This Forum Blows

[blutto]

I appreciate what you're saying. I agree that someone who is unaware of doping in cycling in general, and with Armstrong in particular, is just plain uninformed. Clueless. Basically not a cycling fan. (Probably most of LA's fans, in other words.) But there are some cycling fans, and I'm one of them, who are well aware of the doping - but don't have any particular axe to grind against Armstrong. (For what it's worth, I'm coming back to the conclusion that he was a fearsome and formidable competitor, doping notwithstanding.)

No one can deny that there are people on this forum who nurse longstanding grudges against LA - people who would run over him with their car, for example, if they could get away with it, or maybe even hurt his family members - whose hatred, in other words, is personal. Maybe they have good reason for such hatred, but I hate to see the forum driven by this group.

That's why I think it's a good idea to count among the moderators people who are Armstrong-neutral or Armstrong-pro (even while knowing about the doping - Eddy Merckx would be among this latter group; wouldn't it be cool to have him for a moderator?)



I get what you're saying, Francois, and I appreciate your even-handedness. When I suggested lighter moderation, I guess what I meant was being less quick to ban those who are accused of being "trolls," merely because their questions challenge the prevailing cant. But based on what you're saying, I see how heavier moderation is the way to go as long as it truly is even-handed.

EDIT: And I think it's a strong idea, to split the clinic into two areas - one heavily but even-handedly moderated, the other a free-for-all.

2nd EDIT: To be clear, I don't count Polish or Flickr among the trolls (though they may do it here and there - we all do).

...agree strongly with both of your posts here in regards the problems...as for the solutions well that is the tough nut to crack...forums in other areas of interest have similar problems...the DIY Audio forum, for instance, becomes a war zone as soon as any discussion regarding high end audio cable starts...in fact there is on some audio forums actual anti-cable or cables haters clubs...and try as they might these forms can't seem to find a solution to this conflict so they just let it go...but this does create a weird kind of solution because while those parts of those forums get kinda silly, all the hotheads and their effect on everyone else become concentrated in a few threads and life is good for everybody on the other threads who actually want to be part of a productive discussion and not a smash-mouth debate...

...so the short story is that light moderation may be the answer ...and this to be applied only within a limited number of areas...sort of the way the politics thread is working...but as pointed out this a very tricky fix that requires someone close to sainthood and with a real sense of humour to be the moderator...and this is not meant to knock the present moderators, because what I'm trying to say, is that given some of the personalities who have taken up residence here, the job would require something akin to a superhuman...you know, like a moderating version of our favourite superman, Lance (... just kidding!!!!...no really!!!...gallows humour exemption?...)

...just a thought...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Race Radio]

Do you mean THIS Sunday or NEXT Sunday?
Just checking. You know, to avoid any confusion...

This Sunday

 

[Francois the Postman]

I appreciate what you're saying. I agree that someone who is unaware of doping in cycling in general, and with Armstrong in particular, is just plain uninformed. Clueless. Basically not a cycling fan. (Probably most of LA's fans, in other words.) But there are some cycling fans, and I'm one of them, who are well aware of the doping - but don't have any particular axe to grind against Armstrong. (For what it's worth, I'm coming back to the conclusion that he was a fearsome and formidable competitor, doping notwithstanding.)

Too often I read the categories that LA fans "must" belong to, without acknowledging that there are many shades between the 1 or 2 or 3 given (often whilst suggesting that there is something seriously wrong with the poster).

Apparently you are either delusional or naive. Yeah right.

That leaves people very little room to step forwards for a healthy discussion.

That's why I think it's a good idea to count among the moderators people who are Armstrong-neutral or Armstrong-pro (even while knowing about the doping - Eddy Merckx would be among this latter group; wouldn't it be cool to have him for a moderator?)

But there you have it all backwards. And maybe it even answers why some of the people that some consider to be perfect candidates, aren't viewed as such by the currebt caretakers (not saying anything about Merckx btw).

This isn't about "camps", let alone LA camps.

LA has nothing to do with moderation. It is utterly irrelevant if one of us is pro- or anti Lance. Or at least, it should be, and you can judge for yourself how we are doing now, and if there are things we should take on board, going forwards.

