Moderators

[buckwheat]

okay - loathe as I am to end this conversation about the voracity of RaceRadio's claims. This thread is actually in existence to allow people to discuss moderation of the site.

So how about we leave the thread alons for that purpose.

But isn't it moderation as to the subject matter of what is posted?

 

[Martin318is]

But isn't it moderation as to the subject matter of what is posted?

I don't recall a lot of moderator actions being performed on Raceradio's posts. so no, discussion of RaceRadio's posting style and information source has nothing to do with moderation and therefore nothing to do with this thread

 

[BroDeal]

I think banning someone for saying something outside the forum, like twitter, is pretty bogus.

 

[Barrus]

I think banning someone for saying something outside the forum, like twitter, is pretty bogus.

It was directly attacking the moderating policy over here and only concerned the moderation here. He did this in a public manner, while pestering one of the editors of the website. Abusing someone solely due to what happened here. He could have just waited two weeks and talked it out, or he could have contacted Laura in private, as she proposed, eyt he kept doing it out in the public. While continuing with the same type of debate that got him banned here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think banning someone for saying something outside the forum, like twitter, is pretty bogus.

If thats true - then I would agree.

But if its in reference to Buckwheat then they were banned firstly for ignoring the warning on the thread and on there return having a go at a Mod by PM.

I don't like seeing anyone being banned (& BW is a good poster) but they left the Mods little option when they ignored their request to keep politics out of the threads.

 

[Barrus]

Lets just be clear, it is not solely the fact that he let out his grievances. He is allowed to do so, and we will not ban anyone for doing this. However pestering one of the staff due to something that happened here and only about something that happened here is directly linked to this forum and we therefore felt obliged to react to it.

If anyone wants to know, I took the initiative to ban him permanently, because, really it was out of line

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Lets just be clear, it is not solely the fact that he let out his grievances. He is allowed to do so, and we will not ban anyone for doing this. However pestering one of the staff due to something that happened here and only about something that happened here is directly linked to this forum and we therefore felt obliged to react to it.

If anyone wants to know, I took the initiative to ban him permanently, because, really it was out of line

Ok - I have just spotted on a separate thread that Buckwheats ban has been increased to a 'lifetime ban'.

I really think that is an inappropriate sanction. Was there a way to communicate and warn him that his 'tweets' (or PMs) could result in a lifetime ban?


And its not just BW - I see Bagster is permanently banned and his new identity was quickly banned also.
While I didn't agree with their views - again a permanent ban only encourages the practice of starting new accounts.
Perhaps people who have been given long bans could set up new accounts and stay - as long as they have made their original identity known when signing..... just something for you guys to consider.

 

[Anonymous]

I think banning someone for saying something outside the forum, like twitter, is pretty bogus.

I dont know the full story, but nothing that happens outside of here should be considered when handing out bans (unless something potentially libelous is brought up). if he wants to critisize cn on twitter thats his perogative, its a free world. What next, people are banned for slating cn in emails, or down the pub, or out on rides, or we have to start watching what we say on facebook. (could laura not just have blocked his tweets?)

Banning people for what goes on here is one thing, banning people for what goes on outside of these four (virtual) walls is the start of a very slippery slope.

 

[Martin318is]

Perhaps people who have been given long bans could set up new accounts and stay - as long as they have made their original identity known when signing..... just something for you guys to consider.

You mean like BPC?

We tried exactly that (and we have tried it with a few others who eventually got permanent bans too) and I have yet to see it work. Ultimately, they cross the line again.

In fact, I think if I took the time, I could establish a pattern between the duration of each successive suspension and the rapidity of their next offense when they return.

Everybody gets at least one chance here and unless they do something spectacular, their first suspension is very short. Once they get back they are treated like everybody else. It is entirely up to THEM what happens next. We all know several posters that have been suspended once or twice and got on with things. We also all know several posters that have been suspended once and come back in a very disruptive manner and offended again repeatedly.

Its not a clear policy thing - its just how it seems to go.

 

[krebs303]

I dont know the full story, but nothing that happens outside of here should be considered when handing out bans (unless something potentially libelous is brought up). if he wants to critisize cn on twitter thats his perogative, its a free world. What next, people are banned for slating cn in emails, or down the pub, or out on rides, or we have to start watching what we say on facebook. (could laura not just have blocked his tweets?)

Banning people for what goes on here is one thing, banning people for what goes on outside of these four (virtual) walls is the start of a very slippery slope.

Dim I agree with you if he was posting on his own twitter account. However if he was posting on the cyclingnews twitter account I feel that would within their sphere to implement infractions.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You mean like BPC?

