Moderators

[Anonymous]

You want to say I have turned many threads into toxic waste dumps fine.

The "Lance PeePee" thread and the "Lance Lies" Thread and the "Livestrong Thread" and the "Official Lance Thread" and sooo many others are toxic because of me. The hookers and blow and jetfuel and bribes and adultery and sprinklers and corn nuggets and this and that were all fine until I made them toxic. Fine.

You realize that the Mods Job would be much EASIER if they banned me. Their job became easier after they banned poor old flicker.
The Mods are NOT taking the path of least resistance you know.

And it is going to get worse when more and more people realize that the indictments and jail time and jail boyfriends are not forthcoming.

Anger City. The Clinic will not be pretty.

If I do get a perma ban someday, I would understand why the Mods did it.
Sorry, Mods, for the crap you have to put up with because of my posts.

I love it! Susan deleted the part of my post about the strip club, but left yours up. When I wrote it, I knew she'd do that. I think in the back of my mind, it was a troll for her even more than one for you.

You don't have any worries. Susan is defending your free speech to the point of personal hypocrisy. But she's cool with hypocrisy obviously, so that fact will not affect her in the slightest.

Party on Garth.

 

[ElChingon]

There needs to be a post count level before people can post in the Clinic. This would be a start to the low level new account flame post chaos.

Then, if you have a post count of 1000 you shouldn't be replying to a user with 10 or less posts, otherwise you're just fueling the fire and well should be banned for falling into the known trap.

But really mods limit the clinic to some post count or greater otherwise you will continue to have to deal with the pot shot posters who cause this mayhem.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I love it! Susan deleted the part of my post about the strip club, but left yours up. When I wrote it, I knew she'd do that. I think in the back of my mind, it was a troll for her even more than one for you.

You don't have any worries. Susan is defending your free speech to the point of personal hypocrisy. But she's cool with hypocrisy obviously, so that fact will not affect her in the slightest.

Party on Garth.

It was not the mention of the strip club that was offensive. It was the details you provided, which were not only offensive but off topic.

Susan

 

[Anonymous]

It was not the mention of the strip club that was offensive. It was the details you provided, which were not only offensive but off topic.

Susan

Oh...really...that was the reason...

 

[spetsa]

I love it! Susan deleted the part of my post about the strip club, but left yours up. When I wrote it, I knew she'd do that. I think in the back of my mind, it was a troll for her even more than one for you.

You don't have any worries. Susan is defending your free speech to the point of personal hypocrisy. But she's cool with hypocrisy obviously, so that fact will not affect her in the slightest.

Party on Garth.

This seems like a perfect opportunity for the moderators to collectively make a statement in regards to the issue of free speech. Seems to me that I recall being on the recieving end of a PM from a certain long winded mod that so eloquently and kindly explained to me in a 4000 word diatribe that my perception of freedom of speech was not applicable to a "private forum". Fair enough. Which way is it? Please do tell, because if I was "punished" unfairly by Susan's proclaimed standards, I would like and apology. If I was "punished" rightfully, Susan...you look pretty foolish..................

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This seems like a perfect opportunity for the moderators to collectively make a statement in regards to the issue of free speech. Seems to me that I recall being on the recieving end of a PM from a certain long winded mod that so eloquently and kindly explained to me in a 4000 word diatribe that my perception of freedom of speech was not applicable to a "private forum". Fair enough. Which way is it? Please do tell, because if I was "punished" unfairly by Susan's proclaimed standards, I would like and apology. If I was "punished" rightfully, Susan...you look pretty foolish..................

Sorry, you complain about receiving a 4,000 word diatribe ... yet want clarification on Free Speech?

 

[BroDeal]

Sorry, you complain about receiving a 4,000 word diatribe ... yet want clarification on Free Speech?

Messages are usually better understood when they are a concise paragraph rather than a rambling challenge to the length of War and Peace.

 

[pedaling squares]

Free speech is referenced in the Future Pub Terms and Conditions (5.l), only so far as to state that users agree not to, in the interests of free speech, bring any action for defamation against Future Pub.

