Moderators

[Susan Westemeyer]

It will not be allowed to use the words in any sense other than a relevant quoting of the news stories. They may not be used at all in any other way. That is how I understand it and how I will enforce it.

As far as I know, that is what I have done all along.

Susan

 

[Caruut]

Don't particularly want to bring it up here, but couldn't seem to PM the mod in question.

I got a 24h ban for clinic talk outside the clinic. I would say that I have trodden the line a little bit, but the post in question was, I thought, quite innocuous.

Without wanting to repeat it, someone asked about swimming coaches in a race thread, and whether it was to do with doping. I pretty much just repeated the Sky line on the coach in question, in what might be considered a sarcastic manner. Given my posting history and attitude towards Sky in general and Wiggins in particular possibly it looks bad, but coming from another poster perhaps not.

Is the ban a cumulative thing? Am I being made an example of? I am fine with either and probably deserve it as a cumulative thing, but I am curious as to exactly what about that post made it so bad.

 

[Parrulo]

the forum has been out of control since the tour started, we have just been more strict then we use to trying to keep stuff in check on the road racing section. just see the amount of people getting small bans for the same stuff as you

 

[Caruut]

That's fair enough. Was a bit confused, as I had definitely made several worse posts, and I actually wrote that one trying to explain who the guy was without stepping over, but without sounding like I was totally convinced. Thanks for the reply, will be a good boy in future.

 

[ChrisE]

Mods, for clarity can you please give some insight on these subjects?

Why isn't Texpat banned for the below statement, threatening with physical confrontation?

That sounds like a threat there College. Would thoroughly enjoy you making that statement to my face

College gets banned for implying he will out people's identities if Mas tries to find out who he is, and College gets permanently banned. Texpat threatens with physical harm and nothing happens.

If anything College should be given a warning and Texpat be banned, permanently. I know he is a valuable member of the forum because LA was mean to him, but this double standard is beyond blatant.

Aphronesis is one of the best posters on the forum. His opinions are well thought out and provoking. I am not aware of any previous bans he has received. Why was he not given a short ban instead of a permanent one?

Doc started a good thread that needed to be addressed. I am sure anything he wrote about College was without malice, and saying something about LA's friend nicknamed "college" is an easy mistake to make under the circumstances. Yet here he is banned for that mistake days afterwards. Confusing.

Scott/patrick....never seen a rule in here against "bickering". Why not warnings?

Even so, Doc, scott and patrick have short bans. The crazy ban of aphronesis is just that, and Texpat gets a free pass for physically threatening somebody while College gets banned for threatening to out others if Mas outs him.

Strange set of occurences lately. Hopefully some light can be shed on this. Thanks.

Edit: After rereading the suspension thread, I see college was banned for "trolling". Once again the "troll" card is placed upon somebody with a different opinion and POV than the majority.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Can the smaller races results thread be stickied? ...you could change the title by removing 2012, it's a pain having to search for it everytime.

 

[Bala Verde]

Don't particularly want to bring it up here, but couldn't seem to PM the mod in question.

I got a 24h ban for clinic talk outside the clinic. I would say that I have trodden the line a little bit, but the post in question was, I thought, quite innocuous.

Without wanting to repeat it, someone asked about swimming coaches in a race thread, and whether it was to do with doping. I pretty much just repeated the Sky line on the coach in question, in what might be considered a sarcastic manner. Given my posting history and attitude towards Sky in general and Wiggins in particular possibly it looks bad, but coming from another poster perhaps not.

Is the ban a cumulative thing? Am I being made an example of? I am fine with either and probably deserve it as a cumulative thing, but I am curious as to exactly what about that post made it so bad.

I think I issued the 24hrs suspension. You weren't being made an example of, but it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I believe you had posted other similar, or worse posts before, either on that day or during other days. Adding all that up, it lead to a suspension.

 

[ChrisE]

Mods, for clarity can you please give some insight on these subjects?

Why isn't Texpat banned for the below statement, threatening with physical confrontation?



College gets banned for implying he will out people's identities if Mas tries to find out who he is, and College gets permanently banned. Texpat threatens with physical harm and nothing happens.

If anything College should be given a warning and Texpat be banned, permanently. I know he is a valuable member of the forum because LA was mean to him, but this double standard is beyond blatant.

Aphronesis is one of the best posters on the forum. His opinions are well thought out and provoking. I am not aware of any previous bans he has received. Why was he not given a short ban instead of a permanent one?

Doc started a good thread that needed to be addressed. I am sure anything he wrote about College was without malice, and saying something about LA's friend nicknamed "college" is an easy mistake to make under the circumstances. Yet here he is banned for that mistake days afterwards. Confusing.

Scott/patrick....never seen a rule in here against "bickering". Why not warnings?

Even so, Doc, scott and patrick have short bans. The crazy ban of aphronesis is just that, and Texpat gets a free pass for physically threatening somebody while College gets banned for threatening to out others if Mas outs him.

Strange set of occurences lately. Hopefully some light can be shed on this. Thanks.

Edit: After rereading the suspension thread, I see college was banned for "trolling". Once again the "troll" card is placed upon somebody with a different opinion and POV than the majority.

Bump. *crickets*

 

[BroDeal]

Banned for arrogance. LOL.

 

[Elagabalus]

Mods, for clarity can you please give some insight on these subjects?

Why isn't Texpat banned for the below statement, threatening with physical confrontation?



College gets banned for implying he will out people's identities if Mas tries to find out who he is, and College gets permanently banned. Texpat threatens with physical harm and nothing happens.

If anything College should be given a warning and Texpat be banned, permanently. I know he is a valuable member of the forum because LA was mean to him, but this double standard is beyond blatant.

Aphronesis is one of the best posters on the forum. His opinions are well thought out and provoking. I am not aware of any previous bans he has received. Why was he not given a short ban instead of a permanent one?

Doc started a good thread that needed to be addressed. I am sure anything he wrote about College was without malice, and saying something about LA's friend nicknamed "college" is an easy mistake to make under the circumstances. Yet here he is banned for that mistake days afterwards. Confusing.

Scott/patrick....never seen a rule in here against "bickering". Why not warnings?

Even so, Doc, scott and patrick have short bans. The crazy ban of aphronesis is just that, and Texpat gets a free pass for physically threatening somebody while College gets banned for threatening to out others if Mas outs him.

Strange set of occurences lately. Hopefully some light can be shed on this. Thanks.

Edit: After rereading the suspension thread, I see college was banned for "trolling". Once again the "troll" card is placed upon somebody with a different opinion and POV than the majority.

The aphronesis perma ban is way, way over the top.

I call upon the members of CyclingNews' Grand Council and humbly beseech them to forgive this rare and impertinent outburst of arrogance from one of our fellow posters. I ask that you, oh, great Grand Council who have given us everything, please let this lost poster find his way back to the awaiting arms of your own Beneficence!

Seriously. Arrogance?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Seriously. Arrogance.

If it will make you all happy, I will remove that word from the list of reasons for the ban.

But the other reasons are sufficient to ban someone who repeatedly insults other users and ignores moderators' instructions, amongst other things.

Susan

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The aphronesis perma ban is way, way over the top.

I call upon the members of CyclingNews' Grand Council and humbly beseech them to forgive this rare and impertinent outburst of arrogance from one of our fellow posters. I ask that you, oh, great Grand Council who have given us everything, please let this lost poster find his way back to the awaiting arms of your own Beneficence!

Seriously. Arrogance?

I don't know what happened? I leave for a day to go stir the pot at another forum, and the Righteous Ban Hammer of Justice comes out.

I don't know what aphronesis did as it seems the posts were deleted, but he and I buried the hatchet yesterday, and I did think he asked some good questions.

In defense of the mods, I think they are making a concerted effort to keep things clean here. They let me and aphronesis go on a bit longer than I would have suspected yesterday, but in the end, I think he and I proved that was not a bad idea. I have been banned for a short time a couple of times here lately, and I certainly deserved them. It seems that they want to keep some guardrails on the place, and it is impossible to do so to everyone's satisfaction including mine at times. I was not overly happy about a poster PMing me and revealing a connection to who they were (and not allowing me to reveal that in the public part of the form. I didn't ask that person to reveal anything to me), but I understand the reasons the mods shut that down quickly. Thought and a good nights sleep will do wonders for perspective.

I can say that on its face, without any information on why, I think the ban of aphornesis was too much. Not having to wade through college's inane banter doesn't hurt my stride at all. I also see ChrisE was banned. Hopefully not permanently. I am not a fan, but he does stir the pot sometimes, and that is never a bad thing. One cannot hear the sound of one hand clapping.

As for ChrisE's call that TexPat be banned for telling college to make the threat to his face, that was pretty strange. That wasn't a threat, that was a response for someone who had threatened to make good on that in person. There is a significant difference.

Anyway, if there are grounds, I would like to see the ban on aphornesis reconsidered.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Seriously. Arrogance.

If it will make you all happy, I will remove that word from the list of reasons for the ban.

But the other reasons are sufficient to ban someone who repeatedly insults other users and ignores moderators' instructions, amongst other things.

Susan

Seriously, if you guys start banning for arrogance, I'm ****ed.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Ha, you are giving me ideas........

But please notice that was only one of the reasons for the ban. Not the only one.

Susan

 

[pedaling squares]

Seriously, if you guys start banning for arrogance, I'm ****ed.

If they start banning for arrogance, I'm going to get pretty lonely around here.

 

[BroDeal]

What is with the ginormous generic threads on this forum? Nothing gets broken out into its own thread. Aside from making it hard to follow discussions, it has be be bad for organic search traffic.

 

[The Real GFY]

So if we feel someone is trolling, how do we let the moderators know? Do we use this thread?

 

[palmerq]

So if we feel someone is trolling, how do we let the moderators know? Do we use this thread?

negative... that is not a good idea, I frown upon that... send moderators a pm and report posts

 

[Hugh Januss]

The vast majority of this latest fit of bans totally sux azz. I would try to be more correct in my use of language to describe this if I thought it was worth the effort, but it's not, because it is just a bunch of officious horses azzes flexing their (weak) interweb muscles.
Thank you, Hugh

 

[BroDeal]

The vast majority of this latest fit of bans totally sux azz. I would try to be more correct in my use of language to describe this if I thought it was worth the effort, but it's not, because it is just a bunch of officious horses azzes flexing their (weak) interweb muscles.
Thank you, Hugh

+1000

That so-called threat by College was a p!ss weak excuse for a threat.

I did not see anything from aphro worthy of a ban.

Dr. M brought up an obvious question about a member using the well known nickname of a real person and alluding to being the person. If it is the person and he wanted to be icognito then obviously he should not have used his nickname. If it is not the person then someone pretending to be him raises questions about whether it should be allowable.

 

[patricknd]

Mods, for clarity can you please give some insight on these subjects?

Why isn't Texpat banned for the below statement, threatening with physical confrontation?



College gets banned for implying he will out people's identities if Mas tries to find out who he is, and College gets permanently banned. Texpat threatens with physical harm and nothing happens.

If anything College should be given a warning and Texpat be banned, permanently. I know he is a valuable member of the forum because LA was mean to him, but this double standard is beyond blatant.

Aphronesis is one of the best posters on the forum. His opinions are well thought out and provoking. I am not aware of any previous bans he has received. Why was he not given a short ban instead of a permanent one?

Doc started a good thread that needed to be addressed. I am sure anything he wrote about College was without malice, and saying something about LA's friend nicknamed "college" is an easy mistake to make under the circumstances. Yet here he is banned for that mistake days afterwards. Confusing.

Scott/patrick....never seen a rule in here against "bickering". Why not warnings?

Even so, Doc, scott and patrick have short bans. The crazy ban of aphronesis is just that, and Texpat gets a free pass for physically threatening somebody while College gets banned for threatening to out others if Mas outs him.

Strange set of occurences lately. Hopefully some light can be shed on this. Thanks.

Edit: After rereading the suspension thread, I see college was banned for "trolling". Once again the "troll" card is placed upon somebody with a different opinion and POV than the majority.

Still hearing those crickets

 

[patricknd]

+1000

That so-called threat by College was a p!ss weak excuse for a threat.

I did not see anything from aphro worthy of a ban.

Dr. M brought up an obvious question about a member using the well known nickname of a real person and alluding to being the person. If it is the person and he wanted to be icognito then obviously he should not have used his nickname. If it is not the person then someone pretending to be him raises questions about whether it should be allowable.

Are you guys questioning the infallibility of the mods? I've been told on more than one occasion that they are always completely fair, and never moderate based on personalities or content. they don't make mistakes
Just be careful, you're starting to sound arrogant

 

[patricknd]

I raised hell about Dr mas but then he opened a new thread on the nickname subject and explained his motivation, and messaged me and did the same so I let it alone after that. I think his ban was over the top, but those of college and aphronesis are completely ***.
Disagreement isn't trolling, it's the purpose of a forum.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

After negotiations, Aphronesis has agreed to accept all forum rules in the future, and therefore his ban has been decreased to two weeks.

Susan

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I raised hell about Dr mas but then he opened a new thread on the nickname subject and explained his motivation, and messaged me and did the same so I let it alone after that. I think his ban was over the top, but those of college and aphronesis are completely ***.
Disagreement isn't trolling, it's the purpose of a forum.

College's ban was not based on his views, but on how he presented those views.

Susan