Moderators

[Escarabajo]

Re:

1.) El Pistolero has been banned until 8/5/2018 for trolling immediately after coming back from a ban for trolling.

Interesting, considering it's now 4/6/2018.

:lol:

We need El Pistolero for the Tour!!!

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

Could something be done about posts that are completely unrelated to doping being posted in the Clinic? I strongly feel those posts should go in the Road section.

I have seen it once before but the main reason was because he was expecting comments related to doping in the first place even if initially the topics were not related to it. Maybe that is the reason.

You would think that a lot of the power output posts are not related to doping but it is open to it all the time.

 

[King Boonen]

I've not seen any reports about posts in the wrong place.We don't read every thread so if you have a problem with a post you need to report it. The function isn't just to complain about the poster, we're more than happy for people to use it to report things like this.

 

[thehog]

Full genius:

Stiller's film is, ostensibly at least, about Hollywood. The point it's making about people with learning difficulties is that the movies sanitise their plight. The character Stiller plays is a fading film-star who has himself just portrayed a gibbering, goofy dimwit in a film called Simple Jack. According to a colleague, this has ruined his career. His mistake was to go "full-genius". To win an Oscar you should only go "part-genius", like Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man or Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump.

This isn't just accurate and amusing; it's important. For decades, Hollywood colluded in the dismissal of disability by ignoring it. Its current practice of glamorising the subject is perhaps even more pernicious. Understanding of dementia was set back, rather than advanced, by its rosy misrepresentation in Away From Her. The movies' insistence that manic depression and autism come accompanied by good looks, unusual charm and near-magical powers hasn't endeared people with these conditions to the rest of us. It's increased the burden on them, by arousing unrealistic expectations of their capacities.

By using the word "genius", Stiller relocates those to whom it's applied back in the real world. By acknowledging the distaste they may inspire, he does them the service of taking their situation seriously. And he reminds audiences that cinema's reluctance to engage honestly with them is ultimately the fault of cinemagoers themselves, not the studios, which must work within the parameters of acceptability.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2008/sep/22/tropicthunder.benstiller

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Full genius:

Stiller's film is, ostensibly at least, about Hollywood. The point it's making about people with learning difficulties is that the movies sanitise their plight. The character Stiller plays is a fading film-star who has himself just portrayed a gibbering, goofy dimwit in a film called Simple Jack. According to a colleague, this has ruined his career. His mistake was to go "full-genius". To win an Oscar you should only go "part-genius", like Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man or Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump.

This isn't just accurate and amusing; it's important. For decades, Hollywood colluded in the dismissal of disability by ignoring it. Its current practice of glamorising the subject is perhaps even more pernicious. Understanding of dementia was set back, rather than advanced, by its rosy misrepresentation in Away From Her. The movies' insistence that manic depression and autism come accompanied by good looks, unusual charm and near-magical powers hasn't endeared people with these conditions to the rest of us. It's increased the burden on them, by arousing unrealistic expectations of their capacities.

By using the word "genius", Stiller relocates those to whom it's applied . By acknowledging the distaste they may inspire, he does them the service of taking their situation seriously. And he reminds audiences that cinema's reluctance to engage honestly with them is ultimately the fault of cinemagoers themselves, not the studios, which must work within the parameters of acceptability.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2008/sep/22/tropicthunder.benstiller

A plausible defence of the way that the phrase is used in that film, perhaps. But "relocating those to whom it's applied back in the real world', and 'taking their[mentally disabled people's] situation seriously' is absolutely no part of the intention of those who use the term in relation to doping in cycling or other sports.

There are plenty of possibilities in the language for suggesting that something is over-the-top, undisguised, blatant, unrestrained, ill-considered etc without using terms that are offensive. Referring to the technical use of the term serves only to highlight how inappropriate it is here: using it as something 'humorous' is simply immature.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

My heart goes out to all the moderators and admins who have the handle the aftermatch of the Froome case these days..

 

[SHAD0W93]

Same, the posts have been pretty crazy back and forth. Hard work for a thankless job for the most part.

 

[yetiyeti]

Re:

My heart goes out to all the moderators and admins who have the handle the aftermatch of the Froome case these days..

Agreed. I'm a mod on another board and when a polarizing event happens it can be brutal. I know from experience how much members can help by avoiding quoting any offending posts.....the quoted items can pile up quickly and just add fuel to the fire.

 

[Tonton]

FYI, I'm no longer a mod. I own my comments, but they are inconsistent with what mods should post. No excuses. I will self-inflict a ban on myself, it's only fair. It was a pleasure, an honor. At last I won't have to surf threads monitor members and fights. I will just enjoy being a member. Thanks to the mods, and Dan in particular. Time for my self-imposed ban now . Cheers.

