the sceptic said:
Your one of the biggest trolls on the forums though, but you constantly whine about others
- Status
Your one of the biggest trolls on the forums though, but you constantly whine about others
pedaling squares said:
+1
Well said.
When I read for what Doc was banned, I could not believe, thought that there has to be some other reason. But if his Berzin post was a reason, oh well. Very weird decision.
- Dec 7, 2010
- 5,507
- 0
- 0
I see that sittingbison took a stand. 
Should make for an interesting next couple of days.
So much for Zen Hog. Although I anxiously await the arrival of ZenBro.
The two of them combined will cast a ZenDeal on this place—a glow of enlightenment—the likes of which have never been seen before. In no time at all, The Clinic will be near levitating.
Just you wait...
Should make for an interesting next couple of days.
So much for Zen Hog. Although I anxiously await the arrival of ZenBro.
The two of them combined will cast a ZenDeal on this place—a glow of enlightenment—the likes of which have never been seen before. In no time at all, The Clinic will be near levitating.
Just you wait...
- Mar 9, 2013
- 1,996
- 0
- 0
Pathetic Moderator absoloute pathetic whoever deleted my comment, so funny i gave credit to contador said he only one can beat Froome and said but its took this result to show peoples true colours, the same guys who thrash CF and Sky were saying go on Contador beat the Borgs, can people be trolling anymore than that guys, one is a doper lol. This forum is so biast its untrue yet it's us minority whod defend CF who look like idiots because even the mods dont like them, come on mods all tell who u support in Cycling only guy who as been balanced on a comment was Berzin.
You get comments like only watched cycling since Sky? Urg no i been following since Basso days in 04, just admit were a minority and u hate someone from a small cycling country dominating, it's a fact becuase u let Sceptic get a way with murder he trolls everyone.
You get comments like only watched cycling since Sky? Urg no i been following since Basso days in 04, just admit were a minority and u hate someone from a small cycling country dominating, it's a fact becuase u let Sceptic get a way with murder he trolls everyone.
- Mar 9, 2013
- 1,996
- 0
- 0
Ban me if you want aswell good ridance i done nothing wrong on here u never like me airing my voice, removed comments in past a few of you have, and we all no youve been caught out b4 putting biast in the way of things. I may aswell leave this great website its no point its sad really sad
- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,906
- 1
- 0
ChewbaccaD said:
Good posts, Chewie AND thehog. Chewie, you are trolling thehog here, tho. Intentionally, although I have not the faintest idea why. But both of you show willingness to accept consequences as adults. Good on ya.
BigMac said:
The Hitch said:
To my knowledge, and based on my experience, what BigMac is saying is a complete fiction. And, as for The Hitch validating that - it is also a complete fiction. Hitch, you are imagining things if you think you can read other people's minds. Knowing a couple of the mods who were on board during the presence of snackattack, I will say, without reservation, that if they KNEW it was Daotec, the ban would have happened. Ergo, they did NOT KNOW. They might have suspected, but they did not KNOW. And, you offer no proof that anyone even suspected.
Last point here, I've seen you and others be wrong in the past when pointing at a supposed sockpuppet - even when I knew - and let it be known that there WAS proof otherwise. I am deeply skeptical of any clairvoyance you lay claim to.
mewmewmew13 said:
Well said. But, as history has demonstrated, this forum will not become a black hole. The posting may become less valuable, but that is a hard thing to measure. The post count will not go down. This is a natural nexus for cycling forum traffic.
thehog said:
Indeed. That IS truly awesome.
- Mar 13, 2009
- 5,245
- 2
- 0
hrotha said:
Sorry hrotha usually I am on your side, you know I am. No one will get offended by this, but you've got to be careful not to end up looking like an incredible d*uche, like that guy Tom Perkins
http://nation.time.com/2014/01/27/tom-perkins-kristallnacht/
TANK91 said:
You seem like a passionate chap TANK91 but it might be worth just taking a step back, breathe and relax, most people on here have posts modded and they might not agree with it but no point in getting that upset or not posting anymore.
- Jul 21, 2012
- 9,860
- 3
- 0
- Jul 21, 2012
- 9,860
- 3
- 0
Eshnar said:
good. Netserk is about to lose an avatar bet to me so it would be a shame if he was gone for long.
dont worry, the avatar will be extra punishment.
- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,906
- 1
- 0
The Final Case, or How the Marquis got His Coat Back
The Final Case, or How the Marquis got His Coat Back
Wherein WILL be found! Truth! Secrets Unveiled! Mysteries Revealed!
