Mods. Help. Please. The madness must stop

[Race Radio]

Couldn't agree more - many on this forum don't let "FACTS" get in the way of their shrill, childish hatred for Armstrong/Lemond. No room for diverse opinion here - guess I should just move on and let the "experts" here continue with their gossip. What a bunch of tools.

you are welcome to present your own "facts" but instead just call those who do not agree with you "shrill and childish" and a "Bunch of tools"

How exactly are you adding to the discussion?

 

[creeve]

You are a new signup with a grand total of 2 posts.

I've stated here before... I was an uninformed Armstrong fanboy. Unfortunately for the LA fanbase, I took it upon myself to actually read the info that is out there. Cozy Beehive has a very informative blog that lays out a compelling case. Race Radio and some others really do know what they are writing about. What you call hatred is in reality a lack of patience for those who refuse to get up to speed.

I'm fairly certain the above paragraph will be lost on you, but I though I would give it a shot.

Sigh - I'll give it another shot - try and keep up - read it several times if you don't get it the first few times - I'm "fairly certain" you can do it! (you actually replied with a rather sane post - until your little zinger at the end - which is precisely what I'm talking about).

1. I'm not sure that the number of posts I have is at all relevant - are you suggesting that you have to post 2K times to finally "get" it? Love your logic.

2. I am actually very well versed in the topic of doping in cycling (and sports in general) and I am in no way a fan of Armstrong (or Lemond for that matter) - I'm a Jens Voigt girl. What is bothersome is the attitude of your self-appointed "experts" who drink their own kool aid and are shocked - SHOCKED when others call them on their petty agendas. They are very small minds that become very agitated and use ad hominem attacks when they are not agreed with. When that doesn't work, they cry for their opposition to be banned as TROLLS (what a horrible label ).

3. I haven't looked at their blogs - must be fascinating reading by these junior detectives. They should be proud. I'm sure that they've parsed all of the available evidence to fit their paridigm/agenda - who needs impartiality!?!? For what it's worth, I think Armstrong (and possibly Lemond) doped. Do I have any definitive evidence? Nope. Neither do you or the junior detective league. You can have your opinion - just don't attack others for theirs.

I'm fairly certain the above will be lost on you - but I gave it a shot nonetheless.

 

[yourwelcome]

From what I have gathered, unless you trash Lance, Radioshack, et al. you are likely to be labeled uninformed and then a troll.

+1

CN forum seems to be the refuge for LA-hating obsessives and conspiracy theorists banned or discouraged away from other forums. I suspect they're dishing out what they got elsewhere.

 

[creeve]

You don't like samurai cantaloupe cat (I think that's what it is). I think it is the coolest avatar ever. Which is why I stole it from someone else here the minute he took it down.

I actually do like your avatar - I was just giving you a hard time

 

[Ferminal]

+1

CN forum seems to be the refuge for LA-hating obsessives and conspiracy theorists banned or discouraged away from other forums. I suspect they're dishing out what they got elsewhere.

What conspiracy theories would they be?

 

[Hugh Januss]

I have seen a lot of these posts on this forum. From what I have gathered, unless you trash Lance, Radioshack, et al. you are likely to be labeled uninformed and then a troll.

You are right, not "trashing" Lance does not make you a troll........just uninformed.

 

[tubularglue]

It's in the hands of the Federal Gov't now. Interpol to connect the dots.

GQ has turned.

http://www.gq.com/images/sports/2010/08/lance-armstrong/lance-armstrong_628x434.jpg

let the madness
purge
leak by leak
truth by truth

 

[BroDeal]

Hit them where it hurts - sign up fee!

With the forum software being used this is likely the only thing that would be foolproof. It would also get rid of spam. CN could get rich from BPC.

If some of the forum software moved into the 21st century then we would have Slashdot-style community moderation.

A moderator reviewing a user's inital posts for a short while would get rid of the formulaic anti-Lemond posts, which seem to be written with a set of talking points, that pop up by single post users every time an article by Lemond appears. But BPC would go just back to pretending to be sane for his first few dozen posts before going full ***.

Forbidding free e-mail accounts is a bit of a problem for many people because they use a service like gmail as their permanent e-mail account. Almost everyone has a non-free account they could use for registration. Personally I do not like giving out my "real" e-mail addresses. Aside from privacy issues, there are often spam issues.

 

[Deagol]

I've stated here before... I was an uninformed Armstrong fanboy. Unfortunately for the LA fanbase, I took it upon myself to actually read the info that is out there. .....

Yup, same with me. I still have the yellow bracelet, too. I'll probably toss it, though.

I lurked on this forum from the very beginning and remember thinking you all were conspiricy theorists. My first few posts were along those lines.

Then I stoped having opinions based on what I "thought" was the situation and started reading.

I even added a "hater" signature line that is sort of an inside joke for long-term posters here. It was from a poster who called himself "Oldnell" or something like that. If you remember him, you will get the joke.

It was not only LA that turned me against himself (during the 2009 TDF) but also the very people who come here to "defend" him. The defense has become a bit more nasty as of late and I think that they may actually be having the opposite of the intended effect. Most of the LA fans here (no need to name names) are Lemond/Contador haters, so I don't take the labels very seriously anymore.

 

[creeve]

With the forum software being used this is likely the only thing that would be foolproof. It would also get rid of spam. CN could get rich from BPC.

If some of the forum software moved into the 21st century then we would have Slashdot-style community moderation.

A moderator reviewing a user's posts for a short while would get rid of the formulaic anti-Armstrong posts, which seem to be written with a set of talking points, that pop up by angry users every time an article about Armstrong appears. But BPC would go just back to pretending to be sane for his first few dozen posts before going full ***.

Forbidding free e-mail accounts is a bit of a problem for many people because they use a service like gmail as their permanent e-mail account. Almost everyone has a non-free account they could use for registration. Personally I do not like giving out my "real" e-mail addresses. Aside from privacy issues, there are often spam issues.

There ya go - fixed that for you!

 

[BroDeal]

I am a Lance Armstrong obsessed douchebag.

There ya go - fixed that for you!

 

[forumlurker]

didn't read any of the previous 9 pages, so i apologize if i am repeating anything. all forums have their trolls, and i don't think this one, *** as it has become, is any worse than the next.

i would prefer this and any forum to have its trolls rather than become an overly moderated piece of sh!t. a lot of trolls are obvious, to a pathetic degree (bpc, et al.) i think the best thing one can do is to not feed the trolls. don't acknowledge the post. don't quote it. don't respond to it. just report it and ignore it. we are all a bunch of voices, screaming at the void that is the intrawebz. really, do you care what anyone else thinks? does it matter? let it go, and give your attention to the posts that actually merit it.

OMGINEEDATTENTIONLOOKATME!!!!111

 

[Anonymous]

Sigh - I'll give it another shot - try and keep up - read it several times if you don't get it the first few times - I'm "fairly certain" you can do it! (you actually replied with a rather sane post - until your little zinger at the end - which is precisely what I'm talking about).

1. I'm not sure that the number of posts I have is at all relevant - are you suggesting that you have to post 2K times to finally "get" it? Love your logic.

2. I am actually very well versed in the topic of doping in cycling (and sports in general) and I am in no way a fan of Armstrong (or Lemond for that matter) - I'm a Jens Voigt girl. What is bothersome is the attitude of your self-appointed "experts" who drink their own kool aid and are shocked - SHOCKED when others call them on their petty agendas. They are very small minds that become very agitated and use ad hominem attacks when they are not agreed with. When that doesn't work, they cry for their opposition to be banned as TROLLS (what a horrible label ).

3. I haven't looked at their blogs - must be fascinating reading by these junior detectives. They should be proud. I'm sure that they've parsed all of the available evidence to fit their paridigm/agenda - who needs impartiality!?!? For what it's worth, I think Armstrong (and possibly Lemond) doped. Do I have any definitive evidence? Nope. Neither do you or the junior detective league. You can have your opinion - just don't attack others for theirs.

I'm fairly certain the above will be lost on you - but I gave it a shot nonetheless.

You came out of the box pretty strong. You will believe what you choose. You might start with Ashenden, or not. Frankly, I could not care less.

So Lemond possibly doped? Any evidence? I didn't think so.


The highlighted above is extremely obvious. While your tongue is sharp your mind is not. Too bad for you.

 

[creeve]

There ya go - fixed that for you!

Wow BroDeal - you are an angry man. But when the truth hurts, I guess that's the best you can do. Try actually riding your bike sometime - it might make you less angry. But maybe you're just a pathetic, little pudgy man who uses his internet muscles instead. If you want a challenge, let's ride - unless you're afraid a chic would beat you . Road, mountain, cross - I've ridden them all as a pro

 

[Anonymous]

Sigh - I'll give it another shot - try and keep up - read it several times if you don't get it the first few times - I'm "fairly certain" you can do it! (you actually replied with a rather sane post - until your little zinger at the end - which is precisely what I'm talking about).

1. I'm not sure that the number of posts I have is at all relevant - are you suggesting that you have to post 2K times to finally "get" it? Love your logic.

2. I am actually very well versed in the topic of doping in cycling (and sports in general) and I am in no way a fan of Armstrong (or Lemond for that matter) - I'm a Jens Voigt girl. What is bothersome is the attitude of your self-appointed "experts" who drink their own kool aid and are shocked - SHOCKED when others call them on their petty agendas. They are very small minds that become very agitated and use ad hominem attacks when they are not agreed with. When that doesn't work, they cry for their opposition to be banned as TROLLS (what a horrible label ).

3. I haven't looked at their blogs - must be fascinating reading by these junior detectives. They should be proud. I'm sure that they've parsed all of the available evidence to fit their paridigm/agenda - who needs impartiality!?!? For what it's worth, I think Armstrong (and possibly Lemond) doped. Do I have any definitive evidence? Nope. Neither do you or the junior detective league. You can have your opinion - just don't attack others for theirs.

I'm fairly certain the above will be lost on you - but I gave it a shot nonetheless.

Standard fanboy/girl line from page 5, paragraph 2. Man, it is too easy to pick them out when they follow the handbook that closely...I guess it is because most of them are too dense to make it through a difficult 56 page tome. They never get to the final chapter where it tells them to mix it up a bit so that it will not be so obvious they read the handbook.

And obviously, this one has the 2nd edition because she (unconvinced this is true) is still spouting the "no proof" line. I guess she (unconvinced this is true) needs the 8th edition where the line is changed to "everyone else doped, so who cares." Then again the 9th edition says to begin talking about how it is a "waste" of taxpayer money to pursue this case.

Anyway, nothing new to see here. I suggest everyone just move along. It just isn't worth dredging up 5 year old arguments.

 

[BroDeal]

I am a a pathetic, little pudgy man.

There. Fixed it for you.

 

[Anonymous]

Wow BroDeal - you are an angry man. But when the truth hurts, I guess that's the best you can do. Try actually riding your bike sometime - it might make you less angry. But maybe you're just a pathetic, little pudgy man who uses his internet muscles instead. If you want a challenge, let's ride - unless you're afraid a chic would beat you . Road, mountain, cross - I've ridden them all as a pro

Page 14, paragraph 3. Man, she (unconvinced this is true) is hitting all of the fanboy/girl lines!

Pretty soon we will get the diatribe about how sad we are for taking the time to post about Armstrong so much, by someone posting about Armstrong almost exclusively. If I hadn't seen this type of thing THOUSANDS of times, it might even be a bit amusing, but it just isn't...it just isn't.

 

[creeve]

You came out of the box pretty strong. You will believe what you choose. You might start with Ashenden, or not. Frankly, I could not care less.

So Lemond possibly doped? Any evidence? I didn't think so.


The highlighted above is extremely obvious. While your tongue is sharp your mind is not. Too bad for you.

Read my post again - slowly this time. I am no fan-girl for Armstrong. It is probable that he doped. It is "possible" that Lemond doped. I have actually met Mike Ashenden and have read his opinions. Again, what I have a problem with is the inability of the "lifers" on this forum to allow anyone to have a contrary opinion. When they do, they are berated and belittled. I have lurked here for some time and have been disgusted by the beat downs that occur on a daily basis. If you want constructive, civil debates - I'll share what I know from my direct experiences. If not, I'll go away. Happily

 

[Anonymous]

There. Fixed it for you.

Isn't that cute Bro, she (unconvinced this is true) rode as a pro...A PRO!!!! Why, any PRO (unconvinced this is true) is sure to know so much more because they were a PRO. I am just sooooo honored that a real PRO is posting here...

 

[Anonymous]

Read my post again - slowly this time. I am no fan-girl for Armstrong. It is probable that he doped. It is "possible" that Lemond doped. I have actually met Mike Ashenden and have read his opinions. Again, what I have a problem with is the inability of the "lifers" on this forum to allow anyone to have a contrary opinion. When they do, they are berated and belittled. I have lurked here for some time and have been disgusted by the beat downs that occur on a daily basis. If you want constructive, civil debates - I'll share what I know from my direct experiences. If not, I'll go away. Happily

Wow, hitting all the right notes...man, you studied that book well!

Why not just "happily" go away? You haven't written ANYTHING we have not read hundreds and probably THOUSANDS of times. Save yourself the keyboard time and just stop now. We all read the book too...

 

[Martin318is]

STOP!

I am about to delete the off topic conversation in this thread. Any further off topic comments in this thread below the following line will result in infractions and potential temporary account suspension.



The line --------------------------------------------------------

 

[Ferminal]

Awesome typo on account!

 

[Martin318is]

put in a time delay between registering and being able to sign in and post. If you put a week or so between this, most trolls will not take the effort, and perhaps BPC stays away for an entire week

Won't stop BPC he creates as many as 5 new accounts a day. He can just keep doing that and then using the new accounts when the time is up.

It seems that the greatest vitriol appears within the first 5 posts, then the offender disappears back into obscurity. Give all new members a 10 or 15-post probationary period and see who the real ones are.

BPC can sometimes get as far as 15 to 20 posts quite calmly before he is outed and the problems really start.

Could someone check the logs to see if there are multiple usernames posting from the same IP? If an IP is associated with more than two usernames (two instead of one to give them benefit of the doubt), they're probably up to some sort of tomfoolery.

We do try to do this but we don't currently get notified about new users. We only do this about suspect members. This means that we definitely go through this process when handling a member that unfortunately crucially has already gone off the rails.

Sorry. The forum has already been genetically modified toward a bias by board administration. That would only make it worse.

I am interested to hear what this comment actually means. I am not aware of any institutionalised bias here against anything other than abuse of forum rules such as offensive behaviour etc. Ihave certainly never been given any directino on this and have disagreed with a number of moderators and forum regulars on an almost daily basis. Are you telling me that I am supposed to automatically assist one side of a particular arguement?

Moderators need to start actually moderating (i.e. babysitting) every forum thread and ensure that bad posts are deleted before posted. That creates a lot of work for sure, but maybe eventually the "trolls" on both sides will simply stop and go elswhere so that real debate can happen.

Ummm, we do. But its not like we are being paid to wade through infinite piles of Lance vs Anti-Lance and he said/she said, for instance. I am online here for nearly 10 hours per day and what do I get for it other than claims that I am biased? Even being here that long I will still get to a thread such as this one AFTER it has run to many pages. I then have to go BACK in time to clean it up. How far back is it appropriate to go on a thread?...

This forum has a definite slant due to long time posters of a certain opinion, supported by equally slanted moderation as you have seen in this thread. .......
I will continue to question the status quo in here when hypocrisy rears its head (it happens alot).

see my previous comment. I am not biased at all. I don't care about your or anyone else's fixed position on any particular issue. I am only interested in keeping this place as somewhere that new members would enjoy visiting and be happy to stay. With that in mind, please tell me why about 80% of what you wrote so far in this thread should not be deleted by me as being knowingly off topic and trollishly inflamatory? If nothing else it is truly you that is the hypocrite.

Perhaps another worth considering would be the prohibition of accounts registered with the use of anonymous email services (hotmail, gmail, yahoo mail, etc.). This likely wouldn't stop the multiple account trolls, but it would put up a nice barrier

I'm a moderator but the only professional email address I have is a hotmail account. So I would have to create a paid email account to continue to moderate this forum... I know a LOT of people in IT contracting or just plain home users that are in a similar position. Generally companies frown on using a company email domain in this fashion.

.... or at least credit card verification.
Of course, those of us that have been around for a while without misbehaving too much would be exempted.

Do you REALLY want your credit card recorded in yet another slightly risky location?
And no, I believe that whatever process is put in place would need to be back applied to every single user account. Otherwise we are just letting sleeping trolls have a free ride into the new community.

That said, I think some minor fee would be a great idea if it was via a third party secure payment site for instance.

 

[skidmark]

Wait, why are we talking about facts, Armstrong and Lemond? I thought we were talking about trolls. I also thought that trolls were people who posted on internet forums and said provocative things to pick a fight (also, mean creatures that lived under bridges, but that's not what we're talking about). This whole confusion of the two is something that really frustrates me on this forum.

There are lots of people on here who are passionate cycling fans, and don't like Armstrong a) on a sporting level, because of his single-minded Tour approach and b) on a fan level, because he brought single-minded Lance fans to forums (among many other reasons, but these are 2 important ones to narrow it down). Many who consider themselves 'purist' fans feel this disrespects the sport, or at least this seems to be the sentiment I see (and share, incidentally), so they get touchy when he's brought up. There are also lots of people who like Armstrong, or at least were introduced to the sport through him. They feel like they have something to contribute as well here, and often get cut short by forum members for being Lance fans, often to the point where people who don't even like Armstrong (I, at least, believe that this line is genuine with some posters) get lambasted for suggesting a point of view that might in some way defend the man, or question somebody who is questioning him.

That said, the subject of Armstrong brings a lot of heated debate, especially with the perfect storm of serious doping allegations and the furore of the TdF. So it's been bad lately. Also, our resident troll has gotten in the (hot)heads of a few of our posters here and he mostly participates in discussions around this man. This has created an environment when any discussion about trolling gets conflated with these topics.

What I wish is that mods would be able to be sensitive to the difference between forum members bickering with each other and people who are only here to start some crap, and that people who give an aggressive verbal dressing down to another poster, whether it's an established poster or a new one, get warned for their behaviour. This may already happen, but I read so much seemingly preemptive aggression, directed from or towards first-time posters, that it doesn't seem to be effective if it is there at all. I was away from the internet for a few months this spring and when I came back I went through some old threads and noticed that a number of members that I was used to seeing (ChrisE, thehog and oncearunner to name a few) were banned, obviously for some stuff that happened when I wasn't around. Although I remember seeing those guys pick fights in my time, I also remember them contributing things that suggested they were big cycling fans, and I've seen similar vitriol from guys like RaceRadio, TFF and BroDeal, for example, all of whom contribute alot to cycling discussion and who are not banned right now. I think that's fine to have that mix of on-topic discussion and off-topic bickering, it's a forum. Maybe I missed some inside goings on and there were repeated warnings or something, but I'm wary when people who have established that they don't just have a narrow agenda get banned. I recognize that it's a tough line to toe and I sympathize with mods who have had to deal with a megatroll and deleted tons of posts. But from the perspective of a daily forum reader, there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency with regards to banning.

Personally, I'd rather have everyone here - I like what all of the above mentioned posters have to contribute to racing topics, and I sometimes get a chuckle out of the witticisms that come out during the inevitable bickering matches (ironic case in point - this thread). And I've read the forum rules. But I still don't understand what is the invisible line one has to cross to be banned, because I've seen very similar words from people who have been banned and people who have not been banned. Perhaps a mod could clarify what is the invisible line that one has to cross to be banned?

Anyways, blah blah blah. Apparently I had a few things to say. But really, what I wanted to say is why has this thread degenerated into talks about Armstrong and his fans? To broadly tie advocacy/hatred for Armstrong with trolling is dangerous and silly. I'm fascinated by talking about his upcoming investigation, but man, he's retired for good now. I wanna just start focusing on cycling for the sport it is, and on discussions here for the engaging things they could be.

Also, I want a pony.

 

[Ferminal]

On a more serious note.

I agree very much with all of what forumlurker says.

The only problem I see is all these people coming from nowhere, making new threads (mainly re: LeMond) in the wrong forum, producing some diatribe and then letting carnage ensue. It's not the regular "trolls" or disruptors, just these ones that come from nowhere that are a problem.