Moderators

[Barrus]

It is not my job to find the offending posts or the offending posters. That is your job. You seem to pop up in threads I post in pretty often, so much so I think you must have a bell that goes off on your computer when I log in. Why you pull out the "we can't monitor all threads" card now is a copout.

I will not go and find numerous posts by whoever to prove my point. That person may get scapegoated just to prove your point, and I don't trust you enough to not think you wouldn't do that. You and others choose not to take into account the past offenses of people you agree with or have affinity for because shouting down somebody with an opposing view about LA for example is deserved, isn't it? That is the whole point. The WADA/AC delay thread is a prime example of a pile on to SR by the pet mob, and I am sure nothing has gone on "behind closed doors" to admonish the offenders in that thread.

If the mods leave the forum will close down? Why is that? I think this forum would be a blast if you guys disappeared. Maybe you mean CN would close it down due to too many unsubstantiated stuff that would be flying around. As if that doesn't happen now.

You know the reason why I pop up in those threads quite often, it is because those threads quite often get reported. Due to this system we can know that something is wrong and than take the appropriate steps.
Still you have nothing to show that certain poster get more lenience than others. AS the Doc has pointed out, what about TFF, or the Hog. Especially with the first I can find it quite well, yet I still remand him if there is the need. What about Polish, Scribe and Flicker. The only times I warned them is when they went off-topic after repeated warnings in the topic. I don't think I have banned anyone except for spammers and BPC and other puppets, because I am normally not of the opinion that bannings don't work. Most of the time I try to reason with the people through a pm, or an infraction.

If mods leave CN won't keep this forum around, that is why, Not because of the unsubstantiated stuff, but because of a lot of things that could and probably would go on in this forum

Also you don't trust me, you have that right, but I don't think that outside yourself anybody has a problem with the manner in which I moderate. Perhaps with certain decision, but not with the overall line that I follow

Just to give you an indication of the amount of things we do do. In the last month around 400 posts were deleted, about half or more of these were probably deleted by moderators. I know I myself deleted more than 70 posts in the last month. These numbers do not include the posts that are completely deleted, but only the once that are soft deleted. Outside of this multiple threads have been deleted. Also a lot of posts have been edited by moderators. Now these posts include all the different sides of many debates and it does not pertain mainly to one side of the discussions.
I could not see the amount of infractions handed out in the last month. But again to my knowledge these have been handed out fairly and not even that often.
And all this does not even include the informal warnings we give people through pm

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It is not my job to find the offending posts or the offending posters. That is your job. You seem to pop up in threads I post in pretty often, so much so I think you must have a bell that goes off on your computer when I log in. Why you pull out the "we can't monitor all threads" card now is a copout.

I will not go and find numerous posts by whoever to prove my point. That person may get scapegoated just to prove your point, and I don't trust you enough to not think you wouldn't do that. You and others choose not to take into account the past offenses of people you agree with or have affinity for because shouting down somebody with an opposing view about LA for example is deserved, isn't it? That is the whole point. The WADA/AC delay thread is a prime example of a pile on to SR by the pet mob, and I am sure nothing has gone on "behind closed doors" to admonish the offenders in that thread.

If the mods leave the forum will close down? Why is that? I think this forum would be a blast if you guys disappeared. Maybe you mean CN would close it down due to too many unsubstantiated stuff that would be flying around. As if that doesn't happen now.

Its not 'barrus' job. Firstly - they are a poster here, who volunteered to moderate.

Also, as it is you who is making the claim - then it's your 'job' to back up your claim.
Basically - anything else you say on the matter is meaningless.

BTW - the posts that appeared to cause you so much offence - did you 'report' them?

 

[python]

here is my problem. and a word of hope mixed with encouragement.

the most active complainer in this thread, no need to name as it's obvious, in this thread alone exhibited plentiful ability to stay civil whilst holding a passionate opposing view. i could even see some of his arguments. but lets be truthful, and i'm not saying this to score points, the same poster as it's hardly a secret (it was right under his handle) spent about half of his membership being banned for frequent jabs, ad hominems and down right insults...hardly a surprize he's unhappy. never have i seen an apology from him or a any kind of reflection. though, as this thread shows, he's quite capable of being civil and reasonable.

my point is simple, yes we can speak freely and we should express dissatisfaction if it pains us, but don't we have to look inwards first, before blasting mods ?

not claiming i'm a saint.

