Moderators

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes, this.

Also, why isn't foxxxxxy banned yet. His constant baiting and whining about "valv piti" and "clentadopucci" is super annoying. I guess calling Contador fans "hard-staring-AC-crybaby-schlecklets" (or something like that) isn't too nice either

Evidently, Coggan can post as he pleases. He comes in and insults people, people respond, and they are supposedly attacking him. He continues to respond, adding in little barbs, and referring not a single time to the topic of the thread, and that's totally cool I guess. Oh well, that's the way it goes sometimes.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

can we have a reason why you ask or even care?

and can i have a reason why the mods even need to respond to such a question? what happened to "non of your business"?
(edit: please note that i gave up my anonymity by writing to susan, so i feel a bit uncomfortable with the fact that you give such info so easily to a poster who really should have zero interest in knowing why i was unbanned.)

Why on earth would you think that your true identity was given out? I do seem to recall that your email was signed with a "real name," but have no idea what it was -- and to be frank, I don't really care about your real name or that of anyone else in the forum.

And to those who ask why his permanent ban was overturned: there have been many calls for allowing the perma-banned members back if they ask, and if the mods approve. So we do it and are directly criticized for it. More proof that you can't please everyone.

Susan

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Why on earth would you think that your true identity was given out? I do seem to recall that your email was signed with a "real name," but have no idea what it was -- and to be frank, I don't really care about your real name or that of anyone else in the forum.

And to those who ask why his permanent ban was overturned: there have been many calls for allowing the perma-banned members back if they ask, and if the mods approve. So we do it and are directly criticized for it. More proof that you can't please everyone.

Susan

I'm all for overturning perma-bans...except for BPC...so I think the decision was a good one. Heck, let Polish return!

 

[sniper]

Why on earth would you think that your true identity was given out? I do seem to recall that your email was signed with a "real name," but have no idea what it was -- and to be frank, I don't really care about your real name or that of anyone else in the forum.

And to those who ask why his permanent ban was overturned: there have been many calls for allowing the perma-banned members back if they ask, and if the mods approve. So we do it and are directly criticized for it. More proof that you can't please everyone.

Susan

nono, don't think you gave my emailaddress. of course not. my point was about the fact that froome191 asks a question about something that i think doesn't really concern him (it concerns the mods) and suddenly it's thrown out in the open that i wrote you an email. the mods c/should perhaps be more discrete with this kind of info, it was between me and the mods, i thought.

of course, posters have the right to know why other posters get banned, for instance to avoid getting banned themselves, or to express their disappointment with the ban.
but the reasons behind my UNbanning should, at least if i had anything to say about it, have remained confidential. (this is just my opinion. to be sure, it's not my intention to interfere with the moderating in any way.)

also, i never heard from the mods why i was banned.
a bit odd.
froome asks why i was unbanned and gets an immediate answer.

 

[sniper]

did we give away any info about your identity?

no, you didn't. I see my post was rather ambiguous in that respect, but i didn't want to imply that you had been diffusing my personal info or anything.
of course not.

my issue was with the fact that you were rather quick to tell froome that i wrote susan an email. that type of info feels sort of confidential, i guess. well, I'll stop about it, and stress again that i'm happy the ban was overturned.

 

[sniper]

i'm puzzled...........why ask about others bans if your sensitive to others knowing about why your permanent ban was overturned?

personally i can understand interest in why a permanent ban proved less than
'permanent'

Mark L

posters deserve to know why people get banned, so that they can avoid being banned themselves. obvious.
but why do posters deserve to know why somebody gets unbanned?
they don't, imo.
the interest we can all understand. but since when is being interested a reason to disclose discrete information?

 

[Ripper]

Coggan keeps going off topic in the Froome thread, and the only people who get banned are those who respond to him? That doesn't seem right.

Coggan is perm off topic. He has mastered an insidious form of trolling ... just enough to annoy, but with an 'out' so he is not really banable.

He does like to throw in those little barbs.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

can we have a reason why you ask or even care?

and can i have a reason why the mods even need to respond to such a question? what happened to "non of your business"?
(edit: please note that i gave up my anonymity by writing to susan, so i feel a bit uncomfortable with the fact that you give such info so easily to a poster who really should have zero interest in knowing why i was unbanned.)

Were you asked to give up your anonymity?
If not then you choose to - and if that bothers you, then that was a dumb thing of you to do.

When you were banned I asked why and received an immediate answer - you were banned for a week, and then set up another account during that time.
And people are perfectly entitled to ask why a perma ban was overturned.

Why on earth would you think that your true identity was given out? I do seem to recall that your email was signed with a "real name," but have no idea what it was -- and to be frank, I don't really care about your real name or that of anyone else in the forum.

And to those who ask why his permanent ban was overturned: there have been many calls for allowing the perma-banned members back if they ask, and if the mods approve. So we do it and are directly criticized for it. More proof that you can't please everyone.

Susan

You will never please everyone.
I didn't see anyone object to the reversal, just someone querying it.
I am against Perma bans. So it was good to reverse it.

