Moderators

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

I think a new thread on the data would work, but there would be a danger of crossover between that and the normal one.

Let's be clear, any new Chris Froome Data thread will be monitored, and moderated according to forum rules.

I don't doubt it, but there could be many posts that could sit ok in either / both threads - that could make your job your a nightmare (or more of a nightmare than now).

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The snide remarks and baiting tactics are not tolerated in this thread.

Please think before you post.

With respect to the Froomze power data / physical data info being buried in the Froomazoomzoom thread.

I saw where the poll about Froomze VO2 was locked but could we maybe add that poll to the original Froomazoom thread?

No big deal but once they release the really real data - this thread could become a mad house.

I don't have a problem with that but I believe 'the hog' wants to create the new thread, I think it if he agree's to merge the poll into his thread then I'll make it happen.

Is that fair?

Sounds a good idea. Thanks!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

The snide remarks and baiting tactics are not tolerated in this thread.

Please think before you post.

With respect to the Froomze power data / physical data info being buried in the Froomazoomzoom thread.
I saw where the poll about Froomze VO2 was locked but could we maybe add that poll to the original Froomazoom thread?

No big deal but once they release the really real data - this thread could become a mad house.

I don't have a problem with that but I believe 'the hog' wants to create the new thread, I think it if he agree's to merge the poll into his thread then I'll make it happen.

Is that fair?

Yes should be fine. Understanding the rules yes. Thank you for the reply.

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

Are public accusations of trolling (however subtle) still unacceptable?

Aren't those posts attacking the poster not the post??

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Are public accusations of trolling (however subtle) still unacceptable?

Aren't those posts attacking the poster not the post??

Yes, trolling accusations are unacceptable.

As for your post not poster comment you're welcome to report any post that is attacking the poster and not the post.

Remember, just because you don't see action taken on any particular post doesn't mean there wasn't any taken.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Are public accusations of trolling (however subtle) still unacceptable?

Aren't those posts attacking the poster not the post??

Yes, trolling accusations are unacceptable.

As for your post not poster comment you're welcome to report any post that is attacking the poster and not the post.

Remember, just because you don't see action taken on any particular post doesn't mean there wasn't any taken.

CN forum emulates UCI.

*head explodes*

 

[LaFlorecita]

In AC thread... no mod bothered to edit or delete a post containing obvious clinic talk .. yet a mod edited a post quoting the "clinic talk" post, to edit out a personal attack. Did the mod not see the clinic talk ( which would be cause he edited a post which quoted the clinic talk) or is it now allowed (which would be cause the mod sent out a warning a day earlier)

All in all it's very

 

[Irondan]

In AC thread... no mod bothered to edit or delete a post containing obvious clinic talk .. yet a mod edited a post quoting the "clinic talk" post, to edit out a personal attack. Did the mod not see the clinic talk ( which would be cause he edited a post which quoted the clinic talk) or is it now allowed (which would be cause the mod sent out a warning a day earlier)

All in all it's very

I must have missed that one, not intentionally of course.

We try to read all the posts but that takes time, this is why we rely on the report system to single out comments that need further moderation. PM's are also a great way to help flag comments.

EDIT: I fixed that for you flo

 

[LaFlorecita]

In AC thread... no mod bothered to edit or delete a post containing obvious clinic talk .. yet a mod edited a post quoting the "clinic talk" post, to edit out a personal attack. Did the mod not see the clinic talk ( which would be cause he edited a post which quoted the clinic talk) or is it now allowed (which would be cause the mod sent out a warning a day earlier)

All in all it's very

I must have missed that one, not intentionally of course.

We try to read all the posts but that takes time, this is why we rely on the report system to single out comments that need further moderation. PM's are also a great way to help flag comments.

EDIT: I fixed that for you flo

No problem irondan

 

[StryderHells]

If posts relating to Contador's doping are to be removed from the AC thread in the PRR section then why is the poll and some responses still remaining? Surely remove them all and make it clear that discussing an article that mentions his doping and his denial is forbidden or leave them be. Can't be half pregnant right?

 

[djpbaltimore]

I think the Contador thread was over-moderated. Saying that he was disqualified from a race is not clinic talk.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

I think the Contador thread was over-moderated. Saying that he was disqualified from a race is not clinic talk.

A poster was talking about riders cheating. That is clinic talk and not allowed in PRR subforum.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I think a new thread on the data would work, but there would be a danger of crossover between that and the normal one.