We tried exactly that (and we have tried it with a few others who eventually got permanent bans too) and I have yet to see it work. Ultimately, they cross the line again.

In fact, I think if I took the time, I could establish a pattern between the duration of each successive suspension and the rapidity of their next offense when they return.

Everybody gets at least one chance here and unless they do something spectacular, their first suspension is very short. Once they get back they are treated like everybody else. It is entirely up to THEM what happens next. We all know several posters that have been suspended once or twice and got on with things. We also all know several posters that have been suspended once and come back in a very disruptive manner and offended again repeatedly.

Its not a clear policy thing - its just how it seems to go.

No - there is BPC and then everyone else.

But when you hit someone with a lifetime ban then their only way to be on the Forum is to make a new account.
While if they returned and were hit with a month (then 2 months) it may encourage them to change their behaviour.

It is just some pretty good (or harmless) contributors appear to be gone recently (ChrisE, Bagster, Senor Contador).
I don't know what goes on behind the scenes (nor do i want to know( I am just throwing out something for the Mod team or CN to ponder.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dim I agree with you if he was posting on his own twitter account. However if he was posting on the cyclingnews twitter account I feel that would within their sphere to implement infractions.

I read BWs comments on twitter - where he crossed the line (IMO) was sending an @mention to Laura of CN saying he had been 'censored' and asking her why.
She appears to be an employee of Future/CN and not an active Mod.

Again, I don't agree with what BW was doing but the permanent ban is (IMO) excessive and will probably prove counterproductive.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Ok - I have just spotted on a separate thread that Buckwheats ban has been increased to a 'lifetime ban'.

I really think that is an inappropriate sanction. Was there a way to communicate and warn him that his 'tweets' (or PMs) could result in a lifetime ban?

He was given plenty of warnings to curb his behaviour, which he ignored.

He has been given plenty of alternative routes to communicate grievances and off-topic politics through, and chose to ignore those too. And kept flouting forum rules.

Once he was given some time out to reflect, he continued the same public spat, about his grievances on this forum, by pestering a CN member of staff who is not involved with forum moderation, on an external site. He might have been on Twitter, but he was simply continuing the he same crusade that we stopped here, directly with us, in an equally inappropriate place.

We don't set out to ban people permanently, or at all. But if someone becomes a law to himself, displays an ongoing crusading attitude that flouts the ground rules that apply to us all, shows time and time again he doesn't know when to stop or find the on-topic places we have made on the site where he can posts to his hearts content, and is also incapable or unwilling to engage in a reasonable conversation (in private or here, in this thread), there really comes a point when they themselves leave us with only one appropriate option only.

It also should come as no surprise that when someone is put on notice, that when they then go and find CN members of staff on external sites, and start to pester them about internal matters that this member of staf has no dealings with, after ignoring the actual avenues offered here before the ban with people that are involved, that that is not on.

So when they continue with the same (and inappropriate) behaviour on these external sites, but still on a CN page (unrelated to the forum and with an unrelated members of staff), it has consequences for their welcome status here too. In the end it is "our" door they walk through, not theirs.

We all have bad days, I guess we all overstep the line once or twice. It usually get dealt with, and everyone moves on. Some folk don't know when enough is enough, and become utterly disruptive. We tried to be reasonable with him, but enough is enough. There is a point when we stop making the effort by chasing the conversation and move on.

We don't patrol other sites for what you say about the forum here, so don't have that discussion please, it is immaterial.

It was his inappropriate behaviour to members or staff on an external site about internal matters that was the final straw, whilst he was on probation for that exact behaviour. Nothing to do with what he said, as such. He might see that differently, but he is wrong.

 

[Martin318is]

No because apparently reporting all doping posts made outside of clinic would have resulted me in getting a warning and possibly a further ban for excessive reporting. Now I dont bother to report anything in case I get warned for it. Talk about backwards.

Sorry but just noticed this post TSF and have to answer it as that is a gross misrepresentation of facts.

What actually happened was that several people were engaging in reporting upwards of 10 posts a day for no apparent reason. A warning went out (and a rule was created) to point out that misusing the "report to moderators" button was unacceptable.

At no time was anyone (including you) told not to use the button for valid reports.

At no time - that I am aware of - did any moderator tell you to not report posts about doping that were outside the clinic.

 

[Martin318is]

No - there is BPC and then everyone else.

That is not true.

There may be several things that make BPC unique but the fact remains that the ONLY reason he gets banned now is because he has broken the rule about circumventing a ban. As such he is treated exactly like any other member that tries to get back in using another account name. In the early days he was given all the options that you talk about and just like a few other users we have had here - it didn't work.

