Moderators

[Dr. Maserati]

I agree with Gmac.

I have stated this before - in principal I am against banning anyone, but accept that it needs to be there for those that continually abuse the system but it should only be used as a last resort.

It is a difficult one for CN & the mods - but until now I believe they have gotten it correct. Starting sockpuppets, abuse towards other posters, racism, defying multiple warnings - all fair game.

I did not see anything in Dims/TSF original post that warranted anything other than a 'friendly reminder' - I agree his responce was not the best way to deal with a minor issue, however 2 wrongs do not make it right.

Again - I appreciate the mods 'work' - and feel it is more on the members to 'moderate' and address our behaviour, I just believe in this instance it requires a second look.

 

[oncehadhair]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=244984&postcount=21
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=243953&postcount=5312

Doping? Outside the Clinic?

This is one poster I found. In 2 minutes.

Out of line to Ban Dim.

You cannot control the real problems and you go and ban one of the best contributors to the forum.

Disgrace.

I am sure EVERYONE has mentioned doping outside the clinic in someway.

Ban them all?

You can't ban them all, just like the UCI can't ban all the dopers. Because that would mean banning all the riders.

I was astounded to get a doping violation of my own a few days ago. The point of my post was not about doping, there was no direct mention of it and no names were used.

I questioned it and the moderator patronised me with this "i know what you were thinking" attitude.

And there are blatant references to doping all over the forum.

Is bullying new members normal here?

 

[Big GMaC]

I agree with Gmac.

I have stated this before - in principal I am against banning anyone, but accept that it needs to be there for those that continually abuse the system but it should only be used as a last resort.

It is a difficult one for CN & the mods - but until now I believe they have gotten it correct. Starting sockpuppets, abuse towards other posters, racism, defying multiple warnings - all fair game.

I did not see anything in Dims/TSF original post that warranted anything other than a 'friendly reminder' - I agree his responce was not the best way to deal with a minor issue, however 2 wrongs do not make it right.

Again - I appreciate the mods 'work' - and feel it is more on the members to 'moderate' and address our behaviour, I just believe in this instance it requires a second look.

If there is a blanket ban about posting about doping outside of the clinic, nay insinuating doping outside the clinic (Dim wasn't talking about names, just say phil and paul would say something like that!!!!) almost everyone who posts in the LA thread should be banned.

Even moderators.

Alpe has taked about it, members with high standing have talked about it.

After all the stuff dim has done, his Sky website gets stage videos up really fast, he is always positively contributing to discussion, he started the forum's Fantasy Tour League FFS! For him to be banned without even PM discussion is frankly a complete joke, esp. when you consider the laughable excuse for what normally passes for moderation.

 

[boredone]

thanks for the support guys, but this is probably just best left alone. It will just turn out to be a war.

Mods had their reasons, personally i think a warning would have been suitable, but in the end they make the decisions not us.

Support is appreicated but it will only end up escalating. Im in pm with a mod, see what transpires.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was astounded to get a doping violation of my own a few days ago. The point of my post was not about doping, there was no direct mention of it and no names were used.

I questioned it and the moderator patronised me with this "i know what you were thinking" attitude.

And there are blatant references to doping all over the forum.

Is bullying new members normal here?

I really would hope not. I think the CN forum is excellent - and I want to see more members join but in particular participate, the more views the better.

Again, it is up to us (the members) to be careful how we post - and I actually had this debate with a member yesterday over where I posted a thread, while I understand their position that it could go all Clinic the reason I posted it in the General section was that it would not, as there was no need to.

I understand that with so many issues ongoing and with many new members joining there is a greater need to tidy up the forum and enforce 'rules' but if a thread is going off track perhaps a 'general reminder' on the thread first (so all can see it) would be better served as the 1st course of action.

