Moderators

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Honorable Bicing speaks the truth

down with mods

BRING BACK DAOTEC

 

[The Hitch]

~~ *^*^ FREE DAOTEC *^*^*^ ~~

Ha, nice

DAOTEC want Libertad.

Its for those moments, the messed up language, the wild predictions presented as truth, the emoticons, and of course the coverage of lesser races like Tour of Bulgaria, that DAOTEC would be worth having in the off season.

But absolutely nothing about his character suggests he would be capable of writing a coherent pm to the mods if he wanted to, yet alone, get the idea to do so, so it looks like DAOTEC wont be coming back.

 

[ChrisE]

Susan,

I apparently did not read my warnings, and I woke up the next day and was banned. My apologies for missing the first warning; if I would have read it I would have asked what the problem was because the quoted offending post says "edited by mod". Can you please elaborate on what I did to get the first warning?

Also, my second warning was deemed "offensive" by you for tying the Olsen twins into FL and Levi, which I thought was pretty creative. I know we have all discussed this before, but I can go find in no time at all things written much worse than that about LA; in fact his mother has been brought into the discussion as being a psycho, but of course that slides. I know you have no explanation for that, and me writing about the incestuous soap opera of this whole LA thing is soooooo offensive.

BTW, there is some clown named rickshaw on the NFL thread saying my post is idiotic and I am a door-knob, and for me to get back under my bridge. I think that is pretty funny and would like to engage this individual, so I would like to know the parameters I can respond within. Can I insult him back? Can I post some responses I have been thinking about here in the mod thread, for vetting before I respond to rickshaw?

 

[jens_attacks]

DAOTEC can be followed on the 2cycle.be forum, his username there is Spanglish and he provides a lot of entertainment for the whole forum posting incomprehensible nonsense, pictures and links in three or more languages, mostly about the Clasico RCN (for those who didn't know DAOTEC: this is a classic DAOTEC thread, in which he mostly interacts with himself) and about doping. Frankly, I don't think he wants to return here.

oh i miss those.someone should tell him to come back.
anyway nice to know the legend is alive and kicking.


freedom for DAOTEC and honourable ezequiel mosquera!::

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Can I insult him back? Can I post some responses I have been thinking about here in the mod thread, for vetting before I respond to rickshaw?

No.

Susan

 

[Anonymous]

DAOTEC can be followed on the 2cycle.be forum, his username there is Spanglish and he provides a lot of entertainment for the whole forum posting incomprehensible nonsense, pictures and links in three or more languages, mostly about the Clasico RCN (for those who didn't know DAOTEC: this is a classic DAOTEC thread, in which he mostly interacts with himself) and about doping. Frankly, I don't think he wants to return here.

well that was fun.. i actually understood the belgians more than i understood daotec.

See hes still providing exclusive transfer news

 

[Luke Schmid]

I am sorry for my outburst, I am surprised I can still post, I did it to get banned. I wanted to hurt myself by depriving myself of something I enjoy, I was angry with myself. It had nothing to do with the person it was written towards, I did not mean any of it.

 

[ramjambunath]

How far out of line was the edited post in the free form thread? I'm not trying to protest the editing of it, but merely trying to set a self reference for future posts which may be borderline.

I did read the rules of the general section of the forum and I don't think I broke any written rule but maybe the parts constituting common sense (comparatively a subjective matter) and wouldn't want to offend anyone else's sensibilities again.

Cheers.

 

[krebs303]

How far out of line was the edited post in the free form thread? I'm not trying to protest the editing of it, but merely trying to set a self reference for future posts which may be borderline.

I did read the rules of the general section of the forum and I don't think I broke any written rule but maybe the parts constituting common sense (comparatively a subjective matter) and wouldn't want to offend anyone else's sensibilities again.

Cheers.

I saw your posts this morning and don't recall anything out of line. But I probably am not the best judge.

 

[ramjambunath]

I saw your posts this morning and don't recall anything out of line. But I probably am not the best judge.

I didn't think it offensive either, if I did I wouldn't have posted it. I've done that quite a few times but not all users have the same threshold, hence I asked the question.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I will answer you in a PM, as I do not wish to discuss deleted material publicly.


Susan

 

[krebs303]

ok I remember. It seemed more stupid than offensive to me. judgement call on the mods part I guess I'm hard to offend

 

[ramjambunath]

Anyway, issue resolved. I have no qualms about the editing and requested a guideline which Susan promptly gave, for which I thank her, and will avoid subjects likely to be perceived as offensive.

 

[gregod]

what was it!?!?

susan, would it be OK if ramjam posted a link instead of the picture?

</curiosity piqued>

 

[krebs303]

what was it!?!?

susan, would it be OK if ramjam posted a link instead of the picture?

</curiosity piqued>

PM me and I'll send you the link

 

[ChrisE]

what was it!?!?

susan, would it be OK if ramjam posted a link instead of the picture?

</curiosity piqued>

I'm sure it was galactically traumatic and offensive.

 

[gregod]

where did my post go? i could have sworn i posted a question to susan. if not, here goes: susan, is it OK for ramjam to post the link instead of the picture? also, why did you communicate the posting guideline to ramjam via PM? wouldn't it be better for a posting guideline to be open to all to see so others can avoid violating your policy?

cheers.

