This Forum Blows

[Francois the Postman]

now I noticed after my last post that sometimes there is a triangle button, in the corner of a reply, to "report post". it's not there all the time and I haven't figured out the pattern of when it's activated. what does that button do? it's sounds like the very thing i'm suggesting.

It is the flag to mod alert button. It doesn't activate a counter that hides a post or not.

Out of curiosity, how much subscribed users does this site have and what type of topic does it cover?

I have experience with the flagging system too. I found it to become yet another tool for people to be targeted by a dedicated clique. On a site like this, where opinions are often directly opposed, as busy as it is, and with one type of opinion far more common than some others, and people with actual agendas for the site, that would be a problem.

The BPC was a reference to one user with a whole raft of accounts, that he would hop between. So the flagging system has yet another added problem, as any really committed abuser could create havoc.

I personally am all for a no-personal attack of any form attitude. Post not poster. It would be a shock to the system here though, even if that was actually the letter and spirit of the guideline that we have.

I suspect that triangles don't appear when the post is by a mod/admin, but for all other posts. At least, that's where they don' show up in my "view" of the site.

I can't even give Barrus an infraction. I tried

 

[Barrus]

I can report you though Francois, I think you are mistaken with the infraction button

 

[Cal_Joe]

now I noticed after my last post that sometimes there is a triangle button, in the corner of a reply, to "report post". it's not there all the time and I haven't figured out the pattern of when it's activated. what does that button do? it's sounds like the very thing i'm suggesting

The triangle button does not appear (for me) if I am not logged in, if logged in it is there for ALL posts.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I can report you though Francois, I think you are mistaken with the infraction button

Ah, indeed, the triangle that alerts mods is there for mod posts too. [the one that hands out actual infractions, in our view, is not, alas, as I couldn't give you one a while back ]

 

[Dr. Maserati]

To be clear I did not mean that you had said that he had derailed the thread. I got that impression and it was just my thoughts.

I notice there is a thread for that debate as you have pointed out to me.

Just for the sake of argument I still think since it was in the Kimmage article it had its place to be mentioned in that thread. Of course your point is strong that the thread should not in no sense be taken down that road completely. I understand that is why the moderators directed further comments in that direction.

Oh no - don't worry, I agree. Neither I or yourself were saying that MJM was trying to derail the thread.

I agree too that it could have stayed in the PK/FL thread under normal circumstances, but with the sheer volume it could have either derailed (ny accident) or been lost amongst other posts.

It also didn't help that last week there was a rash of new threads started that were either covered already, trolling or silly - just unfortunate timing (IMO).

 

[Dimtick]

It is the flag to mod alert button. It doesn't activate a counter that hides a post or not.

Out of curiosity, how much subscribed users does this site have and what type of topic does it cover?

I have experience with the flagging system too. I found it to become yet another tool for people to be targeted by a dedicated clique. On a site like this, where opinions are often directly opposed, as busy as it is, and with one type of opinion far more common than some others, and people with actual agendas for the site, that would be a problem.

The BPC was a reference to one user with a whole raft of accounts, that he would hop between. So the flagging system has yet another added problem, as any really committed abuser could create havoc.

I personally am all for a no-personal attack of any form attitude. Post not poster. It would be a shock to the system here though, even if that was actually the letter and spirit of the guideline that we have.

I suspect that triangles don't appear when the post is by a mod/admin, but for all other posts. At least, that's where they don' show up in my "view" of the site.

I can't even give Barrus an infraction. I tried

i think i figured out why i never see the triangle. it only appears when your logged in. I never log in unless i'm replying to something, and then i'm only in long enough to post and then exit.

as i said the site that i moderate is a support site for people dealing with some pretty serious stuff (i'd rather not be more specific than that). there are roughly 5000 registered users but only a few hundred are active at any one time. most only come when they're struggling and dont stick around when things are good. negative attacks when your volnerable and trying to find light in the darkness can really have consequences that go way beyond the site.
the hidding the post method evolved out of necessity. we went thru a period for over a year where the administrator was very busy professionally and wasn't able to get to things on a timely manner. he set up the hide system so offensive posts wouldn't have to sit there for a week until he could get to it.

 

[Barrus]

i think i figured out why i never see the triangle. it only appears when your logged in. I never log in unless i'm replying to something, and then i'm only in long enough to post and then exit.

And this has been done again to ensure that no abuse can be made of the function. But I believe that in most forums reports can only be filed by members

 

[Anonymous]

It is the flag to mod alert button. It doesn't activate a counter that hides a post or not.
D

Triangle appears for me on every post regardless of who posted it.

Its a really easy way of pm'ing mods if you cant be bothered to pm them properly

 

[Ferminal]

Posting in here as not to derail the thread any further and look like a complete hypocrite!


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

The point is that this is the place to discuss the topic at hand, and not what we think of each other.

If you have a problem with someone else opinion you can refute their claim sensibly in that thread with your own evidence and reasoning.

If you have a problem with someone else opinion and merely want to highlight that you have a problem with it, the thread in THe Clinic is not the place to do so. It would make the place a whole lot better if people used a "PM" or posted in the "About the Forum" section when they wish to raise such a grievance.

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

Do the mods agree with this? Is it ok if I report such posts?

 

[Martin318is]

Ferminal,
I am happy if you report such posts. As with all post reportings they won't always result in action (although we do attempt to respond to the person that raises them where we can get the time to do so). What I can promise is that we check every single report we receive.

We are trying to get this place to run a bit more smoothely and this type of behavior should stop on both sides of most of the major topics here.

 

[Ferminal]

Sounds good. Might have to use this option more in the future, as opposed to "taking the bait".

 

[Barrus]

Sounds good. Might have to use this option more in the future, as opposed to "taking the bait".

It would be great if everybody would do that

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Dr M - I will at some point - although the main points haven't changed from those that were posted in the Kimmage thread. I find it ironic to be directed here only to be directed to another thread on another section.

FTP - I form my opinions based on what I read, the way in which people construct their posts, the way in which they behave and the tone they adopt.

 

[Barrus]

Dr M - I will at some point - although the main points haven't changed from those that were posted in the Kimmage thread. I find it ironic to be directed here only to be directed to another thread on another section.

FTP - I form my opinions based on what I read, the way in which people construct their posts, the way in which they behave and the tone they adopt.

You were not directed here. You were purposely targeting Cyclingnews so I redirected you to the about the website subsection. seeing as you only targeted cyclingnews I believed that the media thread itself was also not the correct place, because you appeared to only be interested in debating a single media outlet instead of cycling media in general

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

You were not directed here. You were purposely targeting Cyclingnews so I redirected you to the about the website subsection. seeing as you only targeted cyclingnews I believed that the media thread itself was also not the correct place, because you appeared to only be interested in debating a single media outlet instead of cycling media in general

Erm no. I really don't want to get into one but the comment about it being ironic was directed at Dr M and not you.

I am not being funny but someone else introduced CN into the Kimmage topic not me (I was merely responding by concurring, expanding my opinion and then responding further to other posters), secondly, CN was the only site mentioned in the transcript so it is obvious that only CN would be discussed in this context. If I had talked about all cycling media I would have been well off topic. No?

You seem to see this as some sort of personal vendetta against CN by me. No, I just happen to care about cycling. The failure of the cycling media to deal with the doping issue makes it complicit in the problem. I happen to be annoyed by the fact that dopers are given an easy ride by the media, that corruption is going unchallenged and uninvestigated (although the interview with Schenk was very good today but it hardly balances out). I happen to be annoyed that the media is complicit in omerta. That it actively provides a vehicle for people to attack whistle-blowers unchallenged. That it's active in attacking those who want are critical of the sport and its anti-doping efforts. That McQuaid is given a free mouthpiece whenever he wants it and can say 'there is no corruption in the UCI' only to be shown by a blogger less than 24 hours later that the claim was untrue. That hypocrites like Wiggins and Millar are allowed to go unchallenged by a media that is hand-in-glove with the UCI, the teams, and the dopers. You yourself were giving Vaughters (quite rightly) a hard time about his tiptoeing around the doping issue on twitter, so why should media including specifically CN be exempt from strong criticism about their actions?

Are we in the right forum for this? OK then.

There are specific issues: The Landis transcript alleges what is pretty much serious misconduct against CN in deliberately misrepresenting his views, and this calls into question the integrity of CN's journalists and editors.

Indeed coverage of the Landis transcript (rather than the ST version), NYVC,etc are all curiously missing from CN.

There are more general issues which impact upon CN's credibility and it boils down to whether CN is simply too close to the teams, riders and officials and as a result fails to provide a critical voice, which given the mess the sport is in is exactly what it needs.

For example why does CN fail to challenge McQuaid or the various riders when they say stupid things that can easily be challenged?

Why is CN so uncritical and unquestioning of teams, riders etc and their performances? For example asking HTC how we can take them seriously as a clean team when they have so many convicted and unrepentant dopers working for them? Is that a 'spiky' personality or roid rage coming out?

Why does CN provide a vehicle for people to attack the whistleblowers and continue to defend omerta? For example there is sharp division between CN's portrayal of Landis c2007-8 when he was always given a free ride, and the fact that it appears to never miss a chance to attack him (or to reprint someone elses attacks on him).

As I've said before I don't really want answers from journalists, I want better coverage that doesn't shy away from asking tough questions of those involved in cycling.

 

[Barrus]

Are we in the right forum for this? OK then.

Again, no, this is a discussion either for in the cycling media topic or in the about the website forum

 

[Siriuscat]

so can someone provde a link to this media thread......I can't find it and i do think MJM's post is at least worthy of some discussion

 

[Barrus]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=5141&highlight=media

 

[Digger]

Barrus I'm looking at Member suspensions. You're going way overboard. I accept you've a job to do, but you're too dogmatic. You need to give some bit of leeway to the users. That attitude is going to cause problems for the forum. Disregard what i say if you like, but it is very clear.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

Barrus I'm looking at Member suspensions. You're going way overboard. I accept you've a job to do, but you're too dogmatic. You need to give some bit of leeway to the users. That attitude is going to cause problems for the forum. Disregard what i say if you like, but it is very clear.

I've got Barrus's back. He is excellent, and I will stand along with him against anarchy.

 

[Barrus]

Barrus I'm looking at Member suspensions. You're going way overboard. I accept you've a job to do, but you're too dogmatic. You need to give some bit of leeway to the users. That attitude is going to cause problems for the forum. Disregard what i say if you like, but it is very clear.

Look I and many other members have had more than enough that every other thread in the clinic turns into some form of Armstrong, Landis or LeMond debate. If people would keep it in the topics that exist for that or make new topics discussing that, fine. Keep it out of other topics and I shall say from now on anyone I see who does it will get an immediate tenporal suspension. With many other aspects I give quite a bit of leeway and most often get by with a slight nudge or a pm, it is only this aspect and doping talk in the road racing forum, unless it is unavoidable, that I get peeved with and very peeved with. Also they had two or three warnings earlier in that thread and choose to ignore them, especially considering all the people were banned for behaviour in the same thread

 

[Race Radio]

Look I and many other members have had more than enough that every other thread in the clinic turns into some form of Armstrong, Landis or LeMond debate. If people would keep it in the topics that exist for that or make new topics discussing that, fine. Keep it out of other topics and I shall say from now on anyone I see who does it will get an immediate tenporal suspension. With many other aspects I give quite a bit of leeway and most often get by with a slight nudge or a pm, it is only this aspect and doping talk in the road racing forum, unless it is unavoidable, that I get peeved with and very peeved with. Also they had two or three warnings earlier in that thread and choose to ignore them, especially considering all the people were banned for behaviour in the same thread

You made the right move. It was absurd how people were trying to high jack it.

 

[WonderLance]

I've got Barrus's back. He is excellent, and I will stand along with him against anarchy.

Oh, me too. he was right in banning me. He was right in banning me and deleting all evidence of what I was saying while allowing all those people who were gloating that ricco was hurt to post their sensible comments.

I was also wrong to mention ArmSTONG in a thread where ARMSTRONG could not be mentioned.

Barrus is a very sensible moderator with a great sense of humour, not at all dogmatic. I personally will not accept any criticism of his approach. In future I will not try and take a humane, sensible approach to human failings and instead will post advocating violence and bile.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Barras,

reference our exchange. May I suggest that in future anyone who tries to disrupt a thread by asserting that other users are paid for their contributions to the forum should receive a banning, unless they can provide hard evidence to support their claim. This should happen no matter who they are or how many posts they have.

How do you feel about posters that have been banned multiple times coming back again and again?

 

[Skandar Akbar]

Oh, me too. he was right in banning me. He was right in banning me and deleting all evidence of what I was saying while allowing all those people who were gloating that ricco was hurt to post their sensible comments.

I was also wrong to mention ArmSTONG in a thread where ARMSTRONG could not be mentioned.

Barrus is a very sensible moderator with a great sense of humour, not at all dogmatic. I personally will not accept any criticism of his approach. In future I will not try and take a humane, sensible approach to human failings and instead will post advocating violence and bile.

Cool, I am glad you have realized your error. Self reflection is the first step to healing the corrupt mind of the misanthope.

I welcome your vow to stand with me in defending Barrus.