[Steve in ATL]

So we've recently has a spate (mostly in the last two days) of pretty heavy vitriol.

Once again, as in the past on these forums, it's been around doping, and who may be, who is or isn't, and who we can accuse of what in order to get a rise out of fellow board members. The contention has gotten out of hand, as has happened in the past.

At one time ALL discussion of doping was banned at this forum. Now, you can call it pollyannish (and you'd probably be right), but it did work. Cycling was all that was discussed, and we had a ton of good conversation. But, in recognition of some members desires who did want to discuss it, we set up the doping forums with a few VERY simple rules. Rules that a lot of people can't seem to follow, and it's caused a lot of discord and strife.

The basic problem stems from the arguement over doping being a very emotional one, and people on all sides / apporachs of the issue have been guilty f the same behavior: rule violations, allowing themselves to be goaded, etc.

So, we have a problem, and as the Site Admin, it's incumbent upon me to figure out a solution. Having given it some thought, here's what I'm going to do:

1) Two of the more egregious cases received disciplinary action against them today.
2) From this point forward, the moderators will be treated with utmost respect when they are acting in a moderator function. That's not to say that they (or any other member) should be treated with disrespect - I'm just saying don't get all pissy when / if a decision does not go your way.
3) The members will recognize that when they signed up for this forum they agreed to abide by it's rules an guidelines. I and the other mods will be holding you to your word.
4) To whit: ANY violations of the rules or guidelines of this forum involving the doping rules (such as posting doping content outside of the doping forum, etc), or basic civility in how we treat our fellow members will result in that member's account being suspended (no PM, no posting, etc) until after the Tour.
5) If this does not work, I will close the doping forum and we will revert to the old board rule of NO doping discussion whatsoever.

Thanks in advance for your attentiveness and cooperation.

[smug]

"tell him that it's Human Nature" . . . .

[MacRoadie]

"tell him that it's Human Nature" . . . .

What, "the way you make me feel"?

[Burkni]

What, "the way you make me feel"?

Guess he is just asking us to look at the man in the mirror ...

[smug]

I just wish Steve would "Give Me One More Chance" because "I Want DPF Back"

This post has been edited by smug: 27 June 2009 - 11:56 AM

[ludwig]

I think a lot of the problems stem from the various trolls on the forum--those who try to turn productive discussions into silly ad hominems. Ali, Campy, and VP are the most egregious. They almost only post on doping issues, and they try to derail any discussion on doping into a Lance vrs. Greg L. slugfest. Almost nothing they say is serious or ought to be taken seriously, but other posters on the forum consistently indulge them and argue with them even though they are probably aware it is pointless and won't lead to anything substantial. Obviously it isn't my call--its up to the moderators and board owners--but if you really wanted to restore civility booting these users would be a good start. If that's not considered fair or possible, it might be a good idea to remind everyone that there is an ignore function.

Re. the problem of doping discussion in cycling forums... we can all try harder to avoid it but (speaking for myself) when I slip up its usually because I can't get around the fact that doping is part of the overall tactics and strategy of cycling. I can't fully analyze a race without taking doping and the fear of potential doping suspensions (and how that plays out in race tactics) into account. I suppose we can pretend it doesn't exist within the "Cycling Discussion" part of the forum, but this leaves out an essential aspect of the sport. Occasionally that aspect will spill over into race discussion, as the lines are blurry.

But I agree in principle that it is nice to have some part of the forum where doping polemics are off the table.

[patrick]

I think a lot of the problems stem from the various trolls on the forum--those who try to turn productive discussions into silly ad hominems. Ali, Campy, and VP are the most egregious. They almost only post on doping issues, and they try to derail any discussion on doping into a Lance vrs. Greg L. slugfest. Almost nothing they say is serious or ought to be taken seriously, but other posters on the forum consistently indulge them and argue with them even though they are probably aware it is pointless and won't lead to anything substantial. Obviously it isn't my call--its up to the moderators and board owners--but if you really wanted to restore civility booting these users would be a good start. If that's not considered fair or possible, it might be a good idea to remind everyone that there is an ignore function.

Re. the problem of doping discussion in cycling forums... we can all try harder to avoid it but (speaking for myself) when I slip up its usually because I can't get around the fact that doping is part of the overall tactics and strategy of cycling. I can't fully analyze a race without taking doping and the fear of potential doping suspensions (and how that plays out in race tactics) into account. I suppose we can pretend it doesn't exist within the "Cycling Discussion" part of the forum, but this leaves out an essential aspect of the sport. Occasionally that aspect will spill over into race discussion, as the lines are blurry.

But I agree in principle that it is nice to have some part of the forum where doping polemics are off the table.

i think you're right about the ad hominems, but i have to say that the three you mentioned are by no means the only responsible parties, nor are they the worst example. there is a lack of civility and a high level of intolerence from many of the forum members for anyone that dares to disagree with the popular opinions shared by many here.

i found the following quote in a post by n.b.o.l that expresses something that everyone needs to thinks about.

"Where did the concept that people who want sport rid of dopers, and people who want the fight against dopers to follow principles of fairness and basic human rights are on opposite sides of the fight come from????"

and that's how it is on this forum. too many personal attacks from both sides of the argument, with zero tolerance for differing points of view.

i think perhaps a few more moderators would be of help if they would remain neutral on opinion and moderate only on rules. i think that n.b.o.l. is one that stays above the fray and would be outstanding, but of course that isn't my decision to make.

you're right too, there is an ignore function, but i think that everyone should make a stronger effort to exercise a little self control regarding responses to obvious trolling. (myself included)

[shag]

I'll chime in with a thank you to Steve, any of the other mods, and any members who make a good faith attempt to get things back on the right track around here. I'll do my best as well. Maybe we can chalk the rancor up to everyone's extreme anxiety on the eve of Armstrong's return to cycling's biggest stage?

[vanishingPoint]

I think a lot of the problems stem from the various trolls on the forum--those who try to turn productive discussions into silly ad hominems. Ali, Campy, and VP are the most egregious. They almost only post on doping issues, and they try to derail any discussion on doping into a Lance vrs. Greg L. slugfest. Almost nothing they say is serious or ought to be taken seriously, but other posters on the forum consistently indulge them and argue with them even though they are probably aware it is pointless and won't lead to anything substantial. Obviously it isn't my call--its up to the moderators and board owners--but if you really wanted to restore civility booting these users would be a good start. If that's not considered fair or possible, it might be a good idea to remind everyone that there is an ignore function.
Re. the problem of doping discussion in cycling forums... we can all try harder to avoid it but (speaking for myself) when I slip up its usually because I can't get around the fact that doping is part of the overall tactics and strategy of cycling. I can't fully analyze a race without taking doping and the fear of potential doping suspensions (and how that plays out in race tactics) into account. I suppose we can pretend it doesn't exist within the "Cycling Discussion" part of the forum, but this leaves out an essential aspect of the sport. Occasionally that aspect will spill over into race discussion, as the lines are blurry.

Anything that isn't to your liking is dismissed as trolling? Wait, you've applied the ignore function......

i think you're right about the ad hominems, but i have to say that the three you mentioned are by no means the only responsible parties, nor are they the worst example. there is a lack of civility and a high level of intolerence from many of the forum members for anyone that dares to disagree with the popular opinions shared by many here.

These popular opinions you speak of....? Anyway It's been a little too cozy, for the Lance bad - Greg good crowd. Some guests may think there's a double standard or just confusion about the facts or lack of such.

I would be tranquil having any discussion about LA or GL completely banned.

[sweatpea]

Anything that isn't to your liking is dismissed as trolling? Wait, you've applied the ignore function......



These popular opinions you speak of....? Anyway It's been a little too cozy, for the Lance bad - Greg good crowd. Some guests may think there's a double standard or just confusion about the facts or lack of such.

I would be tranquil having any discussion about LA or GL completely banned.

Having LA or GL completely banned would eliminate about 90% of the posters on this forum.
I would rather read all the good and bad posts on this board than let's say, subscribe to a forum talking about tennis....the personalities in today's tennis game are BORING...nice to see that cyclists have personalities and generate discussion.

I miss the old days of Vitas Gerulaitis, Nastase, McEnroe....
Pete Sampras was a snore fest...great player, but like oatmeal, good for you but bland, bland, bland...
Likewise with Roger Federer...but at least he cries...shows some emotion.
Loved Agassi as well...

Don't get me started on the women's players.....

This post has been edited by sweatpea: 30 June 2009 - 03:17 PM

[frenchfry]

Lots of good points Steve.

