Moderators

[Francois the Postman]

I have stated this before (but I acknowledge it requires monitoring) - simple reminders periodically ij contentious threads to address posts not posters and to keep on topic would go a long way.
If posts do not adhere to that they get wiped - and the responses - pretty shortly people would report problem posts instead of engaging them.
Just my 2 cents.

It is something I have proposed to the same people who are complaining here, on more than one occasion, but it was never taken up. Yet it is the very thing that keeps being requested, of that thread in particular, HEAVY moderation, even by those who advocate that the ideal mod is the one who intervenes least.

At the moment, this problem is mostly contained in a handful of threads.

But to get people to behave there as advocated here, we would have to toughen up the moderation across the board, to remain consistent. We don't want to pay that price, and judging by the comments we usually get, neither is it welcome by those who are frustrated mainly over these particular threads.

OR we have a special set of rules for that thread, but the moderation would still only kick in AFTER posts are made, and unless people amend their own posting habits there (some more than others), it would not just be the folk they dislike that would be kept on a much shorter leash.

To keep a thread like that in order would require a big (initial?) commitment by the mods, and a willingness by the participants to give genuine attempts a chance.

And let's be honest, mods here get a lot of flack the moment they apply a different even hand than is acceptable to some, sometimes over minor "interventions".

 

[Francois the Postman]

But it is more difficult to spot (by posters and mods) when people just put in keywords or repeat issues to bait or inflame discussion.

So don't get inflamed. Put them in a spot where the only way to get their desired effect is by turning up the derailing volume. Then it becomes MUCH easier to spot if someone is genuine or not, and will be dealt with much swufter. PLUS we don't need to spend hours in here talking about free speech and watsnot.

It is easy enough to circle the wagons and keep this as a nice club for the vetted few. It is easy to sit on the forum and determine that someone is a troll. It is very different once you get access to more info, personal backgrounds, and also the responsibility to make sure welcome and genuine posters are always welcome here, even when they have opinions that most of you have long discarded.

And it gets even worse when we know someone is genuine, and/or why, and forumites don't trust our judgement in this, that we actually have good reasons to tolerate someone(s), daft as it may seem at first glance. Some of you only trust your own instincts, even when some of us keep hinting we know more than half a story. A little toleration of the intolerable can grace people. If it becomes insufferable, contact us. <Most of you don't know what arrangements we have in place, with some. or why.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It is something I have proposed to the same people who are complaining here, on more than one occasion, but it was never taken up. Yet it is the very thing that keeps being requested, of that thread in particular, HEAVY moderation, even by those who advocate that the ideal mod is the one who intervenes least.

At the moment, this problem is mostly contained in a handful of threads.

But to get people to behave there as advocated here, we would have to toughen up the moderation across the board, to remain consistent. We don't want to pay that price, and judging by the comments we usually get, neither is it welcome by those who are frustrated mainly over these particular threads.

OR we have a special set of rules for that thread, but the moderation would still only kick in AFTER posts are made, and unless people amend their own posting habits there (some more than others), it would not just be the folk they dislike that would be kept on a much shorter leash.

To keep a thread like that in order would require a big (initial?) commitment by the mods, and a willingness by the participants to give genuine attempts a chance.

And let's be honest, mods here get a lot of flack the moment they apply a different even hand than is acceptable to some, sometimes over minor "interventions".

I agree with what you say except to the last paragraph. (which brings us full circle)
The only people that will complain are those whose only wish is to troll - as there is still plenty of different areas to bring up other subjects or opinion.
Cutting down on freedom to troll does not interfere with Freedom of Speech.

 

[Cobblestones]

Come one. It's all really simple. A handfull of trolls--really only about one--are allowed to spam threads into a toxic waste dump that are not worth reading but no one is allowed to complain about the effect. The right of free speech used to destroy the value of threads cannot be violated.