 

[Granville57]

I'd like to propose a perm-ban to Chewbacca for suggesting the return of Polish.

 

[Netserk]

I'd like to propose a perm-ban to Chewbacca for suggesting the return of Polish.

That would set up an interesting procedure.

 

[Granville57]

nono, don't think you gave my emailaddress. of course not...

Fret not, my laser-scoped friend. I understood your post completely (not quite sure how the mods misinterpreted what you were saying).

 

[Granville57]

That would set up an interesting procedure.

Indeed. I would likely then launch a campaign for Chewie's return. Doing so would then likely aggravate the mods to the point of perm-banning ME! Then I'd have to wait silently in the wings for Dr. Maserati to convince you to allow me back. But then he might get banned in the process...

 

[Netserk]

Indeed. I would likely then launch a campaign for Chewie's return. Doing so would then likely aggravate the mods to the point of perm-banning ME! Then I'd have to wait silently in the wings for Dr. Maserati to convince you to allow me back. But then he might get banned in the process...

A banning-vortex?

 

[Granville57]

A banning-vortex?

LMAO!

OK, I take back everything I said about you previously in this thread.


(But only this thread!)

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

posters deserve to know why people get banned, so that they can avoid being banned themselves. obvious.
but why do posters deserve to know why somebody gets unbanned?
they don't, imo.
the interest we can all understand. but since when is being interested a reason to disclose discrete information?

Let it go, it was a slip of the tongue of a moderator.

Froome19 seems not to be the fastest guy on the interwebz, I have asked several times why sniper was banned and that it was silly when you compare his 'interwebz violations' with what that moron Jonese Pipp pulled on this board. If Froome19 had read that correctly he would know a moderator clearly answered that if sniper would bite the dust and beg Susan Westermeyer to be able to be on the forum again he would probably be allowed back.

Of course the bold is an 'overdrijving', google that you non - Dutch .

To conclude, Froome19 should read up, sniper must not overreact.

 

[sniper]

When you were banned I asked why and received an immediate answer - you were banned for a week, and then set up another account during that time.
And people are perfectly entitled to ask why a perma ban was overturned.

The second ban was obvious.

The first ban wasn't explained to me other than that I had supposedly ignored mods warnings.
It was in the JV thread. I had been criticizing JV, you had been defending him, but that was about it. No insults or language abuse (afair), just another day at the office. I do remember you got banned as well. Did you think that was correct?
The only mod warning i recall was something like 'stay on topic'. But since it was in the JV thread, i think we were on topic.

Out of curiosity, was JV ever banned or warned? His language abuse (and the mods' tolerance of it) has been second to none.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The second ban was obvious.

The first ban wasn't explained to me other than that I had supposedly ignored mods warnings.
It was in the JV thread. I had been criticizing JV, you had been defending him, but that was about it. No insults or language abuse (afair), just another day at the office. I do remember you got banned as well. Did you think that was correct?
The only mod warning i recall was something like 'stay on topic'. But since it was in the JV thread, i think we were on topic.

Out of curiosity, was JV ever banned or warned? His language abuse (and the mods' tolerance of it) has been second to none.

Which is (wait for it.....) an explanation.

As to JV - you get all bent out of shape because someone asks why you are unbanned, and yet you wonder why JV occasionally calls some clueless posters clueless, while accusing him of lying and running a dirty team?

You're a funny guy.

 

[Athame]

Fret not, my laser-scoped friend...

__________________ "Now evidently, my cycloptic colleague informs me that that can't be done."



Dr. Evil in, Austin Powers: International Man of Mysteries.

 

[Froome19]

Why on earth would you think that your true identity was given out? I do seem to recall that your email was signed with a "real name," but have no idea what it was -- and to be frank, I don't really care about your real name or that of anyone else in the forum.

And to those who ask why his permanent ban was overturned: there have been many calls for allowing the perma-banned members back if they ask, and if the mods approve. So we do it and are directly criticized for it. More proof that you can't please everyone.

Susan

Fair enough, thanks for the reply.

Unfortunately I do not follow this thread as closely as some so wouldn't know the reason as to why a permaban was overturned. This thread is filled with questions for the moderators about this and that aspect of the forum and I think that, that particular one was reasonable.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Ridiculous question for the mods/admins. When you suspect a previously banned user returning with a new ip/username do you look at patterns of how the user used to post?

 

[Boeing]

Ridiculous question for the mods/admins. When you suspect a previously banned user returning with a new ip/username do you look at patterns of how the user used to post?

I do and I'm no mod. That's how I outed bro deal

 

[ToreBear]

Could someone explain something to me.

I noted Mont Ventoux was banned(bannitrated as noted by Sittingbison). To me he seemed to be arguing against Froome being doping. Having been on this forum for some time I'm suspecting that he is a recurring account. But if I were new here, I might assume the reason he was banned was for arguing for Froome being clean. If my first assumption is correct, could perhaps the mods and in this case Sittingbison add a phrase like "Recurring account" or something to the post announcing the ban in the member suspension thread? It would only take a few more seconds of typing, but would be very clarifying for new and newish members(like me) on the reasons people are banned.


