Moderators

[online-rider]

I am disappointed this thread was closed before I got the opportunity to reply to it. Unlike Barrus and most of the other users I didn't find the question Sanitiser asked to be tenuous or lacking merit. I found it quite interesting and was going to reply to it seriously. This has happened to me now on 5 or 6 occasions in the last months. That is, I go into a thread, read down, get very interested in whats being discussed and then go to reply and the thread has already been closed. And, no offense personally but in most cases Barrus has been the mod to close it.

Maybe I've missed some discussion on why these closures are happening and the philosophy behind them I've always thought a thread was simply a thread, there being popular ones and unpopular ones. But because a thread doesn't get very may responses, or the moderator doesn't anticipate it getting many responses, is that now a reason for closing it ??
I'd really like to respond the question that sanitiser asked. But if everyone else thinks that he's trolling or theres something fundamentally wrong with the question, then, fine, close it.

 

[online-rider]

There we go again, it just happened again on a thread about Merckx

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=433444#post433444

 

[Sanitiser]

I don't understand either. Other threads are started on conjecture too and yet my ones get closed.

 

[Cal_Joe]

There we go again, it just happened again on a thread about Merckx

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=433444#post433444

I must agree with Barrus on his reasoning and am surprised that the poster opened a new thread despite the sticky that Francois posted here - http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12131 - which explicitly warns about frivolous threads. I do not know why Darryl Webster initiated that thread instead of posting it here as suggested by Francois - http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12137

The Clinic is changing and paying attention to the stickys and mods seems to be a bit more important than in the past.

 

[pedaling squares]

I don't have any problem with Barrus' decisions. One thread was pretty useless, the other was outdated news that could have been added to an Armstrong thread. The mods are trying to implement some new policies in response to complaints from the members. And if they don't crack down in the slow season it will be harder for them in peak season. Not everyone is going to be pleased but I think they're pretty much in line with the majority.

 

[Barrus]

I don't understand either. Other threads are started on conjecture too and yet my ones get closed.

With you there is the problem that you made too many nonsense thread after each other in a short while, due to this your threads are perhaps looked at more closely

And, no offense personally but in most cases Barrus has been the mod to close it.

This is because most often during the European daytime, I am the only moderator on here, or am here solely with Francois

Concerning the Armstrong thread, I believe some other members of the forum have already answered that

 

[Skandar Akbar]

Thank you Barrus. It is not easy doing what you do in here.

I was wondering why the wanted moderator thread was deleted and closed. Has this opening been filled or has the mod team decided it no longer has a need?

 

[BotanyBay]

Francois said (in The Clinic):

Seems you, like so many, are quick to talk about the heavy handed modding here

And why do you think so many of us quick to talk about it? Because we're so genuinely amazed at how much you (collectively) interfere with opinion and speech. You're starting to perturb your participants.

Someone starts a topic that you don't think is "deep" enough, you close it. Barrus himself said that the best test of a thread is the amount of discussion in generates. So long as people react to it, it's valid.

The moment anyone mentions a name that is off-topic from the OP, out comes the threat machine. It sucks. It's ugly. And it's absolutely not needed.

It seems that the mods are following someone's agenda lately. So who's wearing the black cowboy hat?

 

[Anonymous]

Okay, so Francis the a$$wipe just wrote a little diatribe in the Ricco/Cav reaction thread regarding another member, then shut off all debate by adding at the bottom that if anyone else mentioned moderation there, it would be deleted. Now, had his post contained nothing but the latter reference, then I see no problem.

However, fu*k you and the horse you rode in on you fu*king hypocrite. You delete my post pointing out your hypocrisy in the same thread? What a weak little man you must be. You get off berating others and then shutting off the debate of such as "off topic." I seem to remember a little Di Luca loving tart over DP forums who used to moderate in the same manner.

I have to say this too, try brevity once or twice. I know the wind you blow is so precious to you that you believe everyone wants to read every word of it, but I think you overestimate the esteem with which you are held.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Right, after I delted your post I wrote you a PM explaing why. Calmly. Rationally.

I see that you wrote thjs in the meantime.

I gave you a few minutes to read the response, and see if you want to let this stand.

If not, I will start to treat your posts with the standards you require from us. And post my PM to you here to, just so people can see the contrasting attitudes to being here and contributing to the forum, make it work for all.


== edit: what TFF didn't care about, or has not seen, I guess.

I deleted your comment (without consequences).

I take your point, to a point.