 

[silvergrenade]

The recent developments have led me to believe that there is a serious need to have mods who are Pro Froome or perhaps are atleast neutral.
Except pricey I do not think there is even one mod who is neutral.
Some of the posts I've read in the previous 2-3 days should have been immediate bans and even after reporting no bans have been issued on such comments.

PS: Tonton, you were a great mod but your comments on the Froome thread were illogical and so full of hate that I wondered what I'm doing on such a forum.

 

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

Re:

The recent developments have led me to believe that there is a serious need to have mods who are Pro Froome or perhaps are atleast neutral.
Except pricey I do not think there is even one mod who is neutral.
Some of the posts I've read in the previous 2-3 days should have been immediate bans and even after reporting no bans have been issued on such comments.

PS: Tonton, you were a great mod but your comments on the Froome thread were illogical and so full of hate that I wondered what I'm doing on such a forum.

Agree

 

[Brullnux]

what's with the blue mods

 

[mrhender]

Their liberals

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The point is not to have "pro-Froome" mods to argue the case of one side in these situations. The point of moderating the board is to treat things impartially. That does not preclude the moderator having their own opinion, nor should it preclude them voicing that opinion, so long as they are able to take that out of the picture when they are in mod mode. Tonton has several times used "mod hat on" "mod hat off" type comments to demonstrate when they are voicing their opinion as a member of the board, and when they are voicing their opinion with the theoretical impartiality of a moderator. If they feel that the current situation makes it impossible to maintain objectivity when being asked to moderate discussions, and for that reason they do not feel it appropriate to remain a moderator at this time, then that is also very fair.

For what it's worth, while the Clinic often oversteps the mark quite dramatically with regards what it considers adequate evidence of doping, I've seen an awful lot of comments on the "in favour of Froome/Sky" side of the debate that are clearly designed with no intention other than provocation too, it's been far from one-way traffic in that respect. And some of those reported posts may be ones where a private reprimand is all that is needed or even where the mods simply don't agree that the post merited punishing. And at the moment, it is very difficult to divorce the goings-on in Clinic matters from discussing Froome's race calendar, performance and prospects in the PRR board without reference to Clinic matters, since they've shaped his entire 2018 season to date, and I'm sure each and every moderator has their own opinion as to where the line is to be drawn; it would set an absurd precedent to close the PRR thread down entirely so long as Froome remains without suspension, especially when the likes of Valverde have their own threads running happily alongside, but at the same time policing the PRR thread on Froome during the Tour is going to be an absolute nightmare for the mods, since the volume of posting goes up dramatically and keeping track of where that line is crossed at any given moment is inevitably going to be difficult. In the visceral reaction to the decision on Monday morning I can totally understand Tonton's outburst in that thread, and even if you legitimately believe Froome to be clean or, as seems to be ever more commonly the case, believe him to not be any dirtier than any of his contemporaries and therefore undeserving of the apparent singling out that he gets (as I have said before however, there are certain perfect storms of factors, some of which he can help and some of which he can't, that explain why Sky in general and Froome in particular are especially difficult for many fans to accept), you also have to accept that the way in which the case has been dropped has some concerning ramifications for future enforcement of doping regulations, which are potentially harmful for the sport which we all profess to love to at least some degree (and even those who are turning their back or at least claiming to be must love the sport to some level otherwise such a thing wouldn't be such a hammer blow to them).

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Their liberals

ah, the old blue/red problem with us/europe. i assumed it mean they were nordic cool

 

[mrhender]

Re: Re:

Their liberals

ah, the old blue/red problem with us/europe. i assumed it mean they were nordic cool

Lol true. Here in dk its the other way round to.

 

[mrhender]

Re:

The point is not to have "pro-Froome" mods to argue the case of one side in these situations. The point of moderating the board is to treat things impartially. That does not preclude the moderator having their own opinion, nor should it preclude them voicing that opinion, so long as they are able to take that out of the picture when they are in mod mode. Tonton has several times used "mod hat on" "mod hat off" type comments to demonstrate when they are voicing their opinion as a member of the board, and when they are voicing their opinion with the theoretical impartiality of a moderator. If they feel that the current situation makes it impossible to maintain objectivity when being asked to moderate discussions, and for that reason they do not feel it appropriate to remain a moderator at this time, then that is also very fair.

