Moderators

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Or discussion about what you should call various races (in what language you should refer to them) in a specific rider's thread...

There is one simple rule: anyone who refers to the Ronde van Vlaanderen as the Tour of Flanders will rot in hell.

One day, the mods will come up with a tool that sends an electric shock direct to your keyboard when you type the Tour of Flanders instead of the Ronde van Vlaanderen.

I can fix that....

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Or discussion about what you should call various races (in what language you should refer to them) in a specific rider's thread...

There is one simple rule: anyone who refers to the Ronde van Vlaanderen as the Ronde van Vlaanderen will rot in hell.

One day, the mods will come up with a tool that sends an electric shock direct to your keyboard when you type the Ronde van Vlaanderen instead of the Ronde van Vlaanderen.

I can fix that....

Edit: See... It already works!

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Or discussion about what you should call various races (in what language you should refer to them) in a specific rider's thread...

There is one simple rule: anyone who refers to the Ronde van Vlaanderen as the Ronde van Vlaanderen will rot in hell.

One day, the mods will come up with a tool that sends an electric shock direct to your keyboard when you type the Ronde van Vlaanderen instead of the Ronde van Vlaanderen.

I can fix that....

Edit: See... It already works!

:surprised:

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Or discussion about what you should call various races (in what language you should refer to them) in a specific rider's thread...

There is one simple rule: anyone who refers to the Ronde van Vlaanderen as the Ronde van Vlaanderen will rot in hell.

One day, the mods will come up with a tool that sends an electric shock direct to your keyboard when you type the Ronde van Vlaanderen instead of the Ronde van Vlaanderen.

I can fix that....

Edit: See... It already works!

:surprised:

 

[patricknd]

Irondan, what is a "no contact" order? Does that mean you can't interact with some specific other poster on the forum (sounds unlikely and unenforceable), or does it only refer to PMs between them? Or something else entirely?

And is this something new, or has it been in effect for a long time, and I just wasn't aware of it? I assume it's meant to keep two or more posters who are stoking each other up to back off. It sounds almost like a partial suspension, in which you're allowed to keep posting in general, but have some privileges curtailed.

It means that over the past month I've been an intermediary between two posters that don't like each other and like to bait and troll each other in the public forum and PM's. I told them numerous times to ignore each other by putting each other on their "foes" list which one of them did and one of them didn't. The one that did use the foes list decided to read the forum as a "guest" to circumvent the foes list and read the other person's comments and the person that didn't use the "foes" list ignored my direction altogether.

With all due respect, I beg to differ with you about the enforceability of this measure, as it's being enforced as we speak.

This is as much detail as I'm comfortable or willing to go into on this matter.

Cheers

so we are supposed to log in all of the time? Just to read? I normally only log in if I have something to post, otherwise why bother? I get the intent in this situation, but I also think it's been obvious from reading who the stalker/aggressor has been (and for the record I enjoy the post and links of both a great deal) you missed the boat on this one

 

[Irondan]

Irondan, what is a "no contact" order? Does that mean you can't interact with some specific other poster on the forum (sounds unlikely and unenforceable), or does it only refer to PMs between them? Or something else entirely?

And is this something new, or has it been in effect for a long time, and I just wasn't aware of it? I assume it's meant to keep two or more posters who are stoking each other up to back off. It sounds almost like a partial suspension, in which you're allowed to keep posting in general, but have some privileges curtailed.

It means that over the past month I've been an intermediary between two posters that don't like each other and like to bait and troll each other in the public forum and PM's. I told them numerous times to ignore each other by putting each other on their "foes" list which one of them did and one of them didn't. The one that did use the foes list decided to read the forum as a "guest" to circumvent the foes list and read the other person's comments and the person that didn't use the "foes" list ignored my direction altogether.

With all due respect, I beg to differ with you about the enforceability of this measure, as it's being enforced as we speak.

This is as much detail as I'm comfortable or willing to go into on this matter.

Cheers

so we are supposed to log in all of the time? Just to read? I normally only log in if I have something to post, otherwise why bother? I get the intent in this situation, but I also think it's been obvious from reading who the stalker/aggressor has been (and for the record I enjoy the post and links of both a great deal) you missed the boat on this one

I missed the boat?

I've been in constant contact with the both of them for over a month, but I missed the boat...