 

[ChrisE]

You know the reason why I pop up in those threads quite often, it is because those threads quite often get reported. Due to this system we can know that something is wrong and than take the appropriate steps.
Still you have nothing to show that certain poster get more lenience than others. AS the Doc has pointed out, what about TFF, or the Hog. Especially with the first I can find it quite well, yet I still remand him if there is the need. What about Polish, Scribe and Flicker. The only times I warned them is when they went off-topic after repeated warnings in the topic. I don't think I have banned anyone except for spammers and BPC and other puppets, because I am normally not of the opinion that bannings don't work. Most of the time I try to reason with the people through a pm, or an infraction.

If mods leave CN won't keep this forum around, that is why, Not because of the unsubstantiated stuff, but because of a lot of things that could and probably would go on in this forum

Also you don't trust me, you have that right, but I don't think that outside yourself anybody has a problem with the manner in which I moderate. Perhaps with certain decision, but not with the overall line that I follow

Just to give you an indication of the amount of things we do do. In the last month around 400 posts were deleted, about half or more of these were probably deleted by moderators. I know I myself deleted more than 70 posts in the last month. These numbers do not include the posts that are completely deleted, but only the once that are soft deleted. Outside of this multiple threads have been deleted. Also a lot of posts have been edited by moderators. Now these posts include all the different sides of many debates and it does not pertain mainly to one side of the discussions.
I could not see the amount of infractions handed out in the last month. But again to my knowledge these have been handed out fairly and not even that often.
And all this does not even include the informal warnings we give people through pm

I stated above that I will not scour the forum and link to posts showing where pets break rules, and nothing happens. I have stated my reason why I will not do this. Besides that I don't feel like it.

This discussion has also taken its course. If you believe everybody is treated the same, whether they are a forum buddy to a particular mod or not, then so be it. I do know that particular mods have defended me before and I appreciate that; this is not an attack on mods in general. It is a priveledge to post in a forum, not a right.

In summary, I do not think people can treat people equally that they agree with vs people they don't agree with. That human characteristic is enhanced when mods get involved in threads, and thus their opinion is the object of opposing posters with different views. YMMV, obviously.

 

[python]

I stated above that I will not scour the forum and link to posts showing where pets break rules, and nothing happens. I have stated my reason why I will not do this. Besides that I don't feel like it.

This discussion has also taken its course. If you believe everybody is treated the same, whether they are a forum buddy to a particular mod or not, then so be it. I do know that particular mods have defended me before and I appreciate that; this is not an attack on mods in general. It is a priveledge to post in a forum, not a right.

In summary, I do not think people can treat people equally that they agree with vs people they don't agree with. That human characteristic is enhanced when mods get involved in threads, and thus their opinion is the object of opposing posters with different views. YMMV, obviously.

again, look at my post above and tell us, have you been banned unfairly and have you been reflecting on it. or your sole purpose is to push your opinion by any means including those outside of rules ?

 

[ChrisE]

again, look at my post above and tell us, have you been banned unfairly and have you been reflecting on it. or your sole purpose is to push your opinion by any means including those outside of rules ?

Of course I have not been banned unfairly; I have broken the rules. Have others been banned by breaking the same rules? No, and you know that. You called somebody a name recently in a thread, which I thought was funny BTW. You do that quite often. Did you get a reprimand? You tell me. Somebody potentially outed another poster recently, which is a big deal. What happened to them?

What you don't get, and I have told you this before, is the only thing you and I disagree on is the ultimate way LA gets what is coming to him. We don't disagree about what he has done. My "agenda" as you say is just to bring some sanity, from my POV, into the process it takes to punish him and dopers in general. That makes me a fanboy, of course.

The mirror is not your friend, though you admit you are not a saint. Along with not being a saint, you are busy reporting my posts or posts like scribe's because their opinion is different than yours. I reflect on nothing, unless you call "reflection" as toning down what I write. Censoring my manner of speaking on a forum, so to speak, to not hurt the feelings of people such as yourself who are busy trying to snuff debate instead of respecting it.

 

[python]

i'm going to say one more thing.

spartakus rox and chrisE let themselves what i consider the height of tactlessness - and i suspect a purposeful one - public comparison of mods to each other - depending on who they believe aligns with their view point. this is low.

as far as i remember, not a single poster on this forum have done this. i've seen passionate single protests to moderation. i've seen pleas for fairness.

i have not seen anyone, anyone except for rox and chrisE trying apportioning mods to different sides or as 'chrisE himself said, 'favourable to me'

that's down right inappropriate and stinks.

