What do you think of the Dr Maserati permaban?

[martinvickers]

I don't get this. What are you looking for in a forum? You argue your points extremely well and provide good context and content.

Why would you feel unfairly treated?

What do want out of his forum? Just people posting information and 11 others agreeing?

The debating forces all of us to strengthen our arguments. We shouldn't be afraid that someone might disagree with us or offer a different point of view. That's life.

I not sure what you're expecting from the mods?

Consistency, mainly. To be honest, if Digger, Sceptic and myself had all copped a week's ban yesterday, I'm not sure any of us could really have been too upset about it. No doubt we'd still disagree on the rights and wrongs, and who deserves it most, but it generally got very personal, very quickly, and that's usually a solid route to Bansville, Texas.

But it seems we can have as much of a go at each other, and give the rules the shaft as much as we like - and within reason I think the rules ARE important since if they were inforced, they'd keep debate more instructive and less destructive - but don't challenge a mod; jeepers, then the big guns come out.

For example, I thought what Digger did was MUCH worse than anything the Dr did - just my opinion - but even if he'd got more than a week's ban, I'd have been forced to defend him, because it would have been completely excessive to the offence.

I don't think a list of stats is what the forum wants to be, I do get that (p.s. I WILL get those times we discussed done by Tour, I swear by Beelzebub!), and pure opinion has its place. But without some form of sensible moderation it simply becomes a slanging match. And that's what's happening more and more.

You've perfected the 'gentle rib', and now that I get it, I enjoy it for what it is - a little whisper to "remember, thou art mortal", and a laugh from time to time too. It's a fine line, and no doubt you don't always stay on, but it certainly has it's place, and I appreciate it far more than I used to.

My 'schtick' is trying to peel the 'prejudices' away from the logic/facts, and to see what can be done to improve the sport, rather than reflexively condemning it - it makes me mostly reactive to big threads, and conspiracy theories - which in here means Sky, of course, although I've gone on Garmin and OPQS recently as well. There's a place for that too, even if Sceptic doesn't see it

And yes, I think there's a place for the Vortex, because people in here, me included no doubt though I try not, can be a) maddenly inconsistent and b) maddenly attached to memes rather than thinking. The Dr attacked both with rigour, and the truth was, his hit rate of being right was exceptionally good.

And now he's been PERMAbanned, essentially for his tone in addressing a bad moderator, even though what he threatened to do was exactly what he ought to in such circumstances - take it up with Benson.

So there. Consistency, mainly. And less mod effort protecting their own pride, and more trying to ensure the actual rules are kept.

I'm not holding my breath on either.

p.s. I do appreciate the compliment, especially from a peer with whom I disagree quite often.

 

[Spider1964]

That's pretty absurd, and a small ratchet up from many previous posts attempting in soooo many words to say "the mods have no authority over me or my posting".

Not surprised by the perma-ban. I would rather Mas was here than not, but ffs, he has repeatedly declined to be a mod, so he needs to accept that he's not running the forum. And he's not exempt from the rules.

Assuming mod ego here almost surely wrong and certainly un-informed.

Really too bad he chose this path. He was getting so much better at posting actual content instead of vortexing, and has long been a valuable poster.

This.







10 Char

 

[The Hitch]

That's pretty absurd, and a small ratchet up from many previous posts attempting in soooo many words to say "the mods have no authority over me or my posting".

Not surprised by the perma-ban. I would rather Mas was here than not, but ffs, he has repeatedly declined to be a mod, so he needs to accept that he's not running the forum. And he's not exempt from the rules.

Assuming mod ego here almost surely wrong and certainly un-informed.

Really too bad he chose this path. He was getting so much better at posting actual content instead of vortexing, and has long been a valuable poster.

I understand, but the problem is, from what has been said by Granville and others, is that Berzin played a major role in all this happening by wrongly screwing doc over in the first place.

Doc then goes bad, which is a shame, but berzin should not have pushed him over the edge to begin with.

 

[Spider1964]

I understand, but the problem is, from what has been said by Granville and others, is that Berzin played a major role in all this happening by wrongly screwing doc over in the first place.

Doc then goes bad, which is a shame, but berzin should not have pushed him over the edge to begin with.