Heck I even have an interest in the subject, but as it is I might glance at an Armstrong thread once a week. The non-stop trolling has turned any thread that mentions Armstrong into a toilet thread where it is not worth searching through the crap to find a few niblets of corn. The signal to noise ratio approaches zero.

This is precisely it. In the beginning there were quite a few very intelligent and knowledgable posters in the clinic. We had great threads on EPO, CERA, PFCs, HBOC, CO total blood volume measurements, and who knows what other stuff. I thought the clinic might become a place similar to cutting edge muscle, just smarter. Please tell me where are all those threads today? Where are the posters who contributed to those threads? You don't need to spend 8 hours to find out. They're gone because trolls were allowed to ridicule and disrupt good threads. So what do we have now? When we learn about a new doping case, involving irradiating blood with UV, nobody can contribute anything of substance and the thread dies within a few days with maybe 15 posts. But at least it's 15 posts of free speech, where everybody is allowed to voice their opinion, even if no one has much constructive to say about the doping method at hand. And no, there wasn't even trolling, just people stating that they didn't know or couldn't imagine how this method might work. And maybe in this case, there is no good explanation. But because so many posters have left, there isn't even a discussion or speculation.

The Clinic is dead, you might just as well rename it The Mortuary.
Failed moderation killed it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So don't get inflamed. Put them in a spot where the only way to get their desired effect is by turning up the derailing volume. Then it becomes MUCH easier to spot if someone is genuine or not, and will be dealt with much swufter. PLUS we don't need to spend hours in here talking about free speech and watsnot.

Which goes back to the problem of allowing a trolling (inflaming) post stay.

It is easy enough to circle the wagons and keep this as a nice club for the vetted few. It is easy to sit on the forum and determine that someone is a troll. It is very different once you get access to more info, personal backgrounds, and also the responsibility to make sure welcome and genuine posters are always welcome here, even when they have opinions that most of you have long discarded.

And it gets even worse when we know someone is genuine, and/or why, and forumites don't trust our judgement in this, that we actually have good reasons to tolerate someone(s), daft as it may seem at first glance. Some of you only trust your own instincts, even when some of us keep hinting we know more than half a story. A little toleration of the intolerable can grace people. If it becomes insufferable, contact us. <Most of you don't know what arrangements we have in place, with some. or why.

Basically everything above is on about new posters - again, the difficulty is that the subtle trolling is done by established members.

I don't think being 'strict' on getting people to keep on topic would prove too controversial. People who want to discuss the topic will remain, the trolls will either adhere or leave.
As for new members - I welcome them, from any opinion. The difficulty is if they are genuine are not - that takes time to establish.

Also - there is the point that (speaking personally) I do not want to be running off to the Mods every time someone says something inflammatory. I think the only time I ever reported posts was for very obvious spam - and actually I cannot remember the last time I reported a post.

 

[ElChingon]

If you can't tell the difference between a genuine post and a troll its time to remove the Dr. from your username, otherwise it really puts you in a bad spot.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you can't tell the difference between a genuine post and a troll its time to remove the Dr. from your username, otherwise it really puts you in a bad spot.

If you cannot tell that my userame is a joke name then you are in a bad spot.

 

[Anonymous]

If you cannot tell that my userame is a joke name then you are in a bad spot.

I deleted the post you quoted above while you were responding because I thought it went over the line. Evidently, I was correct in that statement. Would you please delete the response as I didn't find my response to be one that should be left in the thread, and I would appreciate those words being stricken from the record.

Respectfully,

TFF

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I deleted the post you quoted above while you were responding because I thought it went over the line. Evidently, I was correct in that statement. Would you please delete the response as I didn't find my response to be one that should be left in the thread, and I would appreciate those words being stricken from the record.

Respectfully,

TFF

I went back and removed it - and just after I hit delete was left with the thought.... "have I just assisted or hindered Freedom of Speech"?

 

[Amsterhammer]

I have no axe to grind here as I don't post in any of the Clinic threads (ok, I made one slightly humorous post in the tennis topic, but that's it) - but I have a couple of suggestions based on my experience over a number of years of a very large and well moderated football forum.