Problem is that cycling and doping are, at least for now, intertwined and difficult to separate. On the other hand, too many threads degrade into mindless food fights.

Knowing the base of posters here, asking for restraint will be rather meaningless, we have already seen in the first 10 posts in this thread how it won't last. So it will have to be an all or nothing deal.

Could I also suggest that mods show some restraint in not spitting vitriol themselves (not naming names) and set an example to members. Respect has to go both ways.

[Steve in ATL]

Lots of good points Steve.

Problem is that cycling and doping are, at least for now, intertwined and difficult to separate. On the other hand, too many threads degrade into mindless food fights.

Knowing the base of posters here, asking for restraint will be rather meaningless, we have already seen in the first 10 posts in this thread how it won't last. So it will have to be an all or nothing deal.

Could I also suggest that mods show some restraint in not spitting vitriol themselves (not naming names) and set an example to members. Respect has to go both ways.

frechfry,

I understand them beign entwined. You don't have to un-entwine them in the doping forum. In the others, it is a strict requirement. It's why the doping forum exists.

WRT to your last comment, then banhammer knows no discrimination based on status. All will feel the pain if they tempt its attention.

[Ali]

... The basic problem stems from the arguement over doping being a very emotional one, and people on all sides / apporachs of the issue have been guilty f the same behavior: rule violations, allowing themselves to be goaded, etc ...

Given that I've already been singled out as a troll in this thread and that somehow, my opinions don't count ... because they appear to disagree with the majority here ... ?

You misrepresent the issue. Doping isn't emotive for me. To be honest, I'm pretty ambivalent to that particular problem. I think it's wrong (i.e. cheating) but it doesn't concern me directly, so I'm certainly not emotional about it.

What I am emotional about is innocent cyclists being screwed by a corrupt system (IMOH) and cyclists who have achieved so much, and given so much back, being constantly attacked for "crimes" which have never been proven.

That's what pisses me off and makes me emotional. It's not the argument over doping, which implies that some people are for it and some against. That's an inflammatory statement in my opinion and just encourages other posters to single me (and a few others) out as trouble makers, when we just happen to be more morally aware than the vast majority.

[Steve in ATL]

You misrepresent the issue.

Actually, the only misrepresentation of the issue here is yours. I said "all sides / approaches to the issue..." which encompasses you viewpoint.

So stay within the rules or you'll have a nice vacation.

[NSF]

Steve, You are good person and your commitment to this undertaking after all these years is pretty amazing. Can't believe you're still doing it.

[Ali]

Actually, the only misrepresentation of the issue here is yours. I said "all sides / approaches to the issue..." which encompasses you viewpoint.

So stay within the rules or you'll have a nice vacation.

I thought I'd made myself clear, but apparently not. Doping isn't an issue for me. Neither are different sides/approaches to the issue.

I'll say this once more. My issue is with justice. I'm a justice freak. Right and wrong ? That matters to me. I know it doesn't matter to most people in the western world (I can think of many perfect samples/examples). Standing up for what you believe in died out a long time ago. Shame, 'cause it used to be a defining characteristic for decent people. Now it's viewed as a weakness (got to keep playing the game, right ?).

I only follow one set of rules, Steve. I'll stay within your rules as long as they don't infringe upon my own.

[shag]

I know it doesn't matter to most people in the western world.

Huh?

[Steve in ATL]

I thought I'd made myself clear, but apparently not. Doping isn't an issue for me.

First it was:
"Doping isn't emotive for me."
Then it was:
"Doping isn't an issue for me."
What's up next?
"Doping doesn't exist for me."
"Doping can't do the laundry for me."
"Doping isn't a six-letter word for me."


?

[OAR]

First it was:
"Doping isn't emotive for me."
Then it was:
"Doping isn't an issue for me."
What's up next?
"Doping doesn't exist for me."
"Doping can't do the laundry for me."
"Doping isn't a six-letter word for me."
?

Your reply post is funny!


third time may be the charm!

[MacRoadie]

First it was:
"Doping isn't emotive for me."
Then it was:
"Doping isn't an issue for me."
What's up next?
"Doping doesn't exist for me."
"Doping can't do the laundry for me."
"Doping isn't a six-letter word for me."
?

Steve, they're his rules, remember?