Let's be clear, any new Chris Froome Data thread will be monitored, and moderated according to forum rules.

I don't doubt it, but there could be many posts that could sit ok in either / both threads - that could make your job your a nightmare (or more of a nightmare than now).

I'm sure the Mods can handle it

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

I think a new thread on the data would work, but there would be a danger of crossover between that and the normal one.

Let's be clear, any new Chris Froome Data thread will be monitored, and moderated according to forum rules.

I don't doubt it, but there could be many posts that could sit ok in either / both threads - that could make your job your a nightmare (or more of a nightmare than now).

I'm sure the Mods can handle it

That may depend on who's on the banned list at the time ...

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I think a new thread on the data would work, but there would be a danger of crossover between that and the normal one.

Let's be clear, any new Chris Froome Data thread will be monitored, and moderated according to forum rules.

I don't doubt it, but there could be many posts that could sit ok in either / both threads - that could make your job your a nightmare (or more of a nightmare than now).

I'm sure the Mods can handle it

That may depend on who's on the banned list at the time ...

Not sure what that means. The Mods know what they are doing. We've asked for a second thread, they've agreed. That's a meritocracy at work

 

[TailWindHome]

Can someone from the mod team explain why posting this picture with the comment "Froome has put on weight in the off season" is considered trolling and baiting, results in a board warning and deletion of the post.

Whereas repeated posting of the Froome pushing Henderson picture with various comments isn't.

You can understand my confusion as one poster even admits that the entire purpose of the Froome/Henderson picture is to troll. A comment endorsed by another regular.

Who cares what Froome thinks of the picture, it's not for him, it's about him.

It serves another purpose as well. As this pic has attained meme status, it provides an all-too-easy way to troll his fans without having to fully admit to trolling.

They take the bait every time.

Winner. Winner. Chicken. Dinner.

Give that poster a cookie.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Can someone from the mod team explain why posting this picture with the comment "Froome has put on weight in the off season" is considered trolling and baiting, results in a board warning and deletion of the post.

Whereas repeated posting of the Froome pushing Henderson picture with various comments isn't.

You can understand my confusion as one poster even admits that the entire purpose of the Froome/Henderson picture is to troll. A comment endorsed by another regular.

Who cares what Froome thinks of the picture, it's not for him, it's about him.

It serves another purpose as well. As this pic has attained meme status, it provides an all-too-easy way to troll his fans without having to fully admit to trolling.

They take the bait every time.

Winner. Winner. Chicken. Dinner.

Give that poster a cookie.

You mean like the times when you posted photos of Froome's wedding you weren't baiting, stirring up trouble? It was non cycling related but you went ahead anyway looking for reactions. That might answer your question.

 

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

[quote="thehogYou mean like the times when you posted photos of Froome's wedding you weren't baiting, stirring up trouble? It was non cycling related but you went ahead anyway looking for reactions. That might answer your question.[/quote]


That makes no sense.

Surely it's the post which gets moderated not the poster?

Why would this post be deleted and posts which are admitted to be to trolling remain?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Surely it's the post which gets moderated not the poster?

Why would this post be deleted and posts which are admitted to be to trolling remain?

It makes perfect sense.

The Froome pushing Henderson photograph is a part of history. Its well embedded into the Internet because it happened. I know it makes some uncomfortable because you have to ratioalise how did a cyclist who was designated to pushing a sprinter become a multiple Grand Tour winner?

If you want the photograph deleted from the forum, then what next? Partitioning Google to remove it from the Internet all together?

The photograph should stay as it this is a doping forum and by posting the photograph it reminds us where Froome came from and how massive his transformation was.

You're welcome to contribute to the forum and provide an alternate view on the reasons for Froome's transformation. My view is attempting to have posts deleted and members banned doesn't add a whole lot to the conversation.

The role of the moderators is to moderate, not delete and ban at the request of members because they disagree with a specific post.

Put simply, there is nothing offensive about the Froome pushing Henderson photograph. Its reality.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

Can someone from the mod team explain why posting this picture with the comment "Froome has put on weight in the off season" is considered trolling and baiting, results in a board warning and deletion of the post.

Whereas repeated posting of the Froome pushing Henderson picture with various comments isn't.

You can understand my confusion as one poster even admits that the entire purpose of the Froome/Henderson picture is to troll.

