Moderators

[skidmark]

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.

Well sure. But everyone has a bias, whether they acknowledge it or not, and the situation we have right now is a group of mods who have biases, who have no problem displaying them, and have a huge problem admitting them when confronted. The defensiveness in this thread is wild (let me clarify - it is on both sides, not just mods, but it's them I'm talking about right now). So those characteristics, combined with a whimsical willingness to ban people left and right, may be entirely their right because hey it's an internet forum and they're volunteers so it's not like their overlords are going to punish them, but it doesn't make the forum a fun place, speaking personally.

Either way, I do think you would be a diligent moderator, because you're probably the most headstrong and diligent poster around. I also think you're being deliberately obtuse when you're pretending not to understand how dominating a thread with relentless questions about defining a point is a problem on a discussion board. It's not a Dr. Maserati's inquest board, it's not a Truth board, it's a discussion board. For it to be enjoyable, at least for me as a reader, discussion needs to flow, not stall or spin. Sure, I think you're on the side of 'right', in terms of staying 'on topic' and not perpetrating lies, but you've got to at least comprehend how hard it is to read a thread where all the responses are you aggressively questioning another poster, them responding in an unsatisfactory way, you repeating your questioning in a slightly different line, them responding in a similarly unsatisfactory way, ad nauseum. At some point, even if your words are on topic, the topic has shifted from 'Chris Froome' to 'this argument between these 2 guys'.

Maybe you don't respect that meta-argument, that's cool, we can disagree. But this thread is evidence that a lot of people think it. Maybe you would say 'you should just not read it', which is what I end up doing, but I'd prefer not to just abandon a discussion board I like because of a problem that seems to me should be solvable. I just feel like it should be clear to a poster that is as intelligent as you, and who posts here as frequently as you, that some posters are just not going to engage with you on your playing field, no matter how many times you corner them. I feel like everyone should see that. But maybe not.

My question to you, then, is - do you earnestly believe, after arguing with posters back and forth for more than, say, 5 posts, that they will answer you satisfactorily if you just keep asking?

If the answer is no, my follow-up question is, then why do you persist?

No pre-judgement here; I'm actually super curious.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

so I make a post in a thread I hadn't participated in that day calling a poster an idiot. A first offense

And you give me a 7 day ban. No, discussion, no questions, no consideration of whether I deserve it, no comment even, just pow, straight in there, 7 day ban.

That seems pretty extreme to me. Plenty of posters say much worse on a regular basis (I have certainly fallen in that category from time to time).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well sure. But everyone has a bias, whether they acknowledge it or not, and the situation we have right now is a group of mods who have biases, who have no problem displaying them, and have a huge problem admitting them when confronted. The defensiveness in this thread is wild (let me clarify - it is on both sides, not just mods, but it's them I'm talking about right now). So those characteristics, combined with a whimsical willingness to ban people left and right, may be entirely their right because hey it's an internet forum and they're volunteers so it's not like their overlords are going to punish them, but it doesn't make the forum a fun place, speaking personally.

Firstly, great post and excellent question.

On bias - certainly true we will all have an even slight bias somewhere and for me is not an issue, but I could certainly see how at the time it could have been perceived as an 'anti-Lance' forum, and therefore that would be used to dismiss the place.

Either way, I do think you would be a diligent moderator, because you're probably the most headstrong and diligent poster around. I also think you're being deliberately obtuse when you're pretending not to understand how dominating a thread with relentless questions about defining a point is a problem on a discussion board. It's not a Dr. Maserati's inquest board, it's not a Truth board, it's a discussion board. For it to be enjoyable, at least for me as a reader, discussion needs to flow, not stall or spin. Sure, I think you're on the side of 'right', in terms of staying 'on topic' and not perpetrating lies, but you've got to at least comprehend how hard it is to read a thread where all the responses are you aggressively questioning another poster, them responding in an unsatisfactory way, you repeating your questioning in a slightly different line, them responding in a similarly unsatisfactory way, ad nauseum. At some point, even if your words are on topic, the topic has shifted from 'Chris Froome' to 'this argument between these 2 guys'.

