Moderators

[Don't be late Pedro]

Which is from the guidelines part of the post you're quoting.

And? Should everyone just be able to make stuff up that suits their argument? I suspect it is a guideline because in some cases it is probably much more a grey area.

 

[Netserk]

And? Should everyone just be able to make stuff up that suits their argument?

Not quite the same. Lots of things are said here that isn't common knowledge (for everyone) without a link attached that are still true. I think it's stupid if you can risk getting banned if you don't have a link ready for every single claim you make. Imaging a conversation where one is asking the other for a link for every single claim in all of their posts. Talk about destructive. Obviously fabricating lies with the purpose of trolling is already against the rules, and if someone suspects another of doing that the far more constructive thing would be to file a report letting the mods know that without starting a massive flame war.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Not quite the same. Lots of things are said here that isn't common knowledge (for everyone) without a link attached that are still true. I think it's stupid if you can risk getting banned if you don't have a link ready for every single claim you make. Imaging a conversation where one is asking the other for a link for every single claim in all of their posts. Talk about destructive. Obviously fabricating lies with the purpose of trolling is already against the rules, and if someone suspects another of doing that the far more constructive thing would be to file a report letting the mods know that without starting a massive flame war.

Hence me saying it is a grey area.

Clearly, to some extent, the mods were happy with the thread being used for questioning since they too asked on the thread for proof (multiple times).

Perhaps a mod can jump in if anything I am claiming is incorrect.

 

[Netserk]

Hence me saying it is a grey area.

Clearly, to some extent, the mods were happy with the thread being used for questioning since they too asked on the thread for proof (multiple times).

Perhaps a mod can jump in if anything I am claiming is incorrect.

In that case I think the better solution would have been a PM to thehog telling him not to continue with that line of discussion until he has shown that it wasn't something he had just made up to take the p!ss. Then based on what he would do:
1: thehog admits in the thread that he was just taking the p!ss and everyone can move on. No massive flames.
2: thehog could back up his claim (in the case it was true) and continue on.
3: thehog could continue on in the thread without doing 1 nor 2. In this case an immediate ban (for a (couple of) day(s) or a week) should follow.

In all three scenarios the thread wouldn't have been derailed. Gift of hindsight.

 

[Afrank]

A genuine question... what was actually achieved? Would you really say repetition of this behaviour was in anyway deterred?

It seemed to me you were both ignored (on numerous occasions) with no consequence and it was business as usual.

We may have to wait a while to see if there are any changes as the user involved in this particular occurrence is serving a ban. We may not see anything in the long run, or maybe we'll see more posts get supported by evidence.

At the very least though, I would say this particular claim was shown to be false. And all I know is I've seen a lot of posts from various people talking about how the moderators let people post false things all the time and get away with it, well here's one instance where that didn't happen and action was taken. We can't control what people post, just try to guide in accordance to the rules and guidelines of the forum.

 

[Afrank]

an idea, not sure if it's feasible:
if a poster misbehaves/trolls/insults in a certain thread, ban the poster for that thread only (unless of course there are clear grounds to ban him from the forum, e.g. in the case of suckpuppets or whatever).
the thread ban can be permanent or temporary.
it's a way to filter out trolls, and to stop certain circular debates that are getting out of control.
recently, the bickering between Race Radio and thehog could have ended easily by banning you guys from that one thread.
there was no need for a forumwide ban for either of you, i think.

Interesting idea, but not sure it would be possible at the moment. It would probably require some large changes to structure of the website. Might involve a change in how Vbulletin structures the forum and it's moderation features.

 

[Afrank]

Would I be correct in thinking that most (all?) of the issues and conflicts that arise do so in the Clinic section?

Yes, not all conflicts, but I'd say at least 90-95% of conflicts come from the clinic.

 

[Race Radio]

Obviously fabricating lies with the purpose of trolling is already against the rules,

It is seldom enforced.

You see a handful of posters who invent claims with no basis in reality in order to draw others into an endless back and forth. You also see these same posters deliberately twisting what others write, or pretend it has not been explained clearly, in order to provoke conflict.

 

[Race Radio]

Still trying to get thehog banned, eh?

This may come as a surprise to you but I do not control what any poster writes here. If a poster is banned it is due to their actions.

 

[The Hitch]

Would I be correct in thinking that most (all?) of the issues and conflicts that arise do so in the Clinic section?

Haven't visited a Contador thread yet?

 

[kingjr]

Haven't visited a Contador thread yet?

I wasn't following this forum yet when it happened, so I'm curious, what was it like in the PRR-section when 'chaingate' happened?

 

[The Hitch]

I wasn't following this forum yet when it happened, so I'm curious, what was it like in the PRR-section when 'chaingate' happened?

Contador fandomism wasn't big back then. Most of the current armed wing of the party was still in diapers. Schleck never had much of a following outside of the middle aged women of Luxemburg demographic. So it was nothing compared to what it would be now.

More the lance fans didn't like it out of spite for contador. Everyone else pretty much agreed contador did nothing wrong. Apart from when he claimed he didn't see it which was obv a big of a lie.

 

[red_flanders]

This may come as a surprise to you but I do not control what any poster writes here. If a poster is banned it is due to their actions.

Agreed. So it follows that the protracted lobbying for it is unnecessary.

 

[Race Radio]

Agreed. So it follows that the protracted lobbying for it is unnecessary.

Protracted lobbying? Please share with us a link to this protracted lobbying. I have seen certain posters boasting of reporting innocuous posts, usually as a way to provoke conflict.

It is odd that several folks here work hard to deflect from the obvious trolling by creating elaborate conspiracy theories.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Agreed. So it follows that the protracted lobbying for it is unnecessary.

+1.
And no, I won't share a link. You both appear to bait each other. You both contribute to it. Wish you two could just ignore each other.

 

[Race Radio]

+1.
And no, I won't share a link. You both appear to bait each other. You both contribute to it. Wish you two could just ignore each other.

I too wish a handful of folks here would stop the stalking, however that is highly unlikely. The best thing to do would be for the mods to start enforcing the rules. It does not matter if I am here or not, they will always find a target.

 

[Beech Mtn]

RR, every time you answer him, Hog wins. If I were in your shoes, I'd stick Hoggy on the ignore list and go on with life. Let others argue with him if they want to, and have your own private laugh when he inevitably gets banned again.

 

[Beech Mtn]

polls in race day threads

Where's the 'no poll, thanks' option?

I totally agree with Netserk.

Really mods, is there any chance we could have a forum rule keeping polls off the daily live threads for races? People look at the forum on tablets, phones, all kinds of devices, and having to scroll past a damned poll on every new page is a pain. Sometimes race threads get a lot longer than normal poll threads, especially on GC-important days like tomorrow's Vuelta.

Maybe consider moving the polls to a separate thread, or at least tweak the forum software so polls only show up on page 1, and not on subsequent pages.

Thanks

 

[Granville57]

This is a preemptive plea:

Please don't interfere with the current hot topic of Ryder's bike in The Clinic.

I know full well that some of you would love to lock it, delete it, or at the very least insult its very existence. But don't do it. No condescension will be required this time. Just let it be, and let it run its course. No rules have yet been broken, so there's no need for over-moderation.

Let. The thread. Live.

 

[Granville57]

Maybe consider moving the polls to a separate thread, or at least tweak the forum software so polls only show up on page 1, and not on subsequent pages.

You and I have been around here long enough to realize that the forum software never gets tweaked, and that doing so is far beyond the powers that are granted to the mod team anyway.

The mysterious people who can tweak the software have proven beyond any question whatsoever that they couldn't care less about the desires of the peasant population in this small corner of the internet.

The exception to all of this of course is when the powers-that-be discover a new way to milk the forum for their own financial gain. Obnoxious ads splashed all over the place, embedded links...they love those types of things.


And before anyone feels the need to reply with the worn out argument that this forum is free to use, and that CN should be able to profit from it as they like, I will reiterate my equally worn out response: The content is provided for free by us, and the moderators work for free. That makes it all equal as far as I'm concerned.

 

[red_flanders]

Protracted lobbying? Please share with us a link to this protracted lobbying. I have seen certain posters boasting of reporting innocuous posts, usually as a way to provoke conflict.

It is odd that several folks here work hard to deflect from the obvious trolling by creating elaborate conspiracy theories.

Fun little game.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

We may have to wait a while to see if there are any changes as the user involved in this particular occurrence is serving a ban. We may not see anything in the long run, or maybe we'll see more posts get supported by evidence.

So for the most part you are saying that there is a not you can (or will) do.

At the very least though, I would say this particular claim was shown to be false. And all I know is I've seen a lot of posts from various people talking about how the moderators let people post false things all the time and get away with it, well here's one instance where that didn't happen and action was taken. We can't control what people post, just try to guide in accordance to the rules and guidelines of the forum.

The claim was proven to not be backed up. You point at this incident as one where the mods took action but it took a bunch of people (some of whom got banned) numerous attempts to make the mods take any action at all.

Even Stevie Wonder could have seen what the JTL thread was going to result in.

 

[sniper]

Interesting idea, but not sure it would be possible at the moment. It would probably require some large changes to structure of the website. Might involve a change in how Vbulletin structures the forum and it's moderation features.

or, you could simply pm a poster saying that he's banned for a specific thread.
if s/he ignores that warning and nonetheless posts in that thread you then ban him forum-wide.
but yeah, a bit laborious all in all.

 

[TheSpud]

So for the most part you are saying that there is a not you can (or will) do.

The claim was proven to not be backed up. You point at this incident as one where the mods took action but it took a bunch of people (some of whom got banned) numerous attempts to make the mods take any action at all.

Even Stevie Wonder could have seen what the JTL thread was going to result in.

From my point of view the ban wasn't for not backing up the claim but for endless bickering / arguing with other users that resulted.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people having opinions / views / discussions / debates - this is a forum after all. But posting claims that are purported to be true facts and then refusing to back them up with evidential links just derails things with the result we saw. I was hoping for some evidence to back it up / clarify while I was coming to my judgement as to the whole situation / thread and what JTL had been up to.

Maybe in circumstances like this the user in question should be made to post a public statement in the thread stating that he / she had made the post up and that it should be ignored. In my view, that would be embarrassing and maybe after a few repetitions might make people think twice before presenting 'facts' that are totally baseless.

 

[Zam_Olyas]