I haven't got enough hours in the day to deal with all things properly. The guy dragged something in the public arena, today I have no time to be "perfect".

I responded, and drew a line for all (including me, you, and all).

It is bad enough to have another member whining away for getting a pm that pointed out that he had breached the rules (no consequences).

It would be nice if you didn't feel the need to jump on a little sidestep.

If regulars can't let us do our job and want to have "holy" standards set for the volunteer mods who are stretched thin as it is... be careful what you wish for.

Francois.

Before deleting the post by TFF I amended the post that TFF addressed, to make it clearer why I responded and where the line drawn was [after my post].

 

[Francois the Postman]

Francois said (in The Clinic):


And why do you think so many of us quick to talk about it? Because we're so genuinely amazed at how much you (collectively) interfere with opinion and speech. You're starting to perturb your participants.

Someone starts a topic that you don't think is "deep" enough, you close it. Barrus himself said that the best test of a thread is the amount of discussion in generates. So long as people react to it, it's valid.

The moment anyone mentions a name that is off-topic from the OP, out comes the threat machine. It sucks. It's ugly. And it's absolutely not needed.

It seems that the mods are following someone's agenda lately. So who's wearing the black cowboy hat?

I send the guy a private note that he broke 3 rules in one post. A warning that had no consequences.

Stop making mountains out of molehills.

 

[Chuffy]

Francois said (in The Clinic):


And why do you think so many of us quick to talk about it? Because we're so genuinely amazed at how much you (collectively) interfere with opinion and speech. You're starting to perturb your participants.

Someone starts a topic that you don't think is "deep" enough, you close it. Barrus himself said that the best test of a thread is the amount of discussion in generates. So long as people react to it, it's valid.

The moment anyone mentions a name that is off-topic from the OP, out comes the threat machine. It sucks. It's ugly. And it's absolutely not needed.
It seems that the mods are following someone's agenda lately. So who's wearing the black cowboy hat?

It is needed. How many times have you seen a perfectly reasonable thread derailled into the usual drivel about Landmondstrong? If Barrus is having a crackdown (complete with plenty of warnings) then good luck to him. I'm sure it will pass once people have got their heads round the concept that Lance is an ***hole, not a black hole and not everything has to revolve around him.

As for your comment about moderator agendas - if they're wearing black hats, perhaps you need to keep that tinfoil helmet in place a bit longer?

Sheesh, lighten up and go for a ride or something....

 

[Francois the Postman]

I was wondering why the wanted moderator thread was deleted and closed. Has this opening been filled or has the mod team decided it no longer has a need?

It was a post to let people know we were looking for mods. It turned to be another thread for us to moderate, to keep it on track. It wasn't a thread to be funny in, to mock the mods in, or to discuss moderation in general, or fellow posters. So the request stands (and has been made in the 2 main forums too). Serious candidates are encouraged to apply or get some clarifications if needed, through a PM to Barrus, Martin, Alpe, Susan, or me.

 

[Barrus]

Francois said (in The Clinic):


And why do you think so many of us quick to talk about it? Because we're so genuinely amazed at how much you (collectively) interfere with opinion and speech. You're starting to perturb your participants.

Someone starts a topic that you don't think is "deep" enough, you close it. Barrus himself said that the best test of a thread is the amount of discussion in generates. So long as people react to it, it's valid.

The moment anyone mentions a name that is off-topic from the OP, out comes the threat machine. It sucks. It's ugly. And it's absolutely not needed.

It seems that the mods are following someone's agenda lately. So who's wearing the black cowboy hat?

Firstly do you understand the amount of threads that are completely destroyed and invested with trolls because these people are brought up. That way too many good discussions have been led to the grave because of the fact that discussions about these people were brought up. DO you understand the amount of work it creates for us when these people are being discussed in threads that had nothing to do with it. If you want to only discuss Armstrong, Landis or LeMond either stay in the threads about them, or create threads about them, or get of off the forum, because really I have had enough with that.

Also:

Someone starts a topic that you don't think is "deep" enough, you close it. Barrus himself said that the best test of a thread is the amount of discussion in generates. So long as people react to it, it's valid.

This is a lie, just look in the this forum blows thread, people are complaining about me closing useless threads. It is not only the amount of discussion, the quality of the discussion needs to be taken into account as well.

 

[hektoren]

I send the guy a private note that he broke 3 rules in one post. A warning that had no consequences.

Stop making mountains out of molehills.