 

[Martin318is]

Partial Clarification

NOTE: I was NOT involved in the banning or any of the discourse prior to it. However a point of clarification is required:

Dim got a 7 day ban SOLELY for his post in response to the infraction he received. Thats it. Nothing to do with the initial posting about doping etc.

The idea behind infractions is that they are a simpler way for moderators to be able to deal with a situation, leave a record of it for future reference and move on without the need to create a longwinded explanation for a simple situation. In this case, we all know that the Clinic was created expressly to remove doping conversation from the rest of the forum. Receiving an infraction for talking about doping somewhere else is really a minor minor event.

Every single day a large number of members receive very similar infractions without taking them personally and generally if a response is given it is to agree that it was fair. Dim chose the other path.

 

[boredone]

In this case, we all know that the Clinic was created expressly to remove doping conversation from the rest of the forum. Receiving an infraction for talking about doping somewhere else is really a minor minor event..

But i was not discussing doping!!!!!!!

Someone said "if lance finishes tenth what excuse will paul and phil make" i replied that they would say "the nine riders in front were doping and it was a travesty"

That is not in any way an attempt at derailing a thread with doping talk. I am not stupid, I know the forum is for discussing doping. It was a joke.

The infraction wording is appaling. Going on about receiving an infraction, things quoted, being told to remember the rules of the forum, blah blah etc. They come across as patronising, and petty (and to be honest unless the moderators put out a list of what type of warnings there are and their purpose how is anyone to know how serious or not an infraction is?) what comes next, warning, final warning, if we as users do not know what the warning system is, how are we supposed to know what an infraction is? I have no idea what an infraction is, means nothing to me, as far as i was concerned I was receiving a warning. Why not put out a nice list of what the various levels of warning are, so that when people get one they can find out what it means. I wouldnt know the difference between an infraction and a camel to be honest.

Yes, my response was not ideal, I may have been better to put it in pm etc, but i dont think it was any worse than an awful lot of what is said around here. I certainly dont think a minor rant is worse than someone who continues to flaunt the rules despite repeated reminders, or users who continue to derail threads, or make repeat offences over and over again.I shouldnt have called 180mm names, but Ive been called far worse, as im sure he has, I beleive he seriously overreacted.

Should moderators ban members without warning. No, I dont beleive so. Members should have the right to at least be warned they risk being banned, especially regular posters who are clearly not on the forum to derail, troll etc. What does that action create, just a ****ed off forum member who to be honest in the future is probably going to push the limits are far as he can deliberately. To ban for however long without warning is an overreaction. And it as I say creates immediate animosity. It is more likely to make the poster on his return want to push the rules to the limit, when a simple pm saying "you risk getting banned for you comment, this is your last warning" would have a completely different effect.

I will take my ban, its a **** time to be banned at the high point of the season, and theres loads to talk about etc.

But i will say, infractions are pathetic and badly worded and inflamatory. Send a pm when someone does something wrong, not some computer generated standard letter. Warn someone before they are banned, dont just hit them with a ban without discussion. And have some CONSISTENCY!

 

[workingclasshero]

i also got a warning (or infraction, i forget) off 180mm for posting a joke in the babes on bikes thread

i replied to the pm asking for what as my post was such an innocent one i couldn't really remember what it was all about and thus not remember what i was warned for. i'm still not sure, not that i care

he got back to me with the old 'you know what it was for'

and i'm stuck there thinking, "no i ___ don't"

so anyhoo, i'm rambling here, what i want to get down to is this question; is 180 canadian? that would explain a lot

oh and get dim back on now. thanks.

 

[auscyclefan94]

When ACF94 complains about it it is " He's a whinger and a crybaby" but when Dim does something it is "poor old dim". What a joke. Biggest bunch of hypocrites on the planet.

I guess because Dim is a more "respected" poster that he should not be banned!

 

[180mmCrank]

I think I have written to most people privately to explain this but not everyone. At the risk of pouring petrol on the flames...

