Moderators

[Dr. Maserati]

Is that the best you could do? Dont worry though, dr V has a soft spot for troll bots.

Unlike you, I have no problem with someone having a different opinion about Sky.(or any subject)
That's is a reflection on you, no-one else.

The fact you continue to dismiss them as bots and then seek their removal is disgraceful. It is no ones fault that you cannot make an intelligent argument to counter them.

 

[the sceptic]

Unlike you, I have no problem with someone having a different opinion about Sky.(or any subject)
That's is a reflection on you, no-one else.

The fact you continue to dismiss them as bots and then seek their removal is disgraceful. It is no ones fault that you cannot make an intelligent argument to counter them.

So you dont think they are trolling? have you read their posts?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So you dont think they are trolling? have you read their posts?

I have, and I have responded to them.
I look forward to you applying your standards of what constitutes trolling when your buddy Hog returns.

 

[Netserk]

I have, and I have responded to them.
I look forward to you applying your standards of what constitutes trolling when your buddy Hog returns.

Why not answer his question?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why not answer his question?

I think they were trying to be, by being obtuse.
But if that was a measure to complain, then there would be a lot of complaints about posts.

That's why I mentioned that I responded to them concentrating on point, ignoring the rest. And they toned down after that.

 

[Netserk]

I think they were trying to be, by being obtuse.
But if that was a measure to complain, then there would be a lot of complaints about posts.

That's why I mentioned that I responded to them concentrating on point, ignoring the rest. And they toned down after that.

Thanks for the answer.

 

[the sceptic]

I think they were trying to be, by being obtuse.
But if that was a measure to complain, then there would be a lot of complaints about posts.

That's why I mentioned that I responded to them concentrating on point, ignoring the rest. And they toned down after that.

if their entire posting history consists of that, then maybe we can conclude they are a troll then? Or is this another disgraceful claim.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

if their entire posting history consists of that, then maybe we can conclude they are a troll then? Or is this another disgraceful claim.

They are not much different from you nearly 2500 posts.
You sought MV to be banned for nitpicking, Graham S was banned for nothing, and now Enchave.

Tell you what, go ahead and show me a particular post that you are proud of or that you feel offered some insight to the forum. There must be one right? Go ahead get it for us.

 

[the sceptic]

They are not much different from you nearly 2500 posts.
You sought MV to be banned for nitpicking, Graham S was banned for nothing, and now Enchave.

Tell you what, go ahead and show me a particular post that you are proud of or that you feel offered some insight to the forum. There must be one right? Go ahead get it for us.

And if I added 10,000 posts of vortexing it wouldnt be too much different from your posts.

I dont really care if you think I dont offer any insight to the forum, I never claimed I did. However, Im pretty sure that I troll alot less than those posters and that I am right more often than them.

 

[The Hitch]

Yes we definitely will have to disagree.

The claim that posting on topic stuff in a relevant thread is 'derailing' because it somehow 'gets' (as if they didn't have any choice) other posters to respond with equally on-topic replies is extraordinary.

Ibegs the question WTF is a discussion forum for if it's not for discussing the topic at hand?

Especially, in this case, when you've got a a thread that is 23,000 posts long. 23,000. I think some individual posters have posted over 1,000 times in it (and let's just assume they haven't made 1,000 unique points. . .). Yet somehow a handful of posts in February 2014 have somehow uniquely 'derailed' the thread worthy of a perma-ban.

On that logic you should lock most of the threads on the Clinic and ban us all.

They have been allowed back though. A few hours after Graham is banned a new profile with the exact same everything, just happens to come in, and continues the same discussions with the same posters. Graham has been allowed to continue under a new name so what's the problem?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And if I added 10,000 posts of vortexing it wouldnt be too much different from your posts.

I would have less posts if I didn't engage in discussions with people and instead whinged to the mods every time I took exception to someone had a different opinion than me.

I dont really care if you think I dont offer any insight to the forum, I never claimed I did. However, Im pretty sure that I troll alot less than those posters and that I am right more often than them.

I know you didn't, I made the claim and requested that you show just one post from the 2000+ that you would be proud of.
Your inability to do so speaks volumes for your input here.

 

[the sceptic]

I would have less posts if I didn't engage in discussions with people and instead whinged to the mods every time I took exception to someone had a different opinion than me.