 

[spetsa]

Sorry, you complain about receiving a 4,000 word diatribe ... yet want clarification on Free Speech?

Not even close, to complain is selfish. Merely a statement of fact. I would link it for you, but.............

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Messages are usually better understood when they are a concise paragraph rather than a rambling challenge to the length of War and Peace.

They are indeed, but in the interests of Free Speech, surely there should be no limit to what someone writes.

 

[spetsa]

They are indeed, but in the interests of Free Speech, surely there should be no limit to what someone writes.

Thank you. My exact argument to him. Got me nowhere.

 

[pedaling squares]

Doc, I don't believe that was the main point of spetsa's post. Seemed to me he was just taking a shot at the mod for the lengthy message. The point seems to be the debate about whether free speech is restricted on a private forum or if it is protected, and spetsa has highlighted some potential differences of opinion on that topic.

 

[BroDeal]

I would be willing to bet that the number of unique views per day of certain threads in the Clinic have dropped through the floor. It seems to me that the major goal of the CN forum should be to increase the number of unique views. I stopped reading those threads on a regular basis because it is not worth the time. I'll bet the many have done the same.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doc, I don't believe that was the main point of spetsa's post. Seemed to me he was just taking a shot at the mod for the lengthy message. The point seems to be the debate about whether free speech is restricted on a private forum or if it is protected, and spetsa has highlighted some potential differences of opinion on that topic.

He was - and I pointed out that if your all for free speech then highlighting the length of a reply is hypocrisy.

I don't see any problem with Free Speech - people are allowed post on effectively every topic here. There are some simple rules as to where to post - general housekeeping that stops every thread being polluted - which is prudent.

People appear to confuse offensive or inappropriate posts that lead to trolling to some sort of restriction on their Free Speech, it isn't.

 

[spetsa]

He was - and I pointed out that if your all for free speech then highlighting the length of a reply is hypocrisy.

I don't see any problem with Free Speech - people are allowed post on effectively every topic here. There are some simple rules as to where to post - general housekeeping that stops every thread being polluted - which is prudent.

People appear to confuse offensive or inappropriate posts that lead to trolling to some sort of restriction on their Free Speech, it isn't.

Highlight? In my non distorted perception of reality, what I did was describe something, using words like kindly and eloquently. Go pick afight with someone else. I would bet that Bro Deal is spot on in regards to his analysis of this forum and it's current and potentially future users.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Highlight? In my non distorted perception of reality, what I did was describe something, using words like kindly and eloquently. Go pick afight with someone else. I would bet that Bro Deal is spot on in regards to his analysis of this forum and it's current and potentially future users.

Indeed, I am sure BroDeal is correct, but that is a moderating issue on trolling, not a Free Speech issue.

 

[Anonymous]

Indeed, I am sure BroDeal is correct, but that is a moderating issue on trolling, not a Free Speech issue.

The "free speech" thing is a commentary on a post by Susan which used the term to defend an obvious troll who has since had his posts deleted, as was the Susan "free speech" post. She claimed it was a "free speech" issue to allow his off-topic personal attack by an obvious troll, which is why it continues to be brought up. When I read her comment, I didn't know whether to laugh till I threw up, or throw something at the wall. The level of cluelessness it took to write that was something to behold. I just couldn't decide how to behold it.

But Susan raised the issue, not spetsa.

 

[Francois the Postman]

It is simple.

People are free to post here genuine opinions as long as they follow forum rules. CN and mods still have the right to remove anything posted, even if it follows all rules (and how well-judged the interventions are will probably affect the long-term success of the forum).

New posters can post, and are welcome too.

Even if the points raised have been posted before, regurgitated, chewed out, and consumed again. Even if they are factually incorrect, ill informed, products of cycling brainwashing, "daft" in the eyes of others, or indeed "daft but genuine", or spell colour without a "u". Even when they are disabled or dysfunctional to some degree, but are keen to participate, and willing to adjust to instructions or reasonable requests when they overstep lines we don't tolerate from others that easily (especially then, it makes us all a better community for making room for that too, within reason).