The subtitle is plagiarized from Neil Gaiman - but let it serve as fair warning that this will not be short.
Intro: on awakening this morning, the best way to say a particular something occurred to me. It was one of those "Secrets That Shall Not Be Revealed" - as it is talking about people who are current mods. And, normally, out of loyalty and camaraderie and all that is good, and honest, and honorable, one does not talk about one's own.
However, sometimes things go more easily when you spell things out. A, B, C, D . . .!
First, Berzin and Parrulo are the two current mods who I think should not be mods. On other boards, they would have been banned for actions they have done here, as mods. They are NOT bad mods. They mean well. But, they both have bad tempers, and they do not know what NOT to say when they get "in a temper". The worst part, in my mind, they do not recognize that they have made an error in judgment. Now that I realized HOW to say this, it is not so hard, and may not be particularly painful.
There is another controversial, now former, mod. In my personal opinion, Netserk was not a bad mod - he tends to wind up inside an argument for the sake of it - vortexing - refusing to recognize answers that are laid out before him. He wants answers completely and irrefutably laid out. However, he has a good mind, and he is obviously (at least to me) demonstrating learning as his experience level on the boards grows. And, he is sensitive to criticism of him. Those are things that will stand him in good stead, given time.
Now let's talk about board management for a while. First topic - customer communications. The "customer" here is a board poster. Yet the customer communications are not treated as such. Prime example: when you have a problem customer, you usually try to talk to them first, to find an acceptable and doable solution. Perhaps you say "We are so sorry, that isn't the way we normally do things - and we'll take steps to insure it does not occur again". Or you might say "That really is against our rules, and we will have to stand by the rules. Please respect this as a warning." And this forum's mod squad is VERY inconsistent about doing that sort of good communication. Example: when a poster is perma-banned as a sockpuppet - this is done without warning. There is no communication with the poster to discover if there was a possibly valid reason for whatever "clues" led the mod to believe the person was a sockpuppet.
Now, keep in mind, the bad communication techniques are not universal. They are occasional, and only occasional. But, often enough that they should be addressed internally by the management of the board. IMO.
As I segue into the next topic, I will mention an example of "sockpuppet" banning. No names, but a father and son act. The final "evidence" that they were a "sockpuppet" duo was that they had the same IP address. No communication to them to discover why they might have the same IP. But wait a sec here. They were a father and son - residing in the same house. One could EXPECT that they would have the same IP. They are likely using the same internet connection, even if they are on different computers within their household. Ooops.
I'm going to use that example to move into the next section. Because one of the reasons that duo got banned was because one of them tended to think that not everything Armstrong did was bad. And, of course, saying anything like that, around here, is a sure way, to get a fight started. THEREFORE, this poster was labeled a troll. Not because his opinion was not valid, but because, around here, his opinion, even though he is entitled to it, was a sure bet to start a fight. Now, I can see a mod wanting to stop a fight, but in my mind, the stated goals of the board are to allow all opinions. Therefore, the regulars who wanted to fight over this were at fault, not the person with the opinion.
This would be true, at least at the level of individual posts. As it was so aptly said about BPC: it wasn't his individual posts that made him intolerable, it was his ability to continue posting and to ultimately make a thread unreadable. So, if my example poster above kept getting in fights, and encouraging them, and then didn't listen to warnings, then a warning ban is justified, yes? I think we can all agree on that.
This leads me to another topic: trolling standards. I will name an example here, as I do not believe it will cause any damage. Airstream, was at his very worst, a minor nuisance. An annoyance, no worse than a fly buzzing around one's head. But, he was fairly persistently a nuisance, and this eventually earned him a perma-ban. In my opinion, it was a bad ban, because - and THIS is THE "ACID TEST" - he did not destroy a thread, nor the forum, nor defame or flame other posters. Well, he might have engaged in some of that, but it was pretty mild stuff. Contrast Airstream against long-time, and well known posters who regularly, as one said, (I paraphrase), "drop a bomb to liven up the conversation". A number of these regulars regularly post in a a manner that is sure to start a fight, that is guaranteed to stir things up, and in doing so generally make a thread unworthy of being read. And, they do it for the fun of it.
Some of these unnamed posters have been called, by other posters (including one who is a mod on another forum in a different sport), of being "the worst trolls we have at CN". There are two characteristics of a malicious troll: disruption (or destruction), and intent.