You haven't even seen this boat that I supposedly missed so there's that but hey, since I'm a highly paid employee of CyclingNews.com I'll take the criticism and try to do better for you.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Re: Re:

Lets Take Rider X on Team Y supporting Rider Z in Race A. Both riders have a thread, the team does and the race does and these threads are already large. Rider X is flagged for doping in Race A, where do you post that information and discuss it? Well it obviously belongs in Rider X's thread, but it's relevant to Team Y, Rider Z and Race A so arguably is should go in every thread. To make the choice harder, discussion of team-wide problems has gone on in the Team Y thread including Rider X and Rider Z.

That sort of sprawling conversation I get. Some threads are micro, some macro, they inevitably overlap. My issue is more about what happens when discussion of Rider X and Team Y and Race A starts taking over a thread about ... squirrels.

Pretty sure I covered that in Munro first paragraph, but if it's obviously off-topic report it.

And yet when posts that are a discussion of historic MSR routes are clogging up the thread on today's Lombardia race and get reported, the reporter gets a message that the case is closed and the MSR discussion remains in place.

What are the principles at play here?

 

[Netserk]

Clogging? I'm sorry, but it's quite minimal what other discuss there was in the thread at that moment, and it is clearly related to the route of the race and the value of the Nibali's win today.

The only 'discussion' of the race since then has been one post asking what the official result was and one post immediately afterwards answering that.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

It has gone off at a total tangent: surely there must be a point at which those involved in a discussion that is taking that direction say to each other "We have gone off topic here, let's continue it elsewhere," and open a new thread (or go to any of the previous threads about MSR routes).

If people don't do that off their own accord, then surely what King Boonen was prescribing was that other users of the thread initiate it by reporting it. But reporting it is ignored.

So I repeat my question to the mods: what are the principles here? How can we be told not to go off topic, and not to tolerate topics going off topic, when going off topic is clearly tolerated?

Off-topic postings will from now on be deleted.

Thank you.

In this thread or universally?

She was inferring to the off-topic comments that were being posted in this particular thread, but anytime a comment is posted off-topic it runs the risk of being deleted to keep threads from getting clogged up with unnecessary chit chat and also to keep threads from veering off course into other topics of discussion that may be taking place in the same forum.

I look forward to it, been hoping for it for years.

It always helps mods keep a conversation flowing to flag off-topic posts.

I'm not saying that you do or don't already do that because I normally don't keep track of who's reporting what unless they're abusing the report system.

I'd just like to remind everyone reading this that mods are human, and need help from the general membership of this forum to help make it run smoothly.

Cheers

?

 

[Irondan]

Re:

It has gone off at a total tangent: surely there must be a point at which those involved in a discussion that is taking that direction say to each other "We have gone off topic here, let's continue it elsewhere," and open a new thread (or go to any of the previous threads about MSR routes).

If people don't do that off their own accord, then surely what King Boonen was prescribing was that other users of the thread initiate it by reporting it. But reporting it is ignored.

So I repeat my question to the mods: what are the principles here? How can we be told not to go off topic, and not to tolerate topics going off topic, when going off topic is clearly tolerated?

She was inferring to the off-topic comments that were being posted in this particular thread, but anytime a comment is posted off-topic it runs the risk of being deleted to keep threads from getting clogged up with unnecessary chit chat and also to keep threads from veering off course into other topics of discussion that may be taking place in the same forum.

I look forward to it, been hoping for it for years.

It always helps mods keep a conversation flowing to flag off-topic posts.

I'm not saying that you do or don't already do that because I normally don't keep track of who's reporting what unless they're abusing the report system.

I'd just like to remind everyone reading this that mods are human, and need help from the general membership of this forum to help make it run smoothly.

Cheers

?

When a report is closed a message is automatically generated by forum software confirming it's closed. Moderators do not send that message. This confirmation message has nothing to do with the fact that the person reporting the post may not be a part of any conversation or warning that the mod may have sent to the offending poster.

As has been said numerous times in this thread in the past, just because someone is not banned doesn't mean that moderation has not taken place, nor does it mean that the moderator agrees with the report.

Moderators do not "clearly" tolerate off-topic posts. It's entirely possible that after reading a thread that has a reported comment included in it, the moderator may not have agreed with whatever is being reported, for whatever reason. Sometimes posts remain in a thread even after a moderator warns a member through PM's or an official board warning, in order to maintain continuity of a thread.