And what was this about acoggan not posting in the Froome thread Sittingbison was referring to in the froome thread. Is it because his posts elicit so much disagreement? Could this also be clarified?


Also, I'm a bit tired of the sceptics posting style. To me it seems that whenever there is a post he doesn't like or disagrees with he accuses the poster of being a troll, or of trolling or of being a sockpuppet. This kind of posting seems like a very negative posting style and does not contribute to a sensible discussion. I think it contributes to a crude and insulting discourse.

IIRC you are not supposed to accuse people of trolling(at least excessively). Now I usually read the threads some time after they have been posted since I like to take some time and think and look for alternate viewpoints before I visit the appropriate clinic thread, so I don't feel it appropriate to report posts deep in the thread. But of course I could start if the mods want it to be brought to their attention.

Now I tried using the search function for the sceptics posts containing troll or trolling, but I have not found a way to objectively support my impression. I'm not a computer wizard so I might not be doing it correctly. It could also be that my bias against destructive discourse and me finding the posts he replies to as sensible is misleading me into forming an erroneous opinion of his posting style. Then again, I'm quite good at separating and examining my own biases.


Caveat: I still haven't bothered finding out about what a troll or trolling is in the Internet context. My childhood and cultural upbringing seems to have too strong connections to the alternate meaning of the word troll. So my question is, could constantly accusing people you disagree with of trolling or being a troll or sockpuppet be what falls under the definition of trolling?


Oops sorry for the long post, I tend to be too diplomatic.

Perhaps I should bullet point my central questions.

* Mont Ventoux. Banned for being a sockpuppet? If yes please state so in the member suspension thread.
* acoggans posts. Why was he encouraged to not post in the Frometalk thread in the clinic? Was it for straying from the topic?
* The sceptic. Could him seemingly constantly accusing those he disagrees with of trolling be an indication of him himself being a troll?
* Should I report posts even though they might be earlier in the thread(a day old or something)?


I will now return to reading in the Froome talk thread on page 276 of 281 to see if there is anything interesting posted.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Could someone explain something to me.

I noted Mont Ventoux was banned(bannitrated as noted by Sittingbison). To me he seemed to be arguing against Froome being doping. Having been on this forum for some time I'm suspecting that he is a recurring account. But if I were new here, I might assume the reason he was banned was for arguing for Froome being clean. If my first assumption is correct, could perhaps the mods and in this case Sittingbison add a phrase like "Recurring account" or something to the post announcing the ban in the member suspension thread? It would only take a few more seconds of typing, but would be very clarifying for new and newish members(like me) on the reasons people are banned.


And what was this about acoggan not posting in the Froome thread Sittingbison was referring to in the froome thread. Is it because his posts elicit so much disagreement? Could this also be clarified?


Also, I'm a bit tired of the sceptics posting style. To me it seems that whenever there is a post he doesn't like or disagrees with he accuses the poster of being a troll, or of trolling or of being a sockpuppet. This kind of posting seems like a very negative posting style and does not contribute to a sensible discussion. I think it contributes to a crude and insulting discourse.

IIRC you are not supposed to accuse people of trolling(at least excessively). Now I usually read the threads some time after they have been posted since I like to take some time and think and look for alternate viewpoints before I visit the appropriate clinic thread, so I don't feel it appropriate to report posts deep in the thread. But of course I could start if the mods want it to be brought to their attention.

Now I tried using the search function for the sceptics posts containing troll or trolling, but I have not found a way to objectively support my impression. I'm not a computer wizard so I might not be doing it correctly. It could also be that my bias against destructive discourse and me finding the posts he replies to as sensible is misleading me into forming an erroneous opinion of his posting style. Then again, I'm quite good at separating and examining my own biases.


Caveat: I still haven't bothered finding out about what a troll or trolling is in the Internet context. My childhood and cultural upbringing seems to have too strong connections to the alternate meaning of the word troll. So my question is, could constantly accusing people you disagree with of trolling or being a troll or sockpuppet be what falls under the definition of trolling?


Oops sorry for the long post, I tend to be too diplomatic.

Perhaps I should bullet point my central questions.

* Mont Ventoux. Banned for being a sockpuppet? If yes please state so in the member suspension thread.
* acoggans posts. Why was he encouraged to not post in the Frometalk thread in the clinic? Was it for straying from the topic?
* The sceptic. Could him seemingly constantly accusing those he disagrees with of trolling be an indication of him himself being a troll?
* Should I report posts even though they might be earlier in the thread(a day old or something)?


I will now return to reading in the Froome talk thread on page 276 of 281 to see if there is anything interesting posted.

I noticed you didn't mention TheHog or Benotttis bans.

 

[BroDeal]

I do and I'm no mod. That's how I outed bro deal

And thus the last spark of life in this message board was snuffed out. Now the gear forum has dwindled down to about nothing. The Cafe is pretty much reserved for Democrat loyalists to attack Scott. And Hiero is warning people for "attacks" when sentences like, "I call BS" are used. Give yourself a pat on the back.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

...I liked your ****ing on ACF's foot with that account.