The unnamed offenders HAVE done it on purpose. At least, I am convinced it is intentional. Their actions have sometimes been things that a malicious troll does: destroy a thread, damage the forum, started a flame war, etc. They are also so artful that they can honestly look the officer in the face and say: "hey, I didn't do anything!" and get away with it. Because what they did was that artful. So, it COULD be regarded as just "lively debate". And, they do not persist in aggravating behavior. They only engage occasionally. This is an important point.
They rarely get bans or warnings. (Remember this point, as on the next topic we will come back to it.)
[After writing this, I came across the recent warning bans issued to several of the "unnamed" regulars. My thinking is "RIGHT ON!" As I believe this is showing consistency in judgment.]
Next point. "Rarely" getting bans or warnings. A lot of stuff goes unnoticed (by mods) on the boards, unless a member complains. Due to the small number of mods, and the management culture of same, there are not enough to insure that a mod is paying attention to new posts. They are forced, often, to only work a rear-guard action, only responding to complaints by posters. In a lively and active forum such as CN, this is a sure way to be seen as inconsistent.
What does this all come down to? You have a set of mods - who put in good time. It is WORK, not play. Their efforts should be appreciated by the other posters. They all mean well, and want to do well. I don't think any of them intend to do anything else. But, it all comes down to management culture. You have some poor communication techniques. You have poor internal group guidance on standards. And you have too few staff to do the task in a manner seen as adequate by the consumer.
What does this all get back to? Dan. I heartily thank Dan for CN. I'm glad to have CN out there for my cycling news. These forums ARE Dan's. And always will be so long as he is editor at CN. But, my conclusion is that Dan is not the management person the forums need to realize their potential (other than their current, somewhat dysfunctional status). He needs to step aside and find someone to run the forums. The mods need a few good leaders, so the regular mods can be just that - regular, human mods, with human failings. The human failings part is going to happen regardless.
Now, my guess is that the forums will never generate enough income to afford paying someone to do this that job. Which means that the leadership will have to be passed to some senior volunteer mods. The forum, and the mods, need a firmer and more constant, hand, if they are to be anything more than what you see today. And, in my opinion, those leaders need to be people who want the leadership, and who have some idea of how to manage, and some experience in management. Well meaning people who do not want the role are not really good candidates. The selection of said mods needs to show more effort to recruit them, and more effort in consideration of who they are.
On forum death. It is easy enough for a mod to look up posting stats, comparing now to a past time. They are consistent - the stats do NOT show a declining board. If the stats are not declining, yet we have a large, and recognized, level of churn in posters, what does this mean? Are the posters growing up, and leaving the online world? I don't think so. In spite of poster loss, there are sufficient new posters coming in to replace those lost. Bicyclists tend to stay in the cycling world. What this means is that CN is a natural nexus for forum attention. Now, think. What would happen if the management focus changed to retaining poster readership? Why, the forums would grow, of course, right?
Done. Now, I'm going for a hike to the Reichenbach Falls. See ya there!
The Final Case, or How the Marquis got His Coat Back
Wherein WILL be found! Truth! Secrets Unveiled! Mysteries Revealed!
The subtitle is plagiarized from Neil Gaiman - but let it serve as fair warning that this will not be short.
Intro: on awakening this morning, the best way to say a particular something occurred to me. It was one of those "Secrets That Shall Not Be Revealed" - as it is talking about people who are current mods. And, normally, out of loyalty and camaraderie and all that is good, and honest, and honorable, one does not talk about one's own.
However, sometimes things go more easily when you spell things out. A, B, C, D . . .!
First, Berzin and Parrulo are the two current mods who I think should not be mods. On other boards, they would have been banned for actions they have done here, as mods. They are NOT bad mods. They mean well. But, they both have bad tempers, and they do not know what NOT to say when they get "in a temper". The worst part, in my mind, they do not recognize that they have made an error in judgment. Now that I realized HOW to say this, it is not so hard, and may not be particularly painful.
There is another controversial, now former, mod. In my personal opinion, Netserk was not a bad mod - he tends to wind up inside an argument for the sake of it - vortexing - refusing to recognize answers that are laid out before him. He wants answers completely and irrefutably laid out. However, he has a good mind, and he is obviously (at least to me) demonstrating learning as his experience level on the boards grows. And, he is sensitive to criticism of him. Those are things that will stand him in good stead, given time.
Now let's talk about board management for a while. First topic - customer communications. The "customer" here is a board poster. Yet the customer communications are not treated as such. Prime example: when you have a problem customer, you usually try to talk to them first, to find an acceptable and doable solution. Perhaps you say "We are so sorry, that isn't the way we normally do things - and we'll take steps to insure it does not occur again". Or you might say "That really is against our rules, and we will have to stand by the rules. Please respect this as a warning." And this forum's mod squad is VERY inconsistent about doing that sort of good communication. Example: when a poster is perma-banned as a sockpuppet - this is done without warning. There is no communication with the poster to discover if there was a possibly valid reason for whatever "clues" led the mod to believe the person was a sockpuppet.