But when you hit someone with a lifetime ban then their only way to be on the Forum is to make a new account.
While if they returned and were hit with a month (then 2 months) it may encourage them to change their behaviour.

I think you may have missed events but it is VERY rare for a member to get to a permanent ban without a lot of escalation of hostilities first. Generally, the pattern (and again I am pointing out that this is what normally happens, not what the official process is) is:
* Warnings (1 or more offered depending on what the infractions are)
* Some form of discussion with moderators (this is where 95% of people apologies and change their behaviour - never to have a problem again.
* Red card (1 or more depending upon the causes)
* More discussion
* 24 hour suspension
* Suspension of between a week and 2 months
* Suspension of between 6 months and 2 years, OR,
* Permanent ban.

It takes a lot to get from the top of that list to the bottom. Sometimes a member can do it easily and you generally dont see why because the posts need to be deleted as they are so offensive.

It is just some pretty good (or harmless) contributors appear to be gone recently (ChrisE, Bagster, Senor Contador).
I don't know what goes on behind the scenes (nor do i want to know( I am just throwing out something for the Mod team or CN to ponder.

ChrisE is a perfect example of someone that received numerous warnings, had numerous conversations with various moderators, was given short suspensions and returned promising to alter his behaviour, got a longer suspension and then returned from that and just....kept....going.
So as a result he is gone.

trust me (or not) when I say that about 20% of my time on this site is spent in discussion with other mods about topics such as this one. We do think about it a LOT.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That is not true.

There may be several things that make BPC unique but the fact remains that the ONLY reason he gets banned now is because he has broken the rule about circumventing a ban. As such he is treated exactly like any other member that tries to get back in using another account name. In the early days he was given all the options that you talk about and just like a few other users we have had here - it didn't work.




I think you may have missed events but it is VERY rare for a member to get to a permanent ban without a lot of escalation of hostilities first. Generally, the pattern (and again I am pointing out that this is what normally happens, not what the official process is) is:
* Warnings (1 or more offered depending on what the infractions are)
* Some form of discussion with moderators (this is where 95% of people apologies and change their behaviour - never to have a problem again.
* Red card (1 or more depending upon the causes)
* More discussion
* 24 hour suspension
* Suspension of between a week and 2 months
* Suspension of between 6 months and 2 years, OR,
* Permanent ban.

It takes a lot to get from the top of that list to the bottom. Sometimes a member can do it easily and you generally dont see why because the posts need to be deleted as they are so offensive.




ChrisE is a perfect example of someone that received numerous warnings, had numerous conversations with various moderators, was given short suspensions and returned promising to alter his behaviour, got a longer suspension and then returned from that and just....kept....going.
So as a result he is gone.

trust me (or not) when I say that about 20% of my time on this site is spent in discussion with other mods about topics such as this one. We do think about it a LOT.

My BPC comment was my opinion ie theres BPC & everyone else- not a comment or reflection on CN or the Mods position.
(As in BPC went to extraordinary lengths to continue to post - which I dont believe (most) others have)


Again - I'm only putting some ideas or scenarios for you guys to consider or discuss - in particular on the permanent ban as it creates only 2 options for the poster, either stay away (unlikely) or come back with a new name and continue to troll/bait etc.

 

[Francois the Postman]

But when you hit someone with a lifetime ban then their only way to be on the Forum is to make a new account.
While if they returned and were hit with a month (then 2 months) it may encourage them to change their behaviour.

It is just some pretty good (or harmless) contributors appear to be gone recently (ChrisE, Bagster, Senor Contador).
I don't know what goes on behind the scenes (nor do i want to know( I am just throwing out something for the Mod team or CN to ponder.

That type of feedback is welcome and encouraged.

It won't come as a surprise to you that more happens behind the scenes and in pms than is part of the public (forum) record. Not always, but this can create more surprise and bewilderment than would be warranted if people knew the whole story. And not all human decisions will be on the mark all the time, but there is a direct relationship between the willingness of a poster to be constructive and reflective, and the chances that (s)he will be given a punishment that was utterly uncalled for, if any.

What I can say is though - for what it is worth: now I can suddenly see what went on behind the scenes when I was a poster only, I am slightly in awe at the efforts that the volunteers before me have put in, and at the amount of energy that went into keeping the forum as enjoyable for as many folk as possible. And at the amount of pondering and daily communication that took, and still takes place. Across time zones.

To be frank, I am not surprised that some volunteers got burned out by a few very persistent individuals who do come here for personal crusades and disruption first and foremost, without respect for the enjoyment of others. Since these mods helped to keep my time here more enjoyable by curbing the trolls and such, a belated "thank you" to those that were volunteering their time then.

I have some tough boots to follow.