 

[python]

Of course I have not been banned unfairly; I have broken the rules. Have others been banned by breaking the same rules? No, and you know that. You called somebody a name recently in a thread, which I thought was funny BTW. You do that quite often. Did you get a reprimand? You tell me. Somebody potentially outed another poster recently, which is a big deal. What happened to them?

What you don't get, and I have told you this before, is the only thing you and I disagree on is the ultimate way LA gets what is coming to him. We don't disagree about what he has done. My "agenda" as you say is just to bring some sanity, from my POV, into the process it takes to punish him and dopers in general. That makes me a fanboy, of course.

The mirror is not your friend, though you admit you are not a saint. Along with not being a saint, you are busy reporting my posts or posts like scribe's because their opinion is different than yours. I reflect on nothing, unless you call "reflection" as toning down what I write. Censoring my manner of speaking on a forum, so to speak, to not hurt the feelings of people such as yourself who are busy trying to snuff debate instead of respecting it.

i read it, but again, you seem to be obsessed with others getting banned, instead of getting busy looking inward. your manners and your attempts at influencing the forum have been responsible for your banning. not mods. i don't care to discuss my differences of opinion with you here. this is about you whining. and you ought to first publicly apologize for having mods working overtime on you, and only then you can whine.

 

[ChrisE]

Ok, you have convinced me. I will spend this weekend looking inward.

If after this weekend, and after the heavy dosage of inward looking, I still feel the same way about you does that mean I get a pass for my opinion from now on? Or will I just need to look harder inward? Please lay out the rules so I will know how much I need to squint while looking inward. How much inward-looking does one need to do to convince themselves your opinion is the correct one?

Maybe SparticusRox and I can get on webcam and help eachother look inward. I just hope SR is female, but if not I will take one for the team. Are there diagrams for this inward looking stuff? Seems difficult physically, but here is what I am planning to do so you and I can see eye-to-eye from now on:

Thanks for your support.

 

[180mmCrank]

I am sure this has been covered but worth repeating...

Most mods are volunteers and are happy to moderate but would like to contribute to discussion - although it's hard to do both and many of us contribute less now we are mods - go figure. We have talked about having different identities - to post under a different name from which we mod - but decided not to do this

We can't and don't read everything. We are steered by where we get warnings and/or where a thread has a title that looks like it might kick off a heated debate. I am sure we miss stuff all the time. It's a little bit annoying when people pull things out of threads in discussions like this as evidence of us being inconsistent - 'have a cigar!' We don't cover everything - full stop - it's not some mods omerta or double standard - it's simply a lack of bandwidth.

It goes with out saying that we give the benefit of the doubt to newbie posters. And it's easy to moderate repeat or gross offenders. We have more debate about the grey areas of what is considered abusive, aggressive and offensive. And it's tricky when two posters claim they are happy to 'abuse' one another..."we are just having fun - I know he's only joking"

This kind of discussion is useful to get a sense of how it all lands with you folk out there. We do listen you know! And it helps if you are respectful in how you give the feedback - we are only human after all.

onwards and upwards

T

 

[180mmCrank]

...and one more thing.

If you want to make a noise about something I would rather it was how to improve the quality of discussion not just police the existing stuff.

Things like asking for...

1. A pro rider to post on the forum

2. A physiologist to contribute to the clinic

3. A team manager to post during a GT

4. An author of a CN article to start a discussion thread and answer questions

5. Functionality to have live discussion with any of the above

6. To have designated experts on fitness, equipement, racing, doping etc

7. etc etc etc

This is a bit of a hobby horse of mine with Dan and the guys at CN. How to get the forum into the 2.0 world?

 

[python]

Ok, you have convinced me. I will spend this weekend looking inward.

whilst you're looking inward, and since you're your old obnoxious and arrogant self, don't forget that i'm always going to be around to help you to get that head out of your own ass.

and if i have to help the mods to do whatever they have to do to keep you (and your numerous sock puppets) out of destroying threads, i will do what i have to do. you got my word, and by now you should know i keep it.

the facts remain the same: the most vocal whiner about moderators happens to be one of the biggest troubles for them who spent several month being banned and who still demands the forum to function by his own rules.

 

[Ferminal]

Oh dear, not a good look for an administrator to be so openly biased. I am sure your comments will win you a few fans on here but you really should censure yourself. At least Susan is a little more circumspect in her public comments even though i am sure she is tempted to say how she feels. maybe if you want to post stuff like this you should consider stepping aside as a 'moderator' and then just go for it.

A moderator is to ensure people don't break the rules, not so much an old fashioned "moderating voice".

Moderators are people, they are volunteers, most of them were posting before they were a moderator. Do you want to make moderators complete robots, devoid of any opinion, when the reason they came here to start with was to voice their opinion?