I would be very hesitant to get a mod on board because of how they feel about LA. That is sending out signals that are wrong in many ways. You are actually cultivating the polarization then.

Again, we hardly ever edit an opinion (the ones we do tend to involve matters that we have deemed off limits, Lance ain't).

We moderate attitude.

Trust me, posters' opinions rarely comes up between mods. It is always the tone people bring to their post, and what impact it has on the forum atmosphere.

I hope it matters little how I feel about Lance for the way I behave as a mod, although it won't be a secret that I don't find him as exciting as some, but still an important marker on the road forwards.

If anything, I might actually fight a bit harder for breathing space for those I think who are genuine than vice versa. I always benefited from seeking out well argued counter-points to my own opinion.

 

[TexPat]

Sorry for resorting to relativism; you should have a look at a few of the other forums around. Man, it's depressing. At least most of the threads here stay on topic. The only other forum I've posted on is like a room full of drunken half wits. It makes me weep for humanity.
Sure, there's room for improvement, but I'm glad that I'm not a moderator.
Keep on truckin'.

 

[Francois the Postman]

You raise a lot of good points, but FFS if brevity is a virtue then you are Paris Hilton (she has no virtue left).

Well, that is assuming that brevity is a virtue. If I ever believed that, it went out of the window when I got an inkling how a gazillion Twitter posts stack up against the complete works of Dickens. Something that no longer will be read cover to cover, without some youngster constantly checking their mobile phone for "important" messages that couldn't wait until the end of the chapter, let alone the last page in the book.

See it as much-needed training for a deeper enjoyment

snipped because I could

I agree with a lot of the underlying sentiments in your post there.

My ideal forum would be a place where everyone can be adult enough to let everyone else have their bit of fun their way too.

That is only possible if people are able to ignore a hell of a lot, or if "fun" (this could also be substance or serious discussion but is most likely enjoying seeing melon helmets on cat heads) doesn't come at the expense of someone else who does mind.

We actually had a bit less moderation a while back, when the mods were more under-resourced and became a bit thinly stretched through circumstances. It really really didn't improve the atmosphere around here. So I like the theory, but I am not convinced that it actually works in reality. It only caters to a part of the forum audience, who indeed lap it up with gusto, and a bit too much so. It did however convince me to take up the mod mantle here after all, reluctantly.

In reality, there are always people taking part whose fun comes explicitly at the expense of the enjoyment of others, or who are devout of the capacity to self-moderate, or capable to ignore what annoys them, or who simply rub people the wrong way even if they think they are heelahriuzzz - all to various degrees.

On a global site, with people spanning various cultures and ages, and where some don't share the same first language, it gets a lot trickier.

On a site that is owned by people who need to consider commercial interests, even more so.

You end up with striving for something that will please or satisfy most of those that you really want to make it work for, but probably will not be perfect to anyone.

Besides sometimes Trolling is fun.

To the troll...

It is a circle that cannot get squared.

 

[Maxiton]

...agree strongly with both of your posts here in regards the problems...as for the solutions well that is the tough nut to crack...forums in other areas of interest have similar problems...the DIY Audio forum, for instance, becomes a war zone as soon as any discussion regarding high end audio cable starts...in fact there is on some audio forums actual anti-cable or cables haters clubs...and try as they might these forms can't seem to find a solution to this conflict so they just let it go...but this does create a weird kind of solution because while those parts of those forums get kinda silly, all the hotheads and their effect on everyone else become concentrated in a few threads and life is good for everybody on the other threads who actually want to be part of a productive discussion and not a smash-mouth debate...

...so the short story is that light moderation may be the answer ...and this to be applied only within a limited number of areas...sort of the way the politics thread is working...but as pointed out this a very tricky fix that requires someone close to sainthood and with a real sense of humour to be the moderator...and this is not meant to knock the present moderators, because what I'm trying to say, is that given some of the personalities who have taken up residence here, the job would require something akin to a superhuman...you know, like a moderating version of our favourite superman, Lance (... just kidding!!!!...no really!!!...gallows humour exemption?...)

...just a thought...

Cheers

blutto

LOL. Cheers, blutto. (Personal aside: I tried to friend you but I guess that's already pending.)

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Sorry for resorting to relativism; you should have a look at a few of the other forums around. Man, it's depressing. At least most of the threads here stay on topic.

Thank you, that is the conclusion I drew, and I definitely did not just fall off the turnip truck. We are active, and that is one thing that keeps things on topic and moving forward. There's even a senior member here who is (was?) an admin at another site, a site that was overrun by trolls and turned into chaos. We're not perfect here. But compared to the rest of the sphere, we don't blow nearly as much.

Sure, there's room for improvement, but I'm glad that I'm not a moderator.

We can fix that.

I think part of BroDeal's frustration is that some two years ago when this place got started and was moving along, there was less traffic, but more meaningful conversations. Most every user was quite knowledgeable. Armstrong's comeback and resulting scandals were followed by people coming out of the woodwork and posting the uninformed comments he complains about, followed up by a supertroll, and well, you know the rest of the story.

I have high hopes for this place though. Soon Armstrong will be indicted, and retire and new riders will appear as well. We'll have scandals still, but less zealots I believe, and with that should follow some good topics and threads.

 

[Granville57]

To one pov only. they tend to be utterly insulting to the other.

ALL these pictures and words polarize and inflame.

You see, I was actually referring to the ones that are jokes between people, not at the expense of someone. I fully understand how incendiary the insulting ones can become, but I get the sense sometimes that even the innocent, shared, jokes with absolutely no malice whatsoever, are not welcome by some mods. (The closing of the "smoking" thread comes to mind as one example. Although, obviously, it was quickly re-opened)

Not a big deal. I don't want to see the negative images any more than anyone else. I just want to be sure there's always a place for appropriate humor. There are some extremely funny people on here, after all.

 

[Francois the Postman]

You see, I was actually referring to the ones that are jokes between people, not at the expense of someone. I fully understand how incendiary the insulting ones can become, but I get the sense sometimes that even the innocent, shared, jokes with absolutely no malice whatsoever, are not welcome by some mods. (The closing of the "smoking" thread comes to mind as one example. Although, obviously, it was quickly re-opened)

Not a big deal. I don't want to see the negative images any more than anyone else. I just want to be sure there's always a place for appropriate humor. There are some extremely funny people on here, after all.

Gotcha.

I will depend on how clear it is that it is mutual foreplay, I guess, and on the exact images used. Overall tone and direction of the thread it is in, wider context, etc. With most prolific regulars, we tend to get the extremities they waver between, or know roughly where they will stop, or what hints they need to know it is time to move on.

The main concern is that people tend to take their cue from what they find when they arrive, when they are ill-equipped to spot those subtleties. "Doing the same" can work out very differently. Plus people tend to see favouritism at work when their friendly banter gets slapped down, or witness it happen to others, when they are less ell versed in why these two things were not alike at all.

If you want a reason why it is a tricky area, that is it. It is also the reason why it will be utterly impossible to guarantee that there is always a place for that, no matter how important you consider that guarantee. Humour and private jokes for the in-crowd is simply not the most important thing here. Sorry.

Although I do want to add in the same breath, that good comic relief is most certainly welcome here (hence why WonderLance is able to do his shtick, even if it takes several people a while to clock it, for instance, and despite many protestations). It is all down to quality, degree, and capacity for self-restraint, in the end, I guess. The secret to a long life is knowing when it is time to go.


But for every WonderLance we accept, we invite several WonderLance wannabes that can become infuriating, or, to some, even more infiriating than WL already is. In their eyes. technically they might be doing the same, just with less skill. What do you do? Then someone else invents another "house style". Technically it is also a pretty innocent "signature posting", but it is very loud in the forum, bacause of the chosen format. Again: do we draw a line, where, why?

I think, without exception, the mods are quite happy to let things flow relatively freely. We sometime have chats with people, but that doesn't mean we are always happy with the message that we feel we need to convey "for the greater good of all". We really wish we could please pretty much everyone, I think. But when we do "intervene", the aim is to keep people here and let them have as much space as we feel we can give them. By curbing the excesses. Not to ban, or censor, or spoil the fun. Far from it. It often depends on the willingness of the people we talk to to consider the enjoyment of others, how well that plays out.

I also much prefer to let things stand if things have been mild enough rather than edit posts, and hope that a "move on" is a cue for folk to bank the fun they had and let the thread resume its normal course, rather than hi-jacking it for a private tete-a-tete. After all, we do have PMs, if it was indeed as private as you suggest. I can guarantee you that humour between two is often still played out for the audience response too. Reputations to uphold, groups to play up to, and all. [not saying that that is always a bad thing]

 

[Dallas_]

Well this newb(under 100 posts) is not complaining about anything in the clinic. Maybe I am in a minority! Have had one official warning about X. The fact is I had to Google X
to find out what X meant. Life goes on. I don't have anyone on ignore. There are two regular posters, who I have learnt to skip their posts - no problem. I feel privileged to be
a member. And just when you think you have a good grounding on topic Y, another poster posts a link with more info - bonus. Have learnt what LOL means.
Have sprayed my monitor twice from reading funny posts. The entertainment being another bonus.

Obviously some posters MO is to try to derail a thread, sometimes very subtly. I presume this may get under the skin of some long term members!

just saying and if you do not like this post, redirect to the circular filing cabinet or the bit bucket

cheers

 

[Ferminal]

We can fix that.

Surely Mike wouldn't qualify under the "perceived conflict of interest" debate some were having a few months ago

 

[auscyclefan94]

Gotcha.

I will depend on how clear it is that it is mutual foreplay, I guess, and on the exact images used. Overall tone and direction of the thread it is in, wider context, etc. With most prolific regulars, we tend to get the extremities they waver between, or know roughly where they will stop, or what hints they need to know it is time to move on.

The main concern is that people tend to take their cue from what they find when they arrive, when they are ill-equipped to spot those subtleties. "Doing the same" can work out very differently. Plus people tend to see favouritism at work when their friendly banter gets slapped down, or witness it happen to others, when they are less ell versed in why these two things were not alike at all.

If you want a reason why it is a tricky area, that is it. It is also the reason why it will be utterly impossible to guarantee that there is always a place for that, no matter how important you consider that guarantee. Humour and private jokes for the in-crowd is simply not the most important thing here. Sorry.

Although I do want to add in the same breath, that good comic relief is most certainly welcome here (hence why WonderLance is able to do his shtick, even if it takes several people a while to clock it, for instance, and despite many protestations). It is all down to quality, degree, and capacity for self-restraint, in the end, I guess. The secret to a long life is knowing when it is time to go.


But for every WonderLance we accept, we invite several WonderLance wannabes that can become infuriating, or, to some, even more infiriating than WL already is. In their eyes. technically they might be doing the same, just with less skill. What do you do? Then someone else invents another "house style". Technically it is also a pretty innocent "signature posting", but it is very loud in the forum, bacause of the chosen format. Again: do we draw a line, where, why?

I think, without exception, the mods are quite happy to let things flow relatively freely. We sometime have chats with people, but that doesn't mean we are always happy with the message that we feel we need to convey "for the greater good of all". We really wish we could please pretty much everyone, I think. But when we do "intervene", the aim is to keep people here and let them have as much space as we feel we can give them. By curbing the excesses. Not to ban, or censor, or spoil the fun. Far from it. It often depends on the willingness of the people we talk to to consider the enjoyment of others, how well that plays out.

I also much prefer to let things stand if things have been mild enough rather than edit posts, and hope that a "move on" is a cue for folk to bank the fun they had and let the thread resume its normal course, rather than hi-jacking it for a private tete-a-tete. After all, we do have PMs, if it was indeed as private as you suggest. I can guarantee you that humour between two is often still played out for the audience response too. Reputations to uphold, groups to play up to, and all. [not saying that that is always a bad thing]

Your moderation is down to a science

 

[flyor64]

This Sunday

Timeframe? I only ask cuz I´ll be on a plane all dang day...I wont´t tell anyone promise

...I have posted before that I stopped putting any effort into my posts because I got sick and tired of the endless ping pong that results from flicker, Polish, and the people who respond to them, just page after page of it in threads that should be interesting...

I think this resonates with a lot of us. I can think of quite of few posters, I think myself included, who rarely weigh in on the "heavy" topics, regardless of our opinions. In the end it´s not worth it cuz one is almost guaranteed to get a 20 to 1-useless dribble vs. quality exchange post ratio and it´s frustrating to say the least...

Although I read the stuff non-stop, I often find myself skimming, and likely missing key points, because of the aforementioned "noise".

My .02 anyway

 

[Roude Leiw]

Timeframe? I only ask cuz I´ll be on a plane all dang day...I wont´t tell anyone promise



I think this resonates with a lot of us. I can think of quite of few posters, I think myself included, who rarely weigh in on the "heavy" topics, regardless of our opinions. In the end it´s not worth it cuz one is almost guaranteed to get a 20 to 1-useless dribble vs. quality exchange post ratio and it´s frustrating to say the least...

Although I read the stuff non-stop, I often find myself skimming, and likely missing key points, because of the aforementioned "noise".

My .02 anyway

It goes further, never been much of a poster, but I stopped reading the clinic like 6 month ago, I consider my time to precious to sift through pages of posts where there is nothing else than insulting, bickering and whatever....

BTW I find it interesting that in the race forum there are more and more topics which start small flaming wars/trolling too... it gets tiring after a while

Pat

 

[Cobblestoned]

Is that clearer?

Aren't you people tired of that language card.
Not that it would hurt me, but I just wanted to notice you that this is discrimination and mobbing because someone doesn't speak, or better write your language like you would like to have it, or like you can handle your native language. Of course mods don't care because I don't report such things.

My vocabulary or mode of expression is limited. I know that myself.
But the language card or maiming my posts doesn't have to be the answer on nearly every single post of mine and it doesn't improve the atmosphere.

I of course speak German and German Platt, fluent English in speach with of course limited vocabulary, nearly fluent Dutch, I understand most of French and Italian and can read and talk it a little bit and I even know a little bit of Turkish.
So am I stupid because I am German or what ?

SO what are you guys on ? If you feel better while bashing someone who is still improving his language and not from your country - then do it.
Thats poor and total exaggeration I think.

Thank you.

 

[forty four]

I appreciate what you're saying. I agree that someone who is unaware of doping in cycling in general, and with Armstrong in particular, is just plain uninformed. Clueless. Basically not a cycling fan. (Probably most of LA's fans, in other words.) But there are some cycling fans, and I'm one of them, who are well aware of the doping - but don't have any particular axe to grind against Armstrong. (For what it's worth, I'm coming back to the conclusion that he was a fearsome and formidable competitor, doping notwithstanding.)

No one can deny that there are people on this forum who nurse longstanding grudges against LA - people who would run over him with their car, for example, if they could get away with it, or maybe even hurt his family members - whose hatred, in other words, is personal. Maybe they have good reason for such hatred, but I hate to see the forum driven by this group.

That's why I think it's a good idea to count among the moderators people who are Armstrong-neutral or Armstrong-pro (even while knowing about the doping - Eddy Merckx would be among this latter group; wouldn't it be cool to have him for a moderator?)



I get what you're saying, Francois, and I appreciate your even-handedness. When I suggested lighter moderation, I guess what I meant was being less quick to ban those who are accused of being "trolls," merely because their questions challenge the prevailing cant. But based on what you're saying, I see how heavier moderation is the way to go as long as it truly is even-handed.

EDIT: And I think it's a strong idea, to split the clinic into two areas - one heavily but even-handedly moderated, the other a free-for-all.

2nd EDIT: To be clear, I don't count Polish or Flickr among the trolls (though they may do it here and there - we all do).

yeah you cant really be neutral or just look at things subjectively on here without attack by either extreme.

 

[sublimit]

Maybe ban everybody?

Thats not such a bad idea.. But I would go with randomly banning 10% of the posters there. A Roman Empire style decapitation every month or so until order is restored.

 

[blutto]

LOL. Cheers, blutto. (Personal aside: I tried to friend you but I guess that's already pending.)

...sorry about that...saw the request and then work took a huge chunk of time out of life and that thread got lost ( figuratively) and was kinda embarrassed to follow it up on what had become such a late date...bottom line, would luv to take you up on the offer...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Hugh Januss]

Aren't you people tired of that language card.
Not that it would hurt me, but I just wanted to notice you that this is discrimination and mobbing because someone doesn't speak, or better write your language like you would like to have it, or like you can handle your native language. Of course mods don't care because I don't report such things.

My vocabulary or mode of expression is limited. I know that myself.
But the language card or maiming my posts doesn't have to be the answer on nearly every single post of mine and it doesn't improve the atmosphere.

I of course speak German and German Platt, fluent English in speach with of course limited vocabulary, nearly fluent Dutch, I understand most of French and Italian and can read and talk it a little bit and I even know a little bit of Turkish.
So am I stupid because I am German or what ?

SO what are you guys on ? If you feel better while bashing someone who is still improving his language and not from your country - then do it.
Thats poor and total exaggeration I think.

Thank you.

Sorry guy, but I was not making fun of the gramatical errors, I understand that. It is the goobledegook which is your message that I find worthy of poking fun at. You should really try to lose the persecution complex that you are running with here.

 

[pedaling squares]

Yeah cobblestoned, that was the point. Your last post showed that you can communicate perfectly clearly in English when you choose to.

I don't like the idea about limiting new members' ability to create threads. We might miss out on such gems as 'Can a pro cyclist beat a Navy SEAL in a bike race?'. The CN forum would suffer without such quality debate.

I'll repeat that I don't think we're seeing an unusual problem considering the timing of the ongoing investigation, the SI article, LA being in his last int'l race, and PT racing resuming after the winter hiatus. A recipe for a massive storm. Then again, I've spent less time in The Clinic lately so maybe I'm blissfully unaware of a bigger problem.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

One area where the mods could step in earlier that would improve things is where members do not talk about the 'issues' but instead attempt to 'tell' others how to come to an opinion or what is or is not 'evidence'/allowable etc.

We are all grown ups - where I can, I try to post links to back up my claims, but I do not suggest what the reader should do with that information.
Believe it, don't believe it, agree with it or don't agree with it - that is a personal choice.

I have no problem with new members, in fact I wish there were more whatever their viewpoint. Some of the best posters here only post occasionally and have a small number of posts - so limiting them would be counterproductive.

I am more in favor of little moderation - gentle reminders appear to work well in the General forum.
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.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

...I think part of BroDeal's frustration is that some two years ago when this place got started and was moving along, there was less traffic, but more meaningful conversations. Most every user was quite knowledgeable. Armstrong's comeback and resulting scandals were followed by people coming out of the woodwork and posting the uninformed comments he complains about, followed up by a supertroll, and well, you know the rest of the story.

I have high hopes for this place though...

Good post. I'll add, as another example of why posts & threads may seem to be deteriorating, that before 2006 I felt I was pretty knowledgeable. I subscribed to magazines and read about every race. But I snapped in 2006 over what went down with Landis after the 2006 Tour. I withdrew from all forms of cycling media, cancelled my subscriptions, and said I'd never again read anything about cycling because of the pervasive doping I perceived was going on in cycling. I didn't want cycling to become the WWF. I decided I'd just ride my bike. Now I'm experiencing a return to the media part of cycling and find myself, well, light-years behind in knowledge of the riders, races, and what's been going on in general. I am kind of a sponge right now and may sometimes post stupid questions to find out more. And so far current members of the forum have been courteous. Some have been downright humorous too, and I like that.

I also agree with what TexPat said about this forum in comparison to other forums. And here is one reason why I think this forum is going to have good times ahead. Cyclists by nature want to do the right thing. I have never met a cyclist who is not that way. Also I have never met a cyclist who's got some vice that makes them think or act differently, so we don't see the kind of discussion here that you might have in other forums frequented by more unsavory people.

 

[Martin318is]

I am more in favor of little moderation - gentle reminders appear to work well in the General forum.

welll.... yeah......

that would be because generally speaking the general forum isn't totally populated with people who are so heavily invested in one side of the main topic or the other that they cannot allow any post to go unpunished. They can talk about a type of bike or the history of a race without taking the reponses personally.

(not linking the next bit to your post DR) I find it really odd that people regularly suggest that this is all down to the moderation style on the forum or that its the forum itself that is to blame because apparently "it blows".

For me it comes down to a very simple realisation:
"Don't like the Clinic, Don't go there. Want to discuss topics such as LA's doping? THen you are going to have to accept that the Clinis is simply a microcosm of the opinions out there on the street."

If we let the Clinic threads go unmoderated (or even lightly moderated) I GUARANTEE that nobody complaining here would continue to go in there after a short time. Also, if we go the other way and moderate heavily on behaviour such as that of Polish then I also guarantee that there would be people posting in this thread that would be banned regularly.

2 weeks ago nobody had a problem. This week there is once again a major topic to discuss and the fact is that there ARE still people willing to argue strongly on the pro-Armstrong side. You can't expect this forum to magically make sure that all new members accept that Armstrong is guilty - any more than you can force many long term members to accept that he is at the moment not convicted of anything. Its a living breathing ongoing topic and like all wars there will be casualties on all sides

 

[joe_papp]

Personally I think ya'll should begin deleting baiting posts. I have posted before that I stopped putting any effort into my posts because I got sick and tired of the endless ping pong that results from flicker, Polish, and the people who respond to them...

I also think that posters should be judged on the totality of their posting history. ...We have a few members here that constantly disrupt threads, and I cannot remember a single post by them that has ever been valuable. Out of hundreds upon hundreds of posts, not a single one. That is where I think the mods should step in an put a stop to it...

I agree with these sentiments, too.

I express my appreciation of the work of the volunteer mods, since it must be an extremely thankless task that I don't think you could get me to do w/o compensation. But as for moderating the forum, isn't it more of a common-sense thing for any moderators who's been-around? It's fairly obvious who the posters are who exist only to troll, or what a baiting/trolling post looks like. Those posts should be deleted and the poster warned and then banned, and their IP address blocked, too.

However, it's also important to educate the forum users (posters and lurkers) to enlist their cooperation in dealing with trolling and baiting). For, if the members don't feed the trolls, they go away - or are at least frustrated such that they shed all semblance of reasonableness and are easily spotted and ousted.

+ 1 on post-count being included as even an informal measure to take when considering action against (or on behalf of) a member.

Anyway, good luck w/ it. But I hope something is done, because in the past year, the quality of this forum has definitely been eroded by the dedicated work of a handful of assholes who aren't interested in reasoned debate, but rather, getting their rocks off by jerking around themselves (lol) and others.

PS. Armstrong Sub-Forum

I absolutely stand by my original suggestion regarding FLandis Affair that there be sub-forums for discussions on Armstrong, the Landis Affair, and, by way of example, were it timely, something significant like Puerto.

It is functionally IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to sift through a 100-page thread looking for discussion topics that they're interested-in. I'd rather see repetition in the form of repeat threads (that the members would have to help the moderators squash) than the drowning-out of an interesting discussion on a particular component of a subject by its being submerged in a 100+ page thread...

And as for people still wanting to debate whether or not LA doped - fine. As long as he hasn't been convicted the guy is entitled to have his defenders, but if you corral them all into a Lance sub-forum, it's easier to respond to them (for those inclined) and also serves to segregate their "newbie" indignation from the less-contentious (or perhaps a better term would be "more adult"-oriented) debate on topics like Alberto Leon's suicide following his involvement in multiple Spanish doping networks; Did Jose Rujano dope?; "How easy is it to buy EPO in Mexico?"; and What Doping Products really Work?...

If Daniel Benson and his colleagues are listening, why not create a single sub-forum on the Landis Affair and test it out? It's not like it would blow the board up if it didn't work.

 

[Altitude]

The Armstrong Detractor's Talking Points
The Good That Lance Has Done
The Blurred Lines Of Livestrong - The Spin Bike Sham
Sheryl Crow Gerona, Spain
Livestrong.com, Demand IPO exposed
JB loses no sleep, but...
Former mechanic Anderson predicts trouble ahead for Armstrong
Lance fallout and TDU
The Armstrong talking points
Livestrong.org - how is it regulated?
Pharmstrong Rhetorical Strategy
Lance's program was superior? The evidence
What was left out of the SI article?
Lance Armstrong - Talking Points Articles


And that's just the last few days. The obsession is an unhealthy one, but good for a laugh.