Moderators

Page 435 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
KB, this is not directed at you but to the Admins.

Political bias in the paid for content on the website is okay.

Political censorship in the free content on the forum is okay.

It’s a strange look in my opinion, if anyone cares.
I don’t think think the admin have anything to do with the content of the main website. You’re better off contacting the publisher or Dan Benson.
 
Future plc owns this website (and 133 others) and can do anything it wants with it (within the law obviously). I've seen many forums/comments get axed because media companies don't want it on their sites/servers. IMO, we should be glad that Future keeps it going. Sometimes I miss the USA politics forum, but I can see why they don't want it . I'm happy that they've let other OTs stay, but could see those going as well.

The mods are just volunteers not employees.

Just my $.01
 
It's a one way street it seems.
It would pain me to think that anyone felt a reference to Clintonian semantics invited discussion of Clinton's semantics. It's simply a descriptive phrase. Likewise, I'm pretty I sure Whittle wasn't inviting discourse on Trump's politics when he used the term Trumpian to describe Armstrong.

Also - Trumpian ain't political:
The term Trumpian is found as early as 1988 in an issue of Yachting magazine, where a reviewer, calling up Donald Trump’s 1987 The Art of the Deal, describes Dennis Conner’s book The Art of Winning as being “well within a Trumpian vein.” The next year, an issue of Sports Illustrated called small, charming villages that the Tour de Trump bike race ran through as being “as un-Trumpian as Montgomery Ward,” an American retail catalog and department store.
 
It would pain me to think that anyone felt a reference to Clintonian semantics invited discussion of Clinton's semantics. It's simply a descriptive phrase. Likewise, I'm pretty I sure Whittle wasn't inviting discourse on Trump's politics when he used the term Trumpian to describe Armstrong.

Also - Trumpian ain't political:
It would pain me to think that anyone felt a reference to Clintonian semantics invited discussion of Clinton's semantics. It's simply a descriptive phrase. Likewise, I'm pretty I sure Whittle wasn't inviting discourse on Trump's politics when he used the term Trumpian to describe Armstrong.

Also - Trumpian ain't political:
You’ve nicely highlighted the problem we usually find ourselves in as mods. We try and allow factual statements about politics (if we assume that Trumpian is being used in reference to his manner as a president) if highly relevant, but we try and remove anything that is political opinion. There’s going to be grey areas in this and it’s going to fall on how we interpret it. There’s nothing we can really do about that. We try to be as impartial as we can and we think we get it right nearly all of the time. Clearly calling something Trumpian can cause arguments, because people will interpret this from their own perspective. As such, we’d much prefer people do not ascribe behaviour to certain political figures. It’s usually unnecessary and, if we think it’s unnecessary, we will probably assume it’s trolling. We also try hard to keep reiterating this stance where we can and not issue suspensions if possible, but again this will come down to interpretation and whether we think the user should already know not to do this.



The vast majority of users manage to adhere to the rules and we never have interactions with them as moderators. This would leave us to believe that it isn’t that hard to follow them.

Hopefully that answers your question up thread?
 
Reactions: jmdirt and fmk_RoI

GVFTA

BANNED
Jul 5, 2018
223
133
1,230
I’m almost certain this has been said many times before but, if you have an issue with the moderation in the forum you can either contact the admins be @ing them, @SHaines for example, or you can contact them via email. If you wanted to you could also contact the owners.
Will I get in trouble for posting the response I got from SHaines via email the last time I was told that? He obviously doesn't give a crap either.
 
Will I get in trouble for posting the response I got from SHaines via email the last time I was told that? He obviously doesn't give a crap either.
I would personally consider it a private communication and wouldn’t disclose it myself, but I’d bump it up to the admins to decide what to do if you were to post it.

If you feel it’s a real issue you could contact Future.
 