You call it whining, in my view I was merely pointing out, tongue-in-cheek, the apparent variability in policy. Sure I took your PM to heart, and no, I won't ever repeat the stunt, but you have to admit that to an outsider it IS a bit confusing that you get reprimanded for expressing, deep down in a thread, exactly the same sentiment as CN use sound and video to illustrate on the front page, even encouraging the casual observer to get to the juicy bit in Cav's interview with a written teaser.

Now, I fully understand any frustration you may feel as a moderator, and I accept any slap on the wrist if I transgress (as I did), but if I were a moderator I'd give the editors at CN a hard time too over that video. Sometimes it's best to protect people from themselves by not publishing, mouthpiece-style, any and every silly remark that trickle out of Cav's mouth.

 

[Barrus]

As I said in the thread itself: the forum and the main site are almost completely seperate and the rules and the guidelines the main site takes at heart are not the same as we do and vice versa

 

[hektoren]

As I said in the thread itself: the forum and the main site are almost completely seperate and the rules and the guidelines the main site takes at heart are not the same as we do and vice versa

I accept that, but usually it's the other way round. What's published under editorial control and responsibility is usually more restrained, more guarded, than the free for all anonymous discussion forums. Which kind of makes you look a bit like prudes in this case. Just a thought.

 

[BotanyBay]

Firstly do you understand the amount of threads that are completely destroyed and invested with trolls because these people are brought up. That way too many good discussions have been led to the grave because of the fact that discussions about these people were brought up. DO you understand the amount of work it creates for us when these people are being discussed in threads that had nothing to do with it. If you want to only discuss Armstrong, Landis or LeMond either stay in the threads about them, or create threads about them, or get of off the forum, because really I have had enough with that.

Also:


This is a lie, just look in the this forum blows thread, people are complaining about me closing useless threads. It is not only the amount of discussion, the quality of the discussion needs to be taken into account as well.

I think you guys try to handle too much and try to assert too much control over the environment. Cops have a phone for a reason. They're not expected to be everywhere, and no one really wants them to BE everywhere.

Perhaps it's time that you guys switched your role to that of reactionary rather than supervisory.

 

[BotanyBay]

Firstly do you understand the amount of threads that are completely destroyed and invested with trolls because these people are brought up. That way too many good discussions have been led to the grave because of the fact that discussions about these people were brought up. DO you understand the amount of work it creates for us when these people are being discussed in threads that had nothing to do with it. If you want to only discuss Armstrong, Landis or LeMond either stay in the threads about them, or create threads about them, or get of off the forum, because really I have had enough with that.

Perhaps the Clinic is in need of sub-forums. "Doping" is pretty wide.

 

[Barrus]

I think you guys try to handle too much and try to assert too much control over the environment. Cops have a phone for a reason. They're not expected to be everywhere, and no one really wants them to BE everywhere.

Perhaps it's time that you guys switched your role to that of reactionary rather than supervisory.

That would be all fine and dandy if we would get more reports and if reports came in ebfore entire threads went down the crapper. Really, if we only react to reports the amount of work that we need to do is even a lot more than we would need to do otherwise

 

[Francois the Postman]

I think you guys try to handle too much and try to assert too much control over the environment. Cops have a phone for a reason. They're not expected to be everywhere, and no one really wants them to BE everywhere.

Perhaps it's time that you guys switched your role to that of reactionary rather than supervisory.

I appreciate the advise, but this to me sums up that you have missed the evolution of this completely.

We have come from "just" reactionary already. We saw how that panned out. We changed course with the good of the Forum at heart, knowing full well that some here wouldn't like it, especially those that were prolific users and on the whole good contributors, but with a disruptive streak too.

Once people are used to (getting away) with something disruptive, moving to a different space is hardly ever without pain. Just because some of you (in the general sense) are feeling it, and things are choppy in the transition phase, doesn't mean that the better alternative is going back to where we came from. You don't offer a new route, alas.

We also have tried the gentle reminders already. A handful of people appears to be tone-deaf, or only takes note when we stop begging and pleasing without consequences. Now some of the folk that habitually ignored the subtle hints are moaning about "being threatened". Well, yeah, "duh!"

One or two incidental posters aside, everyone that has been banned has had a combination of gentle pm, warnings, public, private, and usually witness several public hints that we were gonna get serious about it too. And for some reason it is always the same same few that I keep finding back in my path.

Not everyone will be happy with the new wind, I am sure it will be rocky for a bit. I wish it was otherwise, but it looks like some people are heavily emotionally invested in being here, your own way, with no consideration for others. I get some people are upset. If I go through the list of folk that are, I don't see all of it as a bad sign.

