Moderators

[Dr. Maserati]

not the first time it happened.

during the sunday flat stage of the tour since nothing was happening me, michaeldeebeedee and a few other guys were having some fun posting memes in the thread because nothing was happening on the race. and for some random reason we started posting religion related memes. ofc a moderator got mad because some memes implied that the "baby jesus" and "god" never existed and being a good catholic he felt like that was a good enough reason to delete all our posts. the thread died straight away and even with the sprint and the sprint discussion only had like a couple more pages of posts.

i also think that the jump from 1 day to 1 month is ridiculously high.

Or maybe they deleted all those off topic posts because they were off topic and if the thread died it was probably because there was, as you said "nothing was happening"..

I actually would agree with the Mods in cutting out off topic conversations from threads like those in particular.
I enjoy the the live stage threads, but they have become almost unreadable because of their popularity. The sheer volume of posts makes it difficult to follow.

 

[AussieGoddess]

Thanks for your comments - yes we have access to create a very similar set-up. We stayed away from that because it involved some complexities that were difficult to get around. We went with this simplified system in order to get it implemented faster and be easier to organise what to do on the fly. (some of us do a lot of moderation work via phones, etc)

If you view this in terms of stages of evolution, we are moving from a case by case manual system to a simpler semi-automated one. The next stage - which could be next year, I don't know - would possibly be to do further analysis of the rules, who breaks them, why, and what the penalty should be. When we have that, we could theoretically use the infraction system to manage that.

The key thing to take away (as a few people have kindly pointed out) is that we are moving forward, learning from experiences and taking note of constructive commentary from members. The forum and its moderation are fluid things and we feel that they are moving in a good direction.

well - I do think you are all doing a great job. (And no that is not meant to be as much as a suck up as it sounds - its not easy to try and impose an objective measure within a fairly subjective system) so I for one will never say you are doing the wrong thing.

But I do think that Dr M makes a good point. Perhaps including a 1 week ban within your framework is a good idea.

And keeping the subjective 'judgement call' can also be a good thing. If a member knows well enough what the rules are, and breaches them on a regular basis, its a very different situation to a new member who does 2 different things wrong within 2 weeks ....

Anyway - best of luck.

 

[Martin318is]

I like the new rules. It seems to me that once a month now I am free to tell somebody what an ignorant ****** bag they are and I should never get a ban. Twice a month if I'm willing to take a 24 hour ban and that may very well be worth it when you look at the cost-benefit analysis.

Bravo mods!

you might want to read the new rules very carefully before trying that one. There is nothing in the new system preventing the existing process of moderators identifying a pattern and applying an appropriate response.

The idea is more directed towards the situations that Hitch refers to

 

[Martin318is]

And keeping the subjective 'judgement call' can also be a good thing. If a member knows well enough what the rules are, and breaches them on a regular basis, its a very different situation to a new member who does 2 different things wrong within 2 weeks ....

Anyway - best of luck.

yep as I said int eh above post - that has always remaind as an alternative to the strikes system (and its mentioned in the TdF rule announcement - and will be mentioend in the new rules announcement).

as to the 1 week interval - that may well come in once we get a hang of the new mechanism (there are a lot of actions a mod must perform to keep it working).

1. Do
2. Observe result
3. Do something new with the knowledge from 2
(or something like that)

 

[ChrisE]

Susan-

Can you please explain why the "what's cleaner than bottle" thread was closed? I believe we were all providing excellent examples. I also see you closed it on my last post and deleted it as well. I looked long and hard for that example, and now all of my hard work is wasted.

 

[Anonymous]

Just curious - what happened to Francois the Postman? Is he gone? Haven't seen him posting in a long time.

From what I hear, he got mad because he wasn't allowed to fabricate a reason for banning someone (I have a sneaking suspicion of who that was), so he took a vacation. Good riddance, his feigned objectivity tap dance was tiresome and dishonest. Couldn't stand the guy.

 

[Anonymous]

Upon reviewing the member Suspension thread, I found the following to be the full list of members given 24-hour bans during the ENTIRE month of July (excluding one member who apparently got himself banned deliberately):

FlyingPortagee
Ryo Hazuki
El Pistolero
The Hitch
erik saunders
Parullo
Blackcat

Aside from yourself, and Ryo Hazuki who seems to get banned regularly, regardless of time of year or rules imposed, that leaves a whopping 5 guys out of the HUNDREDS who posted in the Tour daily threads and in the clinic.