Now, keep in mind, the bad communication techniques are not universal. They are occasional, and only occasional. But, often enough that they should be addressed internally by the management of the board. IMO.
As I segue into the next topic, I will mention an example of "sockpuppet" banning. No names, but a father and son act. The final "evidence" that they were a "sockpuppet" duo was that they had the same IP address. No communication to them to discover why they might have the same IP. But wait a sec here. They were a father and son - residing in the same house. One could EXPECT that they would have the same IP. They are likely using the same internet connection, even if they are on different computers within their household. Ooops.
I'm going to use that example to move into the next section. Because one of the reasons that duo got banned was because one of them tended to think that not everything Armstrong did was bad. And, of course, saying anything like that, around here, is a sure way, to get a fight started. THEREFORE, this poster was labeled a troll. Not because his opinion was not valid, but because, around here, his opinion, even though he is entitled to it, was a sure bet to start a fight. Now, I can see a mod wanting to stop a fight, but in my mind, the stated goals of the board are to allow all opinions. Therefore, the regulars who wanted to fight over this were at fault, not the person with the opinion.
This would be true, at least at the level of individual posts. As it was so aptly said about BPC: it wasn't his individual posts that made him intolerable, it was his ability to continue posting and to ultimately make a thread unreadable. So, if my example poster above kept getting in fights, and encouraging them, and then didn't listen to warnings, then a warning ban is justified, yes? I think we can all agree on that.
This leads me to another topic: trolling standards. I will name an example here, as I do not believe it will cause any damage. Airstream, was at his very worst, a minor nuisance. An annoyance, no worse than a fly buzzing around one's head. But, he was fairly persistently a nuisance, and this eventually earned him a perma-ban. In my opinion, it was a bad ban, because - and THIS is THE "ACID TEST" - he did not destroy a thread, nor the forum, nor defame or flame other posters. Well, he might have engaged in some of that, but it was pretty mild stuff. Contrast Airstream against long-time, and well known posters who regularly, as one said, (I paraphrase), "drop a bomb to liven up the conversation". A number of these regulars regularly post in a a manner that is sure to start a fight, that is guaranteed to stir things up, and in doing so generally make a thread unworthy of being read. And, they do it for the fun of it.
Some of these unnamed posters have been called, by other posters (including one who is a mod on another forum in a different sport), of being "the worst trolls we have at CN". There are two characteristics of a malicious troll: disruption (or destruction), and intent.
The unnamed offenders HAVE done it on purpose. At least, I am convinced it is intentional. Their actions have sometimes been things that a malicious troll does: destroy a thread, damage the forum, started a flame war, etc. They are also so artful that they can honestly look the officer in the face and say: "hey, I didn't do anything!" and get away with it. Because what they did was that artful. So, it COULD be regarded as just "lively debate". And, they do not persist in aggravating behavior. They only engage occasionally. This is an important point.
They rarely get bans or warnings. (Remember this point, as on the next topic we will come back to it.)
[After writing this, I came across the recent warning bans issued to several of the "unnamed" regulars. My thinking is "RIGHT ON!" As I believe this is showing consistency in judgment.]
Next point. "Rarely" getting bans or warnings. A lot of stuff goes unnoticed (by mods) on the boards, unless a member complains. Due to the small number of mods, and the management culture of same, there are not enough to insure that a mod is paying attention to new posts. They are forced, often, to only work a rear-guard action, only responding to complaints by posters. In a lively and active forum such as CN, this is a sure way to be seen as inconsistent.
What does this all come down to? You have a set of mods - who put in good time. It is WORK, not play. Their efforts should be appreciated by the other posters. They all mean well, and want to do well. I don't think any of them intend to do anything else. But, it all comes down to management culture. You have some poor communication techniques. You have poor internal group guidance on standards. And you have too few staff to do the task in a manner seen as adequate by the consumer.
What does this all get back to? Dan. I heartily thank Dan for CN. I'm glad to have CN out there for my cycling news. These forums ARE Dan's. And always will be so long as he is editor at CN. But, my conclusion is that Dan is not the management person the forums need to realize their potential (other than their current, somewhat dysfunctional status). He needs to step aside and find someone to run the forums. The mods need a few good leaders, so the regular mods can be just that - regular, human mods, with human failings. The human failings part is going to happen regardless.
Now, my guess is that the forums will never generate enough income to afford paying someone to do this that job. Which means that the leadership will have to be passed to some senior volunteer mods. The forum, and the mods, need a firmer and more constant, hand, if they are to be anything more than what you see today. And, in my opinion, those leaders need to be people who want the leadership, and who have some idea of how to manage, and some experience in management. Well meaning people who do not want the role are not really good candidates. The selection of said mods needs to show more effort to recruit them, and more effort in consideration of who they are.
On forum death. It is easy enough for a mod to look up posting stats, comparing now to a past time. They are consistent - the stats do NOT show a declining board. If the stats are not declining, yet we have a large, and recognized, level of churn in posters, what does this mean? Are the posters growing up, and leaving the online world? I don't think so. In spite of poster loss, there are sufficient new posters coming in to replace those lost. Bicyclists tend to stay in the cycling world. What this means is that CN is a natural nexus for forum attention. Now, think. What would happen if the management focus changed to retaining poster readership? Why, the forums would grow, of course, right?
Done. Now, I'm going for a hike to the Reichenbach Falls. See ya there!
- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,906
- 1
- 0
Related to the previous, but not really a part of it, Somewhere in here I want to mention Dr Mas. Because, you see, Dr Mas is an interesting case. He repeatedly made threads unreadable. After all, he was the reason "Vortex" and "vortexing" joined the local lexicon! (History got made there!) During many personal conversations with him (of the warning type), both by myself, and others of the mods (and Dan, too), we were ALL convinced, repeatedly, that he did not INTEND to disrupt or destroy threads. Apparently that was just the level of detail Dr Mas thinks at. But, even tho he claimed he never intended to be, he was consistently disruptive. Which would mean the mods had to get involved to reduce the disruption. My guess, from what we saw in public, is that there was little or no attempt to communicate the mod actions to Dr Mas in this last go-round of post deletions and mod actions.
On the other hand, given that Dr Mas had been disruptive for MONTHS, and actively so, one can understand that there might be a viewpoint in favor of dealing out the perma-ban. Personally, I think he was the "lively conversation" type of disruptive - but that is just me, and I am nobody.
On the other hand, given that Dr Mas had been disruptive for MONTHS, and actively so, one can understand that there might be a viewpoint in favor of dealing out the perma-ban. Personally, I think he was the "lively conversation" type of disruptive - but that is just me, and I am nobody.
- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,906
- 1
- 0
hrotha said:
TANK91 said:
Eshnar said:
Kristalltag?? Or Kristallnacht??? Kristalltag is an art site, in German, that google translate will not translate for me - so I don't know what it is on about, other than that it obviously references Kristallnacht.
Kristalltag may be acceptable, although borderline. Comparisons to Kristallnacht are ineluctably drawn into the possibility that Godwin's law has been invoked. Not to mention bad taste. Oh, did I just mention bad taste? Silly me.
And, no, Tank it does not seem to be directed at you. I would guess it is directed at the recent bans. However, the reference is more Schleier than Kristall to me.
Esh - SB - Ferryman - good work afaic. Chapeau.
- Sep 25, 2009
- 7,527
- 1
- 0
mods, you look repressive...
let me be clear, i have no competence, much less objections to the mod actions quoted above, simply b/c i have not seen nor participated in the subject threads...
but 5 active, productive members banned at once ?! ...well, the impression i got was of the excessively repressive approach made public.
again, they may have deserved the short vacation, but - pls, hear me out - slamming so many productive members so loudly in public, is sick.
jeezus, can't you people work smarter and more discretely...like putting the sinners in the post preview in stead of making the hangings public as if they will help preventing anything. again, i heard plenty of the arguments about the public hangings being a communication tool, but that's an obvious bs because several recent hangings were
mystery b/c the henchman chose so despite the standing practice...
let me be clear, i have no competence, much less objections to the mod actions quoted above, simply b/c i have not seen nor participated in the subject threads...
but 5 active, productive members banned at once ?! ...well, the impression i got was of the excessively repressive approach made public.
again, they may have deserved the short vacation, but - pls, hear me out - slamming so many productive members so loudly in public, is sick.
jeezus, can't you people work smarter and more discretely
...like putting the sinners in the post preview in stead of making the hangings public as if they will help preventing anything. again, i heard plenty of the arguments about the public hangings being a communication tool, but that's an obvious bs because several recent hangings were mystery b/c the henchman chose so despite the standing practice...
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 23K
-
Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard thread: Love in Iberia- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 10K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram