Moderators

[ElChingon]

Yooo Hooo, any other mod other than the out of the loop 180mmCrank know when this ban will be in place? Court ruling still in deliberation phase?

As the saying goes, rules are rules.

OK it being Tour time and its strict rules and all.

Why does this post not cause a DQ (aka ban) if any of us use it we are?

Link: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=957155&postcount=25

This is not the fangirl thread. Keep those comments in the other thread, please.

Susan

Note: This post saved for posterity and historical reference for those who fall trap to this.

 

[ElChingon]

NOTE: Can the MODS please quit taking threads off topic and use the PM feature to discuss with one sole forum-ite any issues they have with said forum-ite? Do we all need to take part in their discussions?

If fellow Forum-ites cannot use the threads to take discussions off topic between just two forum-ites then why do MODS do what they are banning fellow forum-ites for?

If you do not lead by example everyone else will do the same as you!

 

[mewmewmew13]

NOTE: Can the MODS please quit taking threads off topic and use the PM feature to discuss with one sole forum-ite any issues they have with said forum-ite? Do we all need to take part in their discussions?

If fellow Forum-ites cannot use the threads to take discussions off topic between just two forum-ites then why do MODS do what they are banning fellow forum-ites for?

If you do not lead by example everyone else will do the same as you![/QUOTE]

So you should have just pm'd each mod instead of airing this in public?

 

[ElChingon]

NOTE: Can the MODS please quit taking threads off topic and use the PM feature to discuss with one sole forum-ite any issues they have with said forum-ite? Do we all need to take part in their discussions?

If fellow Forum-ites cannot use the threads to take discussions off topic between just two forum-ites then why do MODS do what they are banning fellow forum-ites for?

If you do not lead by example everyone else will do the same as you!

So you should have just pm'd each mod instead of airing this in public?

Would of, but if I do they then say to add it to the mods thread, because if I don't it outs just one particular mod and that is considered bad but if I generalize it they are OK with it. Then by the time they forward it to their mod thread its a week later.

 

[WonderLance]

Am I a moderator yet?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Am I a moderator yet?

I'll nominate you

 

[hiero2]

They are just following the Americans, as usual, with a severe case of short man's syndrome. Unleash the lap dogs of war!

I am a bit lost on what you guys are talking about - but the words are wonderful! Several posts with excellent and colorful usage! Short man's syndrome - lap dogs of war -- nutbars -- Sky horny -- Love it!

 

[mewmewmew13]

I am a bit lost on what you guys are talking about - but the words are wonderful! Several posts with excellent and colorful usage! Short man's syndrome - lap dogs of war -- nutbars -- Sky horny -- Love it!

Lol!
.....

 

[hiero2]

Hey, Mods? I really think you guys need to have a confab soon and revise your thread closing policies. This is something I have not taken much notice of in the past, but I am starting to get seriously annoyed.

Go to http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18138. Posted and closed. That quick. Why? That makes no sense.

Also, once I had my own threads closed, I started looking around. I went to the thread on bicycle crank length today - now there is a single thread that should have been many threads - not one.

Look at it this way, if I had a legit question about crank length, it might be answered in there somewhere, but how could I EVER find the answer, except through serendipity? I never would. I would have to start a new thread, just to find somebody who had read page 83 of 196 pages, and happened to remember it.

 

[Boeing]

Hey, Mods? I really think you guys need to have a confab soon and revise your thread closing policies. This is something I have not taken much notice of in the past, but I am starting to get seriously annoyed.

Go to http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18138. Posted and closed. That quick. Why? That makes no sense.

Also, once I had my own threads closed, I started looking around. I went to the thread on bicycle crank length today - now there is a single thread that should have been many threads - not one.

Look at it this way, if I had a legit question about crank length, it might be answered in there somewhere, but how could I EVER find the answer, except through serendipity? I never would. I would have to start a new thread, just to find somebody who had read page 83 of 196 pages, and happened to remember it.

its simple here man. its personality policing. they dont like you you are out. always been the same.

 

[ElChingon]

its simple here man. its personality policing. they dont like you you are out. always been the same.

I think you hit it, we can all recall the forum flame wars where only one of the flaming party gets banned, or the comical one where a guy gets 24 hour ban and the other life ban yea that was fair
Then it took some nagging from those who saw what happened to overturn that. Its as if they ban with blinders on.

 

[Autobus]

While the CN moderators are certainly not perfect, I have come to thank them for their selfless service. As a athletics/track and field fan also I have seen the result of what the absence of moderation brings to a forum: the chaos, anarchy, and utter childishness that dominate the Let's Run message boards. At their worst the trolls here do not hold a candle to the morons who destroy any attempt at serious discourse on that site. So, despite their all too human weaknesses, for what these forums have not become, I say thank you very much and please, please keep it up.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Dear Susan,

Yesterday I found out I got banned. Reason: Emotional outbursts. When I was able to login again I also found out I received an infraction. Reason: insulting.

The insult was apparently me replying "Oh shut up" to a poster who told me to "be quiet" "stop posting" and "stop whining". This brings me to my first point.

Yesterday two members addressed an issue in the Member suspension appreciation/depreciation thread.

Saw a couple folks with multiple posts in the race thread, where the posts were only insults to La Florecita and nothing whatsoever about cycling or the race. Entire post was just insults to her, and a couple people did that multiple times.
Whatever happened to addressing the post, but not the poster? Disappointed to see La Flo get banned, as her posts were at least about the damned race, and she responded politely when insulted by others.

Depreciating a FAN of Cycling getting banned when the instigators stay on with no ban or warning or even a wrist slap. Of course this after a mod even deprecated her in public and the other mods removed it to hide the banable offense.

I have bolded the part I have issues with. Maybe I wasn't entirely polite but I was insulted multiple times and this is not the first time. I get insulted and when I reply I get the warning. Double standards?

Now my second issue. You, Susan, write in the PM to me:

Now you know that is not acceptable. You put yourself out there as super Contador fan, you know you will hae to take a lot of flak.

I'm sorry? Nobody, I repeat NOBODY should have to "take a lot of flak", no matter their views.

Well the first and second problem are obviously related. If you don't get it yet I'll show you why.

I am convinced neutral posters get away with things outspoken posters don't get away with. Again double standards?

I feel like you are choosing sides and have decided to choose the side against me only and only because I am a fan of Alberto. But let me say this: I don't take **** from anyone. To be honest I have forgotten what post ElChingon was referring to in his post but he assured me a while ago via PM he saved it somewhere, so if he could post it I would be very grateful.

Something a bit different is that I don't understand the relation between my infraction and the ban. Is it that I got an infraction both for insulting and for "emotional outbursts" or were the "emotional outbursts" alone enough to trigger a ban and is the infraction for insulting something that came on top of that?

Also, I am happy to see my albums are still there and I am now completely convinced that yes, you really eat puppies for breakfast.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

It is not appropriate to publicize the contents of PMs, without the sender's permission.

Your ban was based on a combination of factors, the main one being your overly emotional postings.

If you feel you have been insulted, you can report those postings. Just as your postings were reported to the mods.

It is also not terribly appropriate to insult mods publicly, either in this forum or any other.

True, in a perfect world you would not receive any flak for your extremely public crush on a public figure. However, we do not live in a perfect world and you must surely be familiar enough with the culture of this forum to know how others will react to you and your statements.

Susan

 

[LaFlorecita]

Well that didn't answer any of my questions but thanks for replying anyway. I'll be watching my words very carefully knowing that you'll be ready to pounce whenever I post one dubious word. Moderators are supposed to judge matters neutrally Susan. If you can't do that then you're not supposed to be a moderator.

 

[boomcie]

You go (Conta)girl!

I think I'm with you on this (not knowing the context very well though).

The flak PM was pretty lame Susan, but I guess you realized that after reading it as well. I don't see how fear of intimidation and 'flak' should influence Contagirl's decision to be herself around here.

But hey, this is coming from your favorite outcast boomcie. Nevermind.

 

[LaFlorecita]

You go (Conta)girl!

I think I'm with you on this (not knowing the context very well though).

The flak PM was pretty lame Susan, but I guess you realized that after reading it as well. I don't see how fear of intimidation and 'flak' should influence Contagirl's decision to be herself around here.

Thanks boom!

But hey, this is coming from your favorite outcast boomcie. Nevermind.

 

[ElChingon]

This is a typical case of a mod having it out for a certain forum member, it is plainly obvious based on previous posts and removed posts that said mod is singling out a specific forum member. The hypocrisy is also extremely evident when a mod posts an offensive post against said forum member and is removed by another because it is offensive.

For said mod to then ban the forum member for being a super fan (what this forum is ALL about) and replying within the bounds of the forum rules, never going over and especially not going over the bounds any of said mod's pet forum members get away with in any other thread. Is hypocritical.

The "flak" is not just flak, it is offensive and well justifies a strong reply, if a mod can identify this and just let it go is also hypocritical and the grounds for said mod to just step aside as this task as mod is obviously gotten to them.

As another mod has stated over and over and over again, joviality should be first sense or interpretation.

Otherwise, I recommend that La Forecita begin each post with, "Listen..." or insert "ahum..."'s in each post to drive the point home.

 

[ElChingon]

To be honest I have forgotten what post ElChingon was referring to in his post but he assured me a while ago via PM he saved it somewhere, so if he could post it I would be very grateful.

Its just up a bit, http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=962786&postcount=2615

 

[BotanyBay]

A request for The Clinic:

Can we please restrict "The Evidence" thread for posts containing "actual evidence" and the sources of it? No discussion, just a convenient evidence locker. Please move all other discussion and arguments to the Phase II thread.

A lot of evidence is about to hit the street. Let's make it easy to access and we can discuss it in other threads.

Thanks,

Bb

 

[ElChingon]

A request for The Clinic:

Can we please restrict "The Evidence" thread for posts containing "actual evidence" and the sources of it? No discussion, just a convenient evidence locker. Please move all other discussion and arguments to the Phase II thread.

A lot of evidence is about to hit the street. Let's make it easy to access and we can discuss it in other threads.

Thanks,

Bb

Only if they apply it to every other thread, so I doubt it.

I think you're after a thread like the old "Interesting Links about Rider X", which you should start.

 

[BotanyBay]

The thread is already started. And all everyone is doing is continuing more Phase II-type discussion.

But now it is at six pages and counting. There's never a cop when you need one

 

[palmerq]

i will take your suggestion under considerment or something like that :S

 

[palmerq]

seems like a big task.. i am going to buy beer first then fix it

 

[JRTinMA]

It is not appropriate to publicize the contents of PMs, without the sender's permission.

Your ban was based on a combination of factors, the main one being your overly emotional postings.

If you feel you have been insulted, you can report those postings. Just as your postings were reported to the mods.

It is also not terribly appropriate to insult mods publicly, either in this forum or any other.

True, in a perfect world you would not receive any flak for your extremely public crush on a public figure. However, we do not live in a perfect world and you must surely be familiar enough with the culture of this forum to know how others will react to you and your statements.

Susan

to the bold, silly. Don't send it if you don't want it public.