Mods. Help. Please. The madness must stop

[Martin318is]

Awesome typo on account!

thanks Ferminal

okay THIS is the new line:



-----------------------------------------------

 

[Martin318is]

...noticed that a number of members that I was used to seeing ...were banned, obviously for some stuff that happened when I wasn't around.

The bannings mentioned were generally for things such as usage of sockpuppets and continued plagiarisation after repeated warnings.

Perhaps a problem for a lot of people is that what you don't see are the multitude of private messages, infractions, and other efforts that mods go to behind the scenes? You dont see the warnings, and you dont see the contrite apologies from the offender (and you CERTAINLY dont see the abusive responses from some offenders).

Often it is the reaction to the warning that will tip the balance in terms of the penalty imposed.

Its like a duck on a pond looking like nothing is happening when really the feet are swimming like mad (admittedly in this case the duck looks like its actually at risk of drowning in the weeds at times)

 

[Anonymous]

The bannings mentioned were generally for things such as usage of sockpuppets and continued plagiarisation after repeated warnings.

Perhaps a problem for a lot of people is that what you don't see are the multitude of private messages, infractions, and other efforts that mods go to behind the scenes? You dont see the warnings, and you dont see the contrite apologies from the offender (and you CERTAINLY dont see the abusive responses from some offenders).

Often it is the reaction to the warning that will tip the balance in terms of the penalty imposed.

Its like a duck on a pond looking like nothing is happening when really the feet are swimming like mad (admittedly in this case the duck looks like its actually at risk of drowning in the weeds at times)

You guys do a good job with what you have at your disposal.

I willfully admit that I troll here sometimes. I write overly dramatic responses for a reason...and not a very good one. I also engage in meaningful discussions involving a number of subjects, and rarely if ever really hold a grudge against anyone...with the exception of BPC. There are a number of people who are not anti-lance whom I engage in much friendlier terms than many of the new guys. Over time, I have learned that some of them are decent people who have a difference of opinion. I also note that forums are always places where the expressive language is more lively than in real life.

I am not sure there is anything that can be done about people like BPC or those 2 post wonders who seem to pop up whenever Lemond is mentioned? In reality, they have a right to post here, and post whatever they want.

I have about 2 more weeks of posting, and then I will not be here much. In that time, I will try to not get banned.

 

[skidmark]

The bannings mentioned were generally for things such as usage of sockpuppets and continued plagiarisation after repeated warnings.

Perhaps a problem for a lot of people is that what you don't see are the multitude of private messages, infractions, and other efforts that mods go to behind the scenes? You dont see the warnings, and you dont see the contrite apologies from the offender (and you CERTAINLY dont see the abusive responses from some offenders).

Often it is the reaction to the warning that will tip the balance in terms of the penalty imposed.

Its like a duck on a pond looking like nothing is happening when really the feet are swimming like mad (admittedly in this case the duck looks like its actually at risk of drowning in the weeds at times)

Yep. Thank you for that elaboration. That's, I guess, what I expected, but it explains a lot. In your post that went up at the same time as mine, you mention the thankless 10 hours a day of patrolling the forums. Well thanks. It's hard to really know what the hell is going on if you're not someone who's posted 6000 times and is obviously on enough to see everything, what gets deleted and what doesn't. And you're forced to draw your own conclusions, fuelled by some people saying 'the mods are biased' and the like. And then, as happened to me the other day, you might get a seemingly benign humorous dig of yours edited by a mod with no explanation and think 'what the hell? Posters X and Y say waaay more inflammatory things and don't get edited'. So you inevitably start to wonder. With that in mind, it's good to hear some background.

Really, my approach to the forums is rather simple-minded, innocently wishing to discuss and read about cycling from fellow fans. This sock-puppet/troll stuff is totally beyond me with regards to why someone would be motivated to do that, so I don't even think about that as possible motivation. I'm guessing I'm not alone in this approach.

 

[Martin318is]

Put it this way - I don't post much because a) I dont really feel the need to talk a lot and b) I dont have the time anyway.

In the time i have been posting in this thread this afternoon I have also reacted to 5 PMs on other topics, banned a user, banned a BPC account, issued several warnings and reviewed about 10 other threads.

The reason I menion this is twofold:

1) Imagine what could have been posted in this thread during that time that I wouldn't have seen till just now (often several pages could be added)

2) Jus tthink about all the OTHER threads that I haven't even had a chance to get to yet....


to be clear I am NOT complaining about any of that. I clearly do it because I enjoy the effort required in helping out the site community. I am just trying to assist with more background about why some things dont get the attention they clearly deserve at the TIME they deserve it.