 

[ramjambunath]

where did my post go? i could have sworn i posted a question to susan. if not, here goes: susan, is it OK for ramjam to post the link instead of the picture? also, why did you communicate the posting guideline to ramjam via PM? wouldn't it be better for a posting guideline to be open to all to see so others can avoid violating your policy?

cheers.

It was an article I quoted, but the question's interesting. What if someone posts just a link and warns users/ lurkers that it may be slightly offensive, would the same sensibilities apply? Just a bee in the bonnet.

 

[ElChingon]

where did my post go? i could have sworn i posted a question to susan. if not, here goes: susan, is it OK for ramjam to post the link instead of the picture? also, why did you communicate the posting guideline to ramjam via PM? wouldn't it be better for a posting guideline to be open to all to see so others can avoid violating your policy?

cheers.

I may not be her, but from past history it depends if you have a warning (about the post not your account but that may factor in as well). When you post anywhere is read by the super thick skinned you'll never have a post removed, if its read by the onion skinned, it will be removed. Again, based on past history of my readings, not what the Mod Thread (not the one we can see) says. I won't go into the forum stalker issue... they also factor in.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Ignoring what was deleted, as I don't haven't looked into that...

Susan made a post that we -on the whole- don't discuss or show what was deleted for the very obvious and circular reason that it is deleted because it was deemed not suitable here.

The voyeur in all of us gets curious, I get that.

But "what did I miss, tell me!" posts have no place here too, all the more after a mod pretty much explains you why before you ask the question. If you need to, surely you can find a PM route that keeps it away from derailing this thread? all the more when the person involves calls it "case closed".

I deleted a sequence for that reason. Off-topic and inappropriate. I tend to email people when I do that, so at least they know it is gone. Tonight I have been in a chain of PMs about other stuff, so I hadn't got round to that yet.

Sorry for the confusion caused.

Yours onion-skinned one,

Francois

 

[gregod]

Ignoring what was deleted, as I don't haven't looked into that...

Susan made a post that we don't discuss what was deleted for the very obvious reason that it is deleted because it was deemed not suitable here.

The voyeur in all of us gets curious, I get that.

But "what did I miss, tell me!" posts have no place here too, all the more after a mod pretty much explains you why before you ask the question. If you need to, surely you can find a PM route that keeps it away from derailing this thread? all the more when the person involves calls it "case closed".

I deleted a sequence for that reason. Off-topic and inappropriate. I tend to email people when I do that, so at least they know it is gone. Tonight I have been in a chain of PMs about other stuff, so I hadn't got round to that yet.

Sorry for the confusion caused.

Yours union-skinned one,

Francois

i get that that, but my deleted post included a serious question to the moderator about linking to the original post. isn't that germane to the "moderators" thread?

[edit] i didn't see any explanation. there was a note to ramjam saying he would be PMed with an explanation.

 

[Francois the Postman]

where did my post go? i could have sworn i posted a question to susan. if not, here goes: susan, is it OK for ramjam to post the link instead of the picture? also, why did you communicate the posting guideline to ramjam via PM? wouldn't it be better for a posting guideline to be open to all to see so others can avoid violating your policy?

cheers.

Posting a link in public? Based on past experiences: depends, use your head.

To stuff that we do not tolerate here in any form or shape and would mean instant strike or ban: no.

To stuff that might be a bit in your face and would probably be removed as too explicit or graphic for your office or workplace environment (a description and attitude I dislike, but probably clarifies the type of content) and with an appropriate warning: probably yes.

It is impossible to spell out exactly what is in and out: use your head.

material, intent, and consideration shown will all impact on how we deal with it, if at all.

 

[Francois the Postman]

i get that that, but my deleted post included a serious question to the moderator about linking to the original post. isn't that germane to the "moderators" thread?

Sorry, but busy, and obviously incapable of splitting the bit you should have left out with the bit that you should be able to guess the answer to

In all seriousness, sorry, missed that bit, hence my answer just above here when I realised something had gone that shouldn't have.

 

[gregod]

Posting a link in public? Based on past experiences: depends, use your head.

To stuff that we do not tolerate here in any form or shape and would mean instant strike or ban: no.

To stuff that might be a bit in your face and would probably be removed as too explicit or graphic for your office or workplace environment (a description and attitude I dislike, but probably clarifies the type of content) and with an appropriate warning: probably yes.

It is impossible to spell out exactly what is in and out: use your head.

material, intent, and consideration shown will all impact on how we deal with it, if at all.

i know you are busy, but i am unclear about the bolded statements. i am guessing, but i think you mean linking to porn = ban; linking to stuff that talks about sexual content on a news site (with appropriate warning) = probably OK.

is this correct? if so, how about this situation: it has been made known that poking fun at religion is verboten. would linking to this kind of material with appropriate warning be permitted?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Off the top of my head and after only one cup of coffee so far this morning, I would say no, also no links. That is still associating the forum with the questionable material, and there would be a good chance that some other user might post, "Wow! Did you see xxxxxx?????!!!???"

If you absolutely must share such links, then via PM or email.

Susan