We are big enough to deal with all of these genuine cycling fans, new and old. And we, in all likelihood, have that broad mix of people here.

So, not so much "free speech" in a US constitution context, but welcome and "free to speak here", from a CN policy point of view.

TFF was arguing that certain posts that did not meet his standards of "additional worth" should not be allowed to be posted, and Susan said they were, and used the words "free speech" in that context.

That is then used by some here to drag this whole free speech thing up again, although we have been through this with most of you over and over, and you all know there is no such things as US Constitutional Free Speech here on this forum.

Just as well no-one on the mod-side is objecting to posters not being able to raise issues tackled, even in this thread, at length.

I can add more, but it seems not needed, or confusing, to some.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The "free speech" thing is a commentary on a post by Susan which used the term to defend an obvious troll who has since had his posts deleted, as was the Susan "free speech" post. She claimed it was a "free speech" issue to allow his off-topic personal attack by an obvious troll, which is why it continues to be brought up. When I read her comment, I didn't know whether to laugh till I threw up, or throw something at the wall. The level of cluelessness it took to write that was something to behold. I just couldn't decide how to behold it.

But Susan raised the issue, not spetsa.

I thought this had originally to do with Louison (sp) and their posts? Their posts are still there however I may have missed some posts that were deleted (by them or others).

The comment I read by Susan appeared to be consistent, you can write about any subject or hold any opinion - thats the way it should be.
However if someone is trolling then that should be moderated.

 

[Francois the Postman]

In the trolling context:

Posters (old and new), who are posting to get a rise out of people (trolling) will be dealt with as such. Folk, in that case, are not posting an "opinion" but a "disruption". Especially with new posters, if it is the former or the latter is hard to judge. Some think it is obvious, but without fail, they have been wrong from time to time too. That why we check thoroughly, and with more tools, have more data to form an opinion around.

Who is and isn't a troll, or breaking forum rules, and what repercussions follow (if any), and when, is for the mods to decide. Partly because mods have more tools to look into claims, and have frequently found genuine posters at the end of a lot of aggression because a few were utterly convinced they could only be a troll, partly because posters who start to police the forum aggressively are adding to the disruption, partly because engaging a troll in an aggressive way makes our job of deciding who is and isn't at roll much harder.

Posters who bully new users because they have posted an opinion that has been posted before, and that is polite, are as likely to be treated as a trolling party.

If we have a troll and everyone ignored them they have no fun, and we keep clean(er) threads. If we have a genuine user they will be finding their way around soon enough, and welcoming people nudging them in the right direction will help a lot.

If we have a genuine troll, and no-one responds, the only way they can have fun is by nudging the volume up a level, throwing bigger hooks. Unprovoked, they are much much easier to spot that way.

If people target people on "their posting style", or question their "intent", the ONLY possible route is that we keep ending up discussing EVERYONE'S posting habits and forum popularity in that thread.

There are tools in place here to alert mods to the existence of a suspected troll. Mods will look at it closely, and form an opinion, and monitor the situation too. Just because people don't see an immediate visual change, doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of activity behind the scenes.

If mods are guilty of one thing, it might be that we want to be sure that we don't turf genuine posters off the forum, just to please a few, or make our lives easier. This might mean that a "probable" troll remains a wee bit longer than ideal. It is the price of thoroughness and valuing the presence of genuine newcomers. Surely our forum can handle the odd troll for an extra day or so, especially if those who are so sure don't provide endless oxygen.

We do pull our hairs out at the endless replies to an "obvious" troll that some regulars keep making. Some only play the sort of game that keeps a troll scoring hit after hit, by engaging them, every time they are confronted "in a big way". Also increasing the likelihood they will want to come back, as this is a pond with fish who love to bite.

Ignore, report, ignore some more.

