[House]

Not speaking for RH, but every time this xenophobic comments are made the whole thread devolves into a load of crap, so I think he is right, though I think he should have deleted those parts and posted a warning instead of letting them remain in the thread.
-------
same as above.

[frenchfry]

[quote](frenchfry @ May 30 2007, 12:20 PM)
Now you know what Indurain knows? Wow, you have some amazing powers.[/quote]

[quote name='ChrisH' date='May 31 2007, 12:16 AM' post='74256']
There's this method of communication termed "writing". Those with "reading" ability can then know what someone else knows without being present at the original communication.
[/quote]


QUOTE(frenchfry @ May 30 2007, 12:20 PM)
Winners make great speeches about miracles, when they are surrounded by drug addict cyclists and "doctors" with their medical bags full of EPO and syringes.

At least losers that are clean have kept their honour. Better than being a doping winner in control any day, at least in my books.[/quote]

[quote name='ChrisH' date='May 31 2007, 12:16 AM' post='74256']
Are you accusing Indurain of doping? Cause if you are, I have a vacation in mind for you and anyone else here who wants to test that line.
[/quote]

Chris H, are you posting in this thread as a member or as a moderator?

You insinuate that somehow I am accusing Indurain of doping. This was never my intention, and even re-reading my post I still can’t figure out how you came to this conclusion.

Threatening to take action against me (I think the threat is pretty clear, as I don’t think you are referring to my summer vacation plans) for a post that doesn’t appear to violate any of the forum rules is about as close to moderator abuse as I would like to come. Maybe you just don’t like my point of view?

Please provide a reference to the rule I may have transgressed in order to justify your threat. Otherwise you can keep your threats where they belong.

This post has been edited by frenchfry: 31 May 2007 - 10:25 AM

[OAR]

I find it odd that moderators are taking sides in the open on the Message Board and also letting someone know that there are internal moderation matters happening. Who is moderating you?

It was brought to my attention that we should not publicly ridicule / bait / taunt any other members or moderators. Then to see the actions that are transpiring now only proves that the actions requested from members are not the actions which even the moderators are upholding.

Should I just PM that particular moderator then you get some sort of intellectual ignore. This is not the way someone would expect the moderation to be handled. Personally I do not think Vaughn is aware of these actions.

Why?

[zekeydekey]

I think you have a valid concern, Frenchfry. The moderating team is investigating it. Unsubstantiated claims were made about both Indurain and Greg Lemond.

Don't give up on any of us

Glad to hear it. The unevenness of the moderation--a smackdown for slights against Indurain, silence for repeated violations of the rules regarding LeMond--only adds fuel to the long-simmering fire about lack of objectivity in the moderation.

The inconsistency allows the spread of the notion that the rules exist only to quell certain types of commentary, whether there is truth in this or not.

[formerlyfit]

post edited due to the board playing tricks on me

This post has been edited by formerlyfit: 31 May 2007 - 10:06 PM

[DanS]

Glad to hear it. The unevenness of the moderation--a smackdown for slights against Indurain, silence for repeated violations of the rules regarding LeMond--only adds fuel to the long-simmering fire about lack of objectivity in the moderation.

The inconsistency allows the spread of the notion that the rules exist only to quell certain types of commentary, whether there is truth in this or not.

I think it is your own misinterpretation and mis-comprehension of what has been posted that leads to your falsely accusing the moderators of lack of objectivity.

I'm not aware that anyone has outright said LeMond doped. Speaking for myself, I asked you to convince me that LeMond's performances are believable within the context of a doping culture. You failed to do so.

Interestingly, Armstrong's defenders over the years have been far more convincing than LeMond's defenders. At least the talk about superior training, etc. sounded believable. Suggestions that LeMond didn't dope simply because no one has claimed he did are lame to say the least. We are talking about an era that includes thousands of riders and less than 1% have ever talked about doping. By your "logic," doping didn't exist during the LeMond era!

[zekeydekey]

I think it is your own misinterpretation and mis-comprehension of what has been posted that leads to your falsely accusing the moderators of lack of objectivity.

My post here was not directed at you. Thanks.

I'm not aware that anyone has outright said LeMond doped. Speaking for myself, I asked you to convince me that LeMond's performances are believable within the context of a doping culture. You failed to do so.

Interestingly, Armstrong's defenders over the years have been far more convincing than LeMond's defenders. At least the talk about superior training, etc. sounded believable. Suggestions that LeMond didn't dope simply because no one has claimed he did are lame to say the least. We are talking about an era that includes thousands of riders and less than 1% have ever talked about doping. By your "logic," doping didn't exist during the LeMond era!

The answers to all your comments are already in my posts in the topic you seem to want to re-start here. Including a comment letting you know I'm done with the topic. It's going nowhere productive. Thanks.

[OAR]

no - where

done

out

[Patrick B. Penguin]

Amifan had posted what I thought was honest feedback expressing her frustration with the moderating (it was in the free christ t thread regarding ElizaB). Too bad her post only lasted about half an hour before it was deleted. I was concerned to read her account of how she was told she would be put on post preview if she brought up that topic again. So does that mean she is on post-preview now too? There was absolutely NOTHING in her post (that I recall) that warranted deletion other than a certain moderator disagreeing with Amifan's opinion. I didn't realize one of the perks of being a mod was to determine which topics should be allowed and which should be censored for arbritary reasons.

Donate to the A.F.F. today...

[ChrisH]

I was concerned to read her account of how she was told she would be put on post preview if she brought up that topic again.

She repeatedly violated rule 1.3 by making moderator comments in a non-feedback forum discussion and was warned by PM that re-posting that violation would result in being put in preview.

So does that mean she is on post-preview now too? There was absolutely NOTHING in her post (that I recall) that warranted deletion other than a certain moderator disagreeing with Amifan's opinion.

No, amifan was not put in preview for that post. If you wish to discuss any disciplinary actions involving amifan, get her permission and we'll discuss it. Barring that, this discussion is over.

[admt]

ChisH: “Barring that this discussion is over”

Ortamortafortebellemamamia! ChisH, I’d like to whisper some light breaths in your ear. Can I? Thank you. My 6-year old son, Paul jr, would do better than you did in the post above. You told why Amifan was suspended with you left tongue and abruptly ended the conversation with your right tongue because "it can not be discussed". (end of whisper) I hope you are not a policeman in real life. Than you. Paul.

[amifan]

....

No, amifan was not put in preview for that post. If you wish to discuss any disciplinary actions involving amifan, get her permission and we'll discuss it. ....

Hi everyone - I would love an open discussion about why my posts were elimated and me being put on preview. Thank you for allowing me a public hearing You all have my blessing to discuss anything about my posts and my actions and over-reactions as concerns this board.

Very cool to discuss this openly.

[gsteinb]

Hang on, I'm making the popcorn!


Chris the accusation that FrenchFry was making was not that Indurain doped. In fact you should apologize for that nonsense. The accusation was that you can't read Indurain's mind, which despite your awesome moderator powers I believe to be the case. He said this in response to your assessment that the meaning of Indurain's statement on Riis was that 'riders win tours, not drugs <paraphrase, perhaps>.' I've seen no one support this interpretation, and in fact I'd categorize it as cartoonish in its bending of words to match your point of view.

Indurain was saying one, or all, of several things:

1) why talk now, after all these years?
2) why talk at all?
3) I sucked so bad he could have been on M&Ms
4) Don't eat the brown acid
5) he's a cheating SOB and since the statute of limitations are up he can't be sanctioned, but I'd like to punch him in the nose.

That you would subsequently threaten to levy a suspension on him is not only absurd but a gross abuse of your role.

[Steve in ATL]

And I am here to not observe - I am here to state the following:

The DP moderation staff will not, does not, and can not publicly comment on disciplinary issues. This is per Vaughn's wish to keep such actions private.

If you (the members) wish to discuss it amongst yourselves, here or in another thread, feel free to do so, provided that you stay within forum rules and guidelines.

And I urge you to re-read (and understand) the forum rules and guidelines, and stay within them.

If Vaughn wishes to discuss the status of (or reasons behind) any particular member's disciplinary action, that is for him and him alone to do so (or to delegate to one of us - which he has not done so in this particular case).

This is not an island in survivor. No one is voted off, or on, the island. Disciplinary actions are not going to be run up the flag pole to see if the majority salutes - either prior- or post-action.

If there are issues with *specific* moderation action(s) there are ways with dealing with them, and they are discussed in the forum rules. I suggest that you all read them. The exception would be general questions and discussion (i.e., questions that do not revolve around a particular member or groups of members, or about particular moderators) - those are welcome here in this section (Feedback & Support).

That will be all.

(Edited for spelling - SinATL)

This post has been edited by Steve in ATL: 01 June 2007 - 03:54 PM

[Pelotonium]

That will be all.

So it is written, so it shall be done... ;-)

[ChrisH]

Chris the accusation that FrenchFry was making was not that Indurain doped.

It sounds more like Indurain is stuck in the dope and deny omerta time warp.

frenchfry was not moderated for that statement, but it certainly revealed what he was thinking and put into context his next post. We've had this discussion about reading the complete context before, gsteinb.

In fact you should apologize for that nonsense.

No, frenchfry owes me an apology and you, gsteinb, owe one to bman from a previous incident. Did you make that apology?

The accusation was that you can't read Indurain's mind, which despite your awesome moderator powers I believe to be the case.

Indurain does not want to call Riis "Mister 60 percent" like many others do. "I am not the one who should judge his declarations because only he knows what he did and only he is responsible of what he did."

Those type of statements are made by those who deny doping. I would not be surprised if Indurain explicitly denies doping in other statements.

Let me put this in clearer terms, if I see anyone violate the doping discussion rules they will be moderated by me until that rule is changed or I'm no longer a moderator. Anyone includes other moderators or public figures. No one gets special treatment from me. I don't give a rats a55 if you're a cynic, a Lemond fan, an Indurain hater, have high post counts, dislike me, or a mix. There is a time and place for diplomacy and when that is exhausted, disciplinary actions are required. You want to make me the bad guy, whatever. Everyone I've moderated broke the rules when they were moderated. And the members who complain the loudest about me are not coincidentally the same ones who break the rules the most often/egregiously.

[amifan]

I am here to observe...

Ami, you know I U

G - Love the popcorn, pass it please...

RTT - likewise

Excellent having this thread degenerate into a love fest

[gsteinb]

No, frenchfry owes me an apology and you, gsteinb, owe one to bman from a previous incident. Did you make that apology?

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else cause I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Bjørn P.Dal]

Glad I didnt make any popcorn. This has been crap so far.