 

[SaftyCyclist]

Take the trolls infultration as a complement, they're probably doing this all over the world on forums in every language, they're hitting places where there's a load of information coming out into the public which may be damaging to their cause. They can't stop the information coming out, because it's true, so they try to discourage folks reading it, imagine how much junk is filling up journalists emails who 'dare' to suggest that Lance was doping. These people also know he doped, hence the continued suggestion that 'everybody doped', all similar language, they might not even be getting paid for it, they probably believe without question everything that comes out of that misinformation foundation, so we probably can't get rid of them instantly, but as moew facts come out and the investigation starts in earnest, reality may hit hard.

 

[irritated_cycling_fan]

Do you all ever even Think about what you post?!

If you all were capable of objectively reading all the crap you all have posted, you might realize that you sound as prejudice as members of a white-only country club, in the deep south, from the 1950's! "Why not just say 'You are not welcome to the CyclingNews forums if:

1. If you don't agree or are undecided on whether or not LA has doped and/or Bruyneel is the worst and most corrupt team manager ever - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

2. If you aren't willing to rant and rave continuously in every post you make that every rider in the last 20 years who has won a professional race is a doper -- you should not be allowed to join the forums.

3. If you don't agree that the UCI and the IOC and WADA and any other cycling related organization, is corrupt because they are not actively and publicly trash talking Bruyneel and/or LA - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

3. If you are not someone who likes to use idiotic, mean-spirited and/or down right vicious terminology and name calling when speaking of people and/or organizations that don't agree with you - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

4. If you don't think that Greg Lemond is the only rider who has won the Tour who rode clean or think that the way Lemond has handled his quest to clean up cycling does more damage than good - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

5. If you continue to think that Floyd Landis is a self serving, lying, cheat and not the 'savior of cycling' even if everything he has said might be true - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

6. If you find it more interesting to keep an open mind and enjoy being rational and logical and not make statements as though they were proven truths when they are simply your own opinions - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

7. If you don't believe that every new user who doesn't immediately trash LA, or praise Floyd Landis is someone called BPC or the Hog, who has been banned from the forums - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

8. If you believe that it is likely that LA has doped but still think that his LiveStrong organization and his worldwide fight against cancer is something that he honestly believes in - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

9. If you hate doping in the sport and believe that it is very likely that many in the Peloton have actually doped, but still can enjoy cycling because if the majority of the Peloton is doping it's still going to be the strongest and hardest working riders who win - you shouldn't be allowed to join the forums.

10. If you think that the real 'trolls' are the bullies who try to keep anyone who doesn't think exactly the same way they do from being allowed to post and sadly moderators of the site are included -- you should not be allowed to join the forums.

I seriously doubt that any of you own CyclingNews so what gives any of you the right to say who should or should not be allowed to join? As long as a member is not doing something illegal or being offensive (which is a joke in itself considering that a number of the 'regulars' don't seem to know how to post without being offensive), they have just as much right to join and post to these PUBLIC forums as do those of you who are considered 'senior members'.

Okay 'trolls', take your shots.

 

[Barrus]

Something that I think needs to be implemented regardless, is that new poster are not able to immediately post new threads, just look at the amounts of bogus threads we get about the same stuff, over and over again, most from posters with only one or but a few posts to their name

@ irritated, the problem is that a lot of the problems you mention stem from a single source, namely BPC, due to him most people are wary of new posteers, and especially new posters who start up discussions that have been dealt to death with on this forum, mainly about LA and his opponents, mainly stating of the first that he did not dope and about the latter that they did dope and are bitter, often it later, or even immediately appears that that new poster was indeed BPC and this means people become even more wary in the future. When BPC leaves and has been gone for some time, it will probably once again be a nicer place

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Something that I think needs to be implemented regardless, is that new poster are not able to immediately post new threads, just look at the amounts of bogus threads we get about the same stuff, over and over again, most from posters with only one or but a few posts to their name

Great - do it now please CN

 

[theswordsman]

It's not about new versus senior members. It's about a focus, organized attack for very specific topics that wouldn't normally attract a crowd of strangers. I've always defended new posters in the past, and welcomed fresh perspectives. But I spent the night in the clinic the night the Landis story first broke in the Wall Street Journal, and people started popping up out of nowhere to spin things.

I saw a youtube video someone shot at the 2009 ATOC. A van load of Livestrong volunteers pulled up to an intersection where people were standing waiting for the race. They quickly handed out yellow chalk, urging people to "write messages for Lance". One woman responded. "what about George?" The rest of the crew wrote messages, then headed into the van so they could repeat it again and again, giving the appearance that all of the people along the route had written messages for him, and were there to see him race. Really it was just a van load of the Livestrong Army - I have no idea if they were paid or volunteers. I remember thinking at he time that if they tried that at the Tour, real fans would kick their bums. I guess that's why chalkbot came into view.

A lot of threads here end up looking like a flash mob hit. I don't know if it's individuals or puppets. But when fifty new people show up within a couple of hours, somehow making it through the main page to the same specific topic in the clinic, and all fifty share the exact same point of view, then it looks just like that chalk covered road in California.

All of our time has value. But there's no spam protector here. If we don't want to read one person, there's an ignore list, but that one night I spoke of, they were cranking out new accounts faster than I could block them. I've seen Zimbio used so that a Google News search before the Tour brought up mostly articles about Lance and cancer. It was an intentional manipulation, a way to dilute the number of genuine news stories to make it appear balanced.

The same is happening here, it's obvious, we've been through it before. Go ahead and try to tell people what they should think. pew some propaganda. You're not winning public support, you're not changing our views of Landis, LeMond, or anyone else who might be a target for slung mud.

You're wasting your time, and ours. And if you're paid to be here, just think if your efforts could actually go towards cancer awareness instead of trying to convince people Greg used EPO.

 

[irritated_cycling_fan]

Don't attribute your venom to me

It's not about new versus senior members. It's about a focus, organized attack for very specific topics that wouldn't normally attract a crowd of strangers. I've always defended new posters in the past, and welcomed fresh perspectives. But I spent the night in the clinic the night the Landis story first broke in the Wall Street Journal, and people started popping up out of nowhere to spin things.

I saw a youtube video someone shot at the 2009 ATOC. A van load of Livestrong volunteers pulled up to an intersection where people were standing waiting for the race. They quickly handed out yellow chalk, urging people to "write messages for Lance". One woman responded. "what about George?" The rest of the crew wrote messages, then headed into the van so they could repeat it again and again, giving the appearance that all of the people along the route had written messages for him, and were there to see him race. Really it was just a van load of the Livestrong Army - I have no idea if they were paid or volunteers. I remember thinking at he time that if they tried that at the Tour, real fans would kick their bums. I guess that's why chalkbot came into view.

A lot of threads here end up looking like a flash mob hit. I don't know if it's individuals or puppets. But when fifty new people show up within a couple of hours, somehow making it through the main page to the same specific topic in the clinic, and all fifty share the exact same point of view, then it looks just like that chalk covered road in California.

All of our time has value. But there's no spam protector here. If we don't want to read one person, there's an ignore list, but that one night I spoke of, they were cranking out new accounts faster than I could block them. I've seen Zimbio used so that a Google News search before the Tour brought up mostly articles about Lance and cancer. It was an intentional manipulation, a way to dilute the number of genuine news stories to make it appear balanced.

The same is happening here, it's obvious, we've been through it before. Go ahead and try to tell people what they should think. pew some propaganda. You're not winning public support, you're not changing our views of Landis, LeMond, or anyone else who might be a target for slung mud.

You're wasting your time, and ours. And if you're paid to be here, just think if your efforts could actually go towards cancer awareness instead of trying to convince people Greg used EPO.

Thank you for proving my point -

I am not or did I, 'sling mud' at anyone, but you did.

Not once in any fashion did I even suggest that people here should change the way they think about Landis, or Armstrong, or Lemond or anyone else. You said that. I merely said that anyone who doesn't agree with what you think are the people you don't want participating.

I also never said or implied that I think Greg used EPO or any other drug. Again, you said that not me. I said that anyone who might believe that there have been other winners (which does not automatically mean LA) who have been clean or that think there is a more constructive way to handle doping in the Peloton than Greg's methods, are also people you do not want on the forums.

I very honestly pointed out some issues with this thread and many of the people who post. I did so without calling anyone names. Without saying anyone was wrong or needed to change. Without being abusive in any manner. My whole post was really asking the question why is it that those members who seem to only want to say negative things about cycling and are just as fanatical in their criticisms as the LA fans are in their support, think they are the only ones who have the right to be a part of the forums?

Fanatical fans of either ilk can be a royal pain. So there are people who believe that LA can walk on water, there are also people who rant as though he were the anti-christ. Why is one belief okay and the other not? As for writing messages at the Tour, which Tour are you watching?! Locals and tourists from every country leave messages on the roads throughout France during the Tour. Contador had messages. Schleck had messages. Basso had messages. Most likely every single French rider had messages. That's been happening at the Tour long before LA rode his first one. Your 'real fans' would be too busy writing their own messages to kick anyone else's bums. lol

What I would like to know now is why you felt it necessary to attribute thoughts, beliefs or statements to me that I never said or implied? Why do you feel it necessary to attack me? I'm obviously not a part of these 'flash mobs' you mention. I'm not here supporting LA or anyone else. I'm not trying to win anyone's support. I'm not telling anyone what they should or should not think and I'm certainly not spouting propaganda. I simply believe that everyone has the right to post their own opinions on a public forum. I pointed out that in my opinion this thread seems to be in support of homogenizing the forums and I don't think that's fair.

Although you throw the phrase out like it's a bad thing, I do put in a lot of effort on cancer awareness. I lost my father, my mother and an Aunt to cancer and I would love to see real cures developed. BUT - I don't do so through LiveStrong. I support the American Cancer Society and the Susan B. Komen project.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I'm afraid I agree.

I wish I had the power to stop it, but I do not.

People have the right to post whatever they want unless it is not offensive or degrading of others. Otherwise you can't tell someone off for having a different opinion no matter how absurd it is. Anyway, isn't this what a forum is about? arguing over issues in cycling. How are you going to distinguish between trolls (people trying to cause trouble) and people who actually think such things which may seem absurd? Stupid thread.

 

[badboygolf16v]

It's not about new versus senior members. It's about a focus, organized attack for very specific topics that wouldn't normally attract a crowd of strangers. I've always defended new posters in the past, and welcomed fresh perspectives. But I spent the night in the clinic the night the Landis story first broke in the Wall Street Journal, and people started popping up out of nowhere to spin things.

I saw a youtube video someone shot at the 2009 ATOC. A van load of Livestrong volunteers pulled up to an intersection where people were standing waiting for the race. They quickly handed out yellow chalk, urging people to "write messages for Lance". One woman responded. "what about George?" The rest of the crew wrote messages, then headed into the van so they could repeat it again and again, giving the appearance that all of the people along the route had written messages for him, and were there to see him race. Really it was just a van load of the Livestrong Army - I have no idea if they were paid or volunteers. I remember thinking at he time that if they tried that at the Tour, real fans would kick their bums. I guess that's why chalkbot came into view.

A lot of threads here end up looking like a flash mob hit. I don't know if it's individuals or puppets. But when fifty new people show up within a couple of hours, somehow making it through the main page to the same specific topic in the clinic, and all fifty share the exact same point of view, then it looks just like that chalk covered road in California.

All of our time has value. But there's no spam protector here. If we don't want to read one person, there's an ignore list, but that one night I spoke of, they were cranking out new accounts faster than I could block them. I've seen Zimbio used so that a Google News search before the Tour brought up mostly articles about Lance and cancer. It was an intentional manipulation, a way to dilute the number of genuine news stories to make it appear balanced.

The same is happening here, it's obvious, we've been through it before. Go ahead and try to tell people what they should think. pew some propaganda. You're not winning public support, you're not changing our views of Landis, LeMond, or anyone else who might be a target for slung mud.

You're wasting your time, and ours. And if you're paid to be here, just think if your efforts could actually go towards cancer awareness instead of trying to convince people Greg used EPO.

Sums up my sentiments, far more eloquently than I could ever manage.

 

[badboygolf16v]

People have the right to post whatever they want unless it is not offensive or degrading of others. Stupid thread.

I believe these people are being cynical in the extreme, and the notion of debating a point they believe in doesn't even enter into it. When it was just BPC, then fair enough, it's easy to ignore. These kinds of posts seem to me to have amped up recently. There is no honesty in them, as far as I can see.

Your view does vary.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I believe these people are being cynical in the extreme, and the notion of debating a point they believe in doesn't even enter into it. When it was just BPC, then fair enough, it's easy to ignore. These kinds of posts seem to me to have amped up recently. There is no honesty in them, as far as I can see.

