Moderators

[Christian]

Hello, could someone explain to me the situation with Taxus4a? The reason for the first ban is confusing to me - certainly talking about the influence of wind in cycling cannot constitute a reason for a ban? Thus I assume there must be more to it - unfortunately I have been away for a long time so I don't know the situation and would appreciate a summary, if possible. Thanks!

Also, where did he then lie about his first ban?

 

[Christian]

There was also a reply from The Hitch to a post of Taxus4a in this thread which I found offensive but I can't find it now anymore, I assume it has been deleted

 

[Zam_Olyas]

****ing hell my post keeps getting deleted.

 

[sittingbison]

Hello, could someone explain to me the situation with Taxus4a? The reason for the first ban is confusing to me - certainly talking about the influence of wind in cycling cannot constitute a reason for a ban? Thus I assume there must be more to it - unfortunately I have been away for a long time so I don't know the situation and would appreciate a summary, if possible. Thanks!...

You are correct that talking about the influence of wind in cycling cannot constitute a reason for a ban. You are also correct that there must be more to it.

Taxus4a is banninated for a week for rabbiting on again about Mont Venteux time trial times and tailwind's , after a warning to stop

Taxus4a clogged numerous threads going on about the headwind/tailwind and repeatedly including the times of the ITT ascents. He continued to do so after my clear warning to desist. A warning clear enough that several other posters self regulated. He was banned for ignoring the warning.

...I didnt read anything about stop... I dont read all the forum, and there is not a warning when you are quoted)...

...maybe you should read "anything" before you post. Others managed it just fine.....

Taxus4a managed to read enough of the clinic that he clogged numerous threads just after the Mont Vonteux stage. And no, he didn't get a private message. The public one was just fine.

 

[sittingbison]

Hello, could someone explain to me the situation with Taxus4a? ... where did he then lie about his first ban?

This is where he lied about his first ban:

Quintana climb better than Froome and he is clean.
Sastre and Evans were better sometimes than Froome, cleans.

But the questions in not that, I think Froome is one of the best in History, but of course there were a lot of people all over the worl with more potential than Froome and could win him if they are trained correctly for that since 15 years old.

Maybe Pantani was outside human possibility, but Pantani is far away of Froome. Performance most of people did in the dark era will be one day improved for clean people.

Quintana told another pro last month, if i were riding in Colombia I couldn be top 5.

I was banned for repeat arguments to this statements, so there is censure here, so if you want I explain you this in private, and why Froome perfomance looks more than really is and why the argument that some people give has his mistakes.

So in a single post he claims he was banned for repeatedly stating one or all of the following (take your pick) :
1) [clean] Quintana climb better than Froome
2) [clean] Sastre and Evans were better sometimes than Froome
3) I think Froome is one of the best in History
4) there were a lot of people all over the worl with more potential than Froome
5) [others] could win him if they are trained correctly for that since 15 years old
6) Maybe Pantani was outside human possibility
7) Pantani is far away of Froome
8) Performance most of people did in the dark era will be one day improved for clean people

What Taxus4a fails to mention is he was banned for ignoring a moderator warning to stop clogging threads with the the wind direction and ITT drivel

BS you were banned for carrying on like a pork chop after clearly being instructed to desist...several times.

 

[Christian]

Thanks, bison - it seems the first ban was legit when you say he was clogging (spaming?) several threads with the same content and did not react to a mod's instruction to stop. Let's maybe at least consider the fact that he did not read that instruction though - it might not be true but it is possible. Especially if this was in the Clinic (?) or in some other threads which grow rapidly and where it is sometimes difficult to keep up to speed with everything that has been said. I'm not saying this is necessarily what happened in this specific case but I think it is something that has happened to all of us before.

This is where he lied about his first ban:



So in a single post he claims he was banned for repeatedly stating one or all of the following (take your pick) :
1) [clean] Quintana climb better than Froome
2) [clean] Sastre and Evans were better sometimes than Froome
3) I think Froome is one of the best in History
4) there were a lot of people all over the worl with more potential than Froome
5) [others] could win him if they are trained correctly for that since 15 years old
6) Maybe Pantani was outside human possibility
7) Pantani is far away of Froome
8) Performance most of people did in the dark era will be one day improved for clean people

What Taxus4a fails to mention is he was banned for ignoring a moderator warning to stop clogging threads with the the wind direction and ITT drivel

You do a good job summarizing his post, but my interpretation is a different one: I think his main arguement, which he doesn't state outrightly but which is implied, is that Froome is clean. If you look at all the ones that you listed, you could say that they are secondary and support the main arguement. I might be wrong of course, that is just my impression.

The "wind arguement" that is at the center of this debate is just another one of these arguements to support his main thesis. His version was that he was banned for repeatedly argueing in favour of these statements, which you say constitutes a lie. However when you look at the "wind arguement", you could use it while trying argue in favour of 1), 2), 4) and 5), since its main content is "the wind makes Froome's performances look unrealistic, but in reality he is not that strong", i.e. others could (have) beat him - be it Quintana, Sastre, Evans or a future rider.

Therefore I think the second ban is a bit harsh, since I am not convinced that this post can hold up to what constitutes a lie. Accusing someone of purposefully and knowingly lying to deceive others is a big and potentially hurtful and harmful thing to do. You outed Taxus4a publically as a liar - I have my doubts as to whether he merited this and whether this is a positive pedagogical method.

The reason he gave for his ban is maybe just how he interpreted it - as I tried to explain, one could argue that all these arguements are in fact related and work towards the same main thesis. Another reason why I think "lie" is too strong of a wording is that I don't see what Taxus4a stood to gain from lying in this thread. I don't think that he is a troll but rather a serious member like all the others, who defends his views openly and who doesn't seek to deceive others about his hidden intentions, quite simply because he has none.

Please note that I am indifferent to the debate at question (i.e. Froome clean or doped), I am in no position to judge the validity of either side, my only intention here was to voice my concerns about the second ban of Taxus4a. I agree with the first one and I don't completely disagree with the second one. I don't think Bison is the vilain in this story, either. I just think that sometimes bans happen despite of no bad intentions on either side. Therefore I think we should be careful when publically branding users as liars - in this case Bison overshot the target and made a mistake, in my humble opinion.

 

[King Boonen]

I seem to have had a post deleted, would it not be sensible to let me know why? The post I replied to has also been deleted and I'm not sure why.

 

[sittingbison]

Nice summation Christian. I agree with your thoughts about Taxus4a position on Froome, and his holistic approach. I also agree there is a possibility or even probability his first ban was unfortunate, although as I stated he read the thread's enough to post multiple times, many of them responces to others. It is for this reason he was only banned for a week.

My issue with the second ban is Taxus4a raised his ban in this thread but then posted the "offending" statement in another. It is my belief he was being disingenuous at best and certainly assumed a martyr-like position to further his own position on the other thread, all the while knowing the exact reason he was banned in the first place. I believe he bought it upon himself by "over egging" his position.

Hopefully he will realise thisand learn from it so he can remain a valuable ccontributor on this forum.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I seem to have had a post deleted, would it not be sensible to let me know why? The post I replied to has also been deleted and I'm not sure why.

Was it a joke? seems jokes are frown upon by some mods here .. 3 posts got deleted.

 

[King Boonen]

Was it a joke? seems jokes are frown upon by some mods here .. 3 posts got deleted.

I'm not sure I can mention what it was here, it was in the clinic. I couldn't see a problem with it.

 

[sittingbison]

Was it a joke? seems jokes are frown upon by some mods here .. 3 posts got deleted.

failure of a joke is down to the comedian.

10characters

 

[sittingbison]

I seem to have had a post deleted, would it not be sensible to let me know why? The post I replied to has also been deleted and I'm not sure why.

I suspect it's because the original post you quoted and responded to was considered offensive due to religious vilification, so it and all responses were removed

 

[Dr. Maserati]

From the Movistar thread:

Why?
If there is a rule (or even in forum spirit) I will do so happily.
But the posts I am responding to are fair and within rules.

Not up to you. You're derailing another thread. Stop or you'll be on vacation since we've had this conversation already this week. Thanks.

What rule am I meant to be breaking?

Also - I sure as hell never said it was "up to me" - in fact I have said I am only too happy to abide by the rules. And that is meant to be what they are - rules, and they are not up to you to make up, only to enforce.

If you see fit to allow a post remain that i find questionable, you have no right to decide later that I cannot respond.
And the reason it 'derailed' is because the person I asked to clarify made did not say they were paraphrasing. They kept on that Ashenden had said it.

 

[red_flanders]

If I thought any answer would satisfy you, I might consider expanding on what I and sittingbison have already said, and clearly explained. I have neither the time, inclination or reason to engage in hair-splitting regarding a simple request in a thread.

If you don't feel you're subject to the judgement of the moderation team, you do not belong here. I hope that's clear.

 

[Netserk]

From the Movistar thread:




What rule am I meant to be breaking?

Also - I sure as hell never said it was "up to me" - in fact I have said I am only too happy to abide by the rules. And that is meant to be what they are - rules, and they are not up to you to make up, only to enforce.

If you see fit to allow a post remain that i find questionable, you have no right to decide later that I cannot respond.
And the reason it 'derailed' is because the person I asked to clarify made did not say they were paraphrasing. They kept on that Ashenden had said it.

Here's a simple rule for you: If a mod tells you to stop, stop.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If I thought any answer would satisfy you, I might consider expanding on what I and sittingbison have already said, and clearly explained. I have neither the time, inclination or reason to engage in hair-splitting regarding a simple request in a thread.

You have not clearly explained a thing.

Both yourself and SB have not been shy to remind me of the consequences I face.

I have asked and will do so again, because I do not want break the rules (indeed I would like them applied consistently) what am i doing that warrants this?