Any sensible moderator knows how to use their powers objectively, regardless of their disposition. If you believe that the moderators here are not capable of achieving that, then maybe you should 1) Tell some higher powers and try and get them removed, or 2) Leave.

You're just looking for an argument going down this route. But then again, it's not surprising coming from you, given you were banned for showing complete and utter disrespect towards moderators.

 

[Cal_Joe]

snip...

My opinion is mod "leniency" is shaped by their affinity for certain posters, whose opinion just happen to fall in line with their in terms of the main subject in the clinic. You can say how much I don't know because I am not "behind closed doors", but that is just a copout to avoid scrutiny.

As an example, here is a post by someone who has been given suspensions several times -

.........and all that c0ck sucking by Horner for what? Man he even cried on TV about Lance.

The post was reported. It is still up. Any mod care to comment? Any chance you will give the poster another vacation? My gut feeling is the poster will not get a vacation. Surprise me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As an example, here is a post by someone who has been given suspensions several times -
...
The post was reported. It is still up. Any mod care to comment? Any chance you will give the poster another vacation? My gut feeling is the poster will not get a vacation. Surprise me.

Are you a Mod here? Didn't think so.

Maybe you should report this post also.

One forum member abusing another and also using a term that I find deeply disturbing.

Well, I have to admit that in my early days in this forum I had an attitude about TheHog, but if you look at my later posts I realized that TheHog was a forum version of the village idiot - most seemed to realize he had some issues and fixations, but he was good for a laugh. After I became aware of his issues, I laid off.

If the info I have gleaned from the forum and some members is correct, one of the many reasons TheHog was banned involved his use of sockpuppets, so I am a bit confused as to why you raise the issue. As far as challenging his posts, if I remember correctly there were two types of posts - "Ooh, I heard a rumor" and "LA wants to fark his Mommy". I will refrain from delving into his infamous 9/5/09 blockbuster headlines.
......

 

[Cal_Joe]

As an example, here is a post by someone who has been given suspensions several times -



The post was reported. It is still up. Any mod care to comment? Any chance you will give the poster another vacation? My gut feeling is the poster will not get a vacation. Surprise me.

Great. Post edited by mod after the fact was raised that the post contained offensive language, after the initial report was ignored. Why not delete the entire post?

Again - any mod care to comment on why the initial report was ignored? Any mod care to comment on why a vacation was not appropriate for a repeat offender?

One of the things I have noted somewhere upstream in this thread is that common rules for mods in most forums do not seem to be followed here.

I realise that with a small number of mods here that it may not be practical, but here goes -

Mods should be assigned a subforum to moderate.

Mods may not post in that subforum unless it it is to keep a thread on track.

Mods should NEVER be able to deal with a thread they have posted a non-mod comment in. Recuse yourself.

One of the strongest themes in this thread seems to be that mods should avoid a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, mods should avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Are you a Mod here? Didn't think so.

Maybe you should report this post also.

One forum member abusing another and also using a term that I find deeply disturbing.

Dr. M - you have totally missed who posted what and when. The bolded part of your post was posted by thehog. Look at his posts.

As far as your question "Am a mod here" - uh, obviously not, and maybe you should look at the title of this thread. It is about moderation.

 

[180mmCrank]

Would we all not rather talk about cycling than moderating?

I think you answer your own question about why we can't be too restrictive about where mods can and can't post. Are there really that many examples of 'conflict of interest’? As mods we all have our moments but is it really that bad?

The idea is to let people post and allow discussions to flow. I don't think any of us take the role lightly. And again please don't mistake a lack of bandwidth and/or occasional inconsistency with some deliberate act of favoritism or conspiracy - we really are not that smart

Again the feedback is welcomed by all of us

Thank you

Terry

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Great. Post edited by mod after the fact was raised that the post contained offensive language, after the initial report was ignored. Why not delete the entire post?

Again - any mod care to comment on why the initial report was ignored? Any mod care to comment on why a vacation was not appropriate for a repeat offender?

One of the things I have noted somewhere upstream in this thread is that common rules for mods in most forums do not seem to be followed here.

I realise that with a small number of mods here that it may not be practical, but here goes -

Mods should be assigned a subforum to moderate.

Mods may not post in that subforum unless it it is to keep a thread on track.

Mods should NEVER be able to deal with a thread they have posted a non-mod comment in. Recuse yourself.

One of the strongest themes in this thread seems to be that mods should avoid a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, mods should avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

ChrisE wasn't able to answer - so perhaps you can.
Where is the conflict of interest you write about? Any examples?

