Moderators

[Barrus]

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.

Really? REALLY? You want bannings for each and every use of a swear word? My god, I think we could close up shop than as almost everyone would be banned


But still to you and to anyone who holds your view: can you show any examples of this so-called double standard? Because you talk a great deal about it, but have yet to come up with any real examples

 

[Cal_Joe]

Really? REALLY? You want bannings for each and every use of a swear word? My god, I think we could close up shop than as almost everyone would be banned


But still to you and to anyone who holds your view: can you show any examples of this so-called double standard? Because you talk a great deal about it, but have yet to come up with any real examples

Don't play the fool. The post that was reported was about thehog's assertion about fellatio between Mr. Horner and Mr. Armstrong -let me know if you think that is appropriate for this forum. A simple yes or no answer will do.

Barrus - I repeat, do you think posts like that are appropriate here? And if they are reported, why are they not removed? As the famous quote goes - "Lucy, you got some splainin to do".

 

[180mmCrank]

Ok - I'll have a go at explaining again

There are only a small number of us (5) that actively read the forum and/or follow up on reported posts. 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. Even when things are reported we miss stuff. - sorry

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.

I am not sure what other answer you are looking for?

 

[180mmCrank]

Don't play the fool. The post that was reported was about thehog's assertion about fellatio between Mr. Horner and Mr. Armstrong -let me know if you think that is appropriate for this forum. A simple yes or no answer will do.

Barrus - I repeat, do you think posts like that are appropriate here? And if they are reported, why are they not removed? As the famous quote goes - "Lucy, you got some splainin to do".

And as you know this has now been edited and we followed up as is appropriate. It was missed - sorry

Terry

 

[Cal_Joe]

Ok - I'll have a go at explaining again

There are only a small number of us (5) that actively read the forum and/or follow up on reported posts. 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. Even when things are reported we miss stuff. - sorry

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.

I am not sure what other answer you are looking for?

Terry - thanks for your response. Believe me, I know what a thankless job moderating can be. It does disturb me that posts from known "problem children" that are reported seem to glide under the radar.

As far as inconsistent goes, unfortunately there is a perception (note that this is not a fact, but a growing perception here) that there is a harsher standard for some posters than others.

As far as what I am looking for - I think that was in a previous post -

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.

mods should avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

[180mmCrank]

Who has been treated more harshly? I accept that some stuff gets by but I am not aware that we pick on folk?!

The suggestions you make for avoiding conflict in my opinion wouldn't work here. We don't have enough folk and we would have less if we implemented something like that.

And I am not sure I recognise the conflict of interest - there isn't any material interest here - none of us (bar Susan who has a minmal $ interest) have any 'interest' - we are simply volunteers trying to create an environment for folk to discuss cycling.

Again I think we do pretty well considering and we strive to get better.

 

[Ferminal]

Terry - thanks for your response. Believe me, I know what a thankless job moderating can be. It does disturb me that posts from known "problem children" that are reported seem to glide under the radar.

As far as inconsistent goes, unfortunately there is a perception (note that this is not a fact, but a growing perception here) that there is a harsher standard for some posters than others.

As far as what I am looking for - I think that was in a previous post -

What is the significance of an appearance?

All an appearance of a conflict of interest does is give ammunition for people to start accusing the mods of double standards, as per this thread.

If the mods can live with these misguided criticisms every now and then, then I guess they can appear to have a conflict of interest.

In reality there is no conflict of interest, and thus no deterioration in the quality of moderation. It's a non issue.

 

[python]

Again I think we do pretty well considering and we strive to get better.

and i agree with that and i want to thank you guys all.

a lot of complaining, as i've indicated in several posts above, is done by the same repeat offenders who are being closely watched (joe, i'm not talking about you) and who want to influence their pet peeve agendas.

when they fail through legitimate means, they resort to sock puppets. when those get caught and banned, they resort to attacking moderators.

these accusations of double standard and lack of objectivity is little more than another attempt to influence debates.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Don't play the fool. The post that was reported was about thehog's assertion about fellatio between Mr. Horner and Mr. Armstrong -let me know if you think that is appropriate for this forum. A simple yes or no answer will do.

Barrus - I repeat, do you think posts like that are appropriate here? And if they are reported, why are they not removed? As the famous quote goes - "Lucy, you got some splainin to do".

Here's a simple question for you.

As you have such high standards of what is 'appropriate' for the forum - have you reported each and every post that you find 'inappropriate'?
A simple yes or no answer will do. (I assume its yes, but..)

To the Blue - say again? So, because you judge something to be inappropriate you wish for the post to be removed in its entirety?
Could you please sir - list all things that you find inapprpriate or offensive to you and the penalties we would receive for our behaviour.


PS - what upsets you about fellatio? (I had to look fellatio up online.....cool, its just like a blowjob).
Are you homophobic? Or do you find it in bad taste?
PPS Do you think LA would have got CH to wear a blonde wig?

