linking studies etc., it becomes a very large undertaking and is completely reliant the mods having the knowledge and ability to assess whatever is posted and determine if who is right/wrong and whether to act. This isn't really a fair situation for us to be in as there is maybe 2-3 of us who could judge this kind of work and it'll depend on what the study is. The Salbutamol thread is a very good example of this.

It would also, in some way, work to police opinions and this is specifically not what we do. If poster X what's to say that they think rider Y is using a motor that's up to them. If they are asked for proof and don't reply what are the mods supposed to do? Do the mods have to remove the posts and ban the poster? What if they use a logical fallacy, such as this guy lied about this therefore he has a flawed character and will, by extension, cheat with a motor? In such situations it's much better to take the Noam Chomsky approach, allow the posts and users can address them. If, once addressed, posters continue to repeatedly post the same thing without listening then it's easier for the mods to take action as this is trolling.

Lastly, it also seems a high bar to apply to what is an open discussion board for anyone who wants to talk about cycling. Not everyone has the time, inclination or ability to assess everything to do with the topic they are discussing.

People should report posts where they think posters are being deliberately misleading, we'll look into it and take action if required, but personally I think a rule requiring people to back up every statement isn't really appropriate for a cycling fan discussion board.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Jspear said:
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.
I wanted to pick up on this but I've been on holiday so not had much of a chance.

This was discussed and, I think, implemented before I was a mod and then quietly slipped away. I think it changed into "If you're asked for a link/reference then you should provide it" although it seems more of a guideline than a rule now.

The issue with rules like this is that it falls on the mods to judge the content and quality of the links provided. In many cases this should be fairly easy but in others, particularly if people are linking studies etc., it becomes a very large undertaking and is completely reliant the mods having the knowledge and ability to assess whatever is posted and determine if who is right/wrong and whether to act. This isn't really a fair situation for us to be in as there is maybe 2-3 of us who could judge this kind of work and it'll depend on what the study is. The Salbutamol thread is a very good example of this.

It would also, in some way, work to police opinions and this is specifically not what we do. If poster X what's to say that they think rider Y is using a motor that's up to them. If they are asked for proof and don't reply what are the mods supposed to do? Do the mods have to remove the posts and ban the poster? What if they use a logical fallacy, such as this guy lied about this therefore he has a flawed character and will, by extension, cheat with a motor? In such situations it's much better to take the Noam Chomsky approach, allow the posts and users can address them. If, once addressed, posters continue to repeatedly post the same thing without listening then it's easier for the mods to take action as this is trolling.

Lastly, it also seems a high bar to apply to what is an open discussion board for anyone who wants to talk about cycling. Not everyone has the time, inclination or ability to assess everything to do with the topic they are discussing.

People should report posts where they think posters are being deliberately misleading, we'll look into it and take action if required, but personally I think a rule requiring people to back up every statement isn't really appropriate for a cycling fan discussion board.
Opinions are fine. My issue is with people who say that black is white, people who clearly misrepresent objective reality: saying an article says one thing when it says no such thing (usually done with foreign articles); claiming (as was done recently) that a rule means this when it clearly doesn't.
 
Every now and then, a mod will think "Wouldn't it be hilarious if I used my mod powers for a joke or some other purpose that caters to my own personal tastes and inclinations?".

The proper answer to that is always "No".
 
I feel like Moderators are at time a bit too sensitive in imposing bans. I know there are some rules, but what is the point in having rules if we won't have that many members in the long run.

It looks like everyone else is posting in the articles forums. An that one is free format, free topic free opinion. So it gets a lot of participation.

Just saying!
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
Re:

Escarabajo said:
I feel like Moderators are at time a bit too sensitive in imposing bans. I know there are some rules, but what is the point in having rules if we won't have that many members in the long run.

It looks like everyone else is posting in the articles forums. An that one is free format, free topic free opinion. So it gets a lot of participation.

Just saying!
do you mean the main cn site article feedback ? asking b/c i would not know as i personally do not get the cycling racing news on the cn anymore...if so, THAT's WHERE the site management wants the clicks.

that said, not that i disagree with the net effect you expressed, i dont think the forum mods have anything to do with the phenomena you are concerned. i mean the moderating effects seems to vary from a mod to mod despite the same rules....and you'll routinely hear the standard mantra. but i posted here to not revamp the old stuff, but to basically state that the forum lives its own dynamic understandably different from the reader feedback.

i dont care for the main cn site and are increasingly passive towards the forum....in part, due to the reasons you expressed.
 
I haven't really posted a whole lot in the forum over the last few months, though I do still like to read and keep up sometimes and I just noticed ScottSoCal was permabanned as requested by user?

He himself requested to be permabanned or?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS