Moderators

[Granville57]

So anyone remember LauraLyn or whatever its name was? Did we end up working out who that was?

Coz it smells familiar.

Yeeeaaah, I was thinking exactly the same (and will personally disengage from any further interaction with that individual for that very reason).

 

[LaFlorecita]

I missed a point where there was a judgement there on specific member. The judgment was on a specific quote, nothing more.

Oh well, there is really no point in continuing this

Are you saying you weren't implying I should see a psychiatrist because of what I posted?

 

[Granville57]

I was wondering if a mod might take a look at two current threads in the General sub-forum.

Bicycle Lanes

and

hit and run article in the LA times

I'm not quite sure what the intent of the OP was in the Bike Lanes thread, but a parallel discussion between the two threads is taking place, and might be better served under one banner. There are some good posts in both, and the conversation might benefit from a merger of the two.

Cycling safety, and rider responsibility is the common theme between the two.

Thanks.

 

[wrinklyvet]

..a parallel discussion between the two threads is taking place, and might be better served under one banner. There are some good posts in both, and the conversation might benefit from a merger of the two.

Cycling safety, and rider responsibility is the common theme between the two.

Thanks.

Not that I would lose any sleep over this point but I think it's possible to distinguish between the content of the two threads. So I take enough interest to wonder whether the person who started the bike lanes thread will lose it as a result of this suggestion. Is that how the forum is supposed to work?

 

[Granville57]

Not that I would lose any sleep over this point but I think it's possible to distinguish between the content of the two threads. So I take enough interest to wonder whether the person who started the bike lanes thread will lose it as a result of this suggestion. Is that how the forum is supposed to work?

It just seems to me that the same topic is being discussed under two different banners. Many of the same issues are being raised in both.

As to the intent of the Bike Lanes thread: I've no idea what that was. The OP was extremely vague, and hasn't chimed in since. It seemed more like just a random thought, or something someone would post on Twitter, as opposed to a new thread topic.

But I'm not sure what you meant by this: "wonder whether the person who started the bike lanes thread will lose it..."

Lose what? Their temper, interest in the discussion, or something else?

I'm not trying to disrupt things here. Mine was an attempt to simplify the discussion, and perhaps expand it by including what I consider to be a parallel dialogue. But it's not a crusade for me. So I'll leave it at that.

Btw, I've enjoyed your contributions to the forum recently.

 

[hiero2]

What kind of totally unsatisfactory, condescending, arrogant, reply is that?

You haven't even had the good grace to explain your "call". "It's not going to be missed.." is not your call to make when there is nothing going on in a topic that would require it to be locked. What do you think a forum would look like if mods/admins went around deciding to make "calls" about what topics might be "missed" or not? That's no criterion for locking. You may as well lock 95% of the topic list in every forum if "it won't be missed" is your reason to lock.

Man up, admit you made the wrong "call" for whatever reason, and re-open a topic that is about an ongoing 'story' of international interest.

have to say this thread never ceases to amaze me

Seriously, Ferry, you're just being pathetic now. You're already backpedaling from your first response here, but still refuse to admit that you're in a minority of one. If, like your fellow admin, Alpe, I had taken part in the topic and was clearly 'keeping an eye on it', and you then waltzed in and locked it, I would be ****ing livid, and rightly so.

Again, it is an ongoing subject. It will come up again. Are you going to petulantly lock it every time? As you may know (or not), I have been a mod and admin in other places many times down the years, so I am perfectly capable of seeing things from your side. This is not just' mod bashing'. You made the wrong call for a spurious reason. It's not the end of the world to admit that. Reopen the topic and let's get on with other stuff.

<sigh>
I don know. <sigh>

Listen. I've had a few beers, so I'm doing what "BEST ADVICE" sez. I'm writin' a reply, and savin' it for tomorrow. I'm not goin' to post it tonite. But I will give fair call warning. I see unfair and unreasonable calls against mods and former mods here. I'll give y'all a full "put up or shut up" report tomorrow or in a few days, whenever I get to it.

But I will say this. I like Hitch's latest post (in this thread) - it is well worded. But I have a question - why didn't you (Hitch) report your (supposed) issue via the report channel? I mean, maybe you got a point. For sure. But BPC has likely gotten credit for thousands of posts that he/she did not author. He/she has become a thing of legend and mythology. Specifics might be called for. Just a suggestion.

 

[Netserk]

You'd be right about Joachim or LauraLyn(sp?), but BPC is so easy to recognize that he has pretty much only been credited when it was him.

 

[thehog]

Mods, on Sunday there was an attempt by a poster to reveal another identity by linking to another forum. Why wasn’t this dealt with? I don’t really mind much but I think this is one of the core “no go” areas but it seem to pass by even though many posters on the thread remonstrated with the offender. The offender then accused others of making threats.

What’s the general rule and policy on attempts to reveal identities?

 

[Granville57]

What’s the general rule and policy on attempts to reveal identities?

It's as clear as...well, The Clear.

The Big Rules
If you break these rules, you're eligible for an instant and possibly permanent ban.

• Posting any member's real life information without permission.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=11

 

[TailWindHome]

Mods, on Sunday there was an attempt by a poster to reveal another identity by linking to another forum. Why wasn’t this dealt with? I don’t really mind much but I think this is one of the core “no go” areas but it seem to pass by even though many posters on the thread remonstrated with the offender. The offender then accused others of making threats.

What’s the general rule and policy on attempts to reveal identities?

You know that issue has been resolved?

You need to deal with other people in a more grown up fashion.

 

[thehog]

It's as clear as...well, The Clear.

Agreed. Its very clear. Strange nothing was done or why it was allowed to pass through the thread. Considering the backlash from other posters I feel there should at least be some form of warning.

 

[the sceptic]

You know that issue has been resolved?

You need to deal with other people in a more grown up fashion.

Isn't the damage already done once you posted it?

 

[thehog]

Isn't the damage already done once you posted it?

That was the idea, I believe. He managed to clean up his mess afterwards once the forum turned on him but the intent was there to harm.

 

[Netserk]

Good thing he didn't link to a twitter account.

 

[Race Radio]

It's as clear as...well, The Clear.

The Big Rules
If you break these rules, you're eligible for an instant and possibly permanent ban.

• Posting any member's real life information without permission.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=11

Nope. As it was made clear to me that some real life information is fair game. As a mod told me when a poster made suggestions about who my employer may be.

By putting yourself into the public eye you open up the door to discussion about yourself.

It is ok to talk about a posters real life if a mod arbitrary decides that that poster is an "insider". If they do then they are fair game for speculation.

As we have seen over and over those rules are just a suggestion applied arbitrarily depending on the moderators bias.

 

[TailWindHome]

Rather than respond directly to usual tag team I'm going to let your posts stand as a reminder of the ugly face of forum bullying.

Let the mods do their jobs - it's hard enough without being berated

 

[thehog]

Good thing he didn't link to a twitter account.

I believe that incurred a ban in the past.

 

[Granville57]

Nope. As it was made clear to me that some real life information is fair game.

Such as if you have a web domain registry. Then your name and home address are perfectly OK as well.

To be fair though, the rules say "without permission," but they don't specify whose permission.

 

[Race Radio]

Such as if you have a web domain registry. Then your name and home address are perfectly OK as well.

To be fair though, the rules say "without permission," but they don't specify whose permission.

Yup. As we have seen some are "permitted" to break the rules.

There are several folks here who, with their thousands of posts, thousands of followers, and claims of inside knowledge, easily fall into the mods vision of a "Public Persona". The mods would say it is OK to point out that they actually have no connection to the sport but are just, for example, an IT guy at a bank.

Personally I think the rules should apply equally to all and not be selectively enforced, but some mods clearly feel differently.

 

[Granville57]

There are several folks here who, with their thousands of posts, thousands of followers, and claims of inside knowledge, easily fall into the mods vision of a "Public Persona". The mods would say it is OK to point out that they actually have no connection to the sport but are just, for example, an IT guy at a bank.

Are you suggesting that this is your employer?

 

[Race Radio]

Are you suggesting that this is your employer?

Shhh, dude. Don't tell anyone.

 

[Bluenote]

Are you suggesting that this is your employer?

Just a shell corporation, owned by Andreu Strategies.

 

[sittingbison]

Gentle(wo)men,
please desist with this line of convo about speculation into real life personas. Despite what RR is insinuating, it has clearly been established over a long time this is a no go zone (including Papp-gate)

cheers
bison

 

[Netserk]

No one has talked about Papp-gate

I've seen hints to thehog and ElChingon though.

 

[Race Radio]

Gentle(wo)men,
please desist with this line of convo about speculation into real life personas. Despite what RR is insinuating, it has clearly been established over a long time this is a no go zone (including Papp-gate)

cheers
bison

Unfortunately it is not clear. Why is it OK for posters to discuss who my employer may be and what team I may have been connected to? The reason I have been given is

By putting yourself into the public eye you open up the door to discussion about yourself

Does this only apply to me? If not would it be possible to get a list of posters here who qualify?