Hmm, this goes back to something 'hrotha' said earlier that made me stop and think, where they said I want to "frustrate the hell out of his opponent".
But that is not the way I look at it - I do not look at posters as opponents or even dare I say it people per se.
I look at their content. Posters I normally agree with can post bad or incorrect info - posters I normally disagree with can post great info or something that changes my opinion.

You are absolutely correct that discussion should flow, IMO thats the whole point of a forum. But for me what clogs or derails discussion (even, or especially if its on topic) is misinformation.

This doesn't mean it has to be a Truth Board (that made me laugh) - nor is it about being precise or having to link every single thing, but when someone hits 'post' I think they should be able to stand over what they say.
If they have a genuine belief or interest in the subject they (IMO) should be delighted to show it, and/or stand corrected.


And it is not just to satisfy me - as an example yesterday Dan had to delete posts from the JTL thread because of an outside complaint about a named individual, but Dan added "so unless you have proof to back up claims, keep them off this thread."

Maybe you don't respect that meta-argument, that's cool, we can disagree. But this thread is evidence that a lot of people think it. Maybe you would say 'you should just not read it', which is what I end up doing, but I'd prefer not to just abandon a discussion board I like because of a problem that seems to me should be solvable. I just feel like it should be clear to a poster that is as intelligent as you, and who posts here as frequently as you, that some posters are just not going to engage with you on your playing field, no matter how many times you corner them. I feel like everyone should see that. But maybe not.

My question to you, then, is - do you earnestly believe, after arguing with posters back and forth for more than, say, 5 posts, that they will answer you satisfactorily if you just keep asking?

If the answer is no, my follow-up question is, then why do you persist?

No pre-judgement here; I'm actually super curious.

To answer the first question - no.

I acknowledge and apologise that it can be frustrating to a thread and obviously the members. Believe you me, I find it frustrating too.
But it seems the mods want us to have a free flowing discussion even if it means that the content is inaccurate.

This could well be the way I look at things but I believe most people want to read (not post) and come to an informed decision.
So my default is that people posting are genuine and willing to be queried.

But again, when I get rebuffed, it feels like that I am meant to self moderate and judge that someone is trolling or being deliberately obtuse or even lying, while at the same time not allowed to call them a troll and having no way to end any disagreement.

To perhaps answer your second question - I persist because my only option is to expose that the poster has some other agenda, and it is for the reader to assume what that may be. The easiest thing in the world is to dismiss them as being a 'troll'.(I have done it, but I shouldn't have to and its often from frustration)

For me its relatively straightforward - why does a mod not stop it?
Ask us to show our cards.
There are (or were) some here with deliberate agendas to disrupt and misinform - if it is not picked up by the mods, they will thrive and ultimately become the default.

 

[JRTinMA]

What happened to the post where one of the mods told Dr. M to STFU? If you are going to write it own it. I know it was there, Hitch even quoted it at some point. Stand by your words, I have written some **** in my day and never deleted a word of it.

 

[Netserk]

And here's your options when you want to persist (but not clog the thread):

Report it, if you think it's against any rules.
Take it to PM with the poster.
The same as above only with visitor messages, so that it'll be public.
Or discuss it in a social group.

This way you can persist without clogging the thread. Would any of these be an option for you in the future?

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

And here's your options when you want to persist (but not clog the thread):

Report it, if you think it's against any rules.
Take it to PM with the poster.
The same as above only with visitor messages, so that it'll be public.
Or discuss it in a social group.

This way you can persist without clogging the thread. Would any of these be an option for you in the future?

How about you lot quit with the (veiled) threats and quit over-"moderating" this board to death?

Those who have such an issue with his posts (not sure why though) can put him on ignore. Then the rest can continue to read his posts. It's pretty simple.

 

[Netserk]

Those who have such an issue with his posts (not sure why though) can put him on ignore. Then the rest can continue to read his posts. It's pretty simple.

You do know you could say the same thing about everyone and everything that is posted here, right? If it was that simple, then there wouldn't even be needed a single mod.

 

[EnacheV]

This infraction is worth 20 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1351533
Quote:
Oleg Tinkov ‏@olegtinkov 12h

Bjarne Riis said today that it was HIS decision to stop& didn't like my comments?Why then he called me 3 days ago and pray to sponsor?#funny

If he doesn't lie than Riis doesn't have a 2nd sponsor yet

?!

