Moderators

[Dr. Maserati]

You know what is absurd? You reading this in Hiero's post.

Reading comprehension please.

Just like your [=Race Radio] interpretation of the termonology ''the Vortex''.

The Vortex is when Doc M. [the best in vortexing but you can fill in any name here], goes of nitpicking posts. Sentence for sentence nitpicking posts, and, subsequently [because people do not know when to stop in a discussion because it is useless] kill a thread.

''The Vortex'' is a discussion technique, nothing more, nothing less.

When I sense 'a vortex' I move on, mhhhh, most of the time...

But, when you, Race Radio, a well respected figure here, and for me, are telling porkies you will be called upon. It is just a shame that then you, Race Radio, call out people being trolls when dissagreeing with your questionable assumptions.

You vortexed the windy mountain threat for instance, take a look in the mirror, WE all should.

That is what Hiero was telling, the bold part.

What 'rules' or guidelines would you like to see adhered to?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

DrMas I'm not discussing that mod intervention per se, I'm discussing the concept of the "vortex" in general with the particular example of how you asked sniper to back up his claim.



Yes it is my opinion that you asked a rhetorical question. It is implied that you knew the answer because you had found the article. However I could well be wrong and have misread or misinterpreted.

I just think it would have been easier to make your point, post the link as you actually had one (as opposed to sniper perhaps not having one), perhaps quote the portion making your position clear, and say to sniper "I disagree with what you said"

So rhetorical questions can be a form of trolling?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So rhetorical questions can be a form of trolling?

Carefull Chewie - so are sarcasm and humor.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Carefull Chewie - so are sarcasm and humor.

It was a rhetorical question.

 

[red_flanders]

What 'rules' or guidelines would you like to see adhered to?

Several times upthread the hijacking rule was made clear to you. Why act like you missed that? You argued about it for a good bit afterwards.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1351216&postcount=5234
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1350704&postcount=5145
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1350709&postcount=5148
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1350720&postcount=5150

For people to argue that this vortexing (is the verb form OK?) is being done in good faith to get at truth is people not paying attention. Often it is, often it isn't. And yes, there is subjectivity in applying the term hijacking. As there is in all rules.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Several times upthread the hijacking rule was made clear to you. Why act like you missed that? You argued about it for a good bit afterwards.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1351216&postcount=5234
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1350704&postcount=5145
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1350709&postcount=5148
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1350720&postcount=5150

For people to argue that this vortexing (is the verb form OK?) is being done in good faith to get at truth is people not paying attention. Often it is, often it isn't. And yes, there is subjectivity in applying the term hijacking. As there is in all rules.

Congratulations.

Well done on missing the point and putting in something else (is that derailing or hijacking) my question.
I looked at FGLs post as inflammatory - personal and nasty. But rather than address that I asked a genuine question on how to resolve the differences.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

What 'rules' or guidelines would you like to see adhered to?

I can only say what I said before: take a look in the mirror, I do too, and subsequently do dumb things every now and then. I just dont b@tch about it.

I looked at FGLs post as inflammatory - personal and nasty.

And yet me was thinking I was being constructive. Could it be you just misinterpreted what I wrote? Or am I just an inflammatory - personal and nasty person?

Make of that whatever you want Doc.

I could write down what I think of the way this topic is moving but to be quit frank it is not worth it. So I won't.

Cheers.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I can only say what I said before: take a look in the mirror, I do too, and subsequently do dumb things every now and then. I just dont b@tch about it.


And yet me was thinking I was being constructive. Could it be you just misinterpreted what I wrote? Or am I just an inflammatory - personal and nasty person?

Make of that whatever you want Doc.

I could write down what I think of the way this topic is moving but to be quit frank it is not worth it. So I won't.

Cheers.

Which didn't answer my question.

I have acknowledged that I have at times not adhered to 'rules'. So I don't need to look in the mirror. That's actually deflection.

My question to you remains, so if at anytime you wish to answer it feel free to do so.

 

[thehog]

I'm never critical of moderators. Ever.

It's a perilous role to perform. Delineating between a wide variety of different viewpoints is difficult.

It's a thankless job that's not paid.

I feel we all should cut them some slack.

 

[MarkvW]

"Lying" will now get you banned in this forum. When a mod accuses a poster of "lying" it, it can readily be construed as the threat of a ban. That is what I was pointing out, because I disagree with it.

 

[Race Radio]

You know what is absurd? You reading this in Hiero's post.

Reading comprehension please.

Just like your [=Race Radio] interpretation of the termonology ''the Vortex''.

The Vortex is when Doc M. [the best in vortexing but you can fill in any name here], goes of nitpicking posts. Sentence for sentence nitpicking posts, and, subsequently [because people do not know when to stop in a discussion because it is useless] kill a thread.

''The Vortex'' is a discussion technique, nothing more, nothing less.

When I sense 'a vortex' I move on, mhhhh, most of the time...

But, when you, Race Radio, a well respected figure here, and for me, are telling porkies you will be called upon. It is just a shame that then you, Race Radio, call out people being trolls when dissagreeing with your questionable assumptions.

You vortexed the windy mountain threat for instance, take a look in the mirror, WE all should.

That is what Hiero was telling, the bold part.

The Ventoux thread had nothing to with wind and was mostly an attempt to paint me as a Sky apologist.

I do not call people who disagree with me trolls, but if a poster lies, deliberately twists what I write, baits, and insults I will point it out.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

No. I was just pointing out a plain fact. "Lying" will now get you banned in this forum. When a mod accuses a poster of "lying" it, it can readily be construed as the threat of a ban. That is what I was pointing out, because I disagree with it.

Your unremitting hostility is just your style. I get it.

No, I just don't like you because you're an unrepentant troll. I was very happy whey they finally banned you for it; I fully admit that, and I was sincerely hoping you'd never crawl our from under your bridge in all honesty.

 

[thrawn]

I'm never critical of moderators. Ever.

It's a perilous role to perform. Delineating between a wide variety of different viewpoints is difficult.

It's a thankless job that's not paid.

I feel we all should cut them some slack.

Was your ban a life changing experience?

 

[MarkvW]

No, I just don't like you because you're an unrepentant troll. I was very happy whey they finally banned you for it; I fully admit that, and I was sincerely hoping you'd never crawl our from under your bridge in all honesty.

But you troll (and brag about it). I understand that you are a protected poster, but still . . ..

 

[thehog]

Was your ban a life changing experience?

Knocked back nearly 1000km on the bike! First time at 73kg! Less time on the iPad more time on the bike!

No I actually believe it. If you look back my posting history I never argue with mods or criticise them. Ever.

Just something I believe in. It's a thankless job.

What I dislike is when forum users bait mods to ban someone else. It's the equivalent of football players surrounding the referee pleading to have a player red carded.

Such poor form and ugly part of the game.

But it is what it is

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Knocked back nearly 1000km on the bike! First time at 73kg! Less time on the iPad more time on the bike!

No I actually believe it. If you look back my posting history I never argue with mods or criticise them. Ever.

Just something I believe in. It's a thankless job.

What I dislike is when forum users bait mods to ban someone else. It's the equivalent of football players surrounding the referee pleading to have a player red carded.

Such poor form and ugly part of the game.

But it is what it is

Welcome back.
Good to see you have changed from your time before.

My name is thehog. I've reported this post to the moderators. This is the 11th time I've warned for your bullying.

I'll be requesting for them to take action.

 

[thehog]

Welcome back.
Good to see you have changed from your time before.

Merely following the forum rules by reporting a user.

Not criticism of mods or asking for a user to be banned.

Just reporting the post and asking the user to stop calling me "hoggie".

Nice try though.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

But you troll (and brag about it). I understand that you are a protected poster, but still . . ..

I'm sexy, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Also note that there is a major difference between me admitting that I troll sometimes, and you being nothing but a troll and never admitting it.

 

[sittingbison]

come on gentle(wo)men,
although it is generally acknowledged this thread has a bit more leeway than others, it doesn't mean you can attack or directly insult other members. So please think twice before giving in to your baser instincts


cheers
bison

 

[sittingbison]

So rhetorical questions can be a form of trolling?

Carefull Chewie - so are sarcasm and humor.

sigh

10 chars

 

[hiero2]

Can someone explain this warning to me?





Since I'm not told what rules I broke, nor where the rulebreak was (its a 1000 word post and nothing is highlighted), I'm guessing it was a pm accidentally sent as a warning?

You could call it a pm sent using the infraction functionality. It was the quickest and easiest way for me to tell you it was a good post, and I have every intention of trying to implement some of your suggestions.

I really don't feel badly that I sent it in a warning - since it DID get your attention. But if you want me to apologize, I will. Please remember - it carried zero points, and lasted for one hour, since I couldn't make it last zero hours.

 

[sittingbison]

"Lying" will now get you banned in this forum. When a mod accuses a poster of "lying" it, it can readily be construed as the threat of a ban. That is what I was pointing out, because I disagree with it.

"lying" has never been acceptable on this forum, and is going to be even less acceptable. In answer to what I believe is one of DrMas bones of contention, a general tightening up across the board of providing links and quotes to claims is in the works.

 

[The Hitch]

You could call it a pm sent using the infraction functionality. It was the quickest and easiest way for me to tell you it was a good post, and I have every intention of trying to implement some of your suggestions.

I really don't feel badly that I sent it in a warning - since it DID get your attention. But if you want me to apologize, I will. Please remember - it carried zero points, and lasted for one hour, since I couldn't make it last zero hours.

Fair enough. I just didn't know if it was a warning or not.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

DrMas I'm not discussing that mod intervention per se, I'm discussing the concept of the "vortex" in general with the particular example of how you asked sniper to back up his claim.



Yes it is my opinion that you asked a rhetorical question. It is implied that you knew the answer because you had found the article. However I could well be wrong and have misread or misinterpreted.

I just think it would have been easier to make your point, post the link as you actually had one (as opposed to sniper perhaps not having one), perhaps quote the portion making your position clear, and say to sniper "I disagree with what you said"

So rhetorical questions can be a form of trolling?

sigh

10 chars

But you see, my question was rhetorical and it was a troll...so I guess I win the internets today!!!

 

[MarkvW]

"lying" has never been acceptable on this forum, and is going to be even less acceptable. In answer to what I believe is one of DrMas bones of contention, a general tightening up across the board of providing links and quotes to claims is in the works.

When you have a mod discussing with other posters in the same thread, and the mod uses the term "lying," then the mod is making the implicit threat of a ban.

Either a mod should mod in a thread, or he/she should dialog in a thread. Take your pick. To do both is an obvious conflict of interest and, also, it just appears unfair.

If the mod (acting as a poster) feels affronted by another post, he or she can refer the offending post to another mod. How hard can that be?

Maybe take my posts in context, next time.