Your view does vary.

how are you going to distinguish such trolls?

 

[sartain]

Where have all the (for want of a better word) trolls come from?

Every thread is ruined by cynical cowards posting inflammatory rubbish.

There have always been a few, but now, it's just crazy.

Mods, I implore you, please stop them. This forum is ruined otherwise.

Anyone else agree?

No, I do not agree . . . what are we trying to stop?

 

[SpeedWay]

If you all were capable of objectively reading all the crap you all have posted, you might realize that you sound as prejudice as members of a white-only country club, in the deep south, from the 1950's! "Why not just say 'You are not welcome to the CyclingNews forums if:

1. If you don't agree or are undecided on whether or not LA has doped and/or Bruyneel is the worst and most corrupt team manager ever - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

2. If you aren't willing to rant and rave continuously in every post you make that every rider in the last 20 years who has won a professional race is a doper -- you should not be allowed to join the forums.

3. If you don't agree that the UCI and the IOC and WADA and any other cycling related organization, is corrupt because they are not actively and publicly trash talking Bruyneel and/or LA - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

3. If you are not someone who likes to use idiotic, mean-spirited and/or down right vicious terminology and name calling when speaking of people and/or organizations that don't agree with you - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

4. If you don't think that Greg Lemond is the only rider who has won the Tour who rode clean or think that the way Lemond has handled his quest to clean up cycling does more damage than good - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

5. If you continue to think that Floyd Landis is a self serving, lying, cheat and not the 'savior of cycling' even if everything he has said might be true - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

6. If you find it more interesting to keep an open mind and enjoy being rational and logical and not make statements as though they were proven truths when they are simply your own opinions - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

7. If you don't believe that every new user who doesn't immediately trash LA, or praise Floyd Landis is someone called BPC or the Hog, who has been banned from the forums - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

8. If you believe that it is likely that LA has doped but still think that his LiveStrong organization and his worldwide fight against cancer is something that he honestly believes in - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

9. If you hate doping in the sport and believe that it is very likely that many in the Peloton have actually doped, but still can enjoy cycling because if the majority of the Peloton is doping it's still going to be the strongest and hardest working riders who win - you shouldn't be allowed to join the forums.

10. If you think that the real 'trolls' are the bullies who try to keep anyone who doesn't think exactly the same way they do from being allowed to post and sadly moderators of the site are included -- you should not be allowed to join the forums.

I seriously doubt that any of you own CyclingNews so what gives any of you the right to say who should or should not be allowed to join? As long as a member is not doing something illegal or being offensive (which is a joke in itself considering that a number of the 'regulars' don't seem to know how to post without being offensive), they have just as much right to join and post to these PUBLIC forums as do those of you who are considered 'senior members'.

Okay 'trolls', take your shots.

Your 10 commandments are the word, dude. These commandments would definitely make this forum a very happy place for the majority of posters. They should really implement this based on the "majority rule" doctrine.
It would be more work for the moderators but would definitely sanitize the site for those esteemed members who provide endless entertainment in their quixotic efforts to bend "the trolls" mind to their infallible point of view - over and over and over again.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

At least you have moved on from calling me BPC like I was called on one of my first posts on the moderator thread. Can I also shed the label of "Public Strategy plant", "willfully stupid", and my favorite one "sick puppy"? Actually, keep that one because it does sorta describe me.

If you are the hatchet man you can unhatchet some of these uncool names that are causing me emotional harm? Thanks.

Moving on, if I am who you think I am then that proves my point. Why was I banned RR? This will get to the heart of this stupid thread and maybe the OP can go have a bowel movement.

Here's a hypothetical to ponder because you just think you know who I am ....maybe another poster called me a name on a thread and maybe I responded in kind. Then, maybe I got banned and the other poster didn't.

Maybe I got banned because I was critical of the groupthink in here, even though 99% of the time I believed in basically the same thing but just questioned some of the hypocrisy and rabidness.

Maybe the other poster is one of the good old boys in CN forums and thus I was the one that got banned and was made an example of.....an example of what the OP of this fukd up thread is really saying.

Maybe if all of that happened then maybe you can see my point. Just maybe, but I doubt it.

The reason you were banned was because you opened a new account (dickwrench 13th May 2010) while operating another account ChrisE (last post 5th June 2010).

And under this current account you appear to be more fixated with forum members then any subject - I don't like posters being banned but you flagrantly broke the rules to 'bait' with another username.


I am not in favor of a 'quarantine' of new members.

BPC is determined and will circumvent any new measures. So it would only punish those who wish to join and offer an opinion and follow the rules to which the vast majority of the 13,000 members abide.

If someone new joins to bash Lemond/Landis/Lance - so be it, let there opinion and argument stand - we are all capable of judging a post on its merits.

 

[Big GMaC]

BPC is determined and will circumvent any new measures. So it would only punish those who wish to join and offer an opinion and follow the rules to which the vast majority of the 13,000 members abide..

You have to remember that BPC does equal 1-2% of those total members

 

[Martin318is]

If you all were capable of objectively reading all the crap you all have posted, you might realize that you sound as prejudice as members of a white-only country club, in the deep south, from the 1950's! "Why not just say 'You are not welcome to the CyclingNews forums if:

1. If you don't agree or are undecided on whether or not LA has doped and/or Bruyneel is the worst and most corrupt team manager ever - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

2. If you aren't willing to rant and rave continuously in every post you make that every rider in the last 20 years who has won a professional race is a doper -- you should not be allowed to join the forums.

3. If you don't agree that the UCI and the IOC and WADA and any other cycling related organization, is corrupt because they are not actively and publicly trash talking Bruyneel and/or LA - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

3. If you are not someone who likes to use idiotic, mean-spirited and/or down right vicious terminology and name calling when speaking of people and/or organizations that don't agree with you - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

4. If you don't think that Greg Lemond is the only rider who has won the Tour who rode clean or think that the way Lemond has handled his quest to clean up cycling does more damage than good - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

5. If you continue to think that Floyd Landis is a self serving, lying, cheat and not the 'savior of cycling' even if everything he has said might be true - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

6. If you find it more interesting to keep an open mind and enjoy being rational and logical and not make statements as though they were proven truths when they are simply your own opinions - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

7. If you don't believe that every new user who doesn't immediately trash LA, or praise Floyd Landis is someone called BPC or the Hog, who has been banned from the forums - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

8. If you believe that it is likely that LA has doped but still think that his LiveStrong organization and his worldwide fight against cancer is something that he honestly believes in - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

9. If you hate doping in the sport and believe that it is very likely that many in the Peloton have actually doped, but still can enjoy cycling because if the majority of the Peloton is doping it's still going to be the strongest and hardest working riders who win - you shouldn't be allowed to join the forums.

10. If you think that the real 'trolls' are the bullies who try to keep anyone who doesn't think exactly the same way they do from being allowed to post and sadly moderators of the site are included -- you should not be allowed to join the forums.

I seriously doubt that any of you own CyclingNews so what gives any of you the right to say who should or should not be allowed to join? As long as a member is not doing something illegal or being offensive (which is a joke in itself considering that a number of the 'regulars' don't seem to know how to post without being offensive), they have just as much right to join and post to these PUBLIC forums as do those of you who are considered 'senior members'.

Okay 'trolls', take your shots.

I agree with your last paragraph. unfortunately, your well written point is destroyed by the ridiculous accusations you make in the rest of the post. I take it as a personal insult that you believe that I as a member of this forum would agree with any of that.

and I have to say: If you feel like that, why are you even here? (I mean, other than to fire people up in a trollish manner)

 

[ThaiPanda]

The reason you were banned was because you opened a new account (dickwrench 13th May 2010) while operating another account ChrisE (last post 5th June 2010).

And under this current account you appear to be more fixated with forum members then any subject - I don't like posters being banned but you flagrantly broke the rules to 'bait' with another username.


I am not in favor of a 'quarantine' of new members.

BPC is determined and will circumvent any new measures. So it would only punish those who wish to join and offer an opinion and follow the rules to which the vast majority of the 13,000 members abide.

If someone new joins to bash Lemond/Landis/Lance - so be it, let there opinion and argument stand - we are all capable of judging a post on its merits.

Oh really?

Let's keep this up, shall we? The originator of the DW = Chris E public rumor was you, and Python took it and ran. Rumor has it that Susan PM'd Chris E and asked if he was DW, and rumor is he flatly denied it and asked what the source of that was. Chris E also allegedly asked how she could come to such a conclusion since obviously IP addresses are not checked due to the BPC debacle.

Of course, she didn't reply. Then, the next thing we know is Chris E gets banned after getting into it with Python one night (June 5), which would make for about 100 such quarrels. I described this rumored occurance in your quoted post.

