Mods. Help. Please. The madness must stop

[MacRoadie]

Bummer. already on ignore...

Come to think of it, I like this new MO much better. Now there's zero chance I might accidentally read one of his moronic posts. Every PM from an unknown member just gets deleted and the member ignored.

 

[Forum Omerta]

I just forward them to the mods and move on.

I think Martin's email account is full which is why it's taking him so long to get around to banning me.

He's not very pleased with me after I dropped him in it by revealing a deal with did. Not pleased at all.

He is quite a reasonable guy though.

Martin I never got that response by the way, if you did the thing of giving me ten minutes to read it.

 

[Anonymous]

Personally I have almost stopped reading the forum lately because of the mad amounts of spam... Sad thing, definitely. I think the most brilliant proof of the situation is the fact that apparently a (so far) twelve page thread is needed to just start discussing the problem - again personally I haven't bothered to read most of the pages - I feel I can't be bothered.

When somebody has a point it can easily drown in the sea. The above quote represents a very, very great idea indeed (in my view at least). This way you could actually easily tailor the threads into something you like to read and respond to...

So by quoting Bro I hope this one gets a bit more attention

I had the same thought last night because of all of the bullsh!t threads about Lemond that sprang up yesterday...then I remembered that if we quit posting, the terrorists win.

 

[Big GMaC]

Like this steaming load:



The irony is, I don't even read them and they're little more than a slight nuissance. I just forward them to the mods and move on.

Hey! I didn't get that one!

 

[Anonymous]

I had the same thought last night because of all of the bullsh!t threads about Lemond that sprang up yesterday...then I remembered that if we quit posting, the terrorists win.

I dunno. It's one thing for me to ignore BPC. It's quite another for him to ignore me.

I didn't get a PM from him and for the second time this week I am feeling very left out.

 

[MacRoadie]

Hey! I didn't get that one!

That's cause baby has a certain kinda man-crush on me...

Don't be jealous, it's not your fault.

 

[Martin318is]

I really appreciate the restraint a lot of members are now showing in not reacting to him and just reporting him, knowing that that mods will ban and delete.

Can we take it a step further and just stop talking about the muppet at all?

 

[metaCYCLE]

my suggestion is to make "The Clinic" accessible only after a certain number of posts or a certain user rank.

 

[Martin318is]

my suggestion is to make "The Clinic" accessible only after a certain number of posts or a certain user rank.

What would the risk be of the mods then having to deal with everyone posting that junk in the rest of the forum instead though....

 

[Willy_Voet]

What would the risk be of the mods then having to deal with everyone posting that junk in the rest of the forum instead though....

hehe, reminds me of another BBS I used to frequent. There was a place for off-topic discussions that led to some really heated and inappropriate exchanges. They decided to remove that section and guess what...the conversations took place in the general forum.

The Clinic is the perfect place to keep uncivilized conversations. The report function is probably the best option right now for community monitoring.

The only request I have is that the ignore feature be made available right next to a user's name or avatard. 1 click bliss for all the sock puppet pop-ups.

 

[Anonymous]

I really appreciate the restraint a lot of members are now showing in not reacting to him and just reporting him, knowing that that mods will ban and delete.

Can we take it a step further and just stop talking about the muppet at all?

Agree 100%! Don't even mention him or the fact that you are ignoring him. Just report his post and ignore him. Don't return his PM's. Just shut him off from comment or response. Completely.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Hey! I didn't get that one!

I did, you want I should forward it to you. Then it will be just like you got it too.

 

[L29205]

Easier to catch than advertised, even in Sweden.

Yes, but a lot of the software that the forums use don't have the ability to check the changing proxy IP's or the man power to update the lists. Also, there is differing levels of proxy that can be used (i.e. transparent vs anonymous vs highly-anonymous, etc) which can add to the overhead of administration on a small forum site trying to block trolls behind a proxy.

 

[Martin318is]

Yep manpower is an issue given that only one of the active mods here is actually paid. We are all devoting a large piece of every day to being here. <insert soppy violin backing track>

 

[rxgqgxnyfz]

I agree with someone who suggested it's better just to give in and create a separate sub-forum for everything Lance related, which would definitely make everything much more healthier: shagg-fans would have a sub-forum of their own to frolic and play, and main cycling forum would (for once) end up discussing actual cycling for a change.
________
Expatriate insurance forum

 

[irritated_cycling_fan]

Let me try again...

As has been raised: If that IS the case then WHY is his account not banned, why are his posts not deleted and why are you getting no more reaction from the supposed controllers of the situation than this post from me?

The fact is that this thread does not intentionally support any of those statements.

Are you a moderator? Your screen name isn't listed as such. If you are I would hope that you read posts with more care. I did not say it was the way the forum is run. I said this Thread made it sound like that's what the majority of those who had posted to this Thread wanted. I was commenting on a particular thread where the majority of posts were supporting limiting access to the forum. Again, I didn't say the '10 rules' were the rules of the forum; I said that those supporting limiting access seem to want rules of these types to be implemented.

I am aware of the problems with the member called Hog and have nothing against his ban. My post said that everyone should be allowed to post as long as they adhere to the rules. Why am I here? Because I love cycling and enjoy reading people's comments about it - the pros and the cons. There obviously are many posts done by people attempting to goad other members into a flame throwing contest. Many, many times I have read posts from the less reactionary members practically begging people to not respond to them. That is the best way to deal with people who post merely to cause problems whether they do so to stir up the anti-LA members or the pro-LA members. Posts meant to incite others come from both sides.

I object to those who have implied that I am only here to do exactly that - incite flame wars. If I was one of these people that are only here to rile people up I wouldn't be making such a concerted effort to keep things calm. I am not replying in anger even to those who are purposely trying to bait me. The buttons you are trying to push are not buttons I have. I am not pro-Lance/Bruyneel and I'm not anti-Lance/Bruyneel. I admit to being very anti-Landis but not for the reasons many of you want to believe I am. As hard as some people may find it to believe, it is possible to be neither. I keep saying it; my reasons here have nothing to do with stopping either side from saying whatever they choose - as long as it doesn't violate forum standards. : - ) I push the exact opposite; to allow both sides equal opportunity to post on what are public forums. This particular Thread seemed to be saying that access should be limited. If CN chooses to restrict their forums that is their right and the restrictions should be observed. But the only restrictions I am aware of are that you must be a member to post, your posts may not be abusive (although what is considered abusive seems to vary), and you may not spam the forum. I am a member, my posts are not abusive and I'm not spamming the forum.

Why have I not had my posts deleted or been banned? There is no reason I shouldn't be allowed to post. I have not broken or even stretched the rules of the forums. There is also no reason other people who observe the restrictions shouldn't be allowed to post. And that's my point. Everyone has to be a new member at some point. Not posting multiple times a day and therefore not having a particularly high count of posts isn't a reason to stop members from being allowed to post. That is the reason for these forums, so people can discuss topics related to cycling. No matter what they believe.

I won't ask it of any of you but if an Administrator wants to verify that I am nothing more than recent member (but not recent to reading the forums) and have no ties to any of the members that are considered a problem; I have absolutely no problem with that.

Sure, I would prefer that anyone responding to my posts read and understand them completely before throwing back comments that are patently untrue. Yes, it 'irritates' me that the only way some members are capable of responding is to attribute thoughts and/or statements to me that are not true and I did not say or imply - and then retaliate to them. But this isn't a court of law that demands truth and anything that anyone says about me has no relevance and cannot harm me in my world. In other words, within the rules of the forums anyone can say whatever they like and I wouldn't wish it any other way. I just wish more of you felt that way.

 

[Barrus]

I've gotten a differen pm from BPC as well, although it seemed as though it was not adressed to me at all. I was really looking quite strangely at it.

It's only fair that I clarify a couple of things.

Firstly, Quid pro quo and Comeback 2011 are the only accounts I've had the past week - Quid pro quo was me on best behaviour as well - so you're not even talking about me when you're talking about all the 'trolls'.

Secondly, the premise of the discussion is flawed because I am NOT banned for trolling. I've had it officially confirmed from the mod Martin, and you can ask him, that I am banned for being banned before. Not trolling. This means I am on a black list where my posts are deleted without even being read - so this has nothing to do with "disrupting threads" and "trolling" and all the other nonsense. So we can now put this to bed once for all - nobody can lie again that I disrupt threads or troll.

Incidentally, I was originally banned for questioning if Frankie Andreu may have commited perjury in the SCA case by claiming he couldn't remember if Lance had doped. This was in August 09. Needless to say, recent events have vindicated me on that one - he must have known.

So hope that helps. Please keep it accurate.

PS. Scribe, I am in the UK. Some of us work late.

 

[Ferminal]

I've gotten a differen pm from BPC as well, although it seemed as though it was not adressed to me at all. I was really looking quite strangely at it.

That's the one many of us got ~24 hours ago.

I object to those who have implied that I am only here to do exactly that - incite flame wars.

Well, considering your first post...

...

Finally, having listened to the majority of you B tch & moan over the most idiotic things in the last few years, that any of you have the B lls to criticize these riders is the height of hubris! I seriously doubt that any of you would even begin to consider getting back on your bike when you just broke your arm or had something dig a hole into your skin so deep that you can see bone. Your short comings must really give you an insecurity complex if you feel the need to call any of these riders wusses.

This is a comment section and people may post what they wish but seriously, try not show how much you DON'T have a clue what you're talking about!

Ok everyone - flame on!

So I guess that means you're allowed to stay here due to qualifying for #3 on your list of rules.

 

[Ferminal]

I object to those who have implied that I am only here to do exactly that - incite flame wars.

Well, considering your first post...

...

Finally, having listened to the majority of you B tch & moan over the most idiotic things in the last few years, that any of you have the B lls to criticize these riders is the height of hubris! I seriously doubt that any of you would even begin to consider getting back on your bike when you just broke your arm or had something dig a hole into your skin so deep that you can see bone. Your short comings must really give you an insecurity complex if you feel the need to call any of these riders wusses.

This is a comment section and people may post what they wish but seriously, try not show how much you DON'T have a clue what you're talking about!

Ok everyone - flame on! /QUOTE]

 

[Marva32]

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

Not everybody has access to a non-public email service. Currently I am on Disability, and gmail and hotmail are the only ways I can get email access.

 

[Martin318is]

Are you a moderator? Your screen name isn't listed as such.

Yes I am. It hasn't been changed yet (pretty much because the tour was on and there were other more important things to do)

As to your other long comments. You acuse me of not reading what you have posted even though you then have gone on to misinterpret the comments of most of those in this thread.

Regarding the general accusations you make about this site:

* Everyone is free to argue whatever case they like here. But doing so without being able to back it up is a sure fire way to get buried in counter-argument. As I indicated, I have biases in my attitude to certain topics but NO biases in terms of how I treat the actions of users. Your results may vary.

* Yes it is fine to argue points such as Lance is clean, Floyd is a fraud, LeMond doped, etc (although see my earlier comment). The problem is that it is very VERY clear that a user that signs up at 1pm and posts 3 of these types of comments in the clinic within 5mins is actually a troll. These get handled differently than long term members (as the posts here argue they SHOULD be)

Again, your results may vary.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Yes I am. It hasn't been changed yet (pretty much because the tour was on and there were other more important things to do)

As to your other long comments. You acuse me of not reading what you have posted even though you then have gone on to misinterpret the comments of most of those in this thread.

Regarding the general accusations you make about this site:

* Everyone is free to argue whatever case they like here. But doing so without being able to back it up is a sure fire way to get buried in counter-argument. As I indicated, I have biases in my attitude to certain topics but NO biases in terms of how I treat the actions of users. Your results may vary.

* Yes it is fine to argue points such as Lance is clean, Floyd is a fraud, LeMond doped, etc (although see my earlier comment). The problem is that it is very VERY clear that a user that signs up at 1pm and posts 3 of these types of comments in the clinic within 5mins is actually a troll. These get handled differently than long term members (as the posts here argue they SHOULD be)
Again, your results may vary.

Does not change the fact that people are still hounded for having a different opinion to the "common poster".

Yep, and agree with Mac, no sense

I feel left out!

 

[Barrus]

Not everybody has access to a non-public email service. Currently I am on Disability, and gmail and hotmail are the only ways I can get email access.

Don't you generally get an e-mail account at your internetprovider? Not trying to attack you, but generally curious, as over here that is most often the case

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are you a moderator? Your screen name isn't listed as such. If you are I would hope that you read posts with more care. I did not say it was the way the forum is run. I said this Thread made it sound like that's what the majority of those who had posted to this Thread wanted. I was commenting on a particular thread where the majority of posts were supporting limiting access to the forum. Again, I didn't say the '10 rules' were the rules of the forum; I said that those supporting limiting access seem to want rules of these types to be implemented.

I am aware of the problems with the member called Hog and have nothing against his ban. My post said that everyone should be allowed to post as long as they adhere to the rules.

<Snipped for brevity>

In other words, within the rules of the forums anyone can say whatever they like and I wouldn't wish it any other way. I just wish more of you felt that way.

To the highlighted above:
No - this is actually what you wrote......

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.
<Snipped for brevity>

.... so you were not writing about the thread, as you said "Cyclingnews forums".

You also berated an individual member the "Wordsman" whose observations were not even directed at any individual or even you in particular.

But to the underlined above I pretty much agree with you - as long as the insults are not made to the poster and I agree with crackdown on having different accounts or opening an new account while serving a ban. Even though some good posters have (ChrisE, TheHog) been banned for this, they should have known better.

The problems are not as you said with the poster 'TheHog' - it is with the poster 'BPC/TheArbiter' who logs in almost every day with a new username in an effort to bait and flame - they have used over 100 usernames in that fashion.

 

[skidmark]

Does not change the fact that people are still hounded for having a different opinion to the "common poster".

Do you mean to say that people are hounded by mods, or by other posters? Those are 2 very different claims.