 

[ChrisE]

Why can't we all just get along?

Jesus once said:

The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

It would be prudent if we took a step back and analyzed the hate spewing forth in the forum. Personally, I have not slept well tonite knowing the pain I have caused others; I vow to do better.

I hope you guys are with me. Peace.

 

[Ferminal]

PPS Do you think LA would have got CH to wear a blonde wig?

At least something good has come from this discussion

 

[Barrus]

Terry - thanks for your response. Believe me, I know what a thankless job moderating can be. It does disturb me that posts from known "problem children" that are reported seem to glide under the radar.

As far as inconsistent goes, unfortunately there is a perception (note that this is not a fact, but a growing perception here) that there is a harsher standard for some posters than others.

As far as what I am looking for - I think that was in a previous post -

A growing perception? There have been but three people who have complained about this. One of whom who appears to only be on this board to complain. Really only a few posters appear to have this perception. But again, what gives you this perception? Do not the same type of posts of, for example: Scribe, Flicker, Polish and SpartacusRox, a few posters who should be hit by this double standard, have the same consequences. Do they not often receive the same leniency that other posters have?

Also you have taken a significantly weaker stance than you did earlier in this thread, at that point you presented the leniency as fact, now that you cannot find any indication for this, you resort to perception

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.

mods should avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

this is a completely unworkable proposal, not only here but in almost any public forum. An moderator is msot often a moderator somewhere because he is interested in the subject and is a member of the forum. To ban a person from posting in a subforum immediately ensures that the person will not be online as often, as there is no other reason to be online than to moderate that subforum. SOmething which sometimes is more of a chore than anything else. Most non-reported offence we see, we see because we read the posts and are interested and perhaps want to post there. This incentive to read topics would be completely gone if you are not allowed to post somewhere.

Also the appearance of a conflict of interest is something which almost none of the members here seem to see. But even in other forums and with your misguided rules there will always be conflicts of interests if you search for them long enough, as you appear to have done. Even if you post in another subforum than the one assigned to you, you can agree and disagree with people, as soon as you agree with someone according to your and ChrisE's definition of an appearance of conflict of interest, that person would forever have an appearance of a conflict of interest with that person and thus could never again judge anything he does

 

[Cobblestoned]

My opinion is, that an admin or mod shouldn't use the word "parasite" for Lance.

1. it descredits the perhaps correct occasion itself. it's like being a fanwebboymaster and using "fool" as URL

2. coming from an admin or mod it causes a "free for all insulting orgy against Armstrong (and some others)" for all users here - on the nearly lowest possible standard

"Free for all" is in certain cases there anyway and a certain "direction" too, so I don't really care and will never change that.
I learned to live with that. Better said, I give my best.

I agree to ChrisE about his observation that some users seem to have a "Freibrief" for insulting other users and some selected cyclists.

Don't waste your energy, @Spartacus @ChrisE @Cal_Joe. Cycling needs it.

 

[ChrisE]

My opinion is, that an admin or mod shouldn't use the word "parasite" for Lance.

1. it descredits the perhaps correct occasion itself. it's like being a fanwebboymaster and using "fool" as URL

2. coming from an admin or mod it causes a "free for all insulting orgy against Armstrong (and some others)" for all users here - on the nearly lowest possible standard

"Free for all" is in certain cases there anyway and a certain "direction" too, so I don't really care and will never change that.
I learned to live with that. Better said, I give my best.

I agree to ChrisE about his observation that some users seem to have a "Freibrief" for insulting other users and some selected cyclists.

Don't waste your energy, @Spartacus @ChrisE @Cal_Joe. Cycling needs it.

Hey Buddy! Welcome back. Woo-hoo!

 

[JRTinMA]

I'm going to guess that the issues on this forum are a result of the clinic greater than 90% of the time. I'm sure you get BoB complaints as evidenced by its closure and some excessive chiding in the racing forum but the clinic has to be the source of most of the issues/complaints.

I don't see the mods as being necessarily unfair as I have never received a warning and have certainly mixed it up in the clinic. Its sad but the issues in the clinic boil down to which side of the LA fence your on, or even if you stand firmly on the fence as I believe I do. If you deny there is a majority on this forum against LA you are kidding yourself, I have even seen a mod state that is why he is happy to mod here. I feel confident saying all the mods are in the anti LA camp with the exception of 180, I can't recall him taking a position. Now if you agree that the majority of the posters and mods are in that camp do you see why people feel picked on when they take the opposite view? I don't care if there isn't a single situation one can point to where a mod was unfair posters in the minority will always feel wronged, as many minorities do. The only way to fix this would be to have some moderate opinions and some sane LA supporter as mods. I don't think it will change much in actuality as I don't see gross unfairness but perception will have changed.

