Vicious Posts

[ItsWitz]

What's TROLLING

Bikers & Bikies,

Thank you for being unexpectedly merciful on my ***!!!

Before i do it; What's Trolling???

witz

 

[Barrus]

You're spinning, that is not what you wrote upthread. You said he was a previous poster that was banned for vicious trolling (whatever that is, sticks/stones etc), and ned was banned because of that.

If Susan's post is true and he was banned for "trolling and baiting", and he was doing nothing more than offering an alternative opinion from the mainstream in here which is what cobblestoned and that other poster claimed (was it maxitron???), then doesn't that fly in the face of Francois' proclamation awhile back about being tolerant to other opinions?

This is the base of the whole argument about banning people, ie whether or not they get banned for their opinions as opposed to whether or not they attack other members. You know my opinion, but I thought things had changed.

Apparently even the mod staff is confused as well on what the real policy is....Francois with his "tolerant" proclamations, Susan banning for trolling when it was nothing more than different opinions (baiting), and you spinning around in circles like a carnival ride.

Seeing as you first said Martin I believed at first you were talking about cyclist encoders and not Nedsomethingorother, both of which were previously banned members returning. And Susan stated this about the ned guy:

NedBraden has been banned for trolling, baiting and being a previously suspended user.

you conveniently ignore that last part which was the major reason why he was permanently banned. Again I do not know enough about the Ned case to determine whether he was trolling, I only know for certain that he was a previously banned member

 

[ChrisE]

Bikers & Bikies,

Thank you for being unexpectedly merciful on my ***!!!

Before i do it; What's Trolling???
witz

It depends on your opinion. Basically in the clinic an opinion that doesn't at least involve LA putting kittens in blenders is a troll.

 

[ChrisE]

you conveniently ignore that last part which was the major reason why he was permanently banned. Again I do not know enough about the Ned case to determine whether he was trolling, I only know for certain that he was a previously banned member

I am not ignoring it, I am pointing out your original reason for why he got banned was different than what she posted. I have no argument that part of the reason ned was banned was because he was previously banned. She gave 3 reasons for why he was banned...trolling, baiting, and being previously banned. The first 2 are what I am questioning.

You post as an authority on why he got banned upthread (previously banned "vicious" trolling poster, not because of what ned posted) now you qualify that with the clueless routine about ned's posts when I point out the conflict with Francois' new moderating policy vs Susan's reasons. Other posters say he got banned because of his opinion. I point out maybe this is not consistent with Francois.

BTW, who was ned in prior CN forum life, if you don't mind?

 

[patricknd]

It depends on your opinion. Basically in the clinic an opinion that doesn't at least involve LA putting kittens in blenders is a troll.

you shouldn't make light of it. i saw those kittens, and they were really cute

 

[Francois the Postman]

You post as an authority on why he got banned upthread (previously banned "vicious" trolling poster, not because of what ned posted) now you qualify that with the clueless routine about ned's posts when I point out the conflict with Francois' new moderating policy vs Susan's reasons. Other posters say he got banned because of his opinion. I point out maybe this is not consistent with Francois.

BTW, who was ned in prior CN forum life, if you don't mind?

To be frank ChrisE, that is none of your business. He was identified by us as an ex-member circumventing a ban, and so that Ned account is closed.

And I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I have wasted enough of my time on this guy. And so had Susan by the time she wrote a reason why [the one you read and responded to].

What or how Ned wrote is immaterial here. He shouldn't be here, he was back. Gone.

I am not going to look in detail what he said either, as it wasn't part of the conversation when we decided to pull the plug, and since I know who it belongs to, I am not going to waste more of my time, on him, either.

Now, if you felt that this account, in isolation, was reasonable to you, and you identified with some issues raised [speculating here], I get that you might get worried if you don't give Susan an inch, and read every word she gave there as if they were written with gold-standard accuracy at the time of writing, taking into account that you guys don't know what we know about this one's general trolling and baiting.

But at the same time you observe that it doesn't quite rhyme with what you do hear coming from me, and maybe other mods. So either Susan and I are at odds with each other, or something looks one way to you, rightly or wrongly, but reality has a subtly different guise.

In reality, I suspect Susan wished she had thought much longer about what she wrote rather than state in a throw-away someone who comes here nowadays to stir things up again, , if she knew it would be scrutinized to this depth, rather than just spotting that last part and think: good riddance. We know it is a troller and baiter from past experiences. might have some decent opinions too.

I don't care if some other posters feel that he was turfed out for his opinion. They are dead wrong.

He didn't get banned for his opinion. I don't ban people for opinions, neither does Susan. None of us do. For original accounts, any unpopular opinion in the Clinic, I actually suspect people are LESS likely to be booted, to be frank, truth be told. We are actually trying hard to keep people on the site, and diverging opinions even more so.We don't chuck out people based on the popularity of their opinions. Hey, you are also still here, I rest my case

It baffles me why some of you feel so victimised by the mods, sometimes. Given the slack we tend to hand out to just about everyone who likes to rattle the cages here, or lashes back. Some of the people "who felt so" have first-hand experience of the lengths we go through to make space for them, and our efforts to keep 'em here.

I don't even know what his opinion was. It so didn't matter once we joined the dots of who we were dealing with. Shouldn't be here. Gone.

We had enough reasons [behind the scenes] to bring the hammer down on someone we have wasted enough of our time on. I am very reluctant to keep wasting time on this particular guy, so regardless of what Susan wrote or should have written... if you are worried it was because of his posts in this guise, it wasn't. It was for posting when he shouldn't. As Barrus also pointed out to you.

You have been around long enough to know that the 3rd part of the reason, the "shouldn't be here part", is all that mattered. Let us have the occasional imperfect day, and misstate things a bit, as long as the essentials are there, will you?

Assuming that you raised this because someone made comments that were not in line with the prevailing Clinic-attitude, I can think of several cases where the mods are not doing themselves any "popularity" favours by trying very hard to keep certain people with "unpopular" opinions on the site, rather than jumping on any excuse to get them off it.

Come back to us when you are witnessing someone who had a decent overall attitude here, but who is evicted anyway, purely for their opinion. Not when we turf out someone who has a red flag against their name. Actually, give me ONE example over the last few months [if not ever], and then this discussion is indeed worth having. Up until that point however, you are addressing issues that are not in play.

I give you that, in theory, it is certainly something to be aware of. We are, btw. Hence why we tolerate a lot of you an awful lot longer than we maybe should.

 

[ChrisE]

Francois thanks for the lengthy reply.

I have no argument if the reason is as you and Barrus state. The confusion is with Susan's post but that has been clarified.

Thanks again for the effort you put into your reply and FYI I do realize I have been given alot of rope in here and I try not to act like too much of an ingrate.

 

[TERMINATOR]

it's a good thing the OP has a moderator looking out for him. otherwise he might get his delicate feelings hurt. i wonder who performs this function for him in the real world. i sure hope he has someone to erase all of the mean things he hears every time his boss yells at him or when he receives the finger from someone while driving.

I know - the mods in here actually think they are performing a heroic service by editing comments in a newsgroup.

I guess if you can't get work pumping gas, then you do that....

 

[dbrmuz]

I know - the mods in here actually think they are performing a heroic service by editing comments in a newsgroup.

I guess if you can't get work pumping gas, then you do that....

Pumping gas pays better.

 

[Boeing]

those are actually some of the most readable posts on here IMHO

 

[Stingray34]

I sypathise and agree with the OP: being smarmy on an internet forum displays a distinct lack of class. Of course, I'm not so naive to really expect much better...a lot of people I meet in real life are deeks too (hey, I'm in Australia.)

My personal feeling is you behave the same way here as you would in person, which means extending respect. Facile allusions to 'hardening up' is just the kind faux-masculine maintenance and self-censoring that perpertrates bullying behaviour and general misery.

If anyone's still interested, my take is: if someone gives you sheet in person, let them know they're obnoxious and get on with your life; on the internet, ignore them cuz they ain't worth it.

 

[movingtarget]

Let's face it, it's a zoo in here, just like real life. You have a core of self annointed experts who claim to have all the answers. Once again just like life outside loopyville. It's easy for some people to be aggressive when they are anonomous. Read the rubbish and move on.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I know - the mods in here actually think they are performing a heroic service by editing comments in a newsgroup.

I guess if you can't get work pumping gas, then you do that....

This is not a public newsgroup, it is a forum on a privately owned site. It has guidelines, to which you agreed to abide by, when you signed up.

You are totally correct, it is pathetic we waste so much time going about it softly softly, just editing the bits in posts when a poster ignores the rules they would follow, when we could be doing something useful with our lives. And taking abuse and insults on top, from people who agreed to a set of rules, and then decide it doesn't actually apply to them.

So we will take up your suggestion, and spend a lot less time going softly softly about your posts, hoping you get the quiet hint. Rather than waste all of our time, and edit your posts to the point they comply with the rules you agree to, hoping you and others get the quiet hint, we will go for the much easier route.

Every time you pull in, you pass the sign that says 'no open fires'. Next time you light a cigarette because you feel like doing so, don't be surprised if we do not welcome your business until you understand what it means. All the more if you insult the folk on the next pump, or the ones wiping your windscreen on top.

 

[gregod]

I sypathise and agree with the OP: being smarmy on an internet forum displays a distinct lack of class. Of course, I'm not so naive to really expect much better...a lot of people I meet in real life are deeks too (hey, I'm in Australia.)

My personal feeling is you behave the same way here as you would in person, which means extending respect. Facile allusions to 'hardening up' is just the kind faux-masculine maintenance and self-censoring that perpertrates bullying behaviour and general misery.

If anyone's still interested, my take is: if someone gives you sheet in person, let them know they're obnoxious and get on with your life; on the internet, ignore them cuz they ain't worth it.

no disrespect intended, but you are kind of all of all over the place here. the part in bold is exactly what 'hardening up' means. no one has called for self-censorship other than the OP who would prefer that people do not express opinions in ways that hurt his feelings. the rest is word salad to me. perhaps my command of english is wanting. for example, i am given to understand that 'smarmy' means excessively or unctuously flattering, ingratiating, servile. i am not sure how that applies in this discussion.

 

[Francois the Postman]

no disrespect intended, but you are kind of all of all over the place here. the part in bold is exactly what 'hardening up' means. no one has called for self-censorship other than the OP who would prefer that people do not express opinions in ways that hurt his feelings. the rest is word salad to me. perhaps my command of english is wanting. for example, i am given to understand that 'smarmy' means excessively or unctuously flattering, ingratiating, servile. i am not sure how that applies in this discussion.

Gregod, the OP asks for posts that are in line with what you, me, and others, have already agreed to.

What tone you prefer to take with people really plays second fiddle to the one that the site owner insist upon, if you want to post here. You are wrong to suggest that no-one has asked for self-censorship. The site owners did. And you agreed you would do so.

Since you like your own command of the English language, it seems, can I remind you [and all others] you all already accepted that, btw.

 

[ChrisE]

Gregod, the OP asks for posts that are in line with what you, me, and others, have already agreed to.

What tone you prefer to take with people really plays second fiddle to the one that the site owner insist upon, if you want to post here.

Since you like your own command of the English language, it seems, can I remind you you already accepted that, btw.

Agreed. Gregod pipe down else they will start enforcing the rules on everybody instead of just the haters.

 

[gregod]

Gregod, the OP asks for posts that are in line with what you, me, and others, have already agreed to.

of course, you are correct. we have agreed to be civil. you and the other moderators do yeomans' work herding cats in this regard. chapeau. however, i think a larger point is that this is the internet. it is not real. therefore it should be easy to ignore and not get upset about whatever goes on here.

What tone you prefer to take with people really plays second fiddle to the one that the site owner insist upon, if you want to post here. You are wrong to suggest that no-one has asked for self-censorship. The site owners did. And you agreed you would do so.

i meant that i and the others who think the OP should be less sensitive were not calling for him to self-censor. i brought up self-censorship because i could not understand the context in which stingray34 used it. perhaps you can explain what he meant.

on a side note; i seem to remember that in the moderators thread that moderators were defending the level of moderation as not causing any kind of censorship. my memory may be faulty, though.

Since you like your own command of the English language, it seems, can I remind you [and all others] you all already accepted that, btw.

i am not quite sure if this is directed at me or not. actually, i have very little confidence in english and really puzzle over much of what is written in this forum.

 

[gregod]

Agreed. Gregod pipe down else they will start enforcing the rules on everybody instead of just the haters.

point taken. piping down

 

[Francois the Postman]

Yeah, that's why we are so popular. Because we are looking for any excuse to turf people off who dare to go against the grain here. And because we don't touch the people who are part of the club

We tend to look for ways to keep people here, and minority opinions all the more. Actually, if someone has a less popular opinion here, and they still get turfed off, their attitude must have been abysmal, as it tends to take quite a bit before we stop being protective.

The amount of time we invest in all sorts of efforts to keep the person(s) in question here, simply by getting them to address their attitude, so their opinion can remain here, is frequently rather generous, given the level of appreciation we get for it, from several corners. Peculiarly, often including the corner we are actually protecting.

But one quick way to get us less protective is pretending "we have it in for you" and "we let the rest get away with murder", when we get a lot of abuse for doing the exact opposite.

We are human, mostly volunteers, and in the end we also think, ''well, if that's how you appreciate it, next time I won't care so much about you and your opinion either then....''. I will let everyone decide for themselves if and how that applies to them.

 

[ChrisE]

That is why I will never complain about my treatment again unless you guys start picking on me.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Gregod, I agree, it would be nice if all of us could ignore more on the internet rather than take a lot so personal, or get so worked up about it. But on this site, it has been made clear to people that they shouldn't get overly personal, nor do they need to take it when it happens, or witness it happening to others.

So, as a mod, I don't quite have that luxury either, of just letting the internet carry on with itself. When people, quite within their 'rights' here, complain about incoming missiles that fly in the face of rules and guidelines, I have accepted that I have a role to play (time permitting).

As a side note, in general, personally speaking, part of me actually deplores the general "hey, it is the internet, just ignore it" attitude. I always think "why?". As a people, we become what we allow ourselves to become. The internet is a wonderful vehicle and gateway to the world, and certainly real in many many ways. It is also an extension of our overall society, and another way for humans to interact. Just because you can't see each other, doesn't mean that an actual conversation isn't taking place.

It is too easy to become passive, and let a few loud ones dictate the overall tone. If no-one challenges disruptors, a good neighbourhood can quickly deteriorate or be intimidated by bullies. The other part finds it very easy to ignore and move on. I kinda sit on both sides on the fence on that one, I guess. It all depends.

In general, I agree that it would be great if people just shrugged off a lot, or had acquired the capacity to do so. To not take insult when it is handed out, and certainly, when it actually wasn't handed out.

Still, here, we have rules, and we have them for good reasons too.

We aren't on the internet, we are on this site. And CN tries to offer people a place where they can show up and share their communal cycling enthusiasm, knowing that they don't have to take everything coming their way "and take it, because it is the internet".

on a side note; i seem to remember that in the moderators thread that moderators were defending the level of moderation as not causing any kind of censorship. my memory may be faulty, though.

In context, all I can remember is mods arguing/claiming that you can pretty much state just about any cycling related opinion here (with VERY few exceptions or restrictions, which are on the whole spelled out, or quickly clarified). To me that is pretty much true seen in isolation, and certainly compared to other similar commercial sites. Looks at what is left untouched or left standing on those rare occasions when a mod intervenes [the same post minus the attitude]. CN tolerates quite a bit here in the forum, even encourages topics that plenty of sites shy away from. Not to mention the acceptance of speculative second-guessing by people without key facts.

I am struggling to think of any cycling related opinion that you can't voice here, to be frank. You might have to consider the exact wording you pick, or the place you post it in, or put in some quantifiers, but I am sure all of us could find a wording for just about any 'piece of mind' that you wanted to convey to others, that would be a totally acceptable post here.

It's not what you say, it is how you say it. And. at times, where you say it, for functional reasons.

We moderate attitude, not opinion. So if mods tinker with a post, the poster in question inflicted their own wounds, despite plenty of hints from our part on how to avoid that.

 

[gregod]

...

We aren't on the internet, we are on this site. And CN tries to offer people a place where they can show up and share their communal cycling enthusiasm, knowing that they don't have to take everything coming their way "and take it, because it is the internet".

...

the bold is where we differ. because it is the internet, there is nothing to "take". none of you know me, nor i you. we have no personal connection whatsoever. therefore no amount of invective written (about me or anybody else) by anybody here no matter how negative is not to be taken seriously.

that said, i concede the point. the site rules dictate the paramaters of behaviour.

the larger point is that complaining about what people write on the internet is a fool's errand. it's impossible trying to control people's thoughts. given there is very little filter between one's thoughts and fingertips and the vast physical separation of the intertubes, it will always be this way.