Posting a tweet from one of the major cycling world players followed by a basic logic if then construction is baiting and trolling

I'm getting a little feed up

How/Who you report this kind of mod abuses?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And here's your options when you want to persist (but not clog the thread):

Report it, if you think it's against any rules.
Take it to PM with the poster.
The same as above only with visitor messages, so that it'll be public.
Or discuss it in a social group.

On reflection, I have spotted an area that potentially clogs up a thread, which is where I ask a rhetorical question but unfortunately ends up getting a response of oh, am, uh or vortex... So, I will dispense with the niceties for the moment.

What rule is broken when someone posts something that is not or may be correct?

Thats right - there isn't.
Indeed not only is it not against the 'rules' or spirit of the forum it is an absolute fundamental right that someone can post something that is incorrect.

This way you can persist without clogging the thread. Would any of these be an option for you in the future?

Of course if your intent was to not clog up the thread, you could have sent my 'options' by PM', visitor message, blah blah, blah ... So, we can dispense with those options because once someone chooses to post something publicly people should be allowed to respond publicly.

However - if you wish I can certainly report (and PM you) each and every post that I find that may have some factual inaccuracy or inconsistency - I will make every effort to explain in rigorous detail my reasons for contacting you (so as I don't get a 'warning') and obviously I will expect a detailed explanation in a timely fashion of any judgement and the actions that come from it.

Would this be an option you would consider in the future and if yes, how big is your inbox?

 

[Eshnar]

?!

Posting a tweet from one of the major cycling world players followed by a basic logic if then construction is baiting and trolling

I'm getting a little feed up

How/Who you report this kind of mod abuses?

You can report any kind of abuse to Dan.

 

[Beech Mtn]

How about you lot quit with the (veiled) threats and quit over-"moderating" this board to death?

Those who have such an issue with his posts (not sure why though) can put him on ignore. Then the rest can continue to read his posts. It's pretty simple.

That won't work. When the threads start circling around in bickering and nitpicking, it's usually just a couple/few guys going at it back and forth with each other. The only practical option is to basically abandon the thread at that point. Which pretty much happens, as users not involved in the argument seem to stop posting.

Besides, just because a person doesn't want to read vortex-ing doesn't mean they don't want to read Dr Mas' other, good posts. Or Mas' opponent's other posts.

Mas, I really like your other posts, but I very much dislike the vortex. To be honest, as a person who reads more than posts, I don't think the nitpicky arguments are your strongest way to get your point across.

Example- the Walsh thread. What I got out of that was that Sniper apparently hadn't read the article, and you had. I got that Sniper still has problems with Walsh being soft on Sky. I got that you disagreed. But really, I couldn't tell why you disagreed. You very likely may have laid out your argument for the hard-hitting nature of Walsh's article, but if so, I can't remember it. For me, it was been lost in the sea of bickering. All I can remember from that thread is Mas thinks Sniper is wrong. But not why Mas thinks Sniper is wrong.

I think, if your goal is to educate readers and put up an alternative to incorrect or non-factual posts, you'd be way more effective by not nitpicking or accusing others of trolling, but rather by putting a post with your own viewpoint, filling it with whatever facts, quotes, and links are germane to the argument. Putting a strong, well-argued post in the thread is going to be a lot more convincing than swamping the thread with bickering.

People get turned off by bickering and stop reading threads. But a good, meaty argument, especially if there are interesting quotes and links, will get people discussing, not arguing, and do much more to move the thread forward. Any true troll (spinning lies, as opposed to just having a different opinion) will get seen through.

Anyway, that's my .02

 

[Eshnar]

Would this be an option you would consider in the future and if yes, how big is your inbox?

it is as big as yours unfortunately.

 

[Netserk]

Would this be an option you would consider in the future and if yes, how big is your inbox?

I gave you four options. PM'ing me about it every time wasn't one of them.

 

[Cyivel]

?!

Posting a tweet from one of the major cycling world players followed by a basic logic if then construction is baiting and trolling

I'm getting a little feed up

How/Who you report this kind of mod abuses?

Ridiculous.

 

[the sceptic]

Pretty silly of certain posters to step into the vortex over and over again when they should know that the vortex goes on forever and its impossible to win.

