What is 'trolling' here?

[bNator]

[[content deleted]]

You don't seem to understand the idea behind the concept of consequence. If there is no consequence, there is no negative stimulation to break the rules, which means rules get broken more frequently and this is not what we want. In an ideal society, we could rely on individuals to act responsibly and negative stimulation would not be necessary, but as proven many times on this forum, we are far from that kind of society.

I mean theoretically, we could probably go with your idea and just keep gently removing those kind of messages but that means a lot more work for the mods and it would have to be done quickly - not to derail discussions completely. And how is that fair? To allow posters to post trash at the expense of volunteers free time?

 

[RedheadDane]

You don't seem to understand the idea behind the concept of consequence. If there is no consequence, there is no negative stimulation to break the rules, which means rules get broken more frequently and this is not what we want. In an ideal society, we could rely on individuals to act responsibly and negative stimulation would not be necessary, but as proven many times on this forum, we are far from that kind of society.

I mean theoretically, we could probably go with your idea and just keep gently removing those kind of messages but that means a lot more work for the mods and it would have to be done quickly - not to derail discussions completely. And how is that fair? To allow posters to post trash at the expense of volunteers free time?

The consequence is "This post gets removed."
It would also show other people what the poster in question did wrong, instead of just making it look like the poster got randomly banned.

And it's not like it's less work for the mods to both remove those posts, and ban people...

Then, maybe as a last ditch consequence, banning could be considered. Perhaps if a poster has ten posts that a mod needs to remove...

Basically, the issue I have is that here, banning seems to be one of the first options taken. Whereas in other fora, it's the last thing considered.

 

[bNator]

The consequence is "This post gets removed."
It would also show other people what the poster in question did wrong, instead of just making it look like the poster got randomly banned.

And it's not like it's less work for the mods to both remove those posts, and ban people...

I understand that "This post gets removed." is the consequence, but it's much less stimulating than a ban. And since it's less stimulating -> more rule breaks -> more work for the mods.

Then, maybe as a last ditch consequence, banning could be considered. Perhaps if a poster has ten posts that a mod needs to remove...

I'm pretty sure it's already like that. I have gotten two warnings during my history as a poster and no direct ban. I'm guessing guys who get banned are the ones who just do not respond to mod's warnings.

 

[RedheadDane]

I understand that "This post gets removed." is the consequence, but it's much less stimulating than a ban. And since it's less stimulating -> more rule breaks -> more work for the mods.

But that doesn't change the fact that other posters won't be able to learn what was done wrong, so they can avoid repeating the same mistake in the future.
It seems in this case, mou really did do something wrong. However, given the various cases we've had of people banned for what seemed like a simple misunderstanding, it's no wonder people are questioning it.
I'm not even saying the forum is gonna miss a whole lot by him being unable to post, wasn't missing a whole lot when he voluntarily didn't post for a while. I'm just opposed to bannings on principle.

I'm pretty sure it's already like that. I have gotten two warnings during my history as a poster and no direct ban. I'm guessing guys who get banned are the ones who just do not respond to mod's warnings.

Unfortunately, we can't even check. It appears removed posts are removed entirely, rather than leaving a ghost of "Post Removed by Mod" behind.

 

[bNator]

But that doesn't change the fact that other posters won't be able to learn what was done wrong, so they can avoid repeating the same mistake in the future.
It seems in this case, mou really did do something wrong. However, given the various cases we've had of people banned for what seemed like a simple misunderstanding, it's no wonder people are questioning it.
I'm not even saying the forum is gonna miss a whole lot by him being unable to post, wasn't missing a whole lot when he voluntarily didn't post for a while. I'm just opposed to bannings on principle.

Unfortunately, we can't even check. It appears removed posts are removed entirely, rather than leaving a ghost of "Post Removed by Mod" behind.

I support the idea of more transparency when it comes to banning - both from the perspective of being able to evaluate the actions of a mod and being able to learn what not to do. If nothing else, it just seems more democratic.

But I fear there's a reason it doesn't work the way we think it would - it has probably been tried and not succeeded (on other forums, at least). We must remember we're all anonymous here and hold absolutely zero responsibility/accountability for our actions, so it's very possible that the same democratic ideas that work (to an extent) in real life, just don't work in this environment.

 

[RedheadDane]

But I fear there's a reason it doesn't work the way we think it would - it has probably been tried and not succeeded (on other forums, at least).

We had that, before the Forum-takeover in 2019. A simple locked threads in which mods would post simple messages about which sanctions had been given to whom, it worked fine.
What didn't work was the fact that we also had a separate thread in which people would post their opinion on various bans. Unfortunately, it seems some people have gotten those two threads conflated.

 

[red_flanders]

I support the idea of more transparency when it comes to banning - both from the perspective of being able to evaluate the actions of a mod and being able to learn what not to do. If nothing else, it just seems more democratic.

But I fear there's a reason it doesn't work the way we think it would - it has probably been tried and not succeeded (on other forums, at least). We must remember we're all anonymous here and hold absolutely zero responsibility/accountability for our actions, so it's very possible that the same democratic ideas that work (to an extent) in real life, just don't work in this environment.

It's been tried here. I've seen it from the user and the mod perspective.

It's a total waste of time. It generates antipathy and arguments, and it takes a lot of mod time to deal with. And it breeds a culture of "argue with every mod action", which is tedious, pointless, unproductive, and a waste of mod time.

It feels right, but it's not worth the effort. I've never seen it work on any forum.

 

[scribers]

It isn’t that hard. You just say “he wouldn’t stop complaining about the moderation openly in spite of 15 warnings and as many time outs so we had to remove him. He can’t read rules.” Or whatever the hell else happened.