Hardly an alarming rate of suspensions, and hardly evidence of biased or unfairly applied rules.

I got banned for 24 during July. Not sure why I am not on the list?

Anyway, this place used to be fun, now, not so much. When Susan banned me that time for apologizing to someone, and then had Francois write me a PM explaining why it was "necessary," I realized that it just wasn't worth it anymore. Brodeal left after he was banned for a stupid reason, and he will probably never come back. Me, I lurk from time to time, but school has me so busy that I don't have much time to do so anyway...well that and 2 or 3 mods informing me that I was on the chopping block, and that there were specific mods looking to ban me for any reason they could. I figured it just wasn't worth it. I have to say, not posting much here really hasn't diminished the quality of my life one bit.

 

[palmerq]

From what I hear, he got mad because he wasn't allowed to fabricate a reason for banning someone, so he took a vacation. Good riddance, his feigned objectivity tap dance was tiresome and dishonest. Couldn't stand the guy.

No that really isn't true and quite unfair on francois the postman.

 

[Anonymous]

No that really isn't true and quite unfair on francois the postman.

Really? Because the information came from someone who would know, though I will not reveal the source. Suffice to say, they used to have "Moderator" under their name. Plus, I was quite "fair" to Francois. He was a ******bag who liked to admire his own posts. IMO, he was one of the most dishonest people on this forum.

 

[palmerq]

Really? Because the information came from someone who would know, though I will not reveal the source. Suffice to say, they used to have "Moderator" under their name. Plus, I was quite "fair" to Francois. He was a ******bag who liked to admire his own posts. IMO, he was one of the most dishonest people on this forum.

Ok, but I am 100% sure it is not why he left, and please don't insult other or former members like that it's not very nice.

 

[gregod]

I got banned for 24 during July. Not sure why I am not on the list?

Anyway, this place used to be fun, now, not so much. When Susan banned me that time for apologizing to someone, and then had Francois write me a PM explaining why it was "necessary," I realized that it just wasn't worth it anymore. Brodeal left after he was banned for a stupid reason, and he will probably never come back. Me, I lurk from time to time, but school has me so busy that I don't have much time to do so anyway...well that and 2 or 3 mods informing me that I was on the chopping block, and that there were specific mods looking to ban me for any reason they could. I figured it just wasn't worth it. I have to say, not posting much here really hasn't diminished the quality of my life one bit.

as i warned when moderation took off in earnest here, it has become a tyrannical club sucking the life of the forum a la the RBR forum. the mods enjoy it, but most of the rest of us don't. the best and most interesting posters are staying away, banned or lightly posting. if it weren't for krebs303's (and elchingon's!)fine contributions, my humble participation would end, as well.

 

[gregod]

Ok, but I am 100% sure it is not why he left, and please don't insult other or former members like that it's not very nice.

who is it OK to insult? non-members? sadaam hussein? hitler?

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, but I am 100% sure it is not why he left, and please don't insult other or former members like that it's not very nice.

So it isn't why he left, but it is true that he tried to fabricate something in order to have someone banned...well, thanks for confirming.

 

[palmerq]

So it isn't why he left, but it is true that he tried to fabricate something in order to have someone banned...well, thanks for confirming.

Well if it seems like that is what I said that, then it is not what I meant. What I wanted to say is the reason why the postman is not posting as much as before(not sure if he has gone for good or what) is the not the same as the reason you think. I don't know anything about your claim, I doubt it happened though.

 

[Spider1964]

Susan-

Can you please explain why the "what's cleaner than bottle" thread was closed? I believe we were all providing excellent examples. I also see you closed it on my last post and deleted it as well. I looked long and hard for that example, and now all of my hard work is wasted.

Originally Posted by Cobblestoned

As a mod, you and your balanced crew failed a again not closing this down immediately. I guess you and your mates figured that this issue earns another thread on this certain individual.
Ferminal will agree.
This place is slowly sinking deeper and deeper, turning into a kindergarden for maladjusted kids.
Chapeau. And you are responsible for this place, kid. Congrats.
Not hard to figure that this thread should have ended after that "good" guy posted a pic of a recently died and ill person.

The "what's cleaner than bottle" thread was an example of the over-moderation of this site. It was a bit of fun that was providing a few cheap laughs for a good deal of posters. Surely any inappropriate posts could have been "Deleted by Mods" and then let the thread continue.