Hitch, I consider you to be one of the most thoughtful posters on this board, but in this instance I respectfully disagree with your position regarding Dr Mas and Berzin. IMO the good Doc bought this upon himself. His posting in multiple threads were becoming more belligerent and patronising, right up to the point where he then challenged the authority of a mod, the post is there for posterity and I won't quote it, but it was a clear challenge to Berzin and the mod team (which I think has been lost in all of this).

 

[MarkvW]

I understand, but the problem is, from what has been said by Granville and others, is that Berzin played a major role in all this happening by wrongly screwing doc over in the first place.

Doc then goes bad, which is a shame, but berzin should not have pushed him over the edge to begin with.

Today Berzin picks on Maserati, Maserati goes thermonuclear, Maserati gets banned. Tomorrow it will be a different person. Sooner or later management will figure it out . . ..

 

[mewmewmew13]

Hitch, I consider you to be one of the most thoughtful posters on this board, but in this instance I respectfully disagree with your position regarding Dr Mas and Berzin. IMO the good Doc bought this upon himself. His posting in multiple threads were becoming more belligerent and patronising, right up to the point where he then challenged the authority of a mod, the post is there for posterity and I won't quote it, but it was a clear challenge to Berzin and the mod team (which I think has been lost in all of this).

I have to say that doc would have backed down had it not been for the style of Berzin I think.

Certain mod personalities have clashed with some of us before..it 's just a matter of time before a convo escalates…as there is too much tete a tete happening..
mods should not get too wordy but just a simple warning sometimes is more effective…

verbosity and 'reasoning' sometimes take on the illusion real or imagined of pushing the stakes up…and sometimes it feels like a challenge from the mod or trolling.

I'm not saying we as posters have no responsibility in keeping our tone in check but I'm trying to point out a different perspective..

 

[red_flanders]

I think everyone needs to understand that there may be history which affects mod decisions in each case. It is not simply confined to a single event many times. Maybe this one was, I don't know. But I also would allow for the possibility (likelihood) that there was a LOT that happened behind the scenes, recently or in the past which may have played into this.

Again, I wish the Doc were posting here and could find a way to thrive within the framework of the rules and the mod instructions.

There's real good to allowing folks to discuss these issues, but it has limits. Basically you have a lot of people who know very little or nothing about the particulars of a situation passing judgement on the participants (mods or members). These judgements are certainly under-informed at best, and as such need to be tempered.

I would encourage Mas to reach out to the mod team and come to an understanding, realizing it can't be on his terms alone.

He was the first poster who engaged with me when I joined and has brought a ton of valuable content to the site. As much as I tangle with him I value him. But the attitude that he is above the rules is not new or confined to this situation and would have to change for that to happen. Seems eminently doable to me, and worthwhile. I hope he has a change of heart, and the mods can be open to such a discussion.

 

[Spider1964]

I have to say that doc would have backed down had it not been for the style of Berzin I think.

Certain mod personalities have clashed with some of us before..it 's just a matter of time before a convo escalates…as there is too much tete a tete happening..
mods should not get too wordy but just a simple warning sometimes is more effective…

verbosity and 'reasoning' sometimes take on the illusion real or imagined of pushing the stakes up…and sometimes it feels like a challenge from the mod or trolling.

I'm not saying we as posters have no responsibility in keeping our tone in check but I'm trying to point out a different perspective..

I hear what you are saying Mew... both sides sometimes need to tone it down. The only time I had a warning of any sort was over a term widely used where I'm from, but frowned upon in other parts. I took it on the chin and moved on, suitably admonished.

Dr Mas has been and if the groundswell gains momentum, in the future will be a valued poster, I did sometimes tire of his constant harping over the minatue of a sentence, but it was entertaining reading at times. He was also more often than not correct.

Anyway, I must get back to being an observer. Cheers.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Today Berzin picks on Maserati, Maserati goes thermonuclear, Maserati gets banned. Tomorrow it will be a different person. Sooner or later management will figure it out . . ..

I think you are giving "management" too much credit.

 

[thehog]

Consistency, mainly. To be honest, if Digger, Sceptic and myself had all copped a week's ban yesterday, I'm not sure any of us could really have been too upset about it. No doubt we'd still disagree on the rights and wrongs, and who deserves it most, but it generally got very personal, very quickly, and that's usually a solid route to Bansville, Texas.