We ain't perfect, but on the whole the mods try hard to be reasonable with people, and we certainly try to find a way that works for all/most/the-ones-that-the-forum-was-made-for.

Some of you are simply "keen to have it your way", and allergic to authority, I think, and that allergy is dragging the Forum down.

Not the modding. Which on this Forum, and even in the clinic, has been utterly lenient, giving people chance after chance after chance. Anyone who thinks differently should have a better look around.

But that was ignored by a hard-core few, who are spoiling it for everyone. Gentle please and reactionary didn't work. We are stricter and more pro-active as a consequence, and have to be juggle the fine line between consistent and fair too, knowing that "the same few" will jump on every half-pace stepped into a not-ideal side.

 

[patricknd]

Firstly do you understand the amount of threads that are completely destroyed and invested with trolls because these people are brought up. That way too many good discussions have been led to the grave because of the fact that discussions about these people were brought up. DO you understand the amount of work it creates for us when these people are being discussed in threads that had nothing to do with it. If you want to only discuss Armstrong, Landis or LeMond either stay in the threads about them, or create threads about them, or get of off the forum, because really I have had enough with that.

Also:


This is a lie, just look in the this forum blows thread, people are complaining about me closing useless threads. It is not only the amount of discussion, the quality of the discussion needs to be taken into account as well.

so now you are the arbiter of what is "quality"? moderating duties pertain to rule infractions, not your taste in what is a quality topic or opinion.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

It was a post to let people know we were looking for mods. It turned to be another thread for us to moderate, to keep it on track. It wasn't a thread to be funny in, to mock the mods in, or to discuss moderation in general, or fellow posters. So the request stands (and has been made in the 2 main forums too). Serious candidates are encouraged to apply or get some clarifications if needed, through a PM to Barrus, Martin, Alpe, Susan, or me.

Thank you Francis you are my favorite moderator along with Barrus. Even so I think the qualifications of those that want to be mods should be under public scrutiny. I thought the thread was going along fine and you guys don't need to feel like you need to delete everything all the time. I see others complaining but those are the usual complainers in the forum, but hopefully my opinion means more since I am currently having no problems in the forum and making new friends.

You still have not addressed why my post was deleted about Riccos wife lactating Cera. If you could let me know why that happened that would be great.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Ricco tested positive in July 2008 for CERA. His son was born the summer of 2009.

Also, the way you worded your original question was not necessarily very nice.

Susan

 

[Francois the Postman]

I accept that, but usually it's the other way round. What's published under editorial control and responsibility is usually more restrained, more guarded, than the free for all anonymous discussion forums. Which kind of makes you look a bit like prudes in this case. Just a thought.

If "fruit for thought" means that we should be "less prudent" and be totally ok with people posting that they want someone to be brutally assaulted.... "I like my prudence."

[to all]

Again, what is it with these weird words. "Prude"? Have you looked at the Clinic and what we let through day in day out. Encourage even?

Come off it guys. The reason why you are facing pretty agitated mods is that we actually ask for very little, on balance, and initially always friendly, giving more things a lot more time than they deserved, out of respect for the poster and position we hold, overseeing a cycling forum where people are pretty damn free to say what they want, and do so day in, day out.

And a handful of you keep rallying against request to follow the house rules you signed up to when you joined the forum here, and simple requests to post civil and on topic (mostly).

Somehow it keeps being depicted as if we just proposed to go all Big Brother on you guys, and are really stopping you "giving your opinions".

Nope, we want to have some folk START giving opinions and STOP the messing about. See the difference?

On the hole, some of you, calm down. And please stop seizing on minor issues for over the top grand-standing, and give us some space to do our job.

BTW, If Cav would have said it here he would have had the same response as you had hektoren. We have been pretty consistent with these types of posts, and will remain so. Still not sure why you had to post the PM, or why I have egg on my face, or why you needed to put it like that. But if it helps you to get over a slap on the wrist, I hope it worked. It won't have done much else. Still, the post you made above sounds like you are reasonable enough, and get that it was deserved, etc, etc.

There is a difference between reporting what someone else said, and saying it yourself. That subtlety is lost in your "like for like" equation. The CN site is not more lenient than the forum. The moment a reporter would say that about a rider, I am sure they would face a less lenient ride than I gave you.

I appreciate the tone you took here. I tried to give a full reply as a consequence of that.