This Forum Blows

[BroDeal]

I think we should get special rewards for pointing out BPC when he is in the stealth stage of a new name.

 

[WonderLance]

I think you'll find its spelt realised. When I become a moderator of this forum speling will have to improove.




And chances are I'll delete less posts

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think you'll find its spelt realised. When I become a moderator of this forum speling will have to improove.




And chances are I'll delete less posts

Chances are you will never delete a single post.

 

[Barrus]

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.

Like I said in the pm to you: there were warnings in the thread not to go off-topic, you directly responded with off-topic talk to one of my warnings. After that I gave you the courtesy, something I did not have to do, to come up with evidence to support your claim and you would not be banned, mainly because you made an outlandish claim, so I was interested in what you had to say. However I could just as well banned you immediately, I gave you another chance that other people have not had, so be grateful for that

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think we should get special rewards for pointing out BPC when he is in the stealth stage of a new name.

P..........................?

 

[flyor64]

I think we should get special rewards for pointing out BPC when he is in the stealth stage of a new name.

Given a couple of recent posts, I don't think he's in stealth mode anymore. He's openly making the same old claims again...

 

[JA.Tri]

...
I realize the Mods are not on all the time, but perhaps a cut and paste to keep on topic and no personal attacks inserted in a contentious thread are topic could keep everyone in line and easy to spot and warn individuals whose only intent is to bait or troll.

If all threads could but operate as smoothly as this one!!!

I commend the moderators in general...difficult task under sometimes extreme conditions..."chapeau" all. FTP love your backgrounding on this thread. T'would be great if we all kept in mind that we are "guests in another's residence".

I agree with DrM, emphasising my pet peeve is "personal attacks". By all means vigorously attack an idea but not the person! I do not include/intend to condone snide asides or poor tone.

As some others have expressed, I also, am mainly here to learn. Hence I lurk for much of the time. While I acknowledge the desire of some to have fun, most of the time I want to read concise on topic posts. {I look forward to obtaining the gist of the post quickly. Then move to the next post, informing myself as quickly as possible, rather than needing to sort through mountains of (sometimes repetitious) guff.}



Ta

 

[Ferminal]

Dim said it in here or another thread a few days ago.

But these new threads are getting ridiculous. Or maybe I'm just noticing them more.

They are either duplicates or very similar, where someone thinks they have struck a new piece of news, or have a new idea, when really there is 100 posts on it over 48 hours. Maybe part of the solution is for important topics to have more understandable titles.

e.g. Pro Rider Double Standards has become "the" topic on the reaction to the Ricco saga.

Maybe if it were renamed "Pro Rider Double Standards [Cyclists' Reaction to Ricco Hospitalisation]" it could help. Edit the first post to make it clear what the thread is supposed to cover.

I'm just using that as an example, I'm sure there are lots of threads which may qualify. Like whenever something big happens (Waitgate, Crashgate, Chaingate) hopefully people can see the one official thread and not make any more. I seem to remember something along those lines happening after Chaingate (but still plenty of threads?).

I'm not sure what people think they can contribute when they haven't read the topic lists let alone the threads themselves to find out whether or not their thread idea has been posted elsewhere.

Then there are the meaningless threads, one's which cannot promote any discussion. The thread starter should be bringing some new information in which people will be interested in, or compose an argument which contains enough detail to ignite a discussion.

People don't have any malicious intent when starting these threads, I just don't think they realise there is a lot more to learn by reading other threads than making your own. As Dim said, people with thousands of posts seem to make very few threads, and when they do you can be certain they are worthwhile. Then you get people with 200 posts and the same number of new threads.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Dim said it in here or another thread a few days ago.

But these new threads are getting ridiculous. Or maybe I'm just noticing them more.

They are either duplicates or very similar, where someone thinks they have struck a new piece of news, or have a new idea, when really there is 100 posts on it over 48 hours. Maybe part of the solution is for important topics to have more understandable titles.

e.g. Pro Rider Double Standards has become "the" topic on the reaction to the Ricco saga.

Maybe if it were renamed "Pro Rider Double Standards [Cyclists' Reaction to Ricco Hospitalisation]" it could help. Edit the first post to make it clear what the thread is supposed to cover.

I'm just using that as an example, I'm sure there are lots of threads which may qualify. Like whenever something big happens (Waitgate, Crashgate, Chaingate) hopefully people can see the one official thread and not make any more. I seem to remember something along those lines happening after Chaingate (but still plenty of threads?).

I'm not sure what people think they can contribute when they haven't read the topic lists let alone the threads themselves to find out whether or not their thread idea has been posted elsewhere.

Then there are the meaningless threads, one's which cannot promote any discussion. The thread starter should be bringing some new information in which people will be interested in, or compose an argument which contains enough detail to ignite a discussion.

People don't have any malicious intent when starting these threads, I just don't think they realise there is a lot more to learn by reading other threads than making your own. As Dim said, people with thousands of posts seem to make very few threads, and when they do you can be certain they are worthwhile. Then you get people with 200 posts and the same number of new threads.

I totally agree with this. After lurking for over a year and paying attention to what people are posting, etc, I've started to add some comments and try to make them worthwhile....I still don't have that many posts, but usually find someone that responds with a well-written thought that many times reflects my own sentiments.

A couple posters really stand out here recently to me....one in particular that just joined last month, and in two days went from 'junior' to 'senior' member with over 300 posts in that short time span. I'm wondering about the labeliing with respect to number of posts....

A few seem to just want to cause a rise in someone. Although, most times they are usually called out, but still it becomes irritating and takes away from the point of belonging to a cycling forum.
Cheers

 

[BroDeal]

Yes you already dealt with that, but can you now address my suggestion in this thread? You removed the offending post by this individual so you obviously share the view that it is a low tactic to assert that people are paid for their contrubutions to the forum. Why not make it clear to everybody that IN FUTURE such a statement will qualify for a banning unless the user can provide hard evidence to support their allegation?

What happens when the charge is true? We have a certain individual, you know him very very well, who comes back time and time again. Either he is mentally deranged--very possible--or being paid. This sounds like a certain individual, who does not want anyone calling him out, wanting to ban people for doing so.

 

[180mmCrank]

What happens when the charge is true? We have a certain individual, you know him very very well, who comes back time and time again. Either he is mentally deranged--very possible--or being paid. This sounds like a certain individual, who does not want anyone calling him out, wanting to ban people for doing so.

Blimey. If someone is being payed to contribute to the forum I'd like to know who? And if you are sugessting it's CN than they are not getting very good value for their money. Maybe you mean some PR person for an interested party ... again I would suggest whoever's doing the paying ask for their mony back because it isn't working

I am pretty sure there is no one that bothered about trying to stem the fire hose of opinion in this forum about doping, the state of cycling and/or a certain yelow wrist band wearing clan. The horse has already left the stable.

 

[BroDeal]

Blimey. If someone is being payed to contribute to the forum I'd like to know who? And if you are sugessting it's CN than they are not getting very good value for their money. Maybe you mean some PR person for an interested party ... again I would suggest whoever's doing the paying ask for their mony back because it isn't working

I am pretty sure there is no one that bothered about trying to stem the fire hose of opinion in this forum about doping, the state of cycling and/or a certain yelow wrist band wearing clan. The horse has already left the stable.

That is why I like the mentally deranged explanation.

There have been cases in the past across multiple forums, mostly regarding Lemond, where it was more than suspicious. Lots of new users would pop up at the same time, all with the same talking points. It was like reading early reviews of movies at IMDB.

 

[180mmCrank]

That is why I like the mentally deranged explanation.

There have been cases in the past across multiple forums, mostly regarding Lemond, where it was more than suspicious. New user would pop up at the same time, all with the same talking points. It was like reading early reviews of movies on IMDB.

...do you think that has happened here? I remember one poster came across a bit weird (rather formal and journalistic) but that was a couple of years ago now. Not seen anything like that recently.

T

 

[180mmCrank]

AND as we all know just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!

 

[Barrus]

Yes you already dealt with that, but can you now address my suggestion in this thread? You removed the offending post by this individual so you obviously share the view that it is a low tactic to assert that people are paid for their contrubutions to the forum. Why not make it clear to everybody that IN FUTURE such a statement will qualify for a banning unless the user can provide hard evidence to support their allegation?

Tere is a significant difference between taking a personal attack, one that I am opposed of, but certainly don't think it is immediately bannable. And going off-topic to talk about how LeMond pays for Landis, AFTER SEVERAL WARNINGS

 

[Race Radio]

...do you think that has happened here? I remember one poster came across a bit weird (rather formal and journalistic) but that was a couple of years ago now. Not seen anything like that recently.

T

I doubt it happens here. There are too many educated fans who can easily pick apart the talking points.

The issue is real.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=420041&postcount=1

Expect that once the indictments are handed down that the internet is flooded with talking points

 

[Barrus]

You just don't want to get it do you?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You seem determined to go back and justify my banning when I've already stated this is no longer the issue. I accepted the banning.

So have I got this right? Even though you may disagree with the allegation yourself, you believe that it's within the rules to go off topic in a thread and smear people they disagree with by claiming they are paid by a PR company? Is that really your position? The same user has done this again here without providing a shred of evidence that this is what the PR company does or found a link to posters here and the PR company.

I disagree with your decision - I think this easily qualifies as disruptive, insulting and off topic behaviour - but at least we now know the rules. If I or anyone else want to start a thread asserting, without hard evidence, that Race Radio and other users are paid by LeMond's lawyers or Betsy Audrea, I can now do this without being banned. I don't think this will be good for the forum but you've obviously had time to think about this. Personally I can't understand your reasoning.

Hmm, you asked a question and then answered it.

Your forum fairness focus appears centered on 'RaceRadio' and just one post (now deleted) -if things are as bad as you suggest there should be other issues too, right?

So, why is that? Or is this just more Biased Personal Comments?

 

[patricknd]

Hmm, you asked a question and then answered it.

Your forum fairness focus appears centered on 'RaceRadio' and just one post (now deleted) -if things are as bad as you suggest there should be other issues too, right?

So, why is that? Or is this just more Biased Personal Comments?

dude, surely you aren't suggesting that comepletely baseless accusations about various posters being on the public strategies payroll aren't made pretty much every day?

 

[Barrus]

dude, surely you aren't suggesting that comepletely baseless accusations about various posters being on the public strategies payroll aren't made pretty much every day?

Actually of late I have seen relatively little of it and most of those type of statements we moderators see is dealt with

 

[patricknd]

Actually of late I have seen relatively little of it and most of those type of statements we moderators see is dealt with

as they should be. i realise that they aren't really meant to be true accusations most of the time, but i seem to remember something about "frivolous" posts, and i'd say that crap certainly falls under that description.
and besides race radio told me that he was on betsy's payroll for only 2 months and quit due to a complete lack of healthcare coverage.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

dude, surely you aren't suggesting that comepletely baseless accusations about various posters being on the public strategies payroll aren't made pretty much every day?

Firstly my post was directed at our old friend who appears to have a fixation with one poster - I am wondering and asking why?

To your point - while I certainly have read that PS have talking points that are often repeated - I have rarely seen "various posters" accused of being on the PS payroll and indeed a quick 'search' (that covers 3 months) show that.

 

[Barrus]

My problem is with the principle that people are allowed to get away with asserting posters they disagree with are paid for their contributions to the forum. If someone started banding about that users they disagree with are paid by the FDA or LeMond's lawyers, I doubt they would last very long unless they could produce hard evidence. If this is such a rare occurrence as you claim - I'm sure it hasn't happened to you so perhaps you are not as aware of it - then you should have no problem supporting my view that it should be against the rules to use financial smears against other users in the forum.

It's quite a simple proposition. Given all the other tough rules on the forum I'm surprised there is such resistence to this.

You don't seem to get that I have said to you over and over again that it is not seen as good behaviour, we do act upon these statements, but they are not statements which of themselves need to be seen as bannable offenses in all circumstances, it certainly is frowned upon, but to make such statements in and of themselves are not sufficient to create a thread. Now if one were to open a thread solely accusing people of being paid to post, without anything to back it up, certainly they would probably be banned, yet no such instance has occurred

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My problem is with the principle that people are allowed to get away with asserting posters they disagree with are paid for their contributions to the forum. If someone started banding about that users they disagree with are paid by the FDA or LeMond's lawyers, I doubt they would last very long unless they could produce hard evidence. If this is such a rare occurrence as you claim - I'm sure it hasn't happened to you so perhaps you are not as aware of it - then you should have no problem supporting my view that it should be against the rules to use financial smears against other users in the forum.

It's quite a simple proposition. Given all the other tough rules on the forum I'm surprised there is such resistence to this.

Well your assertion is wrong as there are plenty of people that RR disagrees with - and he does not say or suggest that all are paid for their contributions.

As an example - I assume RR disagrees with you, so firstly - has RR said you are a paid contributor? Next logical question is then are you a paid contributor?
(So as not to seem unfair - I am not paid in any way for visiting or contributing on CN or anywhere)

Also - we know that both Livestrong and PS have interns that are actively checking websites, there is no evidence that "LeMonds lawyers" or the FDA do the same - so there is a distinct difference.

 

[Barrus]

Actually there is a user that has done just that and reposted a link to it in this thread. Granted he gets around the rules by not accusing a specific user of being paid - a general smear is always easier - but the implication is quite clear. His evidence is just his asssertion that this is what the PR company does.

Again if I posted a link to LeMond's lawyers and just asserted that LeMond likes to use this company to pay people to peddle his view, I doubt that would be seen as acceptable.

But I accept that you are now on the look out for this and will take it more seriously in the future. I am willing to leave it at that.

Wait you mean this thread:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12039&highlight=bazaarvoice

A significant link was brought up between the company and Armstrong in both the first post and subsequent posts

But really you are only here to troll are you not?