These are volunteer Mods - I suspect they barely read many of the posts and only get straight to the one's reported.

Your 'reported' post has little to do with its comment - you just don't like 'theHog'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr. M - you have totally missed who posted what and when. The bolded part of your post was posted by thehog. Look at his posts.

As far as your question "Am a mod here" - uh, obviously not, and maybe you should look at the title of this thread. It is about moderation.

You didn't need to quote it - it offended me greatly, tears are running down my face - you could have said "I cant even repeat what he said" ...

Ah - so your a member here, just like everyone else.
Then please stop telling the mods what they should be doing, or asking them to comment on what you reported - as I don't care to know.
If you wish to know then PM the mods.

 

[Ferminal]

Mods should be assigned a subforum to moderate.

Mods may not post in that subforum unless it it is to keep a thread on track.

Mods should NEVER be able to deal with a thread they have posted a non-mod comment in. Recuse yourself.

One of the strongest themes in this thread seems to be that mods should avoid a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, mods should avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Wow, I'd hate to be a mod on any site which enforces a rule like this... Unless of course the benefits were rich, but I don't know anyone who gets paid to moderate a forum. Most people do it for a passion of helping out a place which they enjoy as a contributor themselves.

Do you have any examples where there's been a clear conflict of interest? i.e. a moderator has been involved in a "discussion" and then "moderated" one of the participants in the opposing side of that discussion for comments they made against them?

My rule of thumb for moderating (in terms of conflict of interest) has always been that if you're up to your neck in a discussion then you would stand aside and let another moderate deal with any issues evolving from that particular discussion. Posting a comment =/= being up to your neck in it. That would involve having a significant back-and-forth with someone/a group of people. It would then be a conflict of interest if the moderator turned around and said "I don't like what you've said during this discussion/debate with me".

I don't think I've seen a moderator even have a significant debate (at least since they have been a moderator). Let alone base moderation actions on that debate.

You are obviously an objective person Joe and well versed on the culture of this forum. Plus you hardly post, so wouldn't have any conflict of interest, maybe you should put your hand up?

In regards to the hog, moderating in that area is subjective in that a different approach must be taken to different members according to their history, their contributions etc. You would expect that hoggy should be hit a bit harder with the stick compared to say, yourself, even if you posted the same thing.

Then please stop telling the mods what they should be doing, or asking them to comment on what you reported - as I don't care to know.
If you wish to know then PM the mods.

I've actually reported many posts in my time (usually when I reach boiling point after successive horrible posts by certain members) but never chased it up or complained about the outcome, most of the time I don't even know/care about the outcome. I report things to convey a message about what type of behaviour is deemed inappropriate by the members (in this case me). It all helps in trying to mould the forum as how we (the members) want it to be. What the mods do in response is up to them according to the rules etc, most of the time I bet they do nothing, but that doesn't matter as long as they read it.

 

[Cal_Joe]

ChrisE wasn't able to answer - so perhaps you can.
Where is the conflict of interest you write about? Any examples?

These are volunteer Mods - I suspect they barely read many of the posts and only get straight to the one's reported.

Your 'reported' post has little to do with its comment - you just don't like 'theHog'.

That seems to be the issue (bolded part). Maybe some time lag involved, but my recent experience is that posts reported for violations of forum rules tend to be put on the back burner depending on the poster.

 

[Cal_Joe]

You didn't need to quote it - it offended me greatly, tears are running down my face - you could have said "I cant even repeat what he said" ...

Ah - so your a member here, just like everyone else.
Then please stop telling the mods what they should be doing, or asking them to comment on what you reported - as I don't care to know.
If you wish to know then PM the mods.

See bolded part - in case you missed it, this thread is about moderation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That seems to be the issue (bolded part). Maybe some time lag involved, but my recent experience is that posts reported for violations of forum rules tend to be put on the back burner depending on the poster.

How do you know who has been or not been 'spoken to'?

Do you think there is a Mod on here 24 hours a day to deal with your petty squabble with 'theHog'?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

See bolded part - in case you missed it, this thread is about moderation.

In case you missed it -this thread is about moderation.... not somewhere you can come crying to get what you want.

As an example, here is a post by someone who has been given suspensions several times -
......
The post was reported. It is still up. Any mod care to comment? Any chance you will give the poster another vacation? My gut feeling is the poster will not get a vacation. Surprise me.

You can help by making suggestions on what could be done to help moderate the forum - but the above is not, it is telling the Mods what to do.