Moderators

[Damiano Machiavelli]

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.

It could be worse. It could be like The Daily Peloton before it spiraled down the crapper. R.I.P. That place was a textbook case of bad moderation.

 

[Martin318is]

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.

ROFL

Mate, it is abundantly clear that you think you have a smoking gun but the reality is that if you look closer, its made of chocolate.

If you REALLY think after 2 years of moderators giving you every assistance possible to NOT get banned for long periods, that there is a conspiracy of any type against you then there is simply no helping you.

Given the amount of abuse and insult you have slung Francois way over time, I personally have always been VERY impressed with the utterly even-handed way he dealt with you.

 

[ChrisE]

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)

I didn't say what my infraction was for. And, I agree with it since it was against the rules. I wonder how many infractions Berzin has, since just about every post of his is an insult in one form or another. This incident in the LA thread makes my case, except what you claim happens behind the scenes...

All we have is your word, Martin, and sorry it is etched in my character to question those that cannot be questioned. We have had this conversation before about a year or two ago, and I don't care to rehash it. Especially since I wish all of the mods would take a hike and let the members go at it.

 

[Anonymous]

It could be worse. It could be like The Daily Peloton before it spiraled down the crapper. R.I.P. That place was a textbook case of bad moderation.

The moderation at Cyclingforums was great...if it weren't for the absentee owner who didn't approve new members for months on end, that place would still be alive. Moderation consisted of keeping overt threats out and that was about it. It worked well.

The problem here is that it is connected with a commercial enterprise who have an interest in keeping things somewhat sanitary. That is a fine objective. The problem is in the execution. I think that is reflective of SOME of the moderators, though there are some good ones. Some of the best ones no longer moderate.

DP was moderated by a couple of good people, and 3 major idiots. Those idiots, like Coolhand at RBR, ruin the places they were/are charged with perpetuating. That is happening here to an extent.

 

[ChrisE]

:
ROFL

Mate, it is abundantly clear that you think you have a smoking gun but the reality is that if you look closer, its made of chocolate.

If you REALLY think after 2 years of moderators giving you every assistance possible to NOT get banned for long periods, that there is a conspiracy of any type against you then there is simply no helping you.

Bingo. And TFF knows I like him so I am in no way promoting that he should be banned.

I got banned 6 MONTHS for some minor stuff in a thread about GL that is nowhere near the stuff TFF spews out (I like it, BTW ) and he is given slaps on the wrist compared to that ban. I wonder why? The reason is because I am not a rabid LA hater and he is. Period.

Thank you, Martin, for proving my case. Sorry I don't by your word.

 

[Anonymous]

ROFL

Mate, it is abundantly clear that you think you have a smoking gun but the reality is that if you look closer, its made of chocolate.

If you REALLY think after 2 years of moderators giving you every assistance possible to NOT get banned for long periods, that there is a conspiracy of any type against you then there is simply no helping you.

Given the amount of abuse and insult you have slung Francois way over time, I personally have always been VERY impressed with the utterly even-handed way he dealt with you.

I never said there was some big conspiracy, though it does make me wonder. You assume something that I did not mean. Typical. I didn't create the story, and I did not solicit any hidden knowledge. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

I am not surprised by your defense of Francois. I lost all respect when I received the PM from him regarding being banned by Susan for apologizing to another member. That happened. Period. It was complete bull**** both on the part of Susan and Francois. What it showed was weak character. Instead of just admitting a mistake was made, I got the "I am sorry I hit you baby for apologizing, but you deserved it."

You are now defending in the same manner. I was passed a story from someone else who has never lied to me before. (and never said I was the object) He was privy to the moderators private conversations. You are laughing at him I guess, but that **** doesn't have anything to do with me. It does not surprise me that you don't see that as none of you are capable of pulling off the detachment necessary for the moderation you all claim to implement. Thanks for providing more evidence.

HOWEVER, I was told by 3 different people on the moderation team that I was on a thin line, and that there were a couple of moderators just looking for a reason to ban me permanently. Interestingly YOU were one of those people, or don't you remember?

 

[Martin318is]

I was assuming you were talking about yourself but with the above clarification I now realise what you are talking (incorrectly) about.

There is no way to discuss this topic in the open without providing confidential information and so I will not do so. I will however state that the comments you have made above are incorrect.

 

[ChrisE]

Funny, neither TFF nor I believe you from opposite sides. You must be doing something right.

 

[Spider1964]

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?

You're one of the good guys Squares... So is RR for that matter... my point, if I had one, was that the moderation "seems" to favour some over others? That may be right or wrong, dunno? Judging by the reaction there seems to be a couple at least. I felt the Amy Winehouse was a bit too soon, but that's just me (and another poster who commented in the thread), does the passage of time make the Flo-Jo reference more appropriate? Probably, but then when is the correct time? I suppose that any self destructive personality tipping junk into their veins realises where that road leads?

 

[gregod]

It could be worse. It could be like The Daily Peloton before it spiraled down the crapper. R.I.P. That place was a textbook case of bad moderation.

judging from the comments in this thread, both for and against, this forum his heading that way quickly.

 

[Anonymous]

I chose to delete my posts, I was not moderated.