What I've said in this comment does not reflect on any particular thread, comment or report. It's general information about forum moderation.

Mods do the best they can but not everyone is going to agree or be satisfied with moderation.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Re: Re:

It's entirely possible that after reading a thread that has a reported comment included in it, the moderator may not have agreed with whatever is being reported, for whatever reason. Sometimes posts remain in a thread even after a moderator warns a member through PM's or an official board warning, in order to maintain continuity of a thread.

Of course that can happen,but a simple, brief PM ("Sorry, don't agree with you on this one") would serve much better than what comes across as simply ignoring what you have requested.

I do appreciate what mods do, but I don't appreciate what comes across as dismissive attitude.

Quite how an admin could have thought that the conversation was on track there is beyond me, and just a few messages later (but 50 minutes after my complaint was deemed "dealt with") there was an admin reminder to stay on topic. But that doesn't mean that opinions about when enough deviation is enough can't vary, and the work admins do mean that their opinion gets to be authoritative: communication would be civil though.

 

[patricknd]

Irondan, what is a "no contact" order? Does that mean you can't interact with some specific other poster on the forum (sounds unlikely and unenforceable), or does it only refer to PMs between them? Or something else entirely?

And is this something new, or has it been in effect for a long time, and I just wasn't aware of it? I assume it's meant to keep two or more posters who are stoking each other up to back off. It sounds almost like a partial suspension, in which you're allowed to keep posting in general, but have some privileges curtailed.

It means that over the past month I've been an intermediary between two posters that don't like each other and like to bait and troll each other in the public forum and PM's. I told them numerous times to ignore each other by putting each other on their "foes" list which one of them did and one of them didn't. The one that did use the foes list decided to read the forum as a "guest" to circumvent the foes list and read the other person's comments and the person that didn't use the "foes" list ignored my direction altogether.

With all due respect, I beg to differ with you about the enforceability of this measure, as it's being enforced as we speak.

This is as much detail as I'm comfortable or willing to go into on this matter.

Cheers

so we are supposed to log in all of the time? Just to read? I normally only log in if I have something to post, otherwise why bother? I get the intent in this situation, but I also think it's been obvious from reading who the stalker/aggressor has been (and for the record I enjoy the post and links of both a great deal) you missed the boat on this one

I missed the boat?

I've been in constant contact with the both of them for over a month, but I missed the boat...

You haven't even seen this boat that I supposedly missed so there's that but hey, since I'm a highly paid employee of CyclingNews.com I'll take the criticism and try to do better for you.

curious as to what rule my reply to this post violated since it was removed and I got no PM telling me a reason.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

It's entirely possible that after reading a thread that has a reported comment included in it, the moderator may not have agreed with whatever is being reported, for whatever reason. Sometimes posts remain in a thread even after a moderator warns a member through PM's or an official board warning, in order to maintain continuity of a thread.

Of course that can happen,but a simple, brief PM ("Sorry, don't agree with you on this one") would serve much better than what comes across as simply ignoring what you have requested.

I do appreciate what mods do, but I don't appreciate what comes across as dismissive attitude.

Quite how an admin could have thought that the conversation was on track there is beyond me, and just a few messages later (but 50 minutes after my complaint was deemed "dealt with") there was an admin reminder to stay on topic. But that doesn't mean that opinions about when enough deviation is enough can't vary, and the work admins do mean that their opinion gets to be authoritative: communication would be civil though.

Nobody is ignoring the reports, it seems like you're getting hung up on this as being some sort of slight towards you.

We don't reply to each report personally, that's not realistic at all and you're suggesting that we're supposed to cater to each and every report with some sort of written determination, whether we agree with the report or not. We don't and have never done that. If we did, mods would spend the majority of their time answering reports rather than moderating the forum.

I feel like you're talking about an individual instance where you didn't like the moderation that took place and I'm talking about the moderation process at the macro level. If you didn't like the moderation that took place for a particular report that you filed then please say so, what you're suggesting in the larger conversation of moderation is not reasonable.

In the future, please understand that when you file a report I can guarantee that it will be read and deliberated on by a moderator, but you will not receive a personal response in return and any moderation that takes place as a result of the report you filed may or may not be apparent, or may not take place at all if the moderator doesn't agree with the initial report.

Thank you for taking the time to point out an issue that may be frustrating. We'll do our best to maintain the standards set forth by the website's TOS and forum rules.

Cheers

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Short version: we'll ask you to do something, but don't expect us to treat you with any civility if you do it.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Short version: we'll ask you to do something, but don't expect us to treat you with any civility if you do it.

Believe what you want...

It seems like you're bent on being offended, and there's nothing I can do to further this discussion.

Have a great day.

 

[patricknd]

Irondan, what is a "no contact" order? Does that mean you can't interact with some specific other poster on the forum (sounds unlikely and unenforceable), or does it only refer to PMs between them? Or something else entirely?

And is this something new, or has it been in effect for a long time, and I just wasn't aware of it? I assume it's meant to keep two or more posters who are stoking each other up to back off. It sounds almost like a partial suspension, in which you're allowed to keep posting in general, but have some privileges curtailed.

It means that over the past month I've been an intermediary between two posters that don't like each other and like to bait and troll each other in the public forum and PM's. I told them numerous times to ignore each other by putting each other on their "foes" list which one of them did and one of them didn't. The one that did use the foes list decided to read the forum as a "guest" to circumvent the foes list and read the other person's comments and the person that didn't use the "foes" list ignored my direction altogether.

With all due respect, I beg to differ with you about the enforceability of this measure, as it's being enforced as we speak.

This is as much detail as I'm comfortable or willing to go into on this matter.

Cheers

so we are supposed to log in all of the time? Just to read? I normally only log in if I have something to post, otherwise why bother? I get the intent in this situation, but I also think it's been obvious from reading who the stalker/aggressor has been (and for the record I enjoy the post and links of both a great deal) you missed the boat on this one

I missed the boat?

I've been in constant contact with the both of them for over a month, but I missed the boat...

You haven't even seen this boat that I supposedly missed so there's that but hey, since I'm a highly paid employee of CyclingNews.com I'll take the criticism and try to do better for you.

curious as to what rule my reply to this post violated since it was removed and I got no PM telling me a reason.

crickets..........

 

[Scott SoCal]

curious as to what rule my reply to this post violated since it was removed and I got no PM telling me a reason.

It’s a shame that asking this reasonable question (twice) led to a ban.

The difference between the Affleck deal and the US politics thread is that here the lectured-to tend to end up banned by the mods for getting tired of it all and firing back. Thou shalt not fire back. Thou shalt take thy error-riddled lecture about thine own country and show no annoyance. Thus sayeth the mods. Thus endeth the usefulness of the politics thread. Amen

Well stated Beech.

 

[aphronesis]

Irondan, what is a "no contact" order? Does that mean you can't interact with some specific other poster on the forum (sounds unlikely and unenforceable), or does it only refer to PMs between them? Or something else entirely?

And is this something new, or has it been in effect for a long time, and I just wasn't aware of it? I assume it's meant to keep two or more posters who are stoking each other up to back off. It sounds almost like a partial suspension, in which you're allowed to keep posting in general, but have some privileges curtailed.

It means that over the past month I've been an intermediary between two posters that don't like each other and like to bait and troll each other in the public forum and PM's. I told them numerous times to ignore each other by putting each other on their "foes" list which one of them did and one of them didn't. The one that did use the foes list decided to read the forum as a "guest" to circumvent the foes list and read the other person's comments and the person that didn't use the "foes" list ignored my direction altogether.

With all due respect, I beg to differ with you about the enforceability of this measure, as it's being enforced as we speak.

This is as much detail as I'm comfortable or willing to go into on this matter.

Cheers

so we are supposed to log in all of the time? Just to read? I normally only log in if I have something to post, otherwise why bother? I get the intent in this situation, but I also think it's been obvious from reading who the stalker/aggressor has been (and for the record I enjoy the post and links of both a great deal) you missed the boat on this one

Oops. Forgot to log out. You’re off the rails on this one and weren’t around. Mods cleaned up the mess. Why not go for the suicide option of everyone else when the ban ends?

 

[Brullnux]

Worst permaban ever.

Seriously, I get it was annoying but a permaban is massively excessive. I don't see any reason why it's justifiable (and I don't want the response to be 'we wanted him this would happen' because that just means the warning was excessive as well). Another ban (for a month or two) would've been enough imo.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Worst permaban ever.

Seriously, I get it was annoying but a permaban is massively excessive. I don't see any reason why it's justifiable (and I don't want the response to be 'we wanted him this would happen' because that just means the warning was excessive as well). Another ban (for a month or two) would've been enough imo.

