Owners - are you happy about the appalling moderation?

[BroDeal]

Well, kinda. But also not, kinda. I think Vandeman was a true nutter, but he wasn't the reason ppl abandoned rec.bicycles.*

I think, aamof, that rec.bicycles.tech is still alive and well.

Your definition of alive and well must differ substantially from my own. One by one the news groups were snuffed out by green trolls and spam. Now the only people left are a few dead-enders cowering in dark corners, and the only reason they are still there is a few people they conversed with for twenty years have managed to stick it out.

But, kinda yeah? You say ppl LIKE Mikey - trolls - continued year after year - and yeah, that fits my recollection. I gave up when it got too contentious. CN forums seem to be in a similar position at the moment, at least, to me it seems that way. Which is why I'm publicly trying to tell all our snark-lovers to put a chill on it. We have a lot of ppl doing this - not just you, but I think you know you are doing it too. I KNOW it's more fun to insult the other guy. Been there, done that <sigh, the truth will out>. But it isn't polite, and it discourages other posters.

And what is the result? A forum where no on has any fun, where the mods are constantly interjecting themselves to put a damper on any spark of life, where shoddy moderation allows trolls free rein to crapflood the forum and no one can say anything about it so they reduce their participation? That is what our own version of Mike Vandeman is requesting: The allowance to troll to his heart's content, to make threads he dislikes unreadable, without anyone being able to call him on it.

 

[hiero2]

Your definition of alive and well must differ substantially from my own. One by one the news groups were snuffed out by green trolls and spam. Now the only people left are a few dead-enders cowering in dark corners, and the only reason they are still there is a few people they conversed with for twenty years have managed to stick it out. . . .

Well, yeah. Still alive. Still healthy, albeit small - but rbt was always small.

And what is the result? A forum where no on has any fun, where the mods are constantly interjecting themselves to put a damper on any spark of life, where shoddy moderation allows trolls free rein to crapflood the forum and no one can say anything about it so they reduce their participation? That is what our own version of Mike Vandeman is requesting: The allowance to troll to his heart's content, to make threads he dislikes unreadable, without anyone being able to call him on it.

Bro - you are describing yourself. Your very own self. Do you honestly not see that? If you don't, please be honest. I know a lot of people DO see YOU as the troll, I hear that pretty much every day. I'm pretty sure you don't see yourself in that role - but you do play it.

Btw - I like your description of the troll motivation:

crapflood the forum and no one can say anything about it so they reduce their participation? That is what our own version of Mike Vandeman is requesting: The allowance to troll to his heart's content, to make threads he dislikes unreadable, without anyone being able to call him on it.

You see, MY problem is that I have MANY posters making the threads unreadable, with NO real intent to do so. But ppl ARE reducing their participation. And, we need to nip that.

 

[Ripper]

You see, MY problem is that I have MANY posters making the threads unreadable, with NO real intent to do so. But ppl ARE reducing their participation. And, we need to nip that.

Many posters, or just a few with more than one alias? We have lots of folks with strong opinions, but not too many who seem to derail threads.

 

[pedaling squares]

Bro, you are wrong on this one, and out of line, and my bet is that you know it. All for the pleasure of sticking one insulting word in there. Was it worth it? You don't know the cost yet - the bill has not yet come due, but it may, my friend, it may.

Good post overall. I figure you're right on some things, not so far off the mark on others. The part I quoted though, not your best work.

 

[mountainrman]

The problem is you and others have no idea what is being said to other members. You have no idea what gentle pushes are being made, or pre warnings, or warnings, or final warnings. You have no idea what gets moderated or what gets deleted. You have no idea who makes complaints, or if those complaints are acted on.

Trolling? Baiting?? your own OP is borderline with the Butch Reynolds scenario. Some believe more than borderline, and risk bans for labeling it as such or have reported it. Yet it has not been deleted or moderated in any way. Nor has the "skyidiot" reference, because your response to that is worth reading.

Mods posting in threads? Then being attacked for being insensitive, inappropriate, sarcastic or inflaming? The flip side is using some gentle humour to alleviate a potentially inflamed situation, but that doesn't always work because various posters have their own agenda that has nothing to do with fair play or ettiquette. And some have a bee in their bonnet.

People will take ANY comment the way they want to, not how it is intended. Which is probably the single reason why some posters think mods should not also post. However mods posting also demonstrates their personal style, so posters get used to them. See amsterhammers posts about Hiero2 and Alpe...it was ALL about the style of the moderator.

Thanks for taking time to respond. And hiero.

And other than a questionable reference to "humour" - I have no reason to believe that you yourself do other than a sterling job in trying to bring sanity into the chaos, as I said - I own a high traffic forum nothing to do with cycling, and I know what a thankless job moderating is, so let me give my vote of thanks to those willing to do it at all.

Whatever nudges are made to others I do know is that in the case I cite of an unprecedented and unjustified 3 month ban no "nudging" was ever attempted, so nudging is certainly selective.

But whatever "nudges" were or are made, they clearly had and have no effect here, since the same poster went on in the very next post to change the insult of sky supporters from "skyidiots" to "skrybabies" for disliking being victims of his continuous ad hominem ridicule, and to describe what I posted with the inflammatory label "your BS".

There is a group of posters in the clinic who have got so used to direct and indirect ad hominem ridicule going unsanctioned as above that it is now ingrained and cultural here.

They tend to appear in groups in concerted cyber bullying of people whose views they dislike and they act as a "herd" in baiting them, instances seen on this thread "herd" is the psychological behavioural word for it, but it is the same as any street gang or mob who think they rule a "precinct".

The hog , now he has been raised, is a fine example of that. The mob "cheered" and expressed support for him, when the hog deliberately baiting Joachim resulted in responses that disproportionately got "hog" banned a week, and joachim perma banned. To the mob that was a result. Also references to "successes" for the "clinic 12" that appear in other posts from time to time demonstrate they identify as a herd.

IT is sad for the forum, because Joachims posts till he got frustrated with the same things that frustrate me were worth reading. They contained useful information not ad hominem attack. In the end I think he lost his caution in posting, not just because of frustration, but because he had seen enough to know that nothing was going to change any time soon.

He voiced exactly the same opinions that Airstream does on another thread. He called the clinic an "echo chamber", where only one view was permitted to be heard. The ones who get banned are rarely the clinic mob with non stop adhominem baiting, but the ones who post views the mob do not like.

I have seen several other useful posters leave in frustration.

You are also missing the point entirely over the Butch reynolds affair - which is typical of another type of insidious posting here.
That is the deliberate derailing of threads. Arguing a detail ad infinitum that loses the original thread completely.

My entire thesis was: and is fact, that the sporting establishment was so worried about how close it perceived it had come to being bankrupted by the Reynolds affair, that it heralded profound changed in the way doping affairs were handled henceforth - the general secretary of IAAF stated they moved to monaco because of it, and the contracts between federations and sports people certainly changed dramatically as fall out from that. All fact. No point in arguing about it. As an athletics official, and with an international athlete in the family we saw first hand the fallout from that.

The mob derailed that entirely by arguing fine semantics on who "won" or "lost" individual cases along the way somehow believing that changed the underlying statement, or was even relevant to it. Not so. It all added heat not light, particularly because those who chose to contest it , did in the normal rude and ridiculing manner. The reynolds affair changed the way sport handled doping.

It really does not matter whether RaceRadio thinks Reynolds won or lost, by digging up long finished cases. What matters is the IAAF were demonstrably so worried, as statements from the general secretary proved, (and other sports bodies looking on, knowing "it could have been them") that they changed they way they do business : sports contracts with federations were changed in the light of that affair across many sports, not just athletics. And that is the significance of it.

So your comment above clearly shows that the responses have so far derailled the original argument that you too seem to think that the semantics of who "won" or "lost" is even a material issue, which it is not, or you would not have made veiled references to "borderline" above. Derailling is a problem here. I got a week ban for telling people something informative about the history of doping!

I note on this thread, that the thread has derailed to details. Not helped by the injection of ridicule from some.. Brodeal seems far more interested in challenging the detail of who reports posts, than the fact of a stream of ad hominem baiting which might lead to emotive responses from me but so far has not.

Back to the substance of the thread.

The substance of it was not one bad decision - it was a sequence of them which implied "presumption of guilt" - the halting of a sensible thread for having "alterior motives" in which I challenge any sane person to find a credible "alterior motive" for wanting to discuss a non contentious cycling issue on a cycling forum! An unprecedented 3 month ban without warning for calling members "historic bad guys" when the evidence shows did no such thing. None of the nudging took place.

Some suggest I should conduct this in private: not so. I was wrongfully and very publicly vilified for something I did not do.Despite a stream of insults that have flowed my way, which seemingly continues unabated on this thread, I never did call other members "historic bad guys" as accused in public, so my defense is rightly public too.

I am disappointed that neither the owners, nor the moderators in question have cared to comment on the matters.

So - sitting bison. I shall now withdraw from the thread - until and if- the orignal moderators or owners comment on the matter.

The owners have to choose. Do they want a forum where ideas are debated, or do they want a place where ad hominem posters ridicule unchallenged in the continual game of baiting people whose ideas they do not like, driving serious posters with alternative views away?

The use of "Skrybabies and Skyidiots " says it all. There is a serious attitude problem of too many long standing posters. The forum will not change until that behaviour is not tolerated. What happened to respecting other posters?

There are all sorts of insidious forms of this, take the frequent replacing of actual quoting with inflammatory replacement [Quote: A poster] <nonsense and troll babble>[/quote], rather than what they actually said... That should be sanctioned every time.

As regards the humour issue - I accept there was no malicious intent on your part, not so of the original post. I can only repeat again that Humour is impersonal and laughing together with others, the ridicule or irony of a situation. Ridicule is laughing at someone specific so your "humour" in that case was ridiculing me for being incensed about wrongful banning, and ergo not humour at all.

I actually think moderators should have two accounts. One to post as ordinary members, the other
"moderator12" or whatever, which is totally dispassionate, only posting on matters of moderation.
As people mods can express or side with any views or posters they like. Not as moderators


As I said earlier on this post, it will be my last until and if the owners, or moderators actually involved comment on the matters in hand.

 

[BroDeal]

Brodeal seems far more interested in challenging the detail of who reports posts, than the fact of a stream of ad hominem baiting which might lead to emotive responses from me but so far has not.

Funny how people get hung up on your lies and misrepresentations, which is your usual trolling method, but you brush it off like it is nothing.

As I said earlier on this post, it will be my last until and if the owners, or moderators actually involved comment on the matters in hand.

It looks like this thread was good for something afterall.

 

[Netserk]

Joachim was a troll. IMO he should have been perma-banned long before he was. He derailed/flamed threads he didn't like. He wasn't a 'normal' poster who wanted to debate. His only mission was to troll.

Since he has been banned, numerous suck-puppet accounts made by Joachim (long before he was banned himself) has been banned. They serve as proof that Joachim was up to no good.

 

[Ripper]

The owners have to choose. Do they want a forum where ideas are debated, or do they want a place where ad hominem posters ridicule unchallenged in the continual game of baiting people whose ideas they do not like, driving serious posters with alternative views away?

WRT the bolded section - I think this is what this forum is.

It's an online cycling forum, not an in-person debate. For meangingful conversations to take place in this atmosphere, censoring will not help.

And TBH, the forum has had more disruption/trolling from folks claiming to be targeted and hard done to, all the while knowingly making comments that will drag a conversation to disarray.

 

[Race Radio]

As I said earlier on this post, it will be my last

.... is is also the last post for your other user names?

 

[mountainrman]

.... is is also the last post for your other user names?

It is my last post in this thread, until either the owner or moderators involved respond.

It may well be my last in the clinic, until the regular clinic posters decide they are there to debate, not insult and bait, and the moderators prevent ad hominem posting in all the variety of forms that continues unabated even on this thread. I have made my views known, as have others. The long standing clinic mob stifle debate there with insulting posting, and seek to ridicule those who disagree with them branding as "skydiots" for example, and that is sad for the forum.

It drives other posters away. It also makes the clinic worthless, as a source of information or debate.

When you fail to find any other user name, you owe me an apology.

 

[spetsa]

It is my last post in this thread, until either the owner or moderators involved respond.

It may well be my last in the clinic, until the regular clinic posters decide they are there to debate, not insult and bait, and the moderators prevent ad hominem posting in all the variety of forms that continues unabated even on this thread. I have made my views known, as have others. The long standing clinic mob stifle debate there with insulting posting, and seek to ridicule those who disagree with them branding as "skydiots" for example, and that is sad for the forum.

It drives other posters away. It also makes the clinic worthless, as a source of information or debate.

When you fail to find any other user name, you owe me an apology.

I assume you are referring to your own posts.

 

[Race Radio]

It is my last post in this thread, until either the owner or moderators involved respond.

You have written this many times now. Do you plan on making good on this "Threat" or will you continue with the long goodbye?

the general secretary of IAAF stated they moved to monaco because of it

No he did not

"If you conclude we're leaving because of Reynolds, I did not say that."

There were other reasons for the track and field governing body's flight from London after almost 50 years, foremost among them an offer of rent-free offices.

It also should be noted that the IAAF began considering the move long before Reynolds stepped inside a courtroom.

 

[mountainrman]

You have written this many times now. Do you plan on making good on this "Threat" or will you continue with the long goodbye?




No he did not

If you post such a blatant error as that, I am obliged to respond , not for your sake, but for those who may mistakenly think you have a case.

If you were honest, you would note Giuliani did certainly did say it to a conference so hardly deniable. He later amended it to a more politically correct version for "clarification" in press releases. It was all over the papers and journals of the time, for those who were taking keen interest as I did. It was not even a secret for those linked to athletic federations, that that was why they moved when they did. Sure it was being considered. But the fact of and timing of it was down to the reynolds affair. It was such a landmark case, that profoundly affected the way doping and contracts were handled between sportsmen and federation. So why not just agree with that? it won't kill you!

I was actually involved in athletics at the time. You are just googling an article, then cherry picking pieces that affirm your case whatever it is you are trying to prove, which is lost on me, or that you think can damage mine. And that is the problem with debate in the clinic. In addition to abuse in most of the posts, more or less anything is misrepresented to say what the clinic mob want it to say, or often just posed to disagree with others you think are invading you consider "your" territory.

And that is why I cannot be bothered to post in the clinic again. Or respond to you. Until the long standing members are forced to behave, and alternative views are encouraged without the normal attempts at baiting and intimidation. But as ad hominem postings are alive and well in this thread, I do not expect it any time soon.

Can I have that apology since I have never had other user names, and you have not found one.

 

[Race Radio]

I cannot be bothered to post in the clinic again. Or respond to you.

Promise?

FYI, I was at Stuttgart for the Worlds that year. My roommate was competing and his team management was deeply involved in the relocation discussion. I remember the a lot of discussion about the move to Monaco.....it focused on free rent not Butch Reynolds. Yeah, the "Jungle drums" tell you something different

 

[mountainrman]

Promise?

FYI, I was at Stuttgart for the Worlds that year. My roommate was competing and his team management was deeply involved in the relocation discussion. I remember the a lot of discussion about the move to Monaco.....it focused on free rent not Butch Reynolds. Yeah, the "Jungle drums" tell you something different

That was not the focus of conversation going on in the federations at the time. Butch reynolds was a soap opera that ran and ran ,that had the IAAF rattled, and rightly so, not least because of possible reciprocal enforcement rights for civil agreements being negotiated between europe and the US, that made europe less safe. The belief in the locker rooms was Reynolds was clean, that the lab screwed up with mislabelling and chain of custody, and that Reynolds was owed a payback. The legal composition of the IAAF at the time made it difficult for all parties to win an outright victory, but it certainly had IIAF scared that he would, and brought a determination to prevent the possibility in future, which had profound impact on contracts with sportsmen. Notice the legal composition of IAAF also changed at the same time, for the same reason, not just the location The financial arguments for the move were more about tax than free rent - including personal tax for employees, which is why it was not "politically correct" to publicise it in media.

This entire discussion is hijacking my thread.

 

[Race Radio]

This entire discussion is hijacking my thread.

So is this your last post?

 

[BroDeal]

This entire discussion is hijacking my thread.

LOL. You are the one who put this stuff in your original rant then repeatedly posted about it even though this Reynold's affair had nothing to do with your pathetic whinging. You cannot blame people for responding to an issue you made part of the thread. Let's face the truth. You slipped that in there because you wanted to get one over on Race Radio, thinking your misrepresentation would be lost in the haystack of your imaginary grievances. This thread's main purpose is for you to attack members who called you out for intentionally disrupting threads and make it safe for you to disrupt future threads. In rich irony, this tactic of disrupting threads is on display right here in this thread, where you have managed to troll yourself into complaining about thread disruption that you are responsible for and continue to contribute to.

Since you are talking about apologies, when do I get mine for you accusing me of trolling people so I can tattle on them to the mods?

Funny how you cry crocodile tears about people being referred to collectively with a comical term like "skrybabies" but you have no problems repeatedly making slurs about people being part of a "mob" and milking that term for every negative connotation the word implies. Maybe you just need to grow a pair or hike your panties up.

 

[Ripper]

It is my last post in this thread, until either the owner or moderators involved respond.

Nope, it was not.

It may well be my last in the clinic.

???

Do you actually post much in the clinic?

And that is why I cannot be bothered to post in the clinic again.

Your repetitive on this, but you seem drawn to the clinic. I think you like the nature of the discussion, but you just need to get more comfortable with the posting style here.

 

[JRTinMA]

Can you believe it? Suck has entered the general lexicon. Webster's Dictionary has an entry for it! I remember the year they decided to enter "ain't", and "y'all".

But you lost me, neighbor, why close the thread? I'm a smart fella, I ain't dumb. I've got plenty of proof, if you need. Of course, that doesn't mean I've got any common sense, either. So, how about helping us poor idiots out, and try to calmy present what brought you to this opinyun. Eh?

Trust me it needs a lock. Just pretend you're that fangirl Berzin and close this like the Contador's head thread. I own this forum and approve this lock.

 

[JRTinMA]

So is this your last post?

We need a thread of "last post ever". ebandit, brodeal, mountainman...

 

[ElChingon]

We need a thread of "last post ever". ebandit, brodeal, mountainman...

Yup, the number of "last post ever" forum-ites is growing but the last post has yet to be posted, maybe they are preparing for that day?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Yup, the number of "last post ever" forum-ites is growing but the last post has yet to be posted, maybe they are preparing for that day?

"ex-posties"?

 

[pedaling squares]

"This is my last post" is about as pathetic and comical as "Mods please close my account."

 

[hiero2]

Many posters, or just a few with more than one alias? We have lots of folks with strong opinions, but not too many who seem to derail threads.

Many posters. We have more than a few people threatening to leave because they think another poster is a troll. My problem is they often engage in the same sort of negative posting technique. I.e. they are doing the same thing. I'll be honest, I had to go back and dig up Usenet troll FAQ, and look for anti-troll faq on other forums, to try and get my head back on straight in this matter.

Good post overall. I figure you're right on some things, not so far off the mark on others. The part I quoted though, not your best work.

Awwww, man! And I LIKED that part!

I'm glad to see folks hashing this out. There is a lot of poop flying through the air, but some ground-defining work, too.

I am quite serious that, imo, we need to get things on a more even keel, and that will require a larger number of people actively working to be more tolerant.

I mentioned above that I had to go back and go over old Troll/anti-troll faq?

A lot of the "trolling" that happened in usenet just isn't practical in a forum. It doesn't happen. But I've had to look deeper, and I think I'm coming up with some "big picture" thoughts. Y'all may think me a simpleton after reading them, but give me a few minutes, to try and help sort out "what's what".

Troll motivation:
1. To get attention, and cause reponses. (Ok, for talented trolls, the effect on the forum is pretty innocuous for this, imo.)
2. To disrupt a thread, topic, or group of people. (A good example of this is rehashing old talk about Lemond doping). This may not be obvious.
3. To diss another poster or posters, thus "scoring", or counting coup. Examples of this are sarcasm, snark, all those nasty, biting wit answers. Also includes rhetorical techniques and logical fallacies: ad hominem, straw man, cherry picking, etc. They like to use sarcasm to make you feel stupid or defensive.
4. To destroy the forum. (I don't think we often see real examples of this in the CN forum.)

I may add to that list later - but what is the key common ingredient in that list, that forces the use of regulation? When it damages the forum. So, the trolls under #3 are fine, unless they actually cause people to leave the forums. Either by getting them banned or by making them want to leave. We could have ppl insulting each other all day long - if nobody let it bother them. But ppl are human, and they get bothered. But, when the posts either discourage other posters from posting, or discourage newbs from joining in, or encourages existing users to leave . . .Well, I guess that is damage. And we aren't talking about mountainrman here - or I am not. He is only one example. I'm thinking of some REGULAR posters, who think that some other regular poster is the intolerable troll. And it is not like there is just one, either. Everybody is pointing to somebody else. And they all seem to me to engage in pretty much the same behavior. Sometimes people expect other folks to all have a thick skin - but their own skin can be pretty thin at times.

Maybe it all means too much to me - as in I'm taking it too seriously - but when I hear a complaint more than once, from a group I'm purportedly trying to help - I listen. Actually, I listen if I hear it once. It means something to me. And, I try to do something to find the middle ground, where things will work smoothly, with a minimum of friction.

I'm having a hard time doing that at the moment. But, like I said, maybe I'm just getting too involved, and I need to let all the posters figuratively shoot each other. Well, one way or another, it will all work out.

Cheers, y'all!

 

[MarkvW]

That was not the focus of conversation going on in the federations at the time. Butch reynolds was a soap opera that ran and ran ,that had the IAAF rattled, and rightly so, not least because of possible reciprocal enforcement rights for civil agreements being negotiated between europe and the US, that made europe less safe. The belief in the locker rooms was Reynolds was clean, that the lab screwed up with mislabelling and chain of custody, and that Reynolds was owed a payback. The legal composition of the IAAF at the time made it difficult for all parties to win an outright victory, but it certainly had IIAF scared that he would, and brought a determination to prevent the possibility in future, which had profound impact on contracts with sportsmen. Notice the legal composition of IAAF also changed at the same time, for the same reason, not just the location The financial arguments for the move were more about tax than free rent - including personal tax for employees, which is why it was not "politically correct" to publicise it in media.

This entire discussion is hijacking my thread.

Have you gotten enough attention yet?