I sent Dim a warning about mentioning doping in a non doping thread. I know he believes that this wasn't meant to initiaite further comment about doping - it was just a joke. The trouble is that it is comments like these (jokes or not) that IMHO derail threads. And he is right that he received an automatic message and it's a bit rough and ready in the way it comes across - which is I guess why it didn't land that well with him. I should point out that several of these are sent out every day with out incident - and not just by me!

It was his public response that resulted in his 7 day ban. I think Dim understands that - he may not agree but that's a different issue. I expect Dim will be posting here again soon.

I like the feedback we get as moderators - it helps us do our jobs - please keep sending it in and please try to be respectful.

Cheers

Terry

 

[SpartacusRox]

..... seriously need to get a ****ing grip

I have just had a warning for absolutely nothing and a nice patronising reminder of the rules of the forum..

**** right off!

Wow, he really does sound a lot like Wiggo

 

[Dr. Maserati]

When ACF94 complains about it it is " He's a whinger and a crybaby" but when Dim does something it is "poor old dim". What a joke. Biggest bunch of hypocrites on the planet.

I guess because Dim is a more "respected" poster that he should not be banned!

You got an infraction - for being abusive, which you admitted to.

Your difficulty was that you went on a crusade that you were unable to back up which made a bigger deal out of it then was necessary.

The difference with Dim/TSF was he is banned - and while I though it a little heavy handed there is a an important point here.

Yes, Dim is one of the best posters here (& sounds like a lovely chap) but postcount or personality should not dictate application of the rules.
If 'leeway' was to be allowed it should favor newer members that are not acquainted to the forum - not posters that should know better.

We all know the rules and we are ultimately guests of CN or Future etc. The mods do let a lot go - which is what makes this a great forum - but it is us, the posters that need to abide by these rules. Dim, did (&has admitted) to going off which was unnecessary - but he should not have made his frustration in public and I believe the 'penalty' is fair..... he will be back for the Alps, unlike Wiggins (Sorry Dim)

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Just an aside - Re-registering as a new user (sock puppet) during a ban is grounds for a permanent ban of all accounts.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Terry,

for starters, I can see that you guys have become way more active, and I am one that appreciates that. I think it is starting to make a noticeable difference in the thread.

I guess you guys accept that we are all on a bit of a learning curve here, old-time posters who need to get used to lines that are a bit more bright red than they were, and mods who need to make Solomon's judgements at times, without actually being Solomons. And smoothing out the bumpy bits in the road regarding policy clarity / consistency / communication (wording issues), etc.

If I understand this one about Dim correctly, he got a slap on the fingers for the doping joke, and a ban for a direct insult. I think that is fair, although I can understand Dim's pov that the initial issue wasn't the transgression he was told it was, or that the way it was issues was a bit auto-tron. But no matter about his feelings about the initial issue, the insult warranted the ban, so I can't see a problem with the week time-out.

One thing. Dim (and others who are sitting in the sin-bin) now show up as "banned" posters. Is there a way to make a distinction between posters who are permanently banned (BMC) and those that are in the sin-bin by using different words to flag their current account status to us? Seeing long-standing and valued posters "banned" causes all kinds of alarm and outrage (justified or not), when a "temporarily-suspended-for-posting-violation" would be a far better way to flag their current status and stop folk like me from going "what, nooooo!" when I see a "banned" and immediately wonder if he is lost to the site, or not. It would have the added benefit of reminding posters that the naughty step is ready for those that qualify.

The second point is regarding the initial violation by Dim. I usually am not one for scrutinizing a mod decision that becomes public knowledge, but at the same time, I think most of us have walked into the grey area that is "talking about doping outside the clinic", so this is just to get it as clear in my head as I can:

What is the difference between mentioning doping and discussing doping for moderation purposes, outside the clinic, if any?

Doping and pro-cycling are utterly intertwined, and ever since we got the Clinic, it has raised the question what is appropriate and not.

I always took the difference to be the "discussing" element. If you made a point with the intention to discuss the details, or that went into detailed specifics, it was clinic stuff. "Discussion". If you simply said that Basso is a doper, it was ok, as it is impossible to discuss Basso, or put his past record in context, without acknowledging that. BUT, if you made that point ad nauseum, either in far too many threads, or repeatedly in the same one, you were overstepping another invisible line of appropriateness.

Now, as mods you are sitting in that impossible seat of having to rule over the grey areas. For what it is worth, I think that Dim's original comment was more in the "mention" part of things than the "discuss" part of things, but since all he got was an infraction (a very dim amber light, think before you post and be a bit more careful than you were), his reaction to it was OTT.

I get your point that "mentioning" things can "inflame" things which in turn leads to "discuss things in inappropriate places". But I would argue that those that get inflamed would be the transgressors more than the one who simply mentions it.

But since doping is stuck to pro-cycling with more suckers than an octopus in heat, with highly relevant facts and news stories breaking constantly for just about all flagship riders that are frequently discussed, I would like a clarification, even if I do accept that a "watertight rule" is impossible to give.

Is there something like this grey area "mention/discuss" divide, or are you guys steering closer to a 100% no-mention attitude? I hope the former, although I accept that moderation will be harder and thus you'll get it wrong at times, a bit overzealous, or "underzealous" on other occasions. Arguably, like here maybe.

But 100% no-mention just feels weird and wrong, to be frank. Yes, I get fed up reading the same poster making yet another one-liner nudge-nudge wink-wink post. To me they are indeed transgressing, because of repetition (flooding the same message). Clamp down on those by all means.

But at the other end of the scale, there are posters who make more elaborate cases for their pov, don't have a bait-post track record, and, I'd argue, occasionally actually need to mention doping to make a point, or wider point. Or simply counter a he-is-so-wonderful post by reminding that poster what three letter wonder is connected with that "he-who-is".

Sorry, long ramble, but I would appreciate another look at the "banned" tagm and the mods pov on

What is the difference between mentioning doping and discussing doping for moderation purposes, outside the clinic, if any?


Hope I made clear why.

 

[auscyclefan94]

You got an infraction - for being abusive, which you admitted to.

Your difficulty was that you went on a crusade that you were unable to back up which made a bigger deal out of it then was necessary.

The difference with Dim/TSF was he is banned - and while I though it a little heavy handed there is a an important point here.

Yes, Dim is one of the best posters here (& sounds like a lovely chap) but postcount or personality should not dictate application of the rules.
If 'leeway' was to be allowed it should favor newer members that are not acquainted to the forum - not posters that should know better.

We all know the rules and we are ultimately guests of CN or Future etc. The mods do let a lot go - which is what makes this a great forum - but it is us, the posters that need to abide by these rules. Dim, did (&has admitted) to going off which was unnecessary - but he should not have made his frustration in public and I believe the 'penalty' is fair..... he will be back for the Alps, unlike Wiggins (Sorry Dim)

If it was I who did that I doubt I would of got the support. People have complained that I started this therad but it has definetly caused some great discussion

 

[180mmCrank]

Thanks for the feedback

For me I try to be reasonable and not be too b/w about these things. I don't always get it right. I try to be respectful and only ask the same in return.

In terms of being consistent folk need to understand that we can't read every post. Most of us are volunteers. I probably read about a third to a half of what gets posted. So much like a traffic cop I can only moderate the posts I read or those that get flagged by users. We get about 20 (non bpc!) flags a day and all of these get addressed. So if you see something that needs attention please flag it (thanks to those that do). Secondly it's not too difficult for any of you to go looking for posts that 'break the rules' - much like sitting on the side of the freeway spotting cars speeding - and then say we are inconsistent.

The point about banning and temp banning is well made. The software is not configured to work in that way right now. I will pass on the comment.

As I say always happy to discuss although I'd rather be discussing cycling!