If you have a genuine opinion, on topic, and keen to share: post away - but please read a thread to see if it has been dealt with already by others, before you, within reason.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In the trolling context:

Posters (old and new), who are posting to get a rise out of people (trolling) will be dealt with as such. Folk, in that case, are not posting an "opinion" but a "disruption". Especially with new posters, if it is the former or the latter is hard to judge. Some think it is obvious, but without fail, they have been wrong from time to time too. That why we check thoroughly, and with more tools, have more data to form an opinion around.

Who is and isn't a troll, or breaking forum rules, and what repercussions follow (if any), and when, is for the mods to decide. Partly because mods have more tools to look into claims, and have frequently found genuine posters at the end of a lot of aggression because a few were utterly convinced they could only be a troll, partly because posters who start to police the forum aggressively are adding to the disruption, partly because engaging a troll in an aggressive way makes our job of deciding who is and isn't at roll much harder.

Posters who bully new users because they have posted an opinion that has been posted before, and that is polite, are as likely to be treated as a trolling party.

If we have a troll and everyone ignored them they have no fun, and we keep clean(er) threads. If we have a genuine user they will be finding their way around soon enough, and welcoming people nudging them in the right direction will help a lot.

If we have a genuine troll, and no-one responds, the only way they can have fun is by nudging the volume up a level, throwing bigger hooks. Unprovoked, they are much much easier to spot that way.

If people target people on "their posting style", or question their "intent", the ONLY possible route is that we keep ending up discussing EVERYONE'S posting habits and forum popularity in that thread.

There are tools in place here to alert mods to the existence of a suspected troll. Mods will look at it closely, and form an opinion, and monitor the situation too. Just because people don't see an immediate visual change, doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of activity behind the scenes.

If mods are guilty of one thing, it might be that we want to be sure that we don't turf genuine posters off the forum, just to please a few, or make our lives easier. This might mean that a "probable" troll remains a wee bit longer than ideal. It is the price of thoroughness and valuing the presence of genuine newcomers. Surely our forum can handle the odd troll for an extra day or so, especially if those who are so sure don't provide endless oxygen.

We do pull our hairs out at the endless replies to an "obvious" troll that some regulars keep making. Some only play the sort of game that keeps a troll scoring hit after hit, by engaging them, every time they are confronted "in a big way". Also increasing the likelihood they will want to come back, as this is a pond with fish who love to bite.

Ignore, report, ignore some more.

If you have a genuine opinion, on topic, and keen to share: post away - but please read a thread to see if it has been dealt with already by others, before you, within reason.

The highlighted gets to the heart of the matter - lets be frank and honest here, that is not happening.

It has nothing to do with new posters, or anyones post count. If someone trolls that post should be dealt with (removed, edited etc), but if it remains then it should be allowed addressed.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I would be willing to bet that the number of unique views per day of certain threads in the Clinic have dropped through the floor. It seems to me that the major goal of the CN forum should be to increase the number of unique views. I stopped reading those threads on a regular basis because it is not worth the time. I'll bet the many have done the same.

I have long been an advocate of restricting new users to x-posts per day until y posts are reached, but the forum ain't set up that way, and it looks like we have to look for alternatives house, even less-ideal.

Several suggestions have been offered to work around that, to make threads very readable on and-topic, despite placing a huge burden on the volunteer mods. It was still offered as an offer to those that want that thread to be to your liking, but heavy "moderation" along these lines in a new thread also seems unacceptable.

The only one acceptable to some on the forum appears to be a restriction on some users to participate, or mods shooting down the moment some are sure we have another troll (despite having been wrong in the past, some more regularly than others).

Susan indicated that that was unacceptable, people are as free to participate, as reasonable on-topic and with a similar degree of leniency as everyone else gets from time to time.

There is a 2nd reason why the thread probably isn't as busy as usual, the new developments can be written on the back on an envelope, so nearly all in there, at the moment, is regurgitation.

No-one seems to be objecting to endless regurgitation of topics that show Lance in a bad light, but have been made over and over too.

The thread is open to all.

 

[Francois the Postman]

The highlighted gets to the heart of the matter - lets be frank and honest here, that is not happening.

It has nothing to do with new posters, or anyones post count. If someone trolls that post should be dealt with (removed, edited etc), but if it remains then it should be allowed addressed.

