Moderators

[oldcrank]

The problem is i have not been appointed a mod yet...all your problems will be solved with a little bit of magic and peace pipe.

"...sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace..."

 

[hiero2]

"...sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace..."

Oh, please - that is as bad as a Godwin's law invocation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I see Graham got zapped.

I would like everyone in the forum except me banned, please.

If not I will start writing in big font, big font.
Thank you.

 

[oldcrank]

Oh, please - that is as bad as a Godwin's law invocation.

I hope you are not comparing Bob Dylan to Mr. Godwin, my friend.

 

[del1962]

I see Graham got zapped.

I would like everyone in the forum except me banned, please.

If not I will start writing in big font, big font.
Thank you.

What rules did he break? Total bullsh.t

reason for ban :IMO not genuinely interested in discussion and debate.

Hmmm, so many people post here not interested in discussion and debate on all sides of the argument, specifically those who are so convinced that Sky must be doping that there can't be any other explanation

 

[Cyivel]

Dang, Graham got bodied.

 

[the sceptic]

 

[oldcrank]

Oh, please - that is as bad as a Godwin's law invocation.

You are apparently not a Dylan fan, my friend. I believe Zam Olyas is.

 

[The Hitch]

"...sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace..."

Nicely done friend

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Great that you're happy, who is next on your list?

BTW did I ever tell you that I really like you, your posts are always fantastic and informative.
I hope you consider me a long term friend.

 

[the sceptic]

Great that you're happy, who is next on your list?

BTW did I ever tell you that I really like you, your posts are always fantastic and informative.
I hope you consider me a long term friend.

I dont know if you noticed but I have been lobbying against the 1 month bans for a long time without any success so I doubt the mod(s) care much about what I post.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What rules did he break? Total bullsh.t

reason for ban :IMO not genuinely interested in discussion and debate.

Hmmm, so many people post here not interested in discussion and debate on all sides of the argument, specifically those who are so convinced that Sky must be doping that there can't be any other explanation

Lets be honest - the guy was trolling (broad definition)
And was probably a former banned user.
Neither IMO are ban worthy.

What was required was some gentle modification - dial back the rhetoric, keep it on point. But again, that should apply to all sides. If they start getting out of hand, then more drastic action may be required.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I dont know if you noticed but I have been lobbying against the 1 month bans for a long time without any success so I doubt the mod(s) care much about what I post.

Only when TheHog got banned, for a month.

 

[sittingbison]

What rules did he break?...

del1962, if they broke one of the rules they would have received a polite request to be more careful, then an instruction to desist, then a warning, then a small ban, then a longer ban, then a much longer ban, then a permaban.

They were careful to not break the rules.

...What was required was some gentle modification - dial back the rhetoric, keep it on point...

Quite frankly it had already got past the point of some gentle moderation, thus:

... If they start getting out of hand, then more drastic action may be required.

 

[the sceptic]

Only when TheHog got banned, for a month.

not true, I was also complaining when you and hitch got banned, and probably others that Ive forgotten about.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

del1962, if they broke one of the rules they would have received a polite request to be more careful, then an instruction to desist, then a warning, then a small ban, then a longer ban, then a much longer ban, then a permaban.

They were careful to not break the rules.



Quite frankly it had already got past the point of some gentle moderation, thus:

So, now people are being banned permanently for NOT breaking the rules?

 

[Cyivel]

Maybe we all need to brake a rule to ensure we don't get banned.

 

[Granville57]

So, now people are being banned permanently for NOT breaking the rules?

They should be. You know the old saying:

If you're not breaking the rules, you're not trying.

 

[hiero2]

You are apparently not a Dylan fan, my friend. I believe Zam Olyas is.

Dylan FAN? Not as in fanboy, no. And, no, you are correct in realizing that I did not get the reference.

But I do remember being stoned out of my gourd in Boston and buying a copy of the White album when it was first out - and selling it a year or so later - because it really wasn't all that good.

 

[Tom375]

Dylan FAN? Not as in fanboy, no. And, no, you are correct in realizing that I did not get the reference.

But I do remember being stoned out of my gourd in Boston and buying a copy of the White album when it was first out - and selling it a year or so later - because it really wasn't all that good.

Funnyman! How much did you sell it for ? Or we're you too stoned man.... Just a few tokes!

 

[sittingbison]

Only when TheHog got banned, for a month.

thehog got banned for a month knowing exactly what he was getting into, he had been warned on numerous occasions and made many promises and agreed to a course of action to avoid said sanction, all of which he immediately broke including the final warning.

 

[sittingbison]

So, now people are being banned permanently for NOT breaking the rules?

if they have joined for no other purpose than to hijack and derail a thread, then yes. IMO....and like it or lump it it IS my opinion that counts in this situation....this was a new member who joined for exactly that purpose, not genuinely interested in honest debate or discussion.

 

[Tom375]

if they have joined for no other purpose than to hijack and derail a thread, then yes. IMO....and like it or lump it it IS my opinion that counts in this situation....this was a new member who joined for exactly that purpose, not genuinely interested in honest debate or discussion.

"It's just your opinion dude.."

Wouldn't know for sure whether he was having us all on or what... but I assume from your comments that this was not a replica account of Joachim etc... Just you and sceptic felt it ???

Tbf and it don't know if this is because the clinic has cleaned up a bit since last here I thought the responses he got from people that say "Sky are doping" were mostly intelligent , to the point and would have been generally thought provoking if you came into the Sky thread blinkered and a bit naive (as is possible with the new member). Particularly thought the posts of Red Flanders were very good.

If you go back to Hiero2's posts earlier in the thread, he mentions that it is difficult to tell from the start, I think that's true, I don't think that anything said by Graham S is anything that hasn't been asked by anyone supporting a clean Sky before, I would have agreed though given the nature of the questions and the fact that they are the same one's that normally crop (difficult for it to be otherwise) that it would have been normal to monitor him for a while longer to see if and how he was digesting the information that he apparently craved, I.e to be enlightened.. If he was genuine if doubt that he everï will be now...

 

[mewmewmew13]

Maybe we all need to brake a rule to ensure we don't get banned.

when do we start?

 

[Hugh Januss]

if they have joined for no other purpose than to hijack and derail a thread, then yes. IMO....and like it or lump it it IS my opinion that counts in this situation....this was a new member who joined for exactly that purpose, not genuinely interested in honest debate or discussion.

So then the problem here is your opinion (or you), I saw nothing in his posts to the point that he was banned that suggested anything more than naivety. I checked and that doesn't seem to be against the rules.
As far as I can tell it's just another in an incredibly long line of poor decisions by CN mods.
To put it more bluntly, it was Berzin-like.