LA became old hat with the analytical finding of Clenbuterol in the urine of Contador and the LA haters suddenly become moderate or supportive of Contador and the whole crazy debate flames up again. I find the clinic entertaining, I have rarely learned a single thing as I often did in the clinics early days but I enjoy the banter. The clinic is just entertainment now and its because of the posters in the clinic, myself included. The only possible way to legitimize the clinic is to remove the debate over specific riders, it creates all the issues in IMO. Move individual rider discussions to a new area, call it Mexico and let the opinions fly. Fans will be influences by the rider they love AND the rider they hate and this leads to all the issues.

That said 180 would like to see the forum grow with many great recommendations he made but the clinic is probably the one reason that it will never happen. Its fun for posters to come on and play lawyer, doctor, pro cyclist, insider or my favorite poster the middle aged law student (not playing) and many other varied roles but the real ones will shy away. There's the clinic dilemma, its the best entertainment and its the most limiting part of the site.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm going to guess that the issues on this forum are a result of the clinic greater than 90% of the time.

<Snipped for brevity>

This is true. But this is also true of pro cycling as a whole. The issues discussed in the clinic have defined pro cycling since the EPO era. It's not just about LA.

The real issue is clean sport. Who wants it vs. who does not care about it.

Contentious debates will continue until/unless there is a workable solution to the issue. So, in this vein, I think the mods should let the discussion flow until the forum rules are broken (which I think they are doing effectively, IMO).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm going to guess that the issues on this forum are a result of the clinic greater than 90% of the time. I'm sure you get BoB complaints as evidenced by its closure and some excessive chiding in the racing forum but the clinic has to be the source of most of the issues/complaints.

I don't see the mods as being necessarily unfair as I have never received a warning and have certainly mixed it up in the clinic. Its sad but the issues in the clinic boil down to which side of the LA fence your on, or even if you stand firmly on the fence as I believe I do. If you deny there is a majority on this forum against LA you are kidding yourself, I have even seen a mod state that is why he is happy to mod here. I feel confident saying all the mods are in the anti LA camp with the exception of 180, I can't recall him taking a position. Now if you agree that the majority of the posters and mods are in that camp do you see why people feel picked on when they take the opposite view? I don't care if there isn't a single situation one can point to where a mod was unfair posters in the minority will always feel wronged, as many minorities do. The only way to fix this would be to have some moderate opinions and some sane LA supporter as mods. I don't think it will change much in actuality as I don't see gross unfairness but perception will have changed.

LA became old hat with the analytical finding of Clenbuterol in the urine of Contador and the LA haters suddenly become moderate or supportive of Contador and the whole crazy debate flames up again. I find the clinic entertaining, I have rarely learned a single thing as I often did in the clinics early days but I enjoy the banter. The clinic is just entertainment now and its because of the posters in the clinic, myself included. The only possible way to legitimize the clinic is to remove the debate over specific riders, it creates all the issues in IMO. Move individual rider discussions to a new area, call it Mexico and let the opinions fly. Fans will be influences by the rider they love AND the rider they hate and this leads to all the issues.

That said 180 would like to see the forum grow with many great recommendations he made but the clinic is probably the one reason that it will never happen. Its fun for posters to come on and play lawyer, doctor, pro cyclist, insider or my favorite poster the middle aged law student (not playing) and many other varied roles but the real ones will shy away. There's the clinic dilemma, its the best entertainment and its the most limiting part of the site.

Actually -to the highlighted above, at first I was going to agree with you - but I would guess that 90% of the 'issues' come from certain posters, irrespective of where they post.

Of course certain threads will also spark a responce - but its not exclusive to the Clinic. LA, GL, Cuddles, AC, Cav, all will provoke plenty of comment and opposing views.
When I joined I remember a Mod & a poster getting in to it...... on a thread called 'Colnago Vs Giant'. So it isn't just about 'loving or hating' a rider - its about people having a strong opinion.

I know you like to believe 'The Clinic' will not help CN grow. But it is growing & rather quickly too.
I would be interested in knowing of another English speaking website that has, contributions from Pro's of all levels, retired Pro's, Pro's who were clean or doped, DS's at many levels, and plenty of other excellent and knowledgeable contributors (that at times I may not agree with) like DBrower or ACoggan etc.
Most of those spend there time in the Clinic.

To the Blue - thats a revealing comment - I see AC fans supporting AC, you see LA haters supporting AC.

 

[JRTinMA]

Actually -to the highlighted above, at first I was going to agree with you - but I would guess that 90% of the 'issues' come from certain posters, irrespective of where they post.

Of course certain threads will also spark a responce - but its not exclusive to the Clinic. LA, GL, Cuddles, AC, Cav, all will provoke plenty of comment and opposing views.
When I joined I remember a Mod & a poster getting in to it...... on a thread called 'Colnago Vs Giant'. So it isn't just about 'loving or hating' a rider - its about people having a strong opinion.