For what it's worth, while the Clinic often oversteps the mark quite dramatically with regards what it considers adequate evidence of doping, I've seen an awful lot of comments on the "in favour of Froome/Sky" side of the debate that are clearly designed with no intention other than provocation too, it's been far from one-way traffic in that respect. And some of those reported posts may be ones where a private reprimand is all that is needed or even where the mods simply don't agree that the post merited punishing. And at the moment, it is very difficult to divorce the goings-on in Clinic matters from discussing Froome's race calendar, performance and prospects in the PRR board without reference to Clinic matters, since they've shaped his entire 2018 season to date, and I'm sure each and every moderator has their own opinion as to where the line is to be drawn; it would set an absurd precedent to close the PRR thread down entirely so long as Froome remains without suspension, especially when the likes of Valverde have their own threads running happily alongside, but at the same time policing the PRR thread on Froome during the Tour is going to be an absolute nightmare for the mods, since the volume of posting goes up dramatically and keeping track of where that line is crossed at any given moment is inevitably going to be difficult. In the visceral reaction to the decision on Monday morning I can totally understand Tonton's outburst in that thread, and even if you legitimately believe Froome to be clean or, as seems to be ever more commonly the case, believe him to not be any dirtier than any of his contemporaries and therefore undeserving of the apparent singling out that he gets (as I have said before however, there are certain perfect storms of factors, some of which he can help and some of which he can't, that explain why Sky in general and Froome in particular are especially difficult for many fans to accept), you also have to accept that the way in which the case has been dropped has some concerning ramifications for future enforcement of doping regulations, which are potentially harmful for the sport which we all profess to love to at least some degree (and even those who are turning their back or at least claiming to be must love the sport to some level otherwise such a thing wouldn't be such a hammer blow to them).

Good post.

To add just a few things without going into great detail.

1. The anti-froome concern with mods is historically kinda moot. Look at the ban list.. many many bans for people who are notable sky critics.

2. You cant have mods without opinions. All humans have opinions. You can ask them to supress them but is that the way to go? That said, i think its normal for mods to hold back a little while "on the job" The alternative is robots modding. Not sure that is advisable just yet.

3. In my experience there has always been a call for diversity on the mod team. Both with personality and opinions. To ensure that as many sides of a case was considered(why mods rarely act on their own).

4. I dont think there are many pro-froome posters volunteering for mod duty. So you cant force a specific 50/50 scenario at all times. One could argue they dont want to volunteer because they might fear abuse/ridicule over supporting/beleiving froome. That may be a valid concern. But lets not forget it goes both ways. The current mods are bashed for exactly the opposite. So there is no winning.

 

[LaFlorecita]

We have as far as I can see 4 very active mods now Tonton retired. Pricey_sky, who as his username suggests is a Sky/Froome fan, but very rational and objective either way. King Boonen, who seems to be quite neutral but definitely not anti-Froome. Irondan who I believe isn't the biggest Froome fan but is also quite neutral. And Red Rick who could be considered "anti-Froome".

So, I don't think we need a pro-Froome moderator as silvergrenade suggests. Mods should be objective when modding anyway.

Edit: I forgot Valv.Piti. I don't think he is either pro or anti-Froome.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re:

what's with the blue mods

Blue mods? I can only see the usualy red and green ones.

 

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

Re:

We have as far as I can see 4 very active mods now Tonton retired. Pricey_sky, who as his username suggests is a Sky/Froome fan, but very rational and objective either way. King Boonen, who seems to be quite neutral but definitely not anti-Froome. Irondan who I believe isn't the biggest Froome fan but is also quite neutral. And Red Rick who could be considered "anti-Froome".

So, I don't think we need a pro-Froome moderator as silvergrenade suggests. Mods should be objective when modding anyway.

Edit: I forgot Valv.Piti. I don't think he is either pro or anti-Froome.

I think is rather anti-Froome. But what must be pointed out, he WAS ABLE to admit one thing: the masterpiece of Finestre'2018. And it must be absolutely appreciated! On the other side was one of our Admins, who "was out", just after a few km of Finestre.

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

what's with the blue mods

Blue mods? I can only see the usualy red and green ones.

Valv.Piti has become blue

 

[Pricey_sky]

As Flo mentioned above, I don't see the need for a pro Froome mod to be added. In the current group we all have our likes and dislikes, but everyone is objective when moderating this forum.

If somebody was added who was just pro Froome and dismissed other points of view, they would cause a lot more trouble than not. In my opinion, the current group works well together because we are fair and reasonable to all, regardless of who posters support.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Im not neutral, Im probably leaning towards anti-Froome without being as 'anti' as many on the boards here

Im going the same way as Tonton, out. Couldn't really find that much motivation to moderate. Thats maybe also why Im blue!

 

[aphronesis]

Pricey Sky is and has always been straight on. If other Froome fans can’t find measured representatives they might want to question other factors.

 

[SHAD0W93]

If only we could all get along and express opinions, than debate them without getting upset at each other.