 

[Anonymous]

You know so much less than you think you do.

You ought to do a quick drive-by over on the politics thread (as if you need any confirmation).

 

[Martin318is]

... I felt the Amy Winehouse was a bit too soon, .

speaking as one that saw your report and reviewed the situation, I think I decided that the thing about Amy was that this type of comment/joke had been circling about her for a number of years without comment and that this was just (as you say) a timing thing. It was on the edge but I took the view that it was sufficiently acceptable to remain.

 

[Martin318is]

Funny, neither TFF nor I believe you from opposite sides. You must be doing something right.

Thank you for finally understanding that there is no moderator bias - I simply want to make life a misery for everyone that I can.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

speaking as one that saw your report and reviewed the situation, I think I decided that the thing about Amy was that this type of comment/joke had been circling about her for a number of years without comment and that this was just (as you say) a timing thing. It was on the edge but I took the view that it was sufficiently acceptable to remain.

There is your problem right there. You take reports seriously when they come from people who are so overly sensitive that they are offended by a crack about Amy Winehouse.

The ads to the right should offer popcorn.

 

[Martin318is]

There is your problem right there. You take reports seriously when they come from people who are so overly sensitive that they are offended by a crack about Amy Winehouse.

The ads to the right should offer popcorn.

ALL reports get taken seriously.

 

[Martin318is]

The discussion today between TFF and myself has been deleted by agreement - he chose to delete his own posts once provided with more information and I have therefore deleted my own (and a couple by Palmer that referenced his).

 

[gregod]

You ought to do a quick drive-by over on the politics thread (as if you need any confirmation).

i am guessing, but i think scott means that one or two posters there pretty constantly go after him there. i don't recall him giving back as much as he gets. either he is just being above it or he knows that he would get banned for doing the same thing. but from his previous hiatus, it appears that he has judged the inequity of the moderation.

not that i am calling for more moderation in the politics thread. the nature of the discussion should allow for the freest exchanges.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

ALL reports get taken seriously.

There is your problem. It should be easy to figure out and ignore reports from panty waists who get offended by anything.

 

[gregod]

Thank you for finally understanding that there is no moderator bias - I simply want to make life a misery for everyone that I can.

of course there is moderator bias. you may not think so, but that is the nature of biases; they are often subconscious. in addition, since different moderators have different standards, even though they try to conform to one standard, and different moderators focus in different areas, moderation across the forum is inconsistent. the lightest touch seems to be in the cafe which the forum i read 90% of the time. unfortunately, i almost never go in the road forums (and this is a cycling forum?!?) because of the heavy handedness and inconsistency in there.

 

[Martin318is]

of course there is moderator bias. you may not think so, but that is the nature of biases; they are often subconscious. in addition, since different moderators have different standards, even though they try to conform to one standard, and different moderators focus in different areas, moderation across the forum is inconsistent. the lightest touch seems to be in the cafe which the forum i read 90% of the time. unfortunately, i almost never go in the road forums (and this is a cycling forum?!?) because of the heavy handedness and inconsistency in there.

This has been long publicised as essentially the entire POINT of the Clinic.

To take the kind of viciousness and nastiness that was right across this forum and pull it into one place where it would stay out of the way of those that just want to talk about bikes and riders, etc.

Therefore, it is entirely logical that you can get away with the odd bit of off topic or psuedo-trolling in the Clinic but that in the road forum if you did the same thing your posts would be edited and if necessary you would be warned, etc. I am personally not aware of any inconsistency in the non-Clinic forums. Mind you, my day seems mainly filled with responding to problems in the Clinic.

 

[Martin318is]

There is your problem. It should be easy to figure out and ignore reports from panty waists who get offended by anything.

To even make that kind of filtering decision must first require taking the report seriously.

 

[gregod]

of course there is moderator bias. you may not think so, but that is the nature of biases; they are often subconscious. in addition, since different moderators have different standards, even though they try to conform to one standard, and different moderators focus in different areas, moderation across the forum is inconsistent. the lightest touch seems to be in the cafe which the forum i read 90% of the time. unfortunately, i almost never go in the road forums (and this is a cycling forum?!?) because of the heavy handedness and inconsistency in there.

This has been long publicised as essentially the entire POINT of the Clinic.

To take the kind of viciousness and nastiness that was right across this forum and pull it into one place where it would stay out of the way of those that just want to talk about bikes and riders, etc.

Therefore, it is entirely logical that you can get away with the odd bit of off topic or psuedo-trolling in the Clinic but that in the road forum if you did the same thing your posts would be edited and if necessary you would be warned, etc. I am personally not aware of any inconsistency in the non-Clinic forums. Mind you, my day seems mainly filled with responding to problems in the Clinic.

read my post again.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

wow... you really do live out on a self made "Md" island. I like the way you always make refrence to backing up claims etc. When right underneath your own Dr. nose posts are constantly made without a hint of back up or links necessary. THANKS for showing the neutral nature and spirt of your post.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I chose to delete my posts, I was not moderated.

why oh why? That tropical storm must have gotten on your nerves? Or was it the good Dr? he gets on my nerves. ...hey do you have a PHDoraMD? peace.