I know you like to believe 'The Clinic' will not help CN grow. But it is growing & rather quickly too.
I would be interested in knowing of another English speaking website that has, contributions from Pro's of all levels, retired Pro's, Pro's who were clean or doped, DS's at many levels, and plenty of other excellent and knowledgeable contributors (that at times I may not agree with) like DBrower or ACoggan etc.
Most of those spend there time in the Clinic.

To the Blue - thats a revealing comment - I see AC fans supporting AC, you see LA haters supporting AC.

When the whole sentence is taken in context I stand by the assertion that a majority of the haters became defenders. I guess you are trying to make some greater point as well but for the life of me I don't see anything all that revealing not stated in my posts in this thread or on the site. Fans defend and it causes problems and turns the clinic into a mess at times.

(Blue) Maybe you're right but posts seem to intensify in the clinic.

 

[JRTinMA]

This is true. But this is also true of pro cycling as a whole. The issues discussed in the clinic have defined pro cycling since the EPO era. It's not just about LA.

The real issue is clean sport. Who wants it vs. who does not care about it.

Contentious debates will continue until/unless there is a workable solution to the issue. So, in this vein, I think the mods should let the discussion flow until the forum rules are broken (which I think they are doing effectively, IMO).

I disagree its really that simple, I think that there are some very consistent posters who want a clean sport. Most parade as such until their favorite rider blows a positive.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

[/B]

When the whole sentence is taken in context I stand by the assertion that a majority of the haters became defenders. I guess you are trying to make some greater point as well but for the life of me I don't see anything all that revealing not stated in my posts in this thread or on the site. Fans defend and it causes problems and turns the clinic into a mess at times.

(Blue) Maybe you're right but posts seem to intensify in the clinic.

I can think of only 5 or 6 posters who are currently defending AC, that's it, I do not know where you see a majority.

My bigger point is how you concentrate on LA - I think we would agree that he is the most polarizing Pro rider on this forum, which is to be expected on an English speaking website. But he is not alone in being a controversial figure - the issues and difficulties the Mods face in their role is (& should be) much broader than their view on LA.

While I realize it may not be a reflection of your viewing preferences, of your 296 posts 253 were made in The Clinic. If you spend that much time there than it is going to seem like the most contentious area.

 

[ChrisE]

...While I realize it may not be a reflection of your viewing preferences, of your 296 posts 253 were made in The Clinic. If you spend that much time there than it is going to seem like the most contentious area.

Yeah, it gets pretty heated in the equipment forum. All the ad hominems when discussing pedals and seats is too much for even me to handle.

 

[pedaling squares]

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.

Good luck getting anyone to moderate this forum under those terms for what we're willing to pay. Completely unreasonable.

LA became old hat with the analytical finding of Clenbuterol in the urine of Contador and the LA haters suddenly become moderate or supportive of Contador and the whole crazy debate flames up again.

I think you'll find that most people who critique LA as a doper and a liar lauch the same accusations at Contador. Exceptions exist of course, but apart from these few the tone in The Clinic has been consistent: LA is a doper, AC is a doper.

That said 180 would like to see the forum grow with many great recommendations he made but the clinic is probably the one reason that it will never happen. Its fun for posters to come on and play lawyer, doctor, pro cyclist, insider...

Good point. It would be surprising to find a professional willing to discuss his area of expertise among anonymous laypersons whose 'knowledge' is based on what they've read, not what they've done. Myself included in this bunch. The CN forum can be a tough place, but I would love to see Terry's ideas come to fruition.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yeah, it gets pretty heated in the equipment forum. All the ad hominems when discussing pedals and seats is too much for even me to handle.

Must be some other site you're thinking of as their is no 'equipment forum' on CN - anyway, it probably wasn't really that bad until you arrived.

 

[ChrisE]

Must be some other site you're thinking of as their is no 'equipment forum' on CN - anyway, it probably wasn't really that bad until you arrived.

The "Bikes and Gear" forum.

You probably aren't familiar with it because there is not alot of threads in there where it would be logical for you to bring up the 1999 positives. Then again that never stopped you in the clinic.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The "Bikes and Gear" forum.

You probably aren't familiar with it because there is not alot of threads in there where it would be logical for you to bring up the 1999 positives. Then again that never stopped you in the clinic.

Ah, the 'Bikes & Gear" forum - dont visit it that often but - unlike you - at least I have posted there.

Which is why I was able to recall this some posts back:

When I joined I remember a Mod & a poster getting in to it...... on a thread called 'Colnago Vs Giant'. So it isn't just about 'loving or hating' a rider - its about people having a strong opinion.

The '99 positives - if you said they were not positive I might have had something to say I would ask you to show where I ever brought it up first but i believe you have the 'Mods bias' to find first.