 

[Race Radio]

Pretty silly of certain posters to step into the septic tank over and over when the only result is the forum is polluted with nonsense.

 

[red_flanders]

That won't work. When the threads start circling around in bickering and nitpicking, it's usually just a couple/few guys going at it back and forth with each other. The only practical option is to basically abandon the thread at that point. Which pretty much happens, as users not involved in the argument seem to stop posting.

Besides, just because a person doesn't want to read vortex-ing doesn't mean they don't want to read Dr Mas' other, good posts. Or Mas' opponent's other posts.

Mas, I really like your other posts, but I very much dislike the vortex. To be honest, as a person who reads more than posts, I don't think the nitpicky arguments are your strongest way to get your point across.

Example- the Walsh thread. What I got out of that was that Sniper apparently hadn't read the article, and you had. I got that Sniper still has problems with Walsh being soft on Sky. I got that you disagreed. But really, I couldn't tell why you disagreed. You very likely may have laid out your argument for the hard-hitting nature of Walsh's article, but if so, I can't remember it. For me, it was been lost in the sea of bickering. All I can remember from that thread is Mas thinks Sniper is wrong. But not why Mas thinks Sniper is wrong.

I think, if your goal is to educate readers and put up an alternative to incorrect or non-factual posts, you'd be way more effective by not nitpicking or accusing others of trolling, but rather by putting a post with your own viewpoint, filling it with whatever facts, quotes, and links are germane to the argument. Putting a strong, well-argued post in the thread is going to be a lot more convincing than swamping the thread with bickering.

People get turned off by bickering and stop reading threads. But a good, meaty argument, especially if there are interesting quotes and links, will get people discussing, not arguing, and do much more to move the thread forward. Any true troll (spinning lies, as opposed to just having a different opinion) will get seen through.

Anyway, that's my .02

Couldn't agree more. Two extremely observant and well-written posts. Glad someone gets why it's a problem.

 

[Race Radio]

Pretty silly of certain posters to step into the septic tank over and over again when they should know that the septic tank only pollutes the forum

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That won't work. When the threads start circling around in bickering and nitpicking, it's usually just a couple/few guys going at it back and forth with each other. The only practical option is to basically abandon the thread at that point. Which pretty much happens, as users not involved in the argument seem to stop posting.

Besides, just because a person doesn't want to read vortex-ing doesn't mean they don't want to read Dr Mas' other, good posts. Or Mas' opponent's other posts.

Mas, I really like your other posts, but I very much dislike the vortex. To be honest, as a person who reads more than posts, I don't think the nitpicky arguments are your strongest way to get your point across.

Example- the Walsh thread. What I got out of that was that Sniper apparently hadn't read the article, and you had. I got that Sniper still has problems with Walsh being soft on Sky. I got that you disagreed. But really, I couldn't tell why you disagreed. You very likely may have laid out your argument for the hard-hitting nature of Walsh's article, but if so, I can't remember it. For me, it was been lost in the sea of bickering. All I can remember from that thread is Mas thinks Sniper is wrong. But not why Mas thinks Sniper is wrong.

I think, if your goal is to educate readers and put up an alternative to incorrect or non-factual posts, you'd be way more effective by not nitpicking or accusing others of trolling, but rather by putting a post with your own viewpoint, filling it with whatever facts, quotes, and links are germane to the argument. Putting a strong, well-argued post in the thread is going to be a lot more convincing than swamping the thread with bickering.

People get turned off by bickering and stop reading threads. But a good, meaty argument, especially if there are interesting quotes and links, will get people discussing, not arguing, and do much more to move the thread forward. Any true troll (spinning lies, as opposed to just having a different opinion) will get seen through.

Anyway, that's my .02

Believe you me, I appreciate your post and do see all your points and again apologize that good points get lost in an apparent vortex.

To the highlighted - bingo. IMO thats it and also the dilemma.

The Walsh thread is interesting - while "Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon" might seem a legitimate question and worthy discussion, in reality it is a thread to bash him because a few believe that he is not writing an expose on Sky doping that they know is happening and must obviously be aware of.
IMO the thread would have failed to reach 5 pages except that there is a determined effort to repeat things as fact, ignore responses and a refusal to back up their claims.