- Different degrees of 'strictness' in moderation depending on the forum concerned i.e. make it crystal clear in advance that certain controversial Clinic threads will be moderated more strictly than others, and that the Clinic as a whole, due to its very nature, will be moderated more tightly than other, less controversial areas of the forum.

- Specialized mods for the Clinic, who would presumably have to be volunteers with a personal interest, and who would be able to tell a troll from a simple idiot.

fwiw

 

[Anonymous]

I went back and removed it - and just after I hit delete was left with the thought.... "have I just assisted or hindered Freedom of Speech"?

Thanks Dr. M. I appreciate that.

 

[Polish]

This is precisely it. In the beginning there were quite a few very intelligent and knowledgable posters in the clinic. We had great threads on EPO, CERA, PFCs, HBOC, CO total blood volume measurements, and who knows what other stuff. I thought the clinic might become a place similar to cutting edge muscle, just smarter. Please tell me where are all those threads today? Where are the posters who contributed to those threads? You don't need to spend 8 hours to find out. They're gone because trolls were allowed to ridicule and disrupt good threads. So what do we have now? When we learn about a new doping case, involving irradiating blood with UV, nobody can contribute anything of substance and the thread dies within a few days with maybe 15 posts. But at least it's 15 posts of free speech, where everybody is allowed to voice their opinion, even if no one has much constructive to say about the doping method at hand. And no, there wasn't even trolling, just people stating that they didn't know or couldn't imagine how this method might work. And maybe in this case, there is no good explanation. But because so many posters have left, there isn't even a discussion or speculation.

The Clinic is dead, you might just as well rename it The Mortuary.
Failed moderation killed it.

I have been a forum member since the very beginning.
Old timer here.
And I remember those "great threads on EPO, CERA, PFCs, HBOC, CO total blood volume measurements, and who knows what other stuff" you speak of too.
Seriously, they were not that interesting. Sorry.
But you can dig them up and bump those threads.
There were not too many of them IIRC....

 

[Francois the Postman]

I have no axe to grind here as I don't post in any of the Clinic threads (ok, I made one slightly humorous post in the tennis topic, but that's it) - but I have a couple of suggestions based on my experience over a number of years of a very large and well moderated football forum.

-snip-

Can you give me a link so I can have look? Without knowing the forum you refer to, it is hard to judge how comparable they are, in what context they operate and how they are set up. What works for A doesn't mean it works for B. Keen to have a look though, I am not hostile to any of those suggestions, in principle.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I have been a forum member since the very beginning.
Old timer here.
And I remember those "great threads on EPO, CERA, PFCs, HBOC, CO total blood volume measurements, and who knows what other stuff" you speak of too.
Seriously, they were not that interesting. Sorry.
But you can dig them up and bump those threads.
There were not too many of them IIRC....

It is obvious we cater for a wide audience, all with their own interests. And all probably utterly bemused by what interest others.

So if we can all leave people the room to have their fun here, undisturbed, that would be sweet. Commenting on how little value those threads have, or how boring other people's interests and hang-ups are, after people clearly state they value them, with your posting history Polish, I would shut up now, to be frank. You are interested in some aspects of cycling more than others, and we certainly are lenient when it comes to letting you and others have your bit of fun. Make room for others too, and certainly respect the little space that these type of forum users take up, in the Clinic.

Since you have made it pretty clear that you have no interest in these sort of threads, I take that you will happily stay away from those thread types, Polish? Not sure if you ever posted in any of those, but if there are hardly any, you are advised to give these boring nitty-gritty threads a complete miss, from now on. Reasonable?

 

[Amsterhammer]

Can you give me a link so I can have look? Without knowing the forum you refer to, it is hard to judge how comparable they are, in what context they operate and how they are set up. What works for A doesn't mean it works for B. Keen to have a look though, I am not hostile to any of those suggestions, in principle.