Cheers

Terry

 

[pedaling squares]

The mods are doing a very reasonable job considering the volume of crap that litters this site. The clamp down on forum etiquette is a good idea although I too think dim's original "doping" comment was pretty vanilla. dim does a lot for this forum (I thank him for the fantasy team thread - should be a sticky) and I look forward to having him back, but I can hardly blame the mods for sending him off to the woodshed for telling a mod to "**** right off". If it's temporary it's just. Let's give the mods some credit for doing what they can to reduce trolls, attract people who can add to the debate, and for generally trying to keep this gong show from exploding.

 

[Francois the Postman]

If it was I who did that I doubt I would of got the support.

Just checking, With "you", you mean the type of poster who can be involved in two massive bust-ups over off-topic posting sport results earlier this year and then played all cute and innocent when you willingly decided to spoil people's Wimbledon pleasure yesterday? "Oh, it wasn't me then, I so didn't know, this is my first time, if only I had known, it just happened to slip out all innocently, unprompted".

There are only two options here. You are not able to process simple experiences you participate in, or you set out to troll yesterday and the "oh woe me" was an added bonus for effect. Take your pick.

And with "dim" you mean the guy who has great constructive and time consuming input on and off-site (and is maybe a bit too highly strung for his own good at times and takes things too personal).

(If "we" do: ) Curious how we care a lot less about you and more about dim, isn't it? So unfair. It can't possibly have reasons, can it?

Want us to care equally: become a more considerate and even-handed poster. Simple.

People have complained that I started this therad but it has definetly caused some great discussion

If this thread has triggered some valuable feedback to mods, it is mainly because people are ignoring your "look at poor me" whining and deal with the moderation "issues" at hand, despite your involvement.

If anything, it also shows that posting attitude can create valuable content by sidestepping the trolling and private whines and focusing on the genuine topic. It can be done.

I said early on you had a point on your OP. I also stated that you hid it underneath a ton of mute and poor ones. If people complained about something about you in this thread, it is the indulgent sulking and whining on your part, whilst admitting guilt.

Now you try to make dim's "ban" about you too. In case you missed it, moderation still isn't about you.

Come to think of it, instead of your "I wouldn't get away with this" post: putting two posts from yesterday next to each other, I know, to me, which one was more deserving of a week in the sin-bin. And it was dim who got it, not you by the look of things. "I got away with it and dim didn't for something less clear-cut" would have been a more accurate way to read yesterday. Not surprised you took the opposite reading.

I would take that as (yet another) cue to stop aiming for the leader's jersey in the Grand Tour de Sulk. I think you got away with one yesterday, so please stop whining about the times when you admit you were wrong, and didn't.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Yes, I am complaining about my treatment and you may see that as sooking but I found it surprising that when Dim had a ***** about Moderators that everyone stuck up for him.

 

[Francois the Postman]

For me I try to be reasonable and not be too b/w about these things. I don't always get it right. I try to be respectful and only ask the same in return.

I think I get that Terry, and I think most if us here do, and appreciate it. As I said, you can remind me of this line when I consider myself on the wrong end of the "fair" stick, rightly or wrongly.

You didn't say much about the difference between mentioning doping and discussing doping in the pro-cycling thread. If there is one. I can think of many a post in which I have mentioned doping, and (to me) dim's post fell very much on the side of what I assumed was "tolerable". It looks like it was (flagged?) and judged otherwise.

Now a joke can arguably be avoided without losing a valuable point in a discussion, but not all dope comments can (or should?).

So is there a line between mentioning and discussing in the pro-cycling (I accept it isn't easy to define), or should every mention of dope be reserved for the clinic?

If the bar is set at dim's comment, it suggests to me that you create a field in which we (just about) all should get infractions, or in which people will judge them to be highly inconsistent (and thus unfair) when they are handed out (at that level).