 

[Race Radio]

No - there is BPC and then everyone else.

But when you hit someone with a lifetime ban then their only way to be on the Forum is to make a new account.
While if they returned and were hit with a month (then 2 months) it may encourage them to change their behaviour.

It is just some pretty good (or harmless) contributors appear to be gone recently (ChrisE, Bagster, Senor Contador).
I don't know what goes on behind the scenes (nor do i want to know( I am just throwing out something for the Mod team or CN to ponder.

I agree on Chris and Contador but Bagster deserves to be gone for good.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

SEnor Contador was given only a three-day ban, and may return as of later today.

Susan

 

[Martin318is]

Don't know how the conversation decided that Senor Contador was permanently banned. Susan actually specified a "Short" suspension when she wrote the notification.

 

[python]

<snip> some volunteers got burned out by a few very persistent individuals who do come here for personal crusades and disruption first and foremost, without respect for the enjoyment of others. <snip>

bolded is the key.

if an individual is out of control or can't be reasoned by a mixture of pms and and shorter suspensions, there is a point when that individual's motives have to be judged as malicious.

i haven't had a chance to read bucky's tweets but judging by his inputs in certain threads i can see him spinning out of control. i don't judge the mods for permanently banning him - it's not my call - but i believe that bucky, unlike another user frequently featured here and currently banned, is capable of reflection and remorse.

 

[Barrus]

bolded is the key.

if an individual is out of control or can't be reasoned by a mixture of pms and and shorter suspensions, there is a point when that individual's motives have to be judged as malicious.

i haven't had a chance to read bucky's tweets but judging by his inputs in certain threads i can see him spinning out of control. i don't judge the mods for permanently banning him - it's not my call - but i believe that bucky, unlike another user frequently featured here and currently banned, is capable of reflection and remorse.

This appears to not have been the case. The moments he was warned and banned and when we just went into discussion with him, he clearly made mention that he was not intended to listen to anything we said and continue to break the rules and flaunt with this. Even after his banning he received just a simple warning not to do the same thing for which he was banned before and he reacted by flipping his lid. He was also given but a reasonably short suspension, however he still found it necessary to seek out an employee of cyclingnews and berate and pester her about something she had nothing to with.

I do believe that if he was taken back, it would take just a short while before he was banned again, mostly because he would bring up politics again. And because of his inability to listen to even the most normal requests by moderators. And I think Doctor Maserati understands it now, when I look at his twitter feed

DR. M.

While I didn't agree with their views - again a permanent ban only encourages the practice of starting new accounts.
Perhaps people who have been given long bans could set up new accounts and stay - as long as they have made their original identity known when signing..... just something for you guys to consider.

Perhaps this would be a solution, HOWEVER that member should first contact the moderating staff, begin some sort of dialogue and should not start to post BEFORE he is allowed to do so by the moderating staff. By just circumventing the ban, without any form of discussion we simply cannot allow them to remain here.

Actually reading his twitter, I kinda like this one:

@Laura_Weislo You don't set the policies but you have that little Eichmann burrus block me?

really lol-worthy, and something which I have never heard anyone say in real life. Just, so misguided

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with Maserati wholeheartedly. Long thought that permenant bans are half of the problem for some posters. There are some former posters I would give second chances to, clean slates, but on the understanding that they abide by the forum rules but also that other members abide by them too.
BPC is fine, until he gets people trolling back at him saying he's bpc, then it all kicks off.

 

[Barrus]

I agree with Maserati wholeheartedly. Long thought that permenant bans are half of the problem for some posters. There are some former posters I would give second chances to, clean slates, but on the understanding that they abide by the forum rules but also that other members abide by them too.
BPC is fine, until he gets people trolling back at him saying he's bpc, then it all kicks off.

I understand your point, however the main problem with all of these people is that when they do return and start posting, they do not first clear it with the moderators. There is always a reason why a person is permanently banned and if they start posting without engaging in a discussion with the moderators we cannot allow them back. I hope you see that part of the question of allowing permanent banned members back in

 

[Anonymous]

I understand your point, however the main problem with all of these people is that when they do return and start posting, they do not first clear it with the moderators. There is always a reason why a person is permanently banned and if they start posting without engaging in a discussion with the moderators we cannot allow them back. I hope you see that part of the question of allowing permanent banned members back in

Oh i get that, and i also realise in the case of bpc for instance its almost impossible for him to get a second chance as there are too many posters around here that would not allow him one. As soon as he says something that someone doesnt like people know exactly how to wind him up and get him to snap. Too late for him, but going forward for others I dont think life (or two or six month suspensions which to many members 6 months is effectively a life ban) help the situation.,