PM sent. I was just throwing some ideas out, though I will be the first to admit that the forum I referred to is very different in nature to this one. As it's primarily a football forum, though with several non-football sub-forums, offenders against the rules wind up with a yellow or red card next to their names.

 

[Francois the Postman]

PM sent. I was just throwing some ideas out, though I will be the first to admit that the forum I referred to is very different in nature to this one. As it's primarily a football forum, though with several non-football sub-forums, offenders against the rules wind up with a yellow or red card next to their names.

We have that system here too, although you guys can't see those. It has its good points and its bad points, and we only recently started to use it (combined with the 3-strike system it made more sense). Far from ideal though, and certainly not as good as better alternatives out there. Initially we avoided it as the default settings of the software triggered (understandable) outrage when default warnings were auto-sent, even when we only wanted to give a friendly PM warning. Let's just say that it took a while before some requested changes were implemented by FP, and leave it at that.

It is indeed a very different forum. (Mostly) for Dutch speakers only, and crucially, it's a forum set up for AJAX-supporters. That means that the posters are likely to have far more in common than what devides them. [well, as long as they are not on the board of directors ]

The tone is better, people are taking more note of the "post not poster" rule. Self-censorship is much more evident. Rules are stricter than here too. No word-filter, which I personally prefer, as people are still judged on how they behave and address others -as per the rules-, but can express themeselves more as themselves, as adults, and say ****stan. But that is me, and not CN, whose rules we all agreed to abide by, if we want to be active participants here.

I suspect not accepting a mod ruling there won't get you the ear, support, and discussion you get here, but I might be wrong. It looks a bit more authoritarian than what some people are already struggling to accept, or keen to challenge, here. Would have to speak with a mod there to get real insight in how they handle the stuff that is invisible.

It certainly appears to create a more on-topic and welcoming forum. Add value to a discussion or don't post. That is against the context that you accepted, that it isn't exactly like this forum. I personally expect that some of those things would work here too, others won't, or not without tinkering.

Interesting.

 

[MacRoadie]

As it's primarily a football forum, though with several non-football sub-forums, offenders against the rules wind up with a yellow or red card next to their names.

To keep the forum moderation here cyclo-centric, perhaps a "relegation" would be appropriate, with the red card equivalent being the user's post count being reset to zero. Add in a minimum number of moderated posts for new members ( say the first 10 or 15) and our offending member is also forced to submit to moderated posting like any new member.

Keep messing up and keep getting sent back to square one, with Big Brother reviewing every post you make until you learn your lesson.

 

[Francois the Postman]

To keep the forum moderation here cyclo-centric, perhaps a "relegation" would be appropriate, with the red card equivalent being the user's post count being reset to zero. Add in a minimum number of moderated posts for new members ( say the first 10 or 15) and our offending member is also forced to submit to moderated posting like any new member.

Keep messing up and keep getting sent back to square one, with Big Brother reviewing every post you make until you learn your lesson.

You are dealing with volunteers who are already handling far more posts than they are able to read, and forced (in a volunteered kinda way) to read many posts and threads purely on a "is this a valid post" level. What you suggest would add even more work to our pile, when the vast majority of users (old and new), never require ANY moderation.

 

[MacRoadie]

You are dealing with volunteers who are already handling far more posts than they are able to read, and forced (in a volunteered kinda way) to read many posts and threads purely on a "is this a valid post" level. What you suggest would add even more work to our pile, when the vast majority of users (old and new), never require ANY moderation.

Well, I kinda meant all that tongue-in-cheek.

On a more serious note, I certainly agree that tasking volunteer moderators who already have too much on their plate isn't the best solution, it is certainly one that numerous forums have adopted.

Anyway, the posting here is at-will, so the moderation should be too. If you screw up enough to get relegated, then you can wait around until a mod has some free time to review your posts. At least you still have a posting privilege.

As to the good old days where no moderation was required, well both sides of the doping/Armstrong debate made that impossible long ago.

Just my two cents.

 

[Francois the Postman]

As to the good old days where no moderation was required, well both sides of the doping/Armstrong debate made that impossible long ago.