But it seems we can have as much of a go at each other, and give the rules the shaft as much as we like - and within reason I think the rules ARE important since if they were inforced, they'd keep debate more instructive and less destructive - but don't challenge a mod; jeepers, then the big guns come out.

For example, I thought what Digger did was MUCH worse than anything the Dr did - just my opinion - but even if he'd got more than a week's ban, I'd have been forced to defend him, because it would have been completely excessive to the offence.

I don't think a list of stats is what the forum wants to be, I do get that (p.s. I WILL get those times we discussed done by Tour, I swear by Beelzebub!), and pure opinion has its place. But without some form of sensible moderation it simply becomes a slanging match. And that's what's happening more and more.

You've perfected the 'gentle rib', and now that I get it, I enjoy it for what it is - a little whisper to "remember, thou art mortal", and a laugh from time to time too. It's a fine line, and no doubt you don't always stay on, but it certainly has it's place, and I appreciate it far more than I used to.

My 'schtick' is trying to peel the 'prejudices' away from the logic/facts, and to see what can be done to improve the sport, rather than reflexively condemning it - it makes me mostly reactive to big threads, and conspiracy theories - which in here means Sky, of course, although I've gone on Garmin and OPQS recently as well. There's a place for that too, even if Sceptic doesn't see it

And yes, I think there's a place for the Vortex, because people in here, me included no doubt though I try not, can be a) maddenly inconsistent and b) maddenly attached to memes rather than thinking. The Dr attacked both with rigour, and the truth was, his hit rate of being right was exceptionally good.

And now he's been PERMAbanned, essentially for his tone in addressing a bad moderator, even though what he threatened to do was exactly what he ought to in such circumstances - take it up with Benson.

So there. Consistency, mainly. And less mod effort protecting their own pride, and more trying to ensure the actual rules are kept.

I'm not holding my breath on either.

p.s. I do appreciate the compliment, especially from a peer with whom I disagree quite often.

And there lies the problem. You guys were discussing concepts well beyond cycling, doping or it's players. It was personal. (and don't worry I get it, it's so frustrating, been there).

What you guys needed was a "meditator" not a moderator. If I was a mod, I would have told you all to p1ss off and take the fight outside the bar

Same for Mas. It got personal. He took his frustration personally out on one specific mod. The method was all wrong to get his message across.

It reminds me of the fall of Saddam Hussian. Or in our case Armstrong. That was it. The giant had been slayed. Then what? The civil war began. The factions were created and those who we thought were on the same lines of thinking were not. We just all shared a common interest in Armstrong going down. Reality suggests where all just a mismatch of different people all posting the same board. Everyone is trying so hard to thrust forward their one specific point they lose sight that the mods have to protect a 20,000ft view of the situation. Not just one battle.

I also don't know why those who are fans of Sky get so angry about the doping connertations or a doping forum which is specifically about doping and cycling. Isn't this a place whereby you'll likely find performances being questioned? If that's too much for timid eyes then I'd stay away. Or go to a place whereby it's not a doping forum, like PRR section, yes? ie by the vary fact you're in a doping forum you're going to expect to talk about doping and probably at some point about a rider or team whom one may like.

And you have to admit cycling does it self no favours. And we should never lose our sense of humour in all this. A photo of Froome pushing Henderson does wonders for breaking the hate deadlocks!

I am genuine in my regards to your posting style. You're succinct and to the point. Something I'm not.

Perhaps some try to hard to assert their knowledge as insiders or lawyers or whatever. We're all equals here and everyone has a right to express themselves but we have to remember not to ram it down peoples throats, myself included.

 

[MarkvW]

And there lies the problem. You guys were discussing concepts well beyond cycling, doping or it's players. It was personal. (and don't worry I get it, it's so frustrating, been there).

What you guys needed was a "meditator" not a moderator. If I was a mod, I would have told you all to p1ss off and take the fight outside the bar

Same for Mas. It got personal. He took his frustration personally out on one specific mod. The method was all wrong to get his message across.

It reminds me of the fall of Saddam Hussian. Or in our case Armstrong. That was it. The giant had been slayed. Then what? The civil war began. The factions were created and those who we thought were on the same lines of thinking were not. We just all shared a common interest in Armstrong going down. Reality suggests where all just a mismatch of different people all posting the same board. Everyone is trying so hard to thrust forward their one specific point they lose sight that the mods have to protect a 20,000ft view of the situation. Not just one battle.

I also don't know why those who are fans of Sky get so angry about the doping connertations or a doping forum which is specifically about doping and cycling. Isn't this a place whereby you'll likely find performances being questioned? If that's too much for timid eyes then I'd stay away. Or go to a place whereby it's not a doping forum, like PRR section, yes? ie by the vary fact you're in a doping forum you're going to expect to talk about doping and probably at some point about a rider or team whom one may like.

And you have to admit cycling does it self no favours. And we should never lose our sense of humour in all this. A photo of Froome pushing Henderson does wonders for breaking the hate deadlocks!

I am genuine in my regards to your posting style. You're succinct and to the point. Something I'm not.

Perhaps some try to hard to assert their knowledge as insiders or lawyers or whatever. We're all equals here and everyone has a right to express themselves but we have to remember not to ram it down peoples throats, myself included.

Hog. You should be the meditator. Meditate on peace and love. ... and meditate on not introducing hot-button issues (Sky) into every discussion.

 

[The Hitch]

While we are on the subject of bans and moderators etc, could one of the moderators tell me which part of the 4th post in this thread was deemed a worthy on topic contribution to the discussion.

you should be perma banned, like you were on all the similar sites where you posted same stupid non sense that are you posting here.

 

[Ferminal]

Today Berzin picks on Maserati, Maserati goes thermonuclear, Maserati gets banned. Tomorrow it will be a different person. Sooner or later management will figure it out . . ..

Should have just read this post. Makes sense.

Doesn't make either action any more forgivable.

 

[thehog]

Hog. You should be the meditator. Meditate on peace and love. ... and meditate on not introducing hot-button issues (Sky) into every discussion.

By 'hot button' if you mean 'current', then yes.

I guess the point was, if you enter into an online forum about the effects of sugar in soda; sooner or later someone may post something about their experiences with your favorite drink. There is resonable expectation that would occur. That's why I bring the point up. If you're in a doping forum there's a resonable expectation that doping will be discussed which may or may not be about your favorite rider/team.

There's nothing shocking in the fact that people discuss doping in relation to a Tour de France winner. In fact that's what you would expect in a forum dedicated to doping.

 

[martinvickers]

Should have just read this post. Makes sense.

Doesn't make either action any more forgivable.

That's the oddest self-edit reason i've ever seen - FFS I LIED?

#confused

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Very slick, Mr Vickers. There are no rules as far as I can see relating to avatar contents!

 

[martinvickers]

Very slick, Mr Vickers. There are no rules as far as I can see relating to avatar contents!

It was either that, or this...

 

[ebandit]

content

Very slick, Mr Vickers. There are no rules as far as I can see relating to avatar contents!

graphic violence / sexual images are not allowed

Mark L

 

[martinvickers]

graphic violence / sexual images are not allowed

Mark L

If you find that image either violent or sexual, i worry for you...

 

[RedheadDane]

If you find that image either violent or sexual, i worry for you...

I do think it was meant in general...

 

[Netserk]

That's the oddest self-edit reason i've ever seen - FFS I LIED?

#confused

The (meta)comment he removed was a lie

 

[Granville57]

There's real good to allowing folks to discuss these issues, but it has limits. Basically you have a lot of people who know very little or nothing about the particulars of a situation passing judgement on the participants (mods or members). These judgements are certainly under-informed at best, and as such need to be tempered.

Therein lies the problem with these "secret tribunals" that apparently place behind closed doors—they lead to endless speculation based on, mostly, assumptions. It's true of any organization when information is withheld from the masses.

The question I have—given the insignificance of a cycling forum in the grand scheme of things—is, Why? Why not just publicly state the full reasons behind the decision? I don't agree with python's suggestion that these matters should be kept under wraps.

Adding to the problem is that an "official" mod, in the form of Wallace, has already stated, unequivocally, the reason for the ban. But it would appear there is much more to it.

Look, I haven't the slightest idea what Doc thought the outcome would be of him challenging the entire mod staff so directly, nor do I agree with his tactics on here at times. The vortex was real, and the most frustrating aspect of it was when Doc insisted that he didn't even know what vortexing was.

Years ago, thehog was appealing to Maserati to reduce the clutter. As I remember, on more than one occasion, he would ask the good doctor to, "give it a rest. For the good of the forum, let it go." But his pleas would fall on deaf ears.

I have my own opinions on Maserati's posting style, but it wouldn't be fair to bring them up when he's not here to defend himself. If he returns, I plan on challenging him on a couple of issue right off the bat, knowing, confidently, that Doc will always engage in a conversation that is civil and respectful.

I'll leave it at that, for the moment.

 

[red_flanders]

Therein lies the problem with these "secret tribunals" that apparently place behind closed doors—they lead to endless speculation based on, mostly, assumptions. It's true of any organization when information is withheld from the masses.

The question I have—given the insignificance of a cycling forum in the grand scheme of things—is, Why? Why not just publicly state the full reasons behind the decision? I don't agree with python's suggestion that these matters should be kept under wraps.

Adding to the problem is that an "official" mod, in the form of Wallace, has already stated, unequivocally, the reason for the ban. But it would appear there is much more to it.

Look, I haven't the slightest idea what Doc thought the outcome would be of him challenging the entire mod staff so directly, nor do I agree with his tactics on here at times. The vortex was real, and the most frustrating aspect of it was when Doc insisted that he didn't even know what vortexing was.

Years ago, thehog was appealing to Maserati to reduce the clutter. As I remember, on more than one occasion, he would ask the good doctor to, "give it a rest. For the good of the forum, let it go." But his pleas would fall on deaf ears.

I have my own opinions on Maserati's posting style, but it wouldn't be fair to bring them up when he's not here to defend himself. If he returns, I plan on challenging him on a couple of issue right off the bat, knowing, confidently, that Doc will always engage in a conversation that is civil and respectful.

I'll leave it at that, for the moment.

"Secret Tribunals" is fairly dramatic and pejorative. The process is much less odious than that, it's simply a message in a private forum describing the situation and asking for feedback. Consensus is not required but consultation is a very good idea, and for heavy action I have not seen a mod act without some kind of agreement/feedback from others.

What is the other option? To have every complaint and issue aired out in public? Not useful or tenable.

As for publicly stating the reason for the ban, I agree that should always be done. I am also 100% certain from experience that it will do nothing to quell the rancor. No explanation would satisfy all members here, of that you can be sure. But nevertheless, an explanation should always be provided.

Things would go more smoothly here if members didn't imagine dark forces at play and erred on the side of assuming good faith. You would be correct 95% of the time.

 

[Granville57]

"Secret Tribunals" is fairly dramatic...

It was meant to be. I used it for "dramatic effect."

However, hidden from view is hidden from view, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you understood my point, as your always-articulate response demonstrates.

Too bad you're not still part of the mod squad, red. The loss is ours.

 

[red_flanders]

It was meant to be. I used it for "dramatic effect."

However, hidden from view is hidden from view, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you understood my point, as your always-articulate response demonstrates.

Too bad you're not still part of the mod squad, red. The loss is ours.

Thanks, I appreciate the comment. It simply was too time-consuming for me to do it to a level which I felt was consistent and effective. And the membership is loud and clear about wanting consistency.

And I got tired of endless PM loops regarding the simplest of moderation.

I wanted to try and contribute to the community as a mod, but simply could not keep up with the demands. Members complain about drop-in moderation, but you really have no other way to try and deal with it unless you're here 6-8 hours a day contributing. I could put in 1/2 an hour a day on average. I work in tech and have a family. Wasn't working for me.

I wish everyone would give the mods a bit of a break. It's an impossible job. Not to say there shouldn't be feedback or complaints, but it would be much more reasonable to log complaints about patterns of behavior rather than individual incidents (for the most part). Patterns can be modified, but each complaint/thread about particular incidents is time-consuming even if you don't see mod response. You have to read, review and consult at times with the other mods.

I think keeping it constructive criticism would be much appreciated and keeping it from getting nasty or assuming the worst would go a long way as well. Not directing this at you or this particular incident (which I think warrants discussion) but it gets overwhelming pretty quickly when every little post edit or deletion sets of a firestorm.

Let's give the mods our support and assume good faith, and complain up the chain when we see patterns of behavior we see as wrong, rather than freaking out every time we get moderated. It would make this place better for us all.