You don’t like that? Go start your own damn forum

Forum members can generate some empathy for a volunteer whose time is being wasted by people who can’t follow simple rules.

 

[RedheadDane]

Is it "trolling" to clearly just misunderstand what a rider was saying?
Or not knowing what sources your national media translated their articles from?

 

[AmRacer]

Is it "trolling" to clearly just misunderstand what a rider was saying?
Or not knowing what sources your national media translated their articles from?

Yes.

 

[RedheadDane]

Yes.

Why?
We can all misunderstand.
Especially when reading something that has been translated.

 

[AmRacer]

Why?
We can all misunderstand.
Especially when reading something that has been translated.

Yes 😉

 

[RedheadDane]

Yes 😉

We'd all be constantly banned if that was true.
Especially considering how often people get banned around here.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

They see me trollin', they hatin',
Patrollin' and tryna catch me writin' dirty

 

[Rackham]

I'm seeing a few 'banned' regulars now. Including one of my favorite posters here (Krzysztof).

Straight off the bat I have no idea why any of these people were banned (or for how long).... but I'll reiterate a simple point on the issue of 'trolling': one person's definition of a 'troll' can be nothing more than a harmless joke to the silent majority.

So just because someone starts screaming (which in my experience generally speaking comes from fanboys who take their fanboyism of a particular rider to such a degree whereby anything perceived as slightly irreverent = trolling in their mind), I don't think the ban hammer should drop quite so liberally.

I come here for the good mood & laughs. It'll be a shame if posters start treading on eggshells & 'fearing' reprisals for some light-hearted fun.

​

 

[Lequack]

It's hard to have a conversation when everyone is banned.

 

[AmRacer]

Maybe the mods are trolling us🤔

 

[Netserk]

I'm seeing a few 'banned' regulars now. Including one of my favorite posters here (Krzysztof).

Straight off the bat I have no idea why any of these people were banned (or for how long).... but I'll reiterate a simple point on the issue of 'trolling': one person's definition of a 'troll' can be nothing more than a harmless joke to the silent majority.

So just because someone starts screaming (which in my experience generally speaking comes from fanboys who take their fanboyism of a particular rider to such a degree whereby anything perceived as slightly irreverent = trolling in their mind), I don't think the ban hammer should drop quite so liberally.

I come here for the good mood & laughs. It'll be a shame if posters start treading on eggshells & 'fearing' reprisals for some light-hearted fun.

Aye.

It seems that even good faith use of “belittling” nicknames is considered as trolling. E.g. if I call Vingegaard “skeletor”.

 

[Rackham]

Aye.

It seems that even good faith use of “belittling” nicknames is considered as trolling. E.g. if I call Vingegaard “skeletor”.

Geraint Thomas would get insta banned in that case, i.e. calling Evenepoel a little bastard. But it's funny, right? No harm done. It's just good banter.

Also, Skeletor has no feelings (anyone who's seen He-Man knows this), so he doesn't care either!

 

[Volderke]

It's hard to have a conversation when everyone is banned.

I noticed kind of lately that DNP-old has deleted (himself?) his account: https://forum.cyclingnews.com/members/dnp-old.107373/

And Krzysztof_O is banned...:

Krzysztof_O

forum.cyclingnews.com

I find it very hard to see people who I consider level-headed and thoughtful and adding something to this forum get banned or delete their account (after a ban?).

At the same time, I have approx. 5 very active members on 'blocked' and it strikes me that every time I see a reaction on one of those blocked members, posters are refuting their opinions... But as long as they're not considered to be trolling, they can clearly just bore the ... out of other posters with their tiring "opinions".

A forum is like a bar where you know the regulars, and everyone can be themselves, until the bartender refuses to serve you or pushes you out because you're destroying the atmosphere.

On this forum, it seems like regulars get thrown out while the party poopers are allowed to stay. But in the end, the cafe will only have the party poopers left.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH4TYgBeB-U


It makes me strongly consider leaving this forum as well... Just like Cindy, I don't want to hang out with party poopers.

 

[Lequack]

That's what happens when you start banning regulars who contribute a lot to discussions and the forum. Some don't take offense, but some do, and in the end you end up with a dwindling community. Bans should be reserved as a last measure for spammers, hackers, bots, etc. Not for just straying away from the topic, where you can just delete the offensive posts. It just makes me sad.

 

[scribers]

I’m not going to comment on moderation actions. But if I were moderator, I sure as heck would be handing out at least as many bans. Well done!!

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Don't think that regulars should be completely exempt from moderation, but it is very worrying that bans are being handed out at seemingly triple the rate they were before the change in moderatorship. For me, the first rule of moderation is that it should be aligned with the wishes of the community as a whole - it definitely doesn't feel like this is the case right now and for me, too, it's taking some of the fun out of posting here.

 

[RedheadDane]

Don't think that regulars should be completely exempt from moderation, but it is very worrying that bans are being handed out at seemingly triple the rate they were before the change in moderatorship. For me, the first rule of moderation is that it should be aligned with the wishes of the community as a whole - it definitely doesn't feel like this is the case right now and for me, too, it's taking some of the fun out of posting here.

On the flipside, AC has been doing a lot of actual mod-work.
Splitting off-shot discussions into separate threads. Cleaning up the rider thread index. Stuff like that.

Honestly, I still wonder how much of the issue comes from the fact that we have a bunch of administrators who - frankly - are not active members of the forum.

 

[AmRacer]

On the flipside, AC has been doing a lot of actual mod-work.
Splitting off-shot discussions into separate threads. Cleaning up the rider thread index. Stuff like that.

I second that.