If you think "self-aggrandising " is party political I feel sorry for you. That goes all the way back to 1980s era Trump.
Maybe Armstrong should also remember what legendary Hollywood producer Robert Evans once said: "There are three sides to every story: your side, my side and the truth. Memories shared serve each differently."

The memories on show here are not good ones.

This is a film about cruelty and secrets, with a streak of cold rage running through it,

chilling even to those who've known him for most of his adult life.

a definitive dissection of a man who remains disassociated from himself and from his actions

the raging ambition, the celebrity status, the women, the money and, in the shadows, the bullying, and threats, the litany of wrecked lives

that was so easily packaged up in 'never give up' sporting swagger, patriotism, charitable do-gooding and corporate greed.

Much of the film focusses on where Armstrong is now. Initially, his life, post Oprah, appears calmer. Yet at times, Armstrong is so self-aggrandising that he's almost Trumpian. "I am relevant," he says defiantly, then repeats it to himself, just to make sure. "I am."


Definition of self-aggrandizing

: acting or intended to enhance one's power, wealth, position, or reputation

especially : boastful often in disregard of the truth

I don't believe it possible to be self-aggrandizing if you are the President of the United States.

Whittle's article is dripping with bias and it's more than clear he chose the term he chose for a very specific reason.

It's what the media does and that's less than fortunate.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
I don't believe it possible to be self-aggrandizing if you are the President of the United States
I don't believe it's possible not to be self-aggrandizing if you are the POTUS.

: acting or intended to enhance one's power, wealth, position, or reputation

especially : boastful often in disregard of the truth
These apply to virtually every politician on the planet.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
How, exactly, does any US President enhance his power, wealth or position by self aggrandizing?
How, exactly, does any US President enhance his power, wealth or position by self aggrandizing?
Power and position: by seeking to take authority from states and making it federal, by using decrees rather than other means of legislation, by stacking the Supreme court, by threatening behaviours, by steps towards re-election.
Wealth: by any action that is to the benefit of one's business interests.
And you seem to have dropped the fourth element, enhancing reputation.

(of course, this is in relation to any president)
 
Reactions: jmdirt

SHaines

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 23, 2019
81
32
730
Will I get in trouble for posting the response I got from SHaines via email the last time I was told that? He obviously doesn't give a crap either.
Our forum rules don't allow discussing of Moderator action in the public forums. It's a pretty standard rule for forums that keeps us from using public spaces to discuss private information that's needed to be discussed. Instead, folks with concerns can contact our team directly by emailing community@futurenet.com.

This thread was left open following the migration, as many threads were, but since discussion of moderator action is forbidden under the current rules, we encourage folks to use the above email for specific discussion of moderator action. I'll create a new thread to use for discussion of the existing forum rules, if folks have feedback on new issues as they arise.

After your request, I checked out your email address to see our previous discussion. When reaching out to us with a request for info, please keep in mind that Future owns a large number of sites and forums, so we do benefit from including details of what forum you're concerned about. I followed up to get the details, but didn't get a response.

To be extremely clear, sending an email to say there's an issue, but not saying where the issue is, doesn't indicate a lack of caring on my part. The truth is that I care an awful lot. My life would certainly be much easier if I didn't, but an easy life is boring.

We understand that a few people would like there to be a place on these forums to discuss politics. We've responded to the request previously, but to reiterate, the answer is no. We're not bringing a political discussion thread to the CyclingNews forum. This is a place where people can discuss professional cycling. When politics are discussed as a core component of an Editorial article, you can comment on that in the related forum discussion, but it needs to remain narrowly focused on the topic at hand. For those who'd really like to discuss politics, there is no lack of places online to do that, this forum is just not one of them.

Political discussion anywhere doesn't tend to stay within those boundaries, so the risks far outweigh the rewards.



Addendum: I've also removed the thread where Moderators posted when someone was given a time out or ban. This information shouldn't be shared publicly, so it's now gone. When we take action against a user, we should be contacting that user directly with the reason for the action taken, so sharing it in the open is not a benefit.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Invicituz
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS