Moderators

[hiero2]

Moderators,

I have been away for a while and have returned like the spring classics...

I seem to remember there was a rule in the clinic that you couldn't just state people were doping, you either had to back it up with evidence or clearly dfine the point as an opinion.

Does this rule still exist?

I think the answer is yes - but please read for yerself:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=23http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=23

 

[King Boonen]

I think the answer is yes - but please read for yerself:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=23http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=23

Thanks, I just wanted to know what the playing field looks like.

 

[sittingbison]

coffeee...keyboard

I cant decide whether to send it to the sidebar thread, the pun thread, or leave it here....I'm leaving it here.

Red Headed Dane, "vortex" asked and answered

Now gentle(wo)men, there is a LOT of gumf on this thread over the past week or so that does not strictly belong here. I'm leaving it. However, please try and keep to the topic, which I believe is abusing the mods.

cheers
bison

 

[The Hitch]

Tbf i think netserk has a point (since you linked to the twitter discussion sb). Lord knows I've had my run ins with him, but from what I saw he got banned for 1 post, that one really would never expect to get banned for. It was the same kind of meta discussion weve had 10 000 times in the last year and there was no warning for it so how was anyone to know they would get banned for 3 days for it?

Bans for small stuff like that imo should have warnings. Even if its a final warning - leave the thread now, its better than banning someone for a post that didn't even really break any rules.

 

[sittingbison]

good points The Hitch, which I am well aware of and why I usually let those 10000 contretemps slide.

In this instance, an unsavory fight was developing between usual suspects, and instead of leaving well enough alone the others all weighed in with snipes. All very experienced with thousands of posts each, all very well aware of not shooting the messenger. Frankly enough was enough, why should they get yet another warning? In the Sky thread for goodness sake? They bought it on themselves.

There were some other interpersonal issues as well, they are a different kettle of fish to be dealt with separately.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

I favor the rapid fire group ban if mods can't resist in these situations. But keep the bans very short. Bound to get something right in the mix.

But don't waste too much time explaining the action. Just a short notification in the ban list.

 

[Afrank]

Moderators,

I have been away for a while and have returned like the spring classics...

I seem to remember there was a rule in the clinic that you couldn't just state people were doping, you either had to back it up with evidence or clearly dfine the point as an opinion.

Does this rule still exist?

I think the answer is yes - but please read for yerself:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=23http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=23

Thanks, I just wanted to know what the playing field looks like.

To give an update on this, we have decided to make a slight change/clarification. You can state a rider is doping without backing it up with evidence. But you can't claim it to be a fact unless you back it up with a reliable source/evidence (unless of course it falls under the realm of common knowledge, i.e. Armstrong).

 

[hrotha]

What's the deal with the trigger-happy post deleting these days?

 

[Eshnar]

To give an update on this, we have decided to make a slight change/clarification. You can state a rider is doping without backing it up with evidence. But you can't claim it to be a fact unless you back it up with a reliable source/evidence (unless of course it falls under the realm of common knowledge, i.e. Armstrong).

About the matter, the rules post has just been edited.
Tbh, many of us mods were already interpreting it as it is now phrased. So we decided to remove this source of inconsistencies for good.

 

[Mellow Velo]

To give an update on this, we have decided to make a slight change/clarification. You can state a rider is doping without backing it up with evidence. But you can't claim it to be a fact unless you back it up with a reliable source/evidence (unless of course it falls under the realm of common knowledge, i.e. Armstrong).

Great news.
A rule that everybody has completely ignored for the past 3 years,
gets repealed.
Should work wonders for forum harmony, with now only one side capable of trolling.

 

[Eshnar]

Great news.
A rule that everybody has completely ignored for the past 3 years,
gets repealed.
Should work wonders for forum harmony, with now only one side capable of trolling.

meaning?

 

[Granville57]

What's the deal with the trigger-happy post deleting these days?

A clever mod would've deleted this.


Missed opportunity...

 

[King Boonen]

To give an update on this, we have decided to make a slight change/clarification. You can state a rider is doping without backing it up with evidence. But you can't claim it to be a fact unless you back it up with a reliable source/evidence (unless of course it falls under the realm of common knowledge, i.e. Armstrong).

Huh? Surely there is no difference between me saying "Froome is doping" and "It is a fact Froome is doping".

The underlined part is redundant.

 

[Granville57]

The underlined part is redundant.

The underlined part is about to get deleted.

 

[sittingbison]

Huh? Surely there is no difference between me saying "Froome is doping" and "It is a fact Froome is doping".

The underlined part is redundant.

LewisBrowning: "Dawg is doping"
Hogwash: "Yeah? Proove it"
HiramMaxim: "Don't have any proof, I just know/think/believe Dawg is doping"
Hogwarts: "Well then I just know/think/believe you're an idiot"

sittingbison: "gentle(wo)men, please play the ball not the man cheers bison"

edit:
sittingbison: "BTW Kalashnikov and Hogfather are banninated as sockpuppets"

 

[ferryman]

I didn't mean to do anything. But the next time I ask a question I'll remember to point out that the answer shouldn't be done by example.

Anyway; you're trying to

ain't ya?

Don't fret it RHD. I got your post for the genuine question it was AND the way you phrased it. The fact that others have jumped on it and have accused you of all sorts is just nonsense

If anyone thinks RHD is a troll, please take the time to review her posts and then apologise to her.

 

[ferryman]

Don't fret it RHD. I got your post for the genuine question it was AND the way you phrased it. The fact that others have jumped on it and have accused you of all sorts is just nonsense

If anyone thinks RHD is a troll, please take the time to review her posts and then apologise to her.

And I meant review RDH's posts in general, not just this thread to avoid further debate.

 

[Granville57]

Don't fret it RHD. I got your post for the genuine question it was AND the way you phrased it. The fact that others have jumped on it and have accused you of all sorts is just nonsense

Whaaaaa?????
Talk about "nonsense."

Nobody accused anybody of anything. Nowhere.

If anyone thinks RHD is a troll, please take the time to review her posts and then apologise to her.

Are you serious? RHD asked a question about vortexing. She was then vortexed (is that a word?) to demonstrate what vortexing is. Her answer arrived in the form of a demonstration (that sittingbison was rightly able to perceive and comprehend). Others have since posted in this thread explaining it to her, and by all accounts, she now perfectly understands what transpired.

And just in case something more was lost in translation, I have already PMed her, which I'm sure she can confirm.

It's all good.

But no longer much fun. Which was the original intent.

 

[mewmewmew13]

And I meant review RDH's posts in general, not just this thread to avoid further debate.

we love RHD
i love her hats from the member pix of yourself thread..

 

[EnacheV]

Afrank is the 1st mod i see managing to abuse people in public and encourage doping talk outside the clinic in his first week as mod.

 

[King Boonen]

LewisBrowning: "Dawg is doping"
Hogwash: "Yeah? Proove it"
HiramMaxim: "Don't have any proof, I just know/think/believe Dawg is doping"
Hogwarts: "Well then I just know/think/believe you're an idiot"

sittingbison: "gentle(wo)men, please play the ball not the man cheers bison"

edit:
sittingbison: "BTW Kalashnikov and Hogfather are banninated as sockpuppets"

So rather than have a rule stating that you need to provide clear references to back up doping claims or state it as an opinion we now end up in a situation when people have to question each other and is likely to cause an argument and result in sanctions?


Seems sensible...

 

[sittingbison]

Nup, just a little joke on my part.

Most people understand when an opinion is being expressed. If they don't, or it's unclear if opinion or statement, or they want to be combative, or even just want to see what the opinion is based on, they can ask.

If the OP wants to give a source, great. Otherwise say it's their opinion. If it's an unsubtantiated statement they will quickly be shot down.

It's called a conversation.

 

[King Boonen]

Nup, just a little joke on my part.

Most people understand when an opinion is being expressed. If they don't, or it's unclear if opinion or statement, or they want to be combative, or even just want to see what the opinion is based on, they can ask.

If the OP wants to give a source, great. Otherwise say it's their opinion. If it's an unsubtantiated statement they will quickly be shot down.

It's called a conversation.

You have actually tried to have one of those in the clinic haven't you...?

 

[Afrank]

Afrank is the 1st mod i see managing to abuse people in public and encourage doping talk outside the clinic in his first week as mod.

Please enlighten me as to what you are talking about? Because I have no idea.

Edit: I see what you mean by doping reference now, my post in the Geraint Thomas thread was not meant as a reference to doping. But more as a reference to how so many Sky riders are turned into GT contenders even without having done anything in a GT before. Just looking at Thomas's results in GT's and he's not someone you would expect to be contending for GT's in the future. yet look what Sky did with Wiggins and Froome.

Also, if you consider asking someone not to go calling multiple people trolls for no reason (or none that I could see) as abusing, then I suggest you look up the definition of the word abuse.

 

[sittingbison]

You have actually tried to have one of those in the clinic haven't you...?

Lol 6381

I abide in the clinic almost exclusively KB