Moderators

[King Boonen]

The problem is, usually the people who want to be mods are exactly the wrong people to do the job.

 

[hrotha]

I'm amazed that some people still think Dr Mas doesn't clog threads by arguing petty semantics that are totally beside the point when he's asking the mods to provide a dictionary definition of 'clogging', 'hijacking' and what not. I don't know if his inability to comprehend basic speech beyond the most literal level is real or feigned, but it's annoying.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm amazed that some people still think Dr Mas doesn't clog threads by arguing petty semantics that are totally beside the point when he's asking the mods to provide a dictionary definition of 'clogging', 'hijacking' and what not. I don't know if his inability to comprehend basic speech beyond the most literal level is real or feigned, but it's annoying.

Good post, but just to clarify one issue, I am not a Doctor.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

sooo, after catching up on the last 24 hours, is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking, namely that Dr. Mas should be a moderator? I can't think of someone more detailed, diligent, and oriented towards a strict interpretation of the rules.

This last 150 responses is maybe one of the most surreal, crazy things I've seen on a CN forum, whewf.

Firstly, I don't want to be a mod, I was asked way way back and declined because I had a not too subtle bias about a contentious subject. Even if I managed to remain neutral some would rightly have seen the forum as having a bias.

However, I did read Hitches fair points last night and I did think that I would love to mod with them for even a week, I reckon the place would hum because the Hitch 'gets it'.

One thing that is amazing in the last 24 hours, is that instead of addressing points or issues and taking on board genuine complaints the mods arrived on masse in a petrol tanker.

The only major modding here was when one mod deleted another mods post. (Yes, I saw it - smart move to bin it)
Not one stood up and said "let's keep this civil". That would not have undermined any other mod or member but instead they helped divide opinion when ultimately we are all members of the same forum.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Overmoderation = no fun

Allow us to have a good time

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Overmoderation = no fun

Allow us to have a good time

This IS Interesting, what would you consider over moderation?

To me a forum should be a free flow of ideas or opinions. The mods duties should be merely housekeeping (putting stuff in appropriate threads, it will either live or die) - but it's almost like the mods are on commission from MR Internet not to waste the valuable resource.
You can have a place for your 'I want ACs babies' thread' and can run wild like he did in last years Vuelta. But every time he changes his hair should not be in the main racing thread. Simple stuff.

 

[LaFlorecita]

This IS Interesting, what would you consider over moderation?

To me a forum should be a free flow of ideas or opinions. The mods duties should be merely housekeeping (putting stuff in appropriate threads, it will either live or die) - but it's almost like the mods are on commission from MR Internet not to waste the valuable resource.
You can have a place for your 'I want ACs babies' thread' and can run wild like he did in last years Vuelta. But every time he changes his hair should not be in the main racing thread. Simple stuff.

What

 

[aphronesis]

The "if I wanted to troll under the radar" bit is especially poignant. Then do it please, and see if you can give a few lessons to your semi literate apologist along the way. No one will object.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The "if I wanted to troll under the radar" bit is especially poignant. Then do it please, and see if you can give a few lessons to your semi literate apologist along the way. No one will object.

No, I leave that to you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What

We can start from the beginning. What do you think would be over moderation?

 

[aphronesis]

No, I leave that to you.

Can't help you with the second part. And there's equanimity on the trolling where I post.

 

[LaFlorecita]

We can start from the beginning. What do you think would be over moderation?

I think I already made that clear, I posted "Allow us to have a good time" so in other words over moderation no longer allows us to have a good time. We see it a lot, posts with good intentions disappear because they're off topic or 'insulting'.

But it isn't very important, carry on

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think I already made that clear, I posted "Allow us to have a good time" so in other words over moderation no longer allows us to have a good time. We see it a lot, posts with good intentions disappear because they're off topic or 'insulting'.

But it isn't very important, carry on

Firstly - nothing is important.
Quick question - do you like being insulted?


Also, I would hazard a guess that our definitions of "having a good time" are not the same.

 

[Benotti69]

I think I already made that clear, I posted "Allow us to have a good time" so in other words over moderation no longer allows us to have a good time. We see it a lot, posts with good intentions disappear because they're off topic or 'insulting'.

But it isn't very important, carry on

Allowing Maserati to have a 'good time' will suck us all into his vortex and never escape!!!!

 

[darwin553]

sooo, after catching up on the last 24 hours, is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking, namely that Dr. Mas should be a moderator?

I do believe the answer is yes

 

[The Hitch]

I think I already made that clear, I posted "Allow us to have a good time" so in other words over moderation no longer allows us to have a good time. We see it a lot, posts with good intentions disappear because they're off topic or 'insulting'.

But it isn't very important, carry on

I have a good example of that.
2 weeks ago I made a joke about contador and sky. You would have liked it. Unfortunately netserk decided that 1 vaguely clinic word in my post gave him the loophole to immediately delete the post.

Even though Susan said occasional clinic references are ok and it's clinic discussion that isn't allowed, and even an eyeless rock could recognize the post did not harm or offend anyone, (since it was fiction), netserk saw his opportunity for a delete button rush.

It's not "should we take action."
It's "can we take action". "Will we be able to justify doing this" regardless of whether it's the right thing or not.

 

[The Hitch]

OK The Hitch, lets reduce the situation to its simplest component. Take out of the equation whether I'm on a power trip, have it in for you etc etc. Answer me these two questions:

Why did you decide to call spalco an idiot only two posts and 90 minutes after I asked for the personal insults to stop?

Do you think its a good idea to do the exact opposite when a moderator asks everyone to stop the insults? Especially as you acknowledge the thread had turned somewhat nasty with insults flying between various other posters (not you).

I called spalco an idiot because he was being an idiot. And whatsmore, he asked "am I an idiot". While deliberately saying something he knew to be idiotic. So I answered his question.

I could ask how you know I saw the warning. I could easily argue that I didn't see it. I won't because I do recall reading it at some point but after 10 pages of arguing between 2 posters that had nothing to do with me, I did not see why your warning would get me in any trouble for using the lightest word in the English language on another poster in a totally unrelated discussion.

And yes "idiot" is an extremely light word. I've seen 10 x worse given a pass on here so how the **** was I supposed to know it would get me a 7 day ban?

again, what did your ban accomplish? Anything? You say it's not the power trip then what was the reason you gave it?

7 days lol. For the word idiot in a situation where the "victim" introduced the word. Can't help but find the humour in that.

Edit: oh and in my opinion - "poster: stfu" is just as bad if not more so, as "you are an idiot".

I wonder which one other posters think is worse. Is one worth a 7 day ban while the other nothing?

 

[Netserk]

I have a good example of that.
2 weeks ago I made a joke about contador and sky. You would have liked it. Unfortunately netserk decided that 1 vaguely clinic word in my post gave him the loophole to immediately delete the post.

Even though Susan said occasional clinic references are ok and it's clinic discussion that isn't allowed, and even an eyeless rock could recognize the post did not harm or offend anyone, (since it was fiction), netserk saw his opportunity for a delete button rush.

It's not "should we take action."
It's "can we take action". "Will we be able to justify doing this" regardless of whether it's the right thing or not.

It's about precedence. What's next, a joke in the Dawg thread that all the Aicar he takes makes him too skinny to ride in the rain? Do you really think that would be okay?

 

[the sceptic]

I think I already made that clear, I posted "Allow us to have a good time" so in other words over moderation no longer allows us to have a good time. We see it a lot, posts with good intentions disappear because they're off topic or 'insulting'.

But it isn't very important, carry on

More importantly, why do you have that ugly avatar?

 

[LaFlorecita]

More importantly, why do you have that ugly avatar?

Avatar bet with zam, it will be gone on Sunday

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I called spalco an idiot because he was being an idiot. And whatsmore, he asked "am I an idiot". While deliberately saying something he knew to be idiotic. So I answered his question.

I could ask how you know I saw the warning. I could easily argue that I didn't see it. I won't because I do recall reading it at some point but after 10 pages of arguing between 2 posters that had nothing to do with me, I did not see why your warning would get me in any trouble for using the lightest word in the English language on another poster in a totally unrelated discussion.

And yes "idiot" is an extremely light word. I've seen 10 x worse given a pass on here so how the **** was I supposed to know it would get me a 7 day ban?

again, what did your ban accomplish? Anything? You say it's not the power trip then what was the reason you gave it?

7 days lol. For the word idiot in a situation where the "victim" introduced the word. Can't help but find the humour in that.

Edit: oh and in my opinion - "poster: stfu" is just as bad if not more so, as "you are an idiot".

I wonder which one other posters think is worse. Is one worth a 7 day ban while the other nothing?

I am subject to correction - but was this in the 'Chris sq' thread? I checked back and spalco asks "am I an idiot² or an √idiot?" - if so, then that is funny of spalco and I can see its potential for humor.

One point in the mods favour though is that thread was a tinderbox - so your reply may not have been timely to restore some order.
But at worst, it deserves a minor intervention and certainly no ban of any duration, let alone the ridiculousness of a week bans.

Again, it is the mo here of not actually dealing with the thread in a timely manner and then whacking someone with the ban hammer.
That is not moderation.

 

[The Hitch]

What's next, a joke in the Dawg thread that all the Aicar he takes makes him too skinny to ride in the rain? Do you really think that would be okay?

What has that got to do with anything. The above is not what I wrote. It does not resemble my joke in any way.

Why are you making up (twice now) some imaginary post that is worse and was never made and asking if this non existing post is ok, rather than assess the actual post I made?

I dont care if the post you just made up that never took place is ok. I care if my totally unrelated original post was ok

 

[Netserk]

I'd say the two are very similar.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'd say the two are very similar.

This is my dilemma - I don't like to make assumptions and would rather give someone a fair crack at clarifying their remarks if I don't understand something by asking "how are they similar?".

But then I get the clogging, hijacking, semantics BS.

So, in this case - let me state that, no they are not "very similar", IMO not even remotely similar.

 

[MarkvW]

We can start from the beginning. What do you think would be over moderation?

Ladies and gentlemen . . .. This, in its purest form, is an invitation into the Vortex. You can accept that invitation (and the endless haggling, nitpicking, and quibbling it entails), or you can decline it. It is your choice. If the Doctor's concrete literalism is too much for you, you can even use the Ignore feature to block him.

But to censor the Doctor just because you don't like what he says or how he says it? THAT is just plain wrong, and the mods that do it do a serious disservice to the forum.

The Doctor makes a valid point about "derailing" and "hijacking" threads. The censor-mods can't even define these terms. They are unwilling to let the users take threads where they want to take them.

Some mods, like Berzin, have even gone so far as to pronounce their version of the truth, and threaten "vacations" to people who dispute that truth. And there's this new mod fetish about "lies" and "lying." People get banned for that.

And now we get idiot talk about "precedence." I've read the mods' dialog with Maserati in this thread. Only a complete fool would take anything written in this thread as precedent.
We now have mods who are participating in discussions and are threatening the banhammer in the same thread. Before you indulge yourselves with pompous talk about "precedent," maybe you should consider the more fundamental principles of "conflict of interest" and "appearance of fairness."

This criticism does NOT apply to all the mods: