This Forum Blows

[BroDeal]

Should the clinic's official role be a campaigning one against doping, as the likes of Alpe d'Huez and BroDeal believe, or should the clinic be a place for ALL cycling fans?

No, we just think it should be a place where people like you, BPC, are not allowed to endlessly disrupt discussion because you don't like the topic.

Mods: Paraphernalia = BPC, if you cannot figure it out yourself.

 

[Cobblestoned]

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.

Yes, because of that you and your club often used googletranslator-blabla, thesaurus-blabla or used words that I could interprete very well.
Same goes for some other posters where you can play that whatever-card if you don't have arguments again.
Fool yourself.
I don't care. It would just be a way not to poison (I had to google because I wasn't sure about "e" or "o") the atmosphere and to cool down the forum, if you respect each other in a livable ( I had to google that too, had 5 other definitions available "tolerable, bearable, endurable, supportable, liveable") level.

The persecution by the club was real and, like you perhaps remember, I even had an own thread in this "secret" community clubarea.
I hope you finally accepted and overcame the fact that I am really really not BPC or whoever.
But hey, I don't mind anymore, because I learned that every newbie, who doesn't hate Lance, is declared as BPC. This is called the BPC-complex.
American scientists found out (inside joke in Germany) that this complex can not be healed. Good luck.

But since I am now finally allowed to react proportionately to the bunch for some time, without the disadvantage-complex triggered by some clubmods, it is ok for me to be persecuted or even persecute en solo, if someone really asked for it.

Anyway, this clinic would have blown without us. I hope you don't mind.
Right now I am just enjoying some haters in the clinic who are writhing like eels.
Their faces really get rubbed in their own puke right now.

 

[Cobblestoned]

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.

I always have tears in my eyes when I visit the clinic. From anger or from laughing.
It has a kind of horrorfactor, when you open the side after beiing offline for some days - sometimes even after some hours.

Entertainment is guarranteed.

 

[Elagabalus]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, however, Mrs. Murphy does/did have a point. She was merely commenting on the thread in question and I saw no reason to dissuade her from stating her feelings on the matter. In fact had you, Barrus, not stepped in I believe the thread would have continued virtually the same as it is now. Just my two cents.

End communication

 

[Barrus]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, however, Mrs. Murphy does/did have a point. She was merely commenting on the thread in question and I saw no reason to dissuade her from stating her feelings on the matter. In fact had you, Barrus, not stepped in I believe the thread would have continued virtually the same as it is now. Just my two cents.

End communication

It was not the proper place to do so, it would also have absolutely no effect had he continued his dabte there. It is unlikely that any of the staff would've read it, in the about the website part of the forum, this possibility is much greater

 

[Granville57]

Since the trolling/disruptor issue is going on at this exact moment in the "Kimmage" thread, I figured I move my thoughts here.

One thing I'd be curious to know from the mods is, "How many posts actually get flagged? Rough number? Per day? Per thread? Just curious.

Because I'm sure that others often feel like I do when it comes to flagging. It often feels a bit immature, as if to say, "Teacher, Johnny is shooting spitballs back there!" It feels much more sensible to engage with a more eductated/informed response or to just ignore completely. Trust me. My Ignore List is growing by the day. But the most troublesome members, those that never offer anything productive or even slightly original, are often quoted so much that I can't easily avert their idiocy.

But I do believe that "Ignoring" is ultimately the most effective route. Stop the feeding and the annoyance dies off. Passively doing that, however, doesn't really do much to encourage others to do the same; unless one actively recruits others for solidarity, which I've tried, but that in-and-of itself disrupts the thread, and probably annoys the mods since my attempts were quickly deleted (but not before winning some people over! )

So how often are posts flagged, and what constitutes flagging outside of obvious foul language or offensive material? What kind of trolling will action actually be taken against?

And finally, is Flagging an annoyance itself? I've no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Quite often, I just don't want to be a pest.

 

[Barrus]

One thing I'd be curious to know from the mods is, "How many posts actually get flagged? Rough number? Per day? Per thread? Just curious.

rough number, per day I get mostly 2 or 3 reports, at most about 5 in a day. Unless a certain someone is back here than the number rises drastically

So how often are posts flagged, and what constitutes flagging outside of obvious foul language or offensive material? What kind of trolling will action actually be taken against?

And finally, is Flagging an annoyance itself? I've no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Quite often, I just don't want to be a pest.

Off-topic posting, overtly baiting to start an off-topic discussion, those are the ones that are really a major problem.

Flagging only is an annoyance when it is done too excessively for frivolous matters

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I do not have the time or the interest to read every single posting in every single thread, and I am fairly sure that this applies to the other mods.

So, yes, we appreciate the flagging of objectionable postings. Is it childish? Sometimes. Is it useful? Most of the time.

Susan

 

[Francois the Postman]

But the most troublesome members, those that never offer anything productive or even slightly original, are often quoted so much that I can't easily avert their idiocy.

If you take note of who most consistently engage these people you are trying to ignore, and quote the, and argue with them, day in day out, you'll start to get some of our frustration.

And finally, is Flagging an annoyance itself? I've no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Quite often, I just don't want to be a pest.

No, as long as people use it reasonably. We have some excellent flaggers, we rarely get called in vain by most. I get why people are reluctant to use it, but it is instrumental in keeping the threads on the rails.

The thing people don't get is that we can't possibly read all that goes on here. We read a lot, usually to keep an eye on things a bit, but on the whole, there are hundreds of posts I will never see, and hundreds are posted when I am not even online.

The beauty of the alert system is that it triggers an email that arrives in our email box straight away. Usually one of us is able to put work or family life aside to log in and check it out. On the whole we will be quick to respond.

So as long as it is for genuine transgressions or trouble spots, it is by far the best system.

Strangely, when I am logged in and posting, the only way I get alerted to a mod request, is via email. I usually miss them quicker when I am online than offline.

It isn't an ideal system, but it works reasonably ok, behind the scenes.

There are very very few reports that haven't been acted on one way or another. Mind you, some of the action happens behind the scenes, in PMs or other nifty ways. If you see inaction, it doesn't always mean there has been none.

I have tried to give people feedback when they alerted me, so they know it was seen and dealt with, if it was a bit mroe subtle than deleting a post, etc.

That takes yet more time out of my work and family life, but I think it is worth it, so I do it when I can.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I do not have the time or the interest to read every single posting in every single thread, and I am fairly sure that this applies to the other mods.

And if we do, we are more likely to read the same threads. We enjoy cycling, we read topics to satisfy our own curiosity and interest, not to police.

I suspect that there are several threads here that have an enthusiastic following, but that leave me stone cold. I need to be alterted to them before I would even open them.

I do however spend far more time in the Clinic than I ever did, before I became a mod.

 

[flicker]

Anyone have an issue with anything I have said PM me and meet me at the third GT in May. As far as talking about the other American tour winner we will talk then. Later, Flicker

 

[Francois the Postman]

--edited by mod--

If you think that being provocative in the current atmosphere will work for you, or if you want to see how far you can push the mods, or other posters, I'd advise you to think again. Hard.

We've been fairly lenient, patient and tolerant with you. A wise man will have followed our comments and attitude over the last weeks, spotted the general mood the mods are in, and realize when not to push things.

Know when enough is enough Flicker, and err on the side of caution.

 

[flicker]

You know Franc me you and Greg are all scottish. Lets just sit down and enjoy some of that what is it called haggis.

Seriously, if it wern't for irreverent people like myself, Polish and Cobblestoned this forum would be as cold and boring as the leeword side of an object formerly known as the planet Pluto.

As far as these gray areas of d---ing some of us know quite a lot, and not from listening to whispers. I hope you take this with a grain of salt.... you can ban me permenantly if you wish.

I willn't allow myself to be bullied by anonamous computer posters.

PS I did intervals for a couple hours it is 65 bright and sunny on this side of the planet. Hope it is nice on your side.

 

[Granville57]

Maybe you could make a Clinic subsection regarding Armstrong and the FDA-Novitzky investigation.

The more I think about it, this idea seems sensible...in the near future.
I would suggest having a sub-section ready-to-go once the indictments come down that relates directly, and only, to the legal events.

That could establish a new timeline of sorts, a D-Day for the start of all sorts of new threads but only relating directly to whatever comes from Novitsky, any actual hearings, etc..

No doubt that as the 2011 season commences there will be more than enough topics for The Clinic that pertain to the usual events. But a new sub-forum might help to sort things out. As was also suggested, such a sub-forum might be a good place to experiment with "heavy handed" moderating. Since it would likely be revolving around "real" evidence and witnesses, I think it would be appropriate to shut down any efforts of trolling in regards to "us" being able to "prove" anything.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

It was not the proper place to do so, it would also have absolutely no effect had he continued his dabte there. It is unlikely that any of the staff would've read it, in the about the website part of the forum, this possibility is much greater

I don't have the desire or the interest to 'get into one' but as this was indirectly addressed to me. I haven't started a thread about the standards of cycling journalism here (or anywhere), because I am doubtful of the commitment to allow criticism of CN on the forum.

You'll have to excuse me for being a bit skeptical and doubtful that your motives for shutting down the debate in that thread were the result of an altruistic desire to encourage a critical debate of CN in the 'appropriate' place. It smacked of trying to shut down people discussing Kimmage's criticism of CN and Landis's view of how his interview was presented. What better way to do it than to divert the debate to a bit of the forum no one reads.

If it was going to have no impact then why the heavy handed approach and threats? You could surely have ignored it and let it die? No?

You assume (incorrectly) that I want staff to read it. IMO CN couldn't care less what readers/posters think of them or their conduct. I am much more interested in the opinions of fellow cycling fans on the conduct of the media. That is who my intended audience is/was.

I certainly don't expect any kind of mea culpa or critical self-reflection about how journalists have conducted themselves, or even a response to Landis' serious accusations about how his view was misrepresented.

There is a very important debate to be held about the role of the cycling media and its failure to ask critical questions of cyclists, teams and the authorities since the start of the EPO era. But the OTT/macho reaction shows an Armstrong-esque sensitivity to criticism. It suggests that CN as an organisation and individually is either unwilling, or incapable of accepting criticism or even questioning and in itself that renders any attempt to start a discussion in the 'right' or 'wrong' forum pointless. I've made points in the Kimmage thread and I don't see the need to repeat myself. I am sure that if someone starts a thread on the quality of cycling journalism and then I will chip in as and when.

Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding - either journalistic standards improve, tougher questions are asked, and are asked before the event or we continue along the same path of joke journalism. But judging from the 'interview' with McQuaid today, I won't be holding my breath for a new dawn in cycling journalism let alone cycling.

 

[Barrus]

You really think I have any vested interest in the journalism of this site? You must be joking, I don't even read the front page and when I'm on this site, the forum is the only part I am at

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't have the desire or the interest to 'get into one' but as this was indirectly addressed to me. I haven't started a thread about the standards of cycling journalism here (or anywhere), because I am doubtful of the commitment to allow criticism of CN on the forum.

You'll have to excuse me for being a bit skeptical and doubtful that your motives for shutting down the debate in that thread were the result of an altruistic desire to encourage a critical debate of CN in the 'appropriate' place. It smacked of trying to shut down people discussing Kimmage's criticism of CN and Landis's view of how his interview was presented. What better way to do it than to divert the debate to a bit of the forum no one reads.

If it was going to have no impact then why the heavy handed approach and threats? You could surely have ignored it and let it die? No?

You assume (incorrectly) that I want staff to read it. IMO CN couldn't care less what readers/posters think of them or their conduct. I am much more interested in the opinions of fellow cycling fans on the conduct of the media. That is who my intended audience is/was.

I certainly don't expect any kind of mea culpa or critical self-reflection about how journalists have conducted themselves, or even a response to Landis' serious accusations about how his view was misrepresented.

There is a very important debate to be held about the role of the cycling media and its failure to ask critical questions of cyclists, teams and the authorities since the start of the EPO era. But the OTT/macho reaction shows an Armstrong-esque sensitivity to criticism. It suggests that CN as an organisation and individually is either unwilling, or incapable of accepting criticism or even questioning and in itself that renders any attempt to start a discussion in the 'right' or 'wrong' forum pointless. I've made points in the Kimmage thread and I don't see the need to repeat myself. I am sure that if someone starts a thread on the quality of cycling journalism and then I will chip in as and when.

Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding - either journalistic standards improve, tougher questions are asked, and are asked before the event or we continue along the same path of joke journalism. But judging from the 'interview' with McQuaid today, I won't be holding my breath for a new dawn in cycling journalism let alone cycling.

Your point on journalism is valid - but there was a very good threat where this was debated before (with no mod interference)- I can't see any reason why you don't tack on your opinions there.

A plea for journalistic integrity in 2010.

Bringing it in to the Kimmage/Landis thread was only going to take the thread off in a different direction to an already difficult to read thread (because of the volume of posts).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Your point on journalism is valid - but there was a very good threat where this was debated before (with no mod interference)- I can't see any reason why you don't tack on your opinions there.

A plea for journalistic integrity in 2010.

Bringing it in to the Kimmage/Landis thread was only going to take the thread off in a different direction to an already difficult to read thread (because of the volume of posts).

I disagree Dr.

I think the point was that Kimmage had questioned the journalism here at CN in the interview with Landis. Something Landis acknowledged and sort-a elaborated on. In my opinion comments regarding that portion of the interview article were legitimate comments for the Kimmage Sunday Times Thread. It was not an attempt in my opinion to derail the debate.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Your point on journalism is valid - but there was a very good threat where this was debated before (with no mod interference)- I can't see any reason why you don't tack on your opinions there.

A plea for journalistic integrity in 2010.

Bringing it in to the Kimmage/Landis thread was only going to take the thread off in a different direction to an already difficult to read thread (because of the volume of posts).

That's pretty much it. Not all things that appear cynical to a suspicious mind are in fact cynical.

I am amazed you [MJM] have not yet started a thread on a subject you are dying to debate. If you haven't grasped by now that this forum lets people debate just about all issues quite freely, as long as it is done respectfully, I really give up. Just for your information, the only paid mod who does work on the CN site keeps stepping out the moment we decide how to handle issues that involve criticism of CN or the main site one way or the other.

You are fighting (some) things I just cannot see.

One recurring theme, for me, some people really don't get how well served you guys are. Maybe because being on a forum with a CN banner but run almost independently is confusing. The only non-mod site representative I have had contact with has made it quite clear that he is a champion of the forum as it currently functions. People being able to say pretty much what they want, but not always how they want it. The only opinions that are not condoned tend to be not related to cycling: racism, xenophobia, homphobia, other "obias", issues of privacy regarding minors and members of the public, that sort of thing.

You have no idea how frustrating it is for the mods here to hear "we're being oppressed for X" when people haven't even tried X yet, or understood that Y doesn't equal X.

I even think that it is probably not a Clinic thread, but a general pro-road thread.

Personally I hope that you are keen to debate the cycling media in general, and not concentrate on just the CN site.

If it is purely the latter, the "about the website" is, probably, still the most appropriate place, even if you want to debate just the specifics with people here, rather than the owners/journalists. If it is the former, and I accept that CN will be part of that too named (and shamed if you feel it is justified), I am keen to hear anyone's best argument.

The one thing I would ask, is that before blasting CN for what it does, you verse yourself a bit in where it comes from, and what it actually is, at the moment. I suspect CN isn't quite the media institute you consider it to be. In a good and bad way, I guess.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I disagree Dr.

I think the point was that Kimmage had questioned the journalism here at CN in the interview with Landis. Something Landis acknowledged and sort-a elaborated on. In my opinion comments regarding that portion of the interview article were legitimate comments for the Kimmage Sunday Times Thread. It was not an attempt in my opinion to derail the debate.

Kindof sortof - firstly, I am not saying that 'MJM's' post 'was an attempt to derail the thread'.

The difficulty with the Kimmage/Landis interview was with its length (13000+ words) there were a number of different issues that were worthy of their own thread. PKs comments on CN (IMO) do require comment here - but it is not a 'Clinic' issue and there was a very good thread (not hidden away) where the issue could be discussed.

 

[Dimtick]

I just wanted to give my views on dealing with users attacking/criticising other users.

I am a moderator on another site (nothing to do with cycling). on that site, in the corner of every reply is a "flag" button. whenever a post is flagged and email is sent to all the moderators so that it can be viewed. this allows the other users to police the forum and we don't have to watch over everything.
if a message is "flagged" only a few times then it remains unless the administrator removes it (none of the moderators can do this). if a message is flagged a lot....i think it's 5 times.....then the message is automatically hidden from viewing. it's not deleted. it's still there. it's just now only the moderators can see it. so there are 2 different actions. if a message is flagged once or twice then it is debated whether to remove it. if a message is flagged a bunch and hidden, then the debate is whether or not to restore it (usually there's no debate on those). us moderators don't have any power to remove anything. the administrator makes the final call. if we get an alert and the administrator is busy, we will often flag a message ourselves so that it's hidden until the administrator to get to it.

if a message with only a couple flags is deemed innappropriate and removed then usually the user is not removed (unless the message is really bad). if a message has a lot of flags and it is deemed that it should remain hidden then the user also removed PERMANENTLY with no questions, no warnings, nothing....just gone. if the same user gets 3 messages removed then they are removed permanently. there are no suspensions and no warnings. posters that cross the line are gone. period. when a user is removed every thread and every reply they ever made is removed. they are whiped from the system. it's been our experience that it's better not give any explanation when something is removed. we don't even send out messages to the users. banned users can contact the administrator for an explanation but 99% they know why they were kicked and only contact the administrator to argue. he does listen and has unbanned people.
yes, they usually come back under a new name but since they have to give an email address and get administrator approval before posting it's usually not hard to track the repeats. we have a policy that if a user is banned and they rejoin that they need to use the same email address. if someone registers with a different address and caught, their banned. if a user has 3 usernames banned then we do an ISP block.

although this isn't a constant thing, the administrator will do a "sweep" every few months to see if there are any people that are using multiple screen names (by ISP's) or if we have users that have been previously blocked and are back using a different email address. any "caught" is removed.

I will also add that we eliminated the response counter. all email address's are kept secret (even to moderators) and we don't allow anyone to send a users messages. no one can tell when anyone joined and there aren't any junior or senior members. all users are equal. it does not even show who the moderators or administrator is. the only difference between us moderators and regular users is that we get email alerts when a message is flagged and the administrator has an seperate email address that only us moderators have.

I'm not a programmer and have no idea how the system was created but for the most part it's pretty effective. with a zero tolerance policy people keep things civil.

 

[Barrus]

That system would in no way work on this forum for several reasons:

no. 1 BPC would flag so many posts when he gets on here with his many sockpuppets that there would be no post left in the forum untill moderators get online and make the messages readable again

no. 2 this would be used to stifle opposing comments, again until moderators get online and change this.

This would ensure a lot more work for moderators and would complete disrupt any and all discussion on this forum

Also there is the fact that none of the moderators are really in favour of permanent bans with the exception of certain instances, and even some of those are allowed back in certain circumstances

yes, they usually come back under a new name but since they have to give an email address and get administrator approval before posting it's usually not hard to track the repeats. we have a policy that if a user is banned and they rejoin that they need to use the same email address. if someone registers with a different address and caught, their banned. if a user has 3 usernames banned then we do an ISP block.

ISP blocks are completely useless in this day and age and that is shown once again by BPC. Proxyservers are so easily usable that any effort at IP-blocks are rendered completely insignificant

In this forum it is also necessary that people are shown who moderators and such are, especially since a lot of the moderating is done out in the open as most often most people involved in a thread are necessary to be spoken to

All in all such a system would be far too crippling and suck almost all the joy and enjoyment out of this place by placing far too strict a rule on people and because of the possibility of abuse which would certainly be exploited here

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Kindof sortof - firstly, I am not saying that 'MJM's' post 'was an attempt to derail the thread'.

The difficulty with the Kimmage/Landis interview was with its length (13000+ words) there were a number of different issues that were worthy of their own thread. PKs comments on CN (IMO) do require comment here - but it is not a 'Clinic' issue and there was a very good thread (not hidden away) where the issue could be discussed.

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.

 

[Dimtick]

That system would in no way work on this forum for several reasons:

no. 1 BPC would flag so many posts when he gets on here with his many sockpuppets that there would be no post left in the forum untill moderators get online and make the messages readable again

no. 2 this would be used to stifle opposing comments, again until moderators get online and change this.

This would ensure a lot more work for moderators and would complete disrupt any and all discussion on this forum

Also there is the fact that none of the moderators are really in favour of permanent bans with the exception of certain instances, and even some of those are allowed back in certain circumstances



ISP blocks are completely useless in this day and age and that is shown once again by BPC. Proxyservers are so easily usable that any effort at IP-blocks are rendered completely insignificant

In this forum it is also necessary that people are shown who moderators and such are, especially since a lot of the moderating is done out in the open as most often most people involved in a thread are necessary to be spoken to

All in all such a system would be far too crippling and suck almost all the joy and enjoyment out of this place by placing far too strict a rule on people and because of the possibility of abuse which would certainly be exploited here

just a few things.
with the site that I moderate, the rules of the site aren't any different than the rules for this site.

no. 1. I have no idea who BPC is but a user can only flag a post once. so it takes a bunch of flags by a bunch of people before something is hidden.

no. 2. we encourage and welcome opposing comments. you can always criticize the content but never ever ever the person. i helped put that in place to help people to post without fear of being shot down. it's direct attacks on users that always result in being banned.

unfortunately for us permanent bans is the only way to keep peace. we used warn users and post explanations but that would often start wars with users taking one side or another so we found it was best for things to just go away. we also dont send users warning emails. again that seems to jsut trigger an arguments.

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.

now I will say that the site that I moderate is a support site for people dealing with some pretty serious stuff. they're not in a good place when they come there. any criticism can have horrible effects on someones who's got to much to deal with as it is.

 

[Barrus]

BPC is a member that has already been banned about 200 times and had just as many, or even more member names, it would be easy for him to quickly make this entire forum unreadable with such a measure

That button sends a report about a post to the moderators, however posts are not made unable to read, it is also this part of your idea that is the problem to me, the report system itself is already in place here. And I believe it is there on all the posts, might not be there for regular members on moderators posts, but I'm not sure of that.

Also, I think most people here can arify that in many cases most moderators here do not mind an argument against their warnings, as long as this is done through pm or through the about the forum subsection, as long as people remain rational and civil. We might not always do something with their arguments, but in some cases we have been shown wrong and accepted that. To stifle any argument about moderation is something that I myself would be completely against and I don't think I could be a moderator or even a member on that site. Sure, sometimes we get annoyed about these arguments, but most of the times this is because either the argument is stupid, is uncivil or we already are annoyed