Moderators

[Anonymous]

Enjoy your vacation

If only...wielding power seems to be the favorite past time of a couple of the mods here, what would they do with their day otherwise?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

We really need a Rolling on the floor laughing wildly Smiley....

Susan

 

[Anonymous]

We really need a Rolling on the floor laughing wildly Smiley....

Susan

Yea, I felt that way when you banned me for apologizing to another member and then had Francois send me a message defending your actions instead of having the guts to do it yourself...it was comic genius...no wait, that wasn't meant to be funny, was it...

TFF

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yea, I felt that way when you banned me for apologizing to another member and then had Francois send me a message defending your actions instead of having the guts to do it yourself...it was comic genius...no wait, that wasn't meant to be funny, was it...

TFF

The moderating here certainly seems to have gone the direction of hair trigger frontier justice, but it's their game maybe that's the way they like it. I have discovered a pretty efficient way to keep it from bothering me, I just don't spend that much time here. Not that I felt any time I was banned I didn't deserve it (well maybe once or twice) but this whole TDF reign of terror thing has just gotten real old real fast. <insert rolling on floor smilie here>

 

[patricknd]

If only...wielding power seems to be the favorite past time of a couple of the mods here, what would they do with their day otherwise?

Housework?

 

[Anonymous]

The moderating here certainly seems to have gone the direction of hair trigger frontier justice, but it's their game maybe that's the way they like it. I have discovered a pretty efficient way to keep it from bothering me, I just don't spend that much time here. Not that I felt any time I was banned I didn't deserve it (well maybe once or twice) but this whole TDF reign of terror thing has just gotten real old real fast. <insert rolling on floor smilie here>

why do you think i am keeping out of the way this month. I couldnt hold my tongue and would be banned in a nanosecond.

Come august everything will get back to normal and the usual rules and sensibleness will return

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Extreme policies upheld by humorless moderators and applied without common sense drive away the mainstays of the site that made it worth reading. Nice. This place gets more like roadbikereview.com every day.

 

[ChrisE]

I don't know what the problem is with you guys. I think you go looking for trouble, and find it in the form of our stellar moderating team. Now, get back in line.

I have gotten in pretty much zero trouble since I returned from exile. I learned from my mistakes, except for the trouble I'm about to cause tonight in the Bauer thread.

So, put a smile on your face and be happy. Every day above ground is a good day.

 

[usedtobefast]

the thing about nicknames is just fg weak. i mean, adults are in this forum. and the nicknames are just that. i really fail see the problem. it's not that good of a forum without a bit of humor. very weak, off the back again.

 

[Parrulo]

what i have noticed so far is that every1 that got banned since the tour started is a regular all year long. those nasty little boys should learn how to be good puppies from the july crowd

 

[Martin318is]

Given that other than for exceptional circumstances, the 3 strike rule means that you must have already received a warning before you get suspended for a second offense - and ignored it.... - it is indeed interesting that most of the actual suspensions have gone to well known members.

However, since you don't have the list of those who received a first warning - statistically, its pretty meaningless.

 

[Martin318is]

the thing about nicknames is just __ weak. i mean, adults are in this forum. and the nicknames are just that. i really fail see the problem. it's not that good of a forum without a bit of humor. very weak, off the back again.

Its quite self-explanatory and has nothing to do with senses of humour.

Use the nicknames as much as you possibly want - inside the Clinic. Outside the clinic however, they lead to others tripping over the non-doping talk rule in subsequent posts and taking threads off topic.

 

[The Hitch]

Given that other than for exceptional circumstances, the 3 strike rule means that you must have already received a warning before you get suspended for a second offense - and ignored it.

I got a warning for insulting a poster.

So i decided i was going to abide by the rules fully, not even risk posting swear words, changing harmless words like C R A P into the word "things" etc etc etc, just in case.

I then got suspended for making a joke about how if someone i have never met wants forgiveness he should take out Schleck and Basso.

Something totaly different than what i got the warning for.

There is absolutely nothing in my first warning, the TDF rules, the forum rules, forum history, or prescedent cases where posters made similar posts, that would have suggested to me that my post was going to get edited, yet alone get me a warning, yet alone get me a ban.

So in this case the 3 strike rule has not given a warning, hence there is no warning to ignore before the ban.

Of course, now i could break another non rule that has never been outlined and get a 1 month ban without ever having recieved a warning.

Every post i enter i think to myself "is there any possible way a mod could interpet this as a third strike offence?"

Im even half expecting one for complaining about the mods in this thread, or some such.

Anyway point is that is an example of how the 3 strike rule doesnt always work.