The moment people are willing to pay for 24/7 moderation, and each and every post is screened before "public release", that's the moment when a post has been approved, or allowed to remain. The few mods here are not always online, and hardly able to read each and ever post.

Some posts are probably best ignored, even if we let them stand. Trust the judgement of your fellow-posters to spot the poor opinion and ignore/dismiss it (unspoken), rather than counter it over 20+ posts (for hyperbole), just to make sure that no poor opinion remains "standing", just in case someone might take that as valid.

EVERYONE in this thread has been shown huge leniency time and time again. We'd like to keep it that way, but it requires those same people to accept that some people and posters are receiving similar leniency. And we have several arrangements with several posters that no-one needs to know anything about (as it will only be used against them). If they break them, they will find out. So even if it seems nothing is done, it rarely is like that, if ever, as every reported post is looked at by several mods.

In very complicated cases, ill-timed, it can take DAYS before mods have been able to look at something with care, and have exchanged views across time-lines. Some people, sometimes, even knowing that a mod is looking at it, find an hour more than enough before going full throttle.

I accept the internet is instant, which we don't lose sight of either. But moderation tools and staffing levels here don't allow us to be that responsive, alas.

 

[Francois the Postman]

One side-observation, I recently took 600+ posts in that thread, and weeded out a lot of stuff that added NIL to the discussion. It took me 8 hours. Not the time that any mod can give day in day out. A sizeable percentage was meaningless or breaking house rules.

I don't want to go back and count who contributed what, but the people who contributed to the bulk of the posts that are hidden were hardly on one side of the coin.

For the Lance thread in specific: When there ain't much happening, we tend to let a thread like that ramble on a bit, as it seems people are keen to hang out in it, usually the same ones, even if nothing is happening. The moment something substantial happens, our moderation of that thread makes sure that the rambling does not continue, and posts are MUCH more on topic than currently, when every informed reader knows there are probably only a handful of posters worth keeping an eye on, in that thread. A situation that can continue for a long time yet (or not). Which is what I do, to get my "news". I just ignore most, and focus on key posters - several of the ones here - to find if there is something worth reading. Speed-skimming works fine, to be honest.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The moment people are willing to pay for 24/7 moderation, and each and every post is screened before "public release", that's the moment when a post has been approved, or allowed to remain. The few mods here are not always online, and hardly able to read each and ever post.

Some posts are probably best ignored, even if we let them stand. Trust the judgement of your fellow-posters to spot the poor opinion and ignore/dismiss it (unspoken), rather than counter it over 20+ posts (for hyperbole), just to make sure that no poor opinion remains "standing", just in case someone might take that as valid.

EVERYONE in this thread has been shown huge leniency time and time again. We'd like to keep it that way, but it requires those same people to accept that some people and posters are receiving similar leniency. And we have several arrangements with several posters that no-one needs to know anything about (as it will only be used against them). If they break them, they will find out. So even if it seems nothing is done, it rarely is like that, if ever, as every reported post is looked at by several mods.

In very complicated cases, ill-timed, it can take DAYS before mods have been able to look at something with care, and have exchanged views across time-lines. Some people, sometimes, even knowing that a mod is looking at it, find an hour more than enough before going full throttle.

I accept the internet is instant, which we don't lose sight of either. But moderation tools and staffing levels here don't allow us to be that responsive, alas.

I accept all the arguments that the Mods are not here all the time and do no actively keep abreast with every thread - and I do understand that leeway (and common sense) is applied.

While that is appreciated what is not addressed is that the most blatant trolls use subtle trolling - it is easy to spot a "you suck" type personal post and swiftly deal with it.
But it is more difficult to spot (by posters and mods) when people just put in keywords or repeat issues to bait or inflame discussion.

I have stated this before (but I acknowledge it requires monitoring) - simple reminders periodically ij contentious threads to address posts not posters and to keep on topic would go a long way.
If posts do not adhere to that they get wiped - and the responses - pretty shortly people would report problem posts instead of engaging them.
Just my 2 cents.