If you don't feel you're subject to the judgement of the moderation team, you do not belong here. I hope that's clear.

For once this is clear. Very.

And just so we are clear - I have no intention of going anywhere.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Here's a simple rule for you: If a mod tells you to stop, stop.

Which of course, is not a rule.

Thats mods deciding what is and is not acceptable or appropriate.
That means the general membership like me have no way of knowing what can be posted.

 

[Netserk]

Which of course, is not a rule.

Thats mods deciding what is and is not acceptable or appropriate.
That means the general membership like me have no way of knowing what can be posted.

How do you think the rules were made? A big poll?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How do you think the rules were made? A big poll?

You are the 3rd Mod I will ask why I am not being allowed to respond to posts that are allowed stay in a thread?

If there is a rule point me to it.

And by the way, to your question - I do not believe the mods use any 'rules' to come to decisions.

 

[sittingbison]

DrMas there is a simple list of rules and guidelines. I know you are asking for specifics, however as we all know no such list can possibly cover all eventualities. Anyhoo here is the pertinent rules for this situation, and indeed for the situation outlined in the above discussion about the fate of Taxus4a

It is suggested that all members read this post about forum etiquette. When in doubt, let common sense be your guide, but some people wonder about specifics, so here is a general list of rules or guidelines.
.
.
12. Posting off-topic in threads, or "hijacking" threads will result in warnings or infractions.
.
.
Moderators are generally pleased to let discussion flow and not interfere but they have the ability to warn and potentially remove members from the forums if they're acting in an inappropriate manner....

Do you really feel the necessity for another rule that is already implicitly understood by all and sundry?

Rule 303: Do what a moderator asks/tells you to do

And in relation to this:

...Both yourself and SB have not been shy to remind me of the consequences I face...

We were not shy in letting everyone know the consequences they might face, it was not just about you.

I'll repeat Alpes forum guideline:

Let common sense be your guide.

 

[sittingbison]

...And the reason it 'derailed' is because the person I asked to clarify made did not say they were paraphrasing. They kept on that Ashenden had said it.

DrMas, here is the link to Ashendens microdosing experiment I mentioned in that thread:
"Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951

Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport

Ashenden said it

 

[King Boonen]

I suspect it's because the original post you quoted and responded to was considered offensive due to religious vilification, so it and all responses were removed

Strange, as the first post was extolling the virtues of a religious person. May post was criticising this as a line of reasoning.

Anyway, would it not be sensible to notify people when and why posts were deleted?

 

[sittingbison]

introducing religion into the argument by the OP was the problem, so it and all the responses were deleted.

As to notification, its not part of the vbulletin software system and I suspect the mods have not got the time or inclination to individually notify each poster when they edit/delete a post.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

DrMas there is a simple list of rules and guidelines. I know you are asking for specifics, however as we all know no such list can possibly cover all eventualities. Anyhoo here is the pertinent rules for this situation, and indeed for the situation outlined in the above discussion about the fate of Taxus4a

Dear sittingbisson,
Thank you for your untimely intervention which confirms my thoughts on the current Moderation here.

Last night I had a private exchange with another mod, it was a civil, honest, intelligent and informative exchange that I believe helped us both understand each others view.
That you then post something that has none of the above confirms that there is little guidance or communication between you.

Here is a Rule for you:

Rule 9. Issuing claims of information or quotes without listing sources or links will result in warnings or infractions.

I have every right to question someone on their post.
I do not need (or want) links to every thought or keystroke, I am not that pedantic. However when someone claims something specific or pretends to paraphrase something, they should be able to back that up.

I do not 'hijack' threads. What occurs is that the person I question usually refuses to back up their claim. And what do the mods do? Nothing.

The "let common sense be your guide" (LCSBYG) works both ways.
It is one of the oldest trolling tricks in the book to make a thread unreadable by inserting a false claim.

Do you really feel the necessity for another rule that is already implicitly understood by all and sundry?

I understand the 'rule', fine - you claim that "all and sundry" understand it too .
And then we apply the common sense rule - common sense is that it is not enforced, or picked up by the mods, common sense says a cunning Troll will spot this and exploit it to the max.
Common sense says they will get away an awful lot and succeed in their goal (trolling, derailing, or posting false information) for a long, long time before a mod intervention.

Common sense tells us that before long, good posters who wish to engage in proper, honest and civil debate on the issues will no longer swing by and all that will be left is the prolific poster who is allowed post any old sh!t .

Common sense says thats exactly what is happening.

And in relation to this:

We were not shy in letting everyone know the consequences they might face, it was not just about you.

I'll repeat Alpes forum guideline:

In that other thread I asked what rule I was breaking this was your reply:

On this note it's prudent to observe a polite warning from a mod (red flanders) to move on from this topic. Being pedantic on THIS issue is will not end well.

There was no explanation, just what the consequences were clearly aimed at me.

 

[King Boonen]

This is like the kid who just won't listen to the teacher.