Personaly i support giving more power to the mods. Let the mods decide if someone is really a nuiscance to the forum, and should be banned r not.

Simple human intelligence, the way things work best. Personally I trus the mods with that, even if i feel ive been hard done by.

 

[peloton]

just a thumbs up for the mods, this forum is almost unreadable atm, will calm down in couple weeks.

 

[The Hitch]

Thank you palmerq for explaining why our good friend Parulo was banned rather than the " as per the current TdF posting guideline" explanation which explains nothing.

 

[Escarabajo]

Thank you palmerq for explaining why our good friend Parulo was banned rather than the " as per the current TdF posting guideline" explanation which explains nothing.

I don't see the explanation. Where is it?

 

[krebs303]

I don't see the explanation. Where is it?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=607231&postcount=99

 

[Martin318is]

Thank you palmerq for explaining why our good friend Parulo was banned rather than the " as per the current TdF posting guideline" explanation which explains nothing.

We changed that style several days ago for that reason.

 

[Escarabajo]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=607231&postcount=99

Thanks.

10 char.

 

[The Hitch]

In the "Oslo" thread, resident boob, redtreviso, who has previously somehow managed to get away with dozens of posts attacking poster Scott Socal for allegedly being an "alcocholic", and implying Scott Socal was behind the attempted assasination of a US congressman, had this to say about the thread subject - the events in Oslo.

Could be some scotty type.

Right wing pride.. Someone in Socal is proud tonight.

Sorry.. Someone in Houston AND someone in Socal must be proud tonight..

These obviously add nothing to the discussion, do not even make refference to yet alone address the thread subject- a pretty delecate issue considering the number of dead.
The posts are quite clearly designed with the sole purpose of insulting Scott So Cal on a very grand scale.

Surely implying that a poster is "proud" of a massacre and that "Scotty types" are behind this is far worse than any curseword, or degredation, or just about anything in the forum rule book?

Right?

Oh and to clear up any doubt that the "scotty" in the posts is Scot Socal, a couple of examples.

.It's that drunk thing that makes him so appealing to scotty.

Yes scott is most likely a drunk.. and proud of it.

 

[gregod]

...

These obviously add nothing to the discussion, do not even make refference to yet alone address the thread subject, but instead are posts quite clearly designed with the sole purpose of insulting Scott So Cal on a very grand scale.

Surely implying that a poster is "proud" of a massacre and that "Scotty types" are behind this is far worse than any curseword, or degredation, or just about anything in the forum rule book?

...

all of this is true, but it is hard to take it seriously, isn't it? it's like all of the people who keep calling obama a socialist in spite of reality being quite the opposite. nobody who is paying attention takes it seriously.

 

[krebs303]

+1 Hitch...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

[The Hitch]

all of this is true, but it is hard to take it seriously, isn't it? it's like all of the people who keep calling obama a socialist in spite of reality being quite the opposite. nobody who is paying attention takes it seriously.

If i call Obama a socialist im expressing an opinion, however dumb it might be.

If i say that Obama is proud of the fact that some nutjob opened fire on innocent people, thats a whole new level. If nothing else, Im breaking a number of forum rules in the process.

And i would say it gets even worse when directed at a fellow poster (who btw hasnt even taken part in the thread), rather than a public figure.

 

[gregod]

If i call Obama a socialist im expressing an opinion, however dumb it might be.

If i say that Obama is proud of the fact that some nutjob opened fire on innocent people, thats a whole new level. If nothing else, Im breaking a number of forum rules in the process.

And i would say it gets even worse when directed at a fellow poster whom one doesnt know rather than a public figure.

i am not saying you are wrong, but does anybody take what he says seriously? people called bush a murderer and worse and bush nor anybody with any sense took that seriously. making a big deal out of such nonsense just gives the flamethrower more satisfaction, IMO.

 

[The Hitch]

i am not saying you are wrong, but does anybody take what he says seriously? people called bush a murderer and worse and bush nor anybody with any sense took that seriously. making a big deal out of such nonsense just gives the flamethrower more satisfaction, IMO.

Ok ill bite.

Maybe there are advantages to having a system where there are no bans, mods, warnings, posters write what they want and people decide who the trolls are and dont take them seriously.

But on these boards there are rules, there are mods and there are bans.

Scot Socal is a poster here, redtreviso insults him and insults him and insults him in the most vile ways, even when Scot isnt even taking part in the thread.

It is strictly against the rules to insult other posters. this is what happens to everyone else when they break this rule. -

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11179

so as much as redtreviso might just be making a fool out of himself, and i do hope others see it that way, what he is doing is against the rules.