Thankfully, vast areas of the forum still require next to no moderation. The Clinic was erected to keep the other areas more "like these good ole days", and that certainly has worked reasonably well. It is easy to spot problems and conflicting mod-wishes in the forum, and within the Clinic, and lose sight of the fact that on most of the forum, the moderation works quite well.

There are also few "clubs" with a global (growing) audience that won't go through some sort of evolution over time. Even posters themselves do, probably, for good and bad. A sweet spot for some will be hard to sustain if people start to take note, and join in. Any newcomer, even a welcome one, will change settled relationships (between freinds, work, clubs, on forums).

Also, some "trolls" that were fingered early on as people who swhould be turfed off the forum, have become different and more nuanced posters over time, and sometimes their "idiotic" blind fanboy posts (also) contained opinions that have trumped many a self-sertified expert's "will never happen" stance. I certainly have had my share of humble pie presented over the years. I doubt if that will stop any time soon.

I am sure there are ways in which the forum can be approved, for all, in a win-win-win sort of way, and several suggestions here would be part of that, I am sure. We do, however, also work within the restraints of CN choices and software settings and software versions, and FP resource allocations. We can dream, but to some degree, we can only ask, and figure out what we can do within our current set-up.

 

[Granville57]

next page...

 

[Granville57]

Oh guess who runs it (mods this is internet freely obtained info, just search whois.com if you question it) AKA: DimSpace

I have deleted the personal information. Even if that is a public document, it is not appropriate.

Question:
Why isn't EC banned for that? I would say that stunt goes well beyond being "not appropriate."

10. No posting of personal information of other members.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9547

With signature that boasts, "CyclingNews Forum Member Number 1. (verified)" it shouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that he is, at the very least, familiar with the fact that there are rules, no?

And why the surprise? I thought it was clear all along that TSF was behind that forum.

Of course it was abundantly clear. EC is either being willfully ignorant or is just not that bright. (although I realize, as has been proven countless times by others, that that, in-and-of-itself, is not punishable).

But that's not the point. The intention of the post was to reveal very specific, personal information about another member. So what if that info is "public"? What-in-the-hell gives another member of the forum (member #1!) the right to make the decision to post that info? Do you really want to create a grey area around just when such behavior is punishable? Personally, I've always thought that kind of thing should the very highest on the list of infractions. Or, you could just make it a free-for-all around here and let's see how that works out.

It's nobody's god damn business to post the personal info of others. Obviously, anyone with the motivation and/or desire could've retrieved the same information, but I think it's safe to say that the CN forum very likely has more many views and more regular traffic than the specific "Whois" page that was cited. Just because personal info "exits" doesn't mean it's there to be shared with anyone who views the CN forum simply because another member (#1!) feels the need. The fact that that info is out there, somewhere, in public should have absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact that the info in question was posted on a site that has no direct link whatsoever to CN should have everything to do with it.

10. No posting of personal information of other members.

So again, why isn't EC banned for that?
---------------------------

Granville57 Member #1,837 (not verified)

 

[Cobblestones]

I have been a forum member since the very beginning.
Old timer here.
And I remember those "great threads on EPO, CERA, PFCs, HBOC, CO total blood volume measurements, and who knows what other stuff" you speak of too.
Seriously, they were not that interesting. Sorry.
But you can dig them up and bump those threads.
There were not too many of them IIRC....

And who are you? I don't think I've ever seen you posting in any interesting thread.

 

[Polish]

And who are you? I don't think I've ever seen you posting in any interesting thread.

That is because I am humble and irrelevant.
I have heard of you though.

But back on topic - why do you say that "Failed moderation killed the Clinic"?

 

[Cobblestones]

That is because I am humble and irrelevant.
I have heard of you though.

But back on topic - why do you say that "Failed moderation killed the Clinic"?

I'm flattered you've heard of me. What brings you to the forum?

As for your question, read the post I made and the one I quoted.