 

[Francois the Postman]

Yes, I am complaining about my treatment and you may see that as sooking but I found it surprising that when Dim had a ***** about Moderators that everyone stuck up for him.

I accept you don't see a difference, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

You also might want to stop using abolutes when they are inappropriate. Like "everyone stuck up for him". I can see a couple of posters tops, and several posters also state quite clearly that dim deserved his ban (mine included) when it was clear what the ban was for - the insult.

I keep getting the impression you read greys as black-and-white as it suits you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, I am complaining about my treatment and you may see that as sooking but I found it surprising that when Dim had a ***** about Moderators that everyone stuck up for him.

Of course no-one stuck up for him in regards to the highlighted above.

There is a (valid) question over Dims previous remarks - as to whether it warranted sanction - but as has been explained a PM was sent and it was Dims public comments that got the ban.

To be fair to you at least when you received a sanction you went a better way about it then Dim.

Again - you got a slap on the wrist for something that you admit to.

 

[Ferminal]

One of the golden rules of moderating is not to let your pride get in the way. Taking a bit of flak is part of the job. If someone has a go at you in private you just have to take it on the chin and laugh it off.

Directly "flaming" moderators in public isn't very acceptable though. Punishment is justified in this case I believe - there needs to be some sort of respect for the public image of moderators.

I'm not sure what happened here though, it seems like a bit of a throwaway line. There probably needs to be a better balance in the penalties. A non-contributor can flame people in many consequtive posts and not serve a 7 day suspension, but one of the top contributors to the forum gets suspended for a one liner.

 

[boredone]

A couple of questions and then Im off on holiday.

Firstly, is there any difference between insulting a mod and insulting a regular forum poster? I dont believe, mods should not get any special privileges, Insulting a mod should be treated no differently to insulting another member. So can I assume that all members calling another member anything equal to or worse than a sarcastic ***, will receive a ban. Secondly I would point out that there is no way of telling if someone said the F word, P work, or anything else prior to "off", i fact sometimes i type "*****" where the swear word would be. But anyway, is swearing or insulting a mod considered a worse offence than treating another member in that way, if so why, and if not can we expect to see anyone who insults another member banned (i shall certainly be reporting everybody who insults another member and expect them to be dealt with)

Secondly. Alpe, if you wish to ban me permentantly for setting a second account up, do so (or try to do so). Personally I just wanted to defend myself and speak up for myself, having not been given that right prior to my ban having received no warning it would happen. I enjoy being part of this forum, and being banned (for what i initially thought was a much longer period) in the first week of the tour I took as a complete kick in the teeth and am/was willing to risk a further ban to bring some of the inconsistencies and what i believe was overreaction to light.

Thirdly, would the mods like to publish a clear list of guidelines for members explaining what Infractions are, what warnings are, the various levels of warning and procedures that happen and what sort of things can lead to immediate bans.
They might also like to put together a list of what sort of things lead to an immediate ban without warning, as if i had known calling a moderator a sarcastic **** would lead to a ban i obviously wouldnt have done it. You cant tell people off for not following the rules for not knowing what the rules are. Did anyone else here now that calling a moderator a name resulted in a ban. By putting out a list users would know that mods were using consistency. I dont think for instance that Moderator X would have banned someone for calling him a name without talking to him first.

Fourthly - a seven day ban..? when i logged on it said to me I was banned until november. and thats the impression i was under (6 months ish) - you guys seriously need to learn how to write dates properly!

Fifthly - i do not and never expected my ban overturned. One thing mods do have to have is credibility. Overturning or going back on a users ban negates that.

See you guys after the tour (maybe before). If anyone is going to paris and fancies a beer go to tsf and look at the meetups thread. Theres directions there to the pub I will be in.

xx

 

[Ferminal]

Dim, you realise BPC is going to hold this one against you.

"TeamSkyFans admitted to making an account after he was banned and yet is still allowed here, moderators are selective in their actions".