The amusing part is I disagree with Walsh, but believe he is genuine - but again, it is easier to dismiss my views as fanboyism when I actually want to tease out a legitimate discussion.


Moreso - after a recent ban for 'failing to adhere to a mods instructions" I decided to change my approach. This time when a member posted in the JV thread an opinion which I felt was inaccurate on a vague interpretation of something they had read but not time to link.
So, I decided (at my own expense) to seek the article I believed they were talking about. I found one that appeared to fit but whose content was at odds with the other posters interpretation. So I offered them the opportunity to amend, clarify their interpretation or even correct me if I they had a different article.
This, in my mind would have stopped any further clogging or derailing of the thread.

With stunning speed a mod arrived on scene and asked me to back up my claim and link to my opinion. They did so publicly on that thread - my responses were deleted and ultimately I received another ban for ignoring a 'mod warning".
For what its worth - the original post which I believe to be inaccurate in the JV thread is still there and was not challenged or exposed.

 

[Race Radio]

Example- the Walsh thread. What I got out of that was that Sniper apparently hadn't read the article, and you had. I got that Sniper still has problems with Walsh being soft on Sky. I got that you disagreed. But really, I couldn't tell why you disagreed. You very likely may have laid out your argument for the hard-hitting nature of Walsh's article, but if so, I can't remember it. For me, it was been lost in the sea of bickering. All I can remember from that thread is Mas thinks Sniper is wrong. But not why Mas thinks Sniper is wrong.

Dr. Mas pointed out several incorrect points that people who had not read the article had assumed.....but were wrong because they had not read the article. The response was to be taunted by other posters who ignored his valid points and focused on insulting him because he paid to read the article.

Of course when called on their inconsistencies they scream "The Vortex" because it is easier to insult the poster then discuss the topic

 

[Race Radio]

It is about time the Mods come up with an approved list of ad hominem attacks.

They have made it clear that it is OK to shout "Vortex" whenever you disagree with Dr. Maserati. This is great for some as it is so much easier for them to insult a fellow poster then address the topic.

We also see that it is OK to taunt a fellow posters with an insulting nickname for actually paying for and reading an article. It is much easier to not pay to read it but toss insults at those who do and invent what you think might have been in the article.

Can we add a few more to this list? Surely a poster who clogs the forum with baiting, insults and graphic language deserves a good nickname?

 

[the sceptic]

It is about time the Mods come up with an approved list of ad hominem attacks.

They have made it clear that it is OK to shout "Vortex" whenever you disagree with Dr. Maserati. This is great for some as it is so much easier for them to insult a fellow poster then address the topic.

We also see that it is OK to taunt a fellow posters with an insulting nickname for actually paying for and reading an article. It is much easier to not pay to read it but toss insults at those who do and invent what you think might have been in the article.

Can we add a few more to this list? Surely a poster who clogs the forum with baiting, insults and graphic language deserves a good nickname?

 

[Race Radio]

You are leaving? Don't let the door hit you on the way out

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It is about time the Mods come up with an approved list of ad hominem attacks.

They have made it clear that it is OK to shout "Vortex" whenever you disagree with Dr. Maserati. This is great for some as it is so much easier for them to insult a fellow poster then address the topic.

We also see that it is OK to taunt a fellow posters with an insulting nickname for actually paying for and reading an article. It is much easier to not pay to read it but toss insults at those who do and invent what you think might have been in the article.

Can we add a few more to this list? Surely a poster who clogs the forum with baiting, insults and graphic language deserves a good nickname?

I don't mind the Vortex nickname per se. Nor have I anything against the use of amusing or clever puns.
But it is being used as a way to dismiss my posts.

Also, I would not want to see 2 good posters get a ban or a STFU for 'clogging', 'derailing' or 'hijacking' this thread.

So rather then be dragged down to the mod level - how about we take some responsibility ourselves and attempt to not inflame the situation?
The best example was how yourself & The Hitch kissed and made up.
The nickname you used on another member while amusing is similar in intent to mine. How about we put that one aside?

 

[gooner]

You are leaving? Don't let the door hit you on the way out

I will gladly close the door for him if needs be.