This is not the "Members suspension appreciation/depreciation" thread (which is now closed). Please stick to the topic.

Thank you.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

Worst permaban ever.

Seriously, I get it was annoying but a permaban is massively excessive. I don't see any reason why it's justifiable (and I don't want the response to be 'we wanted him this would happen' because that just means the warning was excessive as well). Another ban (for a month or two) would've been enough imo.

This is not the "Members suspension appreciation/depreciation" thread (which is now closed). Please stick to the topic.

Thank you.

So, seemingly contrary to Red Rick's post when closing the Member's Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation thread, it is now forbidden to criticize the moderation of this forum.

This is a new thing, indeed.

Disparaging expletive omitted.

 

[sniper]

Yeah.
It seemed to me Brullnux just commented on the moderation, which I thought is one of the purposes, if not the main purpose, of this thread?

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

Worst permaban ever.

Seriously, I get it was annoying but a permaban is massively excessive. I don't see any reason why it's justifiable (and I don't want the response to be 'we wanted him this would happen' because that just means the warning was excessive as well). Another ban (for a month or two) would've been enough imo.

This is not the "Members suspension appreciation/depreciation" thread (which is now closed). Please stick to the topic.

Thank you.

I refer to MarkvW's post. But if there has truly been a change in policy - are we still allowed to comment on suspensions by moderators? I'm excited to know the answer.

But in the meantime, to please you, I shall rephrase my statement in a more appropriate manner: I believe, in my humblest of opinions, that moderation recently has become excessively harsh regarding the severity of bans. Some punishments are more extreme than they have been in the past. I think, in a constructive manner, that it would be better if they weren't so severe.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Worst permaban ever.

Seriously, I get it was annoying but a permaban is massively excessive. I don't see any reason why it's justifiable (and I don't want the response to be 'we wanted him this would happen' because that just means the warning was excessive as well). Another ban (for a month or two) would've been enough imo.

This is not the "Members suspension appreciation/depreciation" thread (which is now closed). Please stick to the topic.

Thank you.

I refer to MarkvW's post. But if there has truly been a change in policy - are we still allowed to comment on suspensions by moderators? I'm excited to know the answer.

But in the meantime, to please you, I shall rephrase my statement in a more appropriate manner: I believe, in my humblest of opinions, that moderation recently has become excessively harsh regarding the severity of bans. Some punishments are more extreme than they have been in the past. I think, in a constructive manner, that it would be better if they weren't so severe.

The answer to that question is "no". This is not a thread to complain about bans, it's to complain about moderation.

As to the rest of your comment, I don't know if you've been following the events in the cafe over the past few months or not but I can safely say that "we" (the entire CN moderation staff) have been extremely patient and fair with the members that have long bans and have been permabanned. We gave them every opportunity in the world to not ban themselves. In all reality, those members took it upon themselves to get either permabanned or a long ban all on their own and have no one to blame but themselves. If you or anyone else is not a cafe regular maybe you should go back and read those threads for the past few months and then come back and tell me with a straight face that we didn't plead with them to do the right thing. They also have all been banned with lesser bans, only to come back to the threads and do the same exact thing.

While you're reading the cafe threads take the time to notice the difference in the threads before and after members being banned. The difference is profound and the forum is much healthier and better without members that constantly bully, troll, personally attack, instigate and bait other members. Not to mention the blatant disregard for forum rules.

I can go on and on with the reasoning behind the moderation staff cracking down on the cafe but it all boils down to one thing... Forum rules.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Worst permaban ever.

Seriously, I get it was annoying but a permaban is massively excessive. I don't see any reason why it's justifiable (and I don't want the response to be 'we wanted him this would happen' because that just means the warning was excessive as well). Another ban (for a month or two) would've been enough imo.

This is not the "Members suspension appreciation/depreciation" thread (which is now closed). Please stick to the topic.

Thank you.

So, seemingly contrary to Red Rick's post when closing the Member's Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation thread, it is now forbidden to criticize the moderation of this forum.

This is a new thing, indeed.

Disparaging expletive omitted.

The only time I ever seem to notice when you comment is when you feign outrage over an issue in the moderator's thread.

Nobody said it was forbidden to criticize moderation, that was completely made up.

However, complaining about bans just for the sake of complaining about bans is a thing of the past because people used that thread to troll each other so it was closed.

If you want to criticise mods then go for it.