I know you didn't, I made the claim and requested that you show just one post from the 2000+ that you would be proud of.
Your inability to do so speaks volumes for your input here.

yes its quite possible that im no better than your average troll, but at least I have never quit the forums or gotten banned so I must be doing something right.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

yes its quite possible that im no better than your average troll, but at least I have never quit the forums or gotten banned so I must be doing something right.

The fact that you can go around dismissing people who don't agree with you as Skybots, and seeking their removal, that you continue after RR and never got banned is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong with this forum.

Hence why I post on this thread - I could just suck up to the mods, and then get people I don't like banned - but I prefer a more open forum that encourages more diverse views, or better opinions, better debates or discussions.

I realise that occasionally pis$es off the mods and puts a target on my back - I don't really care about that.

 

[the sceptic]

The fact that you can go around dismissing people who don't agree with you as Skybots, and seeking their removal, that you continue after RR and never got banned is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong with this forum.

Hence why I post on this thread - I could just suck up to the mods, and then get people I don't like banned - but I prefer a more open forum that encourages more diverse views, or better opinions, better debates or discussions.

I realise that occasionally pis$es off the mods and puts a target on my back - I don't really care about that.

Yes maybe I should have done what you did and quit the forum due to too many trolls.

And do you have any links to where I suck up to the mods?

 

[hiero2]

Yes maybe I should have done what you did and quit the forum due to too many trolls.

And do you have any links to where I suck up to the mods?

The bold bit? You are reading meaning into his statement that is likely not there. And if it is, way too subtle - too easy for people to miss, therefore no good as insinuation. KISS solution is "reading something into it".

But the thread would be less interesting, and more pleasant, if you two quit bickering.

I think I'll go for a ride in the park. And I'll take the dogs with - more pleasant. C ya!

 

[red_flanders]

The fact that you can go around dismissing people who don't agree with you as Skybots, and seeking their removal, that you continue after RR and never got banned is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong with this forum.

Hence why I post on this thread - I could just suck up to the mods, and then get people I don't like banned - but I prefer a more open forum that encourages more diverse views, or better opinions, better debates or discussions.

I realise that occasionally pis$es off the mods and puts a target on my back - I don't really care about that.

There's a lot of irony there. You frown upon getting people you don't like banned, but complain that Sceptic wasn't banned. You want a more diverse views, but complain that Sceptic "continues after" RR. Sounds like an attempt at curtailing opposing views rather than encouraging them.

Let's not lobby to have any untouchable users here. BS can come from anyone.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There's a lot of irony there. You frown upon getting people you don't like banned, but complain that Sceptic wasn't banned. You want a more diverse views, but complain that Sceptic "continues after" RR. Sounds like an attempt at curtailing opposing views rather than encouraging them.

There is no irony.
I never complained that Sceptic is not banned.

I pointed out the irony in someone who is chasing someone around the place then comes here and requests posters get removed, not because they did anything wrong but because they are 'skybots'.

People should be able to post any opinion on cycling as they wish. Simple stuff.
And everyone should get the same protection and be subject to the same rules.

Let's not lobby to have any untouchable users here. BS can come from anyone.

Hold on - I have never done that.
I have no problem with your point but do not insinuate something that I have never said nor believe.

 

[red_flanders]

I get the point you're making. Lobby too strong a term then. Anyway, thanks for not flaming me for the comment.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I get the point you're making. Lobby too strong a term then. Anyway, thanks for not flaming me for the comment.

As its now brought up - let me broaden the point.

There should be no untouchables here.
Irrespective of opinion, post count, or expertise. Everyone should be held to account to the same terms.
Likewise there should not be an attitude (which I believe exists in the mods) of letting posters defend for themselves, or letting things slide because of the ability of a poster.

Judge the merits of the post, not the poster or the subject.

 

[red_flanders]

As its now brought up - let me broaden the point.

There should be no untouchables here.
Irrespective of opinion, post count, or expertise. Everyone should be held to account to the same terms.
Likewise there should not be an attitude (which I believe exists in the mods) of letting posters defend for themselves, or letting things slide because of the ability of a poster.

Judge the merits of the post, not the poster or the subject.

I'm sure no one will believe it, but I never saw that come up in any sanction discussion while I was a mod.

What I did see every day was people calling others with differing opinions "trolls". That was an every day occurrence. Mods are not to blame for incessant bickering.

 

[hiero2]

As its now brought up - let me broaden the point.