That is a fantastic photo!

However, I must object to your description of my previous post. As your quote of my post clearly indicates, nowhere did I suggest that the "entire purpose" of the Froome/Hendo pic was to troll. The statement, "It serves another purpose as well," clearly references the primary purposes of the pic: It's funny (to some), and it reflects an actual event that shouldn't be ignored simply because the repeated reference makes some uncomfortable.

The larger point, as it refers to "trolling," is that those who are opposed to seeing the image make themselves easy targets because they react and complain every single time. By doing so, they've essentially created a Franken-troll of their own making. There may be plenty of valid reasons for posting the Froome/Hendo pic, and just because doing so may simultaneously trigger the troll alert (to some others), doesn't mean the pic shouldn't be posted.

Eye of the beholder, and all that...

 

[thehog]

I think also its lighthearted look at Froome. There's still a lot of questions over how did go from point A to point B. That's far from trolling and by no means confusing. A sense of human now and then from the Skyfans wouldn't go astray.

 

[TailWindHome]

I think also its lighthearted look at Froome. There's still a lot of questions over how did go from point A to point B. That's far from trolling and by no means confusing. A sense of human now and then from the Skyfans wouldn't go astray.

Yet my post wasn't deemed lighthearted?

In fact it was taken so seriously it was deleted and I was issued a warning.

Odd

 

[Irondan]

I think also its lighthearted look at Froome. There's still a lot of questions over how did go from point A to point B. That's far from trolling and by no means confusing. A sense of human now and then from the Skyfans wouldn't go astray.

Yet my post wasn't deemed lighthearted?

In fact it was taken so seriously it was deleted and I was issued a warning.

Odd

Having a comment deleted and getting a warning is quite standard. In fact, your's was not the only comment in which that happened (WRT that pic).

The excessive complaining about said warning is the only thing out of the ordinary in this case.

It's time to move on.

 

[TailWindHome]

I think also its lighthearted look at Froome. There's still a lot of questions over how did go from point A to point B. That's far from trolling and by no means confusing. A sense of human now and then from the Skyfans wouldn't go astray.

Yet my post wasn't deemed lighthearted?

In fact it was taken so seriously it was deleted and I was issued a warning.

Odd

Having a comment deleted and getting a warning is quite standard. In fact, your's was not the only comment in which that happened (WRT that pic).

The excessive complaining about said warning is the only thing out of the ordinary in this case.

It's time to move on.

Ok.

Deletion/warning may be standard for an offence of trolling/baiting. I've quite reasonably asked why my post was deemed trolling/baiting?

Secondly what you're now deeming to be excessive complaining consists of one unanswered PM and the highlighting of the issue here (a thread to discuss moderation) which quite ironically has led to typical trolling and baiting from the Hog.

I'm still not clear why my clearly lighthearted post was deleted. It seems to be that lighthearted posts made by those who have condemned Sky/Froome as dopers are OK but lighthearted posts by those who don't take that view aren't acceptable.

It is however clear that I'm not going to get a reasonable answer and must reluctantly heed your instruction to move on.

 

[thehog]

I think also its lighthearted look at Froome. There's still a lot of questions over how did go from point A to point B. That's far from trolling and by no means confusing. A sense of human now and then from the Skyfans wouldn't go astray.

Yet my post wasn't deemed lighthearted?

In fact it was taken so seriously it was deleted and I was issued a warning.

Odd

Having a comment deleted and getting a warning is quite standard. In fact, your's was not the only comment in which that happened (WRT that pic).

The excessive complaining about said warning is the only thing out of the ordinary in this case.

It's time to move on.

Ok.

Deletion/warning may be standard for an offence of trolling/baiting. I've quite reasonably asked why my post was deemed trolling/baiting?

Secondly what you're now deeming to be excessive complaining consists of one unanswered PM and the highlighting of the issue here (a thread to discuss moderation) which quite ironically has led to typical trolling and baiting from the Hog.

I'm still not clear why my clearly lighthearted post was deleted. It seems to be that lighthearted posts made by those who have condemned Sky/Froome as dopers are OK but lighthearted posts by those who don't take that view aren't acceptable.

It is however clear that I'm not going to get a reasonable answer and must reluctantly heed your instruction to move on.

Time to move on. We all get warnings etc. and if we don't heed them then a ban may follow. Standard on most forums. Now you're just stirring up trouble. Move on, let it rest.