That my friend is what the correct rumor should be.

FYI, the Chris E thread never says Chris E got banned for being DW by a mod. Susan states Chris E has "admitted and accepted his banning" which I can strongly suggest may not be true but as you know, Chris E drinks alot and may have sent something to her to stir things up.

IF that is the case then Susan should be able to produce a PM that states such a thing.

Moving on, I am surprised you are in this thread. You are not one of the ones that gets a$$chapped when somebody with a different opinion comes around.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I agree with your last paragraph. unfortunately, your well written point is destroyed by the ridiculous accusations you make in the rest of the post. I take it as a personal insult that you believe that I as a member of this forum would agree with any of that.

and I have to say: If you feel like that, why are you even here? (I mean, other than to fire people up in a trollish manner)

And they miss the rather obvious - if these 'rules' are indeed CN policy, then why is it none of their posts and their account banned?

All those who have been banned recently have been banned for having different/new accounts - this included 'TheHog', who hardly can be described as a fan of Lance.

 

[ThaiPanda]

And they miss the rather obvious - if these 'rules' are indeed CN policy, then why is it none of their posts and their account banned?

All those who have been banned recently have been banned for having different/new accounts - this included 'TheHog', who hardly can be described as a fan of Lance.

Why don't you enlighten us on how you know people have multiple accounts, in all cases? It has been admitted by mods that IP addresses cannot be tracked on CN forums, or at least in the past they have not.

 

[cyclelicious]

If you all were capable of objectively reading all the crap you all have posted, you might realize that you sound as prejudice as members of a white-only country club, in the deep south, from the 1950's! "Why not just say 'You are not welcome to the CyclingNews forums if:

1. If you don't agree or are undecided on whether or not LA has doped and/or Bruyneel is the worst and most corrupt team manager ever - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

2. If you aren't willing to rant and rave continuously in every post you make that every rider in the last 20 years who has won a professional race is a doper -- you should not be allowed to join the forums.

3. If you don't agree that the UCI and the IOC and WADA and any other cycling related organization, is corrupt because they are not actively and publicly trash talking Bruyneel and/or LA - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

3. If you are not someone who likes to use idiotic, mean-spirited and/or down right vicious terminology and name calling when speaking of people and/or organizations that don't agree with you - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

4. If you don't think that Greg Lemond is the only rider who has won the Tour who rode clean or think that the way Lemond has handled his quest to clean up cycling does more damage than good - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

5. If you continue to think that Floyd Landis is a self serving, lying, cheat and not the 'savior of cycling' even if everything he has said might be true - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

6. If you find it more interesting to keep an open mind and enjoy being rational and logical and not make statements as though they were proven truths when they are simply your own opinions - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

7. If you don't believe that every new user who doesn't immediately trash LA, or praise Floyd Landis is someone called BPC or the Hog, who has been banned from the forums - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

8. If you believe that it is likely that LA has doped but still think that his LiveStrong organization and his worldwide fight against cancer is something that he honestly believes in - you should not be allowed to join the forums.

9. If you hate doping in the sport and believe that it is very likely that many in the Peloton have actually doped, but still can enjoy cycling because if the majority of the Peloton is doping it's still going to be the strongest and hardest working riders who win - you shouldn't be allowed to join the forums.

10. If you think that the real 'trolls' are the bullies who try to keep anyone who doesn't think exactly the same way they do from being allowed to post and sadly moderators of the site are included -- you should not be allowed to join the forums.

I seriously doubt that any of you own CyclingNews so what gives any of you the right to say who should or should not be allowed to join? As long as a member is not doing something illegal or being offensive (which is a joke in itself considering that a number of the 'regulars' don't seem to know how to post without being offensive), they have just as much right to join and post to these PUBLIC forums as do those of you who are considered 'senior members'.

Okay 'trolls', take your shots.

I beg to differ Martin. Irritated_cycling_fan’s post expresses perfectly the EXACT tenor of this forum and to say otherwise is disingenuous indeed. Those points are exactly what this forum in it's current state supports.

 

[Race Radio]

I beg to differ Martin. Irritated_cycling_fan’s post expresses perfectly the EXACT tenor of this forum and to say otherwise is disingenuous indeed. Those points are exactly what this forum in it's current state supports.

If this was actually an issue then why not present an alternative point of view? Often what I see is the same "You Guys Suck!" and zero effort to engage in the discussion.