What I find hypocritical is that, as Cobblestoned commented, one of the "good" guys on this forum, posts a clearly inappropriate picture of a recently deceased person, that firstly, does not get deleted and secondly after a member mentions it as being in bad taste, it still does not get deleted?? WTF? If one of the supposedly "bad guys" (ie Cobbles, ChrisE) had posted that pic, there would have been possible suspensions? Again WTF? RR is one of the best and most intelligent posters on this forum, but if he's out of line then surely the same rules should apply to all?

 

[pedaling squares]

This good guy / bad guy stuff is nonsense. And what was out of line about the Winehouse photo? That woman was as famous for pouring junk into her veins as she was for pouring her soul into her music. Her tragic and untimely death does not diminish that. The thread was about 'clean', mainly in terms of clean vs dirty in the drug sense (although we all relied upon some artistic licence), and Winehouse was a perfect foil. I posted a photo of a dead woman too, does the passage of time make the Flo Jo photo more appropriate? Wait... am I one of the good guys?

 

[ChrisE]

Spider - FYI I feel I have been given alot of slack since my return. But no, the rules are never applied evenly and those fall along the lines of whether or not you hate Lance Armstrong.

LOL at TFF believing what that clown Barrus tells him.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The "what's cleaner than bottle" thread was an example of the over-moderation of this site. It was a bit of fun that was providing a few cheap laughs for a good deal of posters. Surely any inappropriate posts could have been "Deleted by Mods" and then let the thread continue.

What I find hypocritical is that, as Cobblestoned commented, one of the "good" guys on this forum, posts a clearly inappropriate picture of a recently deceased person, that firstly, does not get deleted and secondly after a member mentions it as being in bad taste, it still does not get deleted?? WTF? If one of the supposedly "bad guys" (ie Cobbles, ChrisE) had posted that pic, there would have been possible suspensions? Again WTF? RR is one of the best and most intelligent posters on this forum, but if he's out of line then surely the same rules should apply to all?

No, you missed it.

The hypocrisy is all Cobblestoneds - I would very much doubt that they would have objected or found offence had been one of the 'bad guys' who posted it.

 

[ChrisE]

No, you missed it.

The hypocrisy is all Cobblestoneds - I would very much doubt that they would have objected or found offence had been one of the 'bad guys' who posted it.

Are you stating that RR doesn't get preferrential treatment in here? I just got a warning so I will not comment on that other than how absurd that is.

And no, I will not run around the forum with the search command on one of your little philisophical scavenger hunts. It is just amazing how little self awareness you have.

 

[Martin318is]

So it isn't why he left, but it is true that he tried to fabricate something in order to have someone banned...well, thanks for confirming.

No TFF, that is utter BS.

 

[Martin318is]

Are you stating that RR doesn't get preferrential treatment in here? I just got a warning so I will not comment on that other than how absurd that is.

No - he doesn't.
When he has done anything worthy of moderation he has been contacted by a moderator and it has been dealt with.

As is ALWAYS the case, unless something gets to the level of a suspension, you simply have NO IDEA whether another member has received some form of reprimand or infraction - or not. It is natural therefore that since you only see your own warnings, you assume you are the only one getting them.

For example, the warning you glossed over in your post was for labelling another member with a mental illness. You didnt get a suspension, you didnt get a tirade of moderator outrage, you got a warning not to do it again. (but until I wrote that, nobody else had any idea what had happened)

 

[Anonymous]

No TFF, that is utter BS.

Really, well, the former mod who told me says different. I think I am going to believe him as he had no vested interest in telling me a lie. Sorry, but Francois seems the type to do something like that.

You on the other hand have a vested interest in denying the story.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are you stating that RR doesn't get preferrential treatment in here? I just got a warning so I will not comment on that other than how absurd that is.

And no, I will not run around the forum with the search command on one of your little philisophical scavenger hunts. It is just amazing how little self awareness you have.

Yes - that's effectively what I am saying.

I have no idea if he does or not, if he has been warned or not -but neither do you.
So, don't worry I won't get you to back up your claim because you have no way of knowing or not but also because even if you had you would never bother anyway.

 

[Anonymous]

Spider - FYI I feel I have been given alot of slack since my return. But no, the rules are never applied evenly and those fall along the lines of whether or not you hate Lance Armstrong.

LOL at TFF believing what that clown Barrus tells him.

It wasn't Barrus.

Try again.

 

[Anonymous]

Spider - FYI I feel I have been given alot of slack since my return. But no, the rules are never applied evenly and those fall along the lines of whether or not you hate Lance Armstrong.

LOL at TFF believing what that clown Barrus tells him.

You know so much less than you think you do.