There should be no untouchables here.
Irrespective of opinion, post count, or expertise. Everyone should be held to account to the same terms.
Likewise there should not be an attitude (which I believe exists in the mods) of letting posters defend for themselves, or letting things slide because of the ability of a poster.

Judge the merits of the post, not the poster or the subject.

Mas - I think you may be referring back to my post "let the big boys defend themselves" as an example of the attitude you mention above. Since I think you are misreading both the attitude, and the actions, I'll pop in a few words. I did go out of my way, a couple of times, to delete or censor unwarranted attacks, or attacks that were vile, vicious, or, were, in the mod's view, unacceptably inflammatory. Other mods have done the same, throughout the brief history of modding. We also take flack for shutting down free speech when we do so. So it can be a fine line.

When a poster is experienced, and has a known quantity of temperament, we might allow more badinage than would be appropriate between lesser known characters. This is human - we know the individuals - at least as fellow netizens. We know them as thick skinned - or not. But it is quite obvious, using as an example the recent Amsterhammer brouhaha, that all posters are held accountable. The Politics arena is one that typically "allows" more badinage. I find it quite intolerable, but I recognize that there is a community there that does not mind.

I think, in this, that you are exaggerating the impact of

f letting posters defend for themselves, or letting things slide because of the ability of a poster.

I don't think that the present mod squad, at least in the activity I see, is "letting things slide." Au contraire, based on the brouhaha, the enforcement seems even-handed across the board to me. Much of the reaction I've seen, in my opinion, is a reaction precisely COUNTER to your statement. I think I'm seeing people get upset because they ARE getting held to account. Regardless of experience. I'm applauding it.

 

[hiero2]

. . .
What I did see every day was people calling others with differing opinions "trolls". That was an every day occurrence. Mods are not to blame for incessant bickering.

Nicely said.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm sure no one will believe it, but I never saw that come up in any sanction discussion while I was a mod.

What I did see every day was people calling others with differing opinions "trolls". That was an every day occurrence. Mods are not to blame for incessant bickering.

I have often called people trolls - but I keep that for people who I believe troll, I don't distinguish their opinion.
What word would you like to use?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Mas - I think you may be referring back to my post "let the big boys defend themselves" as an example of the attitude you mention above. Since I think you are misreading both the attitude, and the actions, I'll pop in a few words. I did go out of my way, a couple of times, to delete or censor unwarranted attacks, or attacks that were vile, vicious, or, were, in the mod's view, unacceptably inflammatory. Other mods have done the same, throughout the brief history of modding. We also take flack for shutting down free speech when we do so. So it can be a fine line.

When a poster is experienced, and has a known quantity of temperament, we might allow more badinage than would be appropriate between lesser known characters. This is human - we know the individuals - at least as fellow netizens. We know them as thick skinned - or not. But it is quite obvious, using as an example the recent Amsterhammer brouhaha, that all posters are held accountable. The Politics arena is one that typically "allows" more badinage. I find it quite intolerable, but I recognize that there is a community there that does not mind.

I think, in this, that you are exaggerating the impact of I don't think that the present mod squad, at least in the activity I see, is "letting things slide." Au contraire, based on the brouhaha, the enforcement seems even-handed across the board to me. Much of the reaction I've seen, in my opinion, is a reaction precisely COUNTER to your statement. I think I'm seeing people get upset because they ARE getting held to account. Regardless of experience. I'm applauding it.

Firstly - I also read a post by SB that alluded to having different degrees of tolerance on different posters.

I disagree with the highlighted - and I think that exposes a or maybe the problem.

I am pretty thick skinned but I don't want to be trolled.
But if the attitude is for me to take it - then I will, and then I will give it.
Which then means that there really shouldn't be a problem if and when I flame someone.

But a much better solution is to stop it altogether.
You want rules or guidelines for the members to understand and follow? Something simple?

Keep it civil.
Keep it on point.
Thats it.

 

[red_flanders]

I have often called people trolls - but I keep that for people who I believe troll, I don't distinguish their opinion.
What word would you like to use?

Believe me, I was talking about many people not calling you out. Just saying the biggest problem and the most frequent issue was always the bickering, name-calling, troll accusations and discussion of who was a troll or not. Total waste of time.

It adds NOTHING to the thread for someone to call someone else a troll. Except it makes you feel better and everyone else feel worse.