Ok, we've had the members that complain about Serge's posts.
We've had the members that pick on Serge for failure to consider a view other than his own.
We've had Serge complaining about other member's posts.

Who do we ban in order to minimize the disruption? What will it take to make A&S relatively peaceful again? Is there some common denominator here?

Quick comments:

At least from the user's perspective, it would seem that JF and HH had company with regards to certain behavior. But a moderator's job is difficult and they are privy to information unavailable to us. I have no reason to mistrust their judgment. Moreover, I like mad sock puppets.

From the community's perspective, as a consequence of their policy that quashes contrarian thought, I want to also avoid the stale discussion over at Chainguard. Once in a blue moon it gets interesting there.

I enjoy haiku.
I applaud Zeytoun's efforts.
Can he keep it up?

Can he keep it up?

I can but shall not.
As it will quickly annoy.
Best used sparingly.

Its a shame that we've had to resort to bans. Perhaps the situation had become chronic, to use a medical term. That people can't agree to disagree and move on is a shame. Blazing rows over the best way to operate a bicycle - I wonder how the rest of the world would look upon this?

Damage to the forum's business as a reason to ban members - Unlikely, VC is a tiny infrequently visited narrow dirt track leading off A&S, itself not party to the most heavily forum traffic. Apparently not shareable though...

VC is a tiny infrequently visited narrow dirt track leading off A&S, itself not party to the most heavily forum traffic. Apparently not shareable though...

Perhaps we will see more constructive exchange of ideas now.

Perhaps we will see more constructive exchange of ideas now.

I hope so. The discussion of road safety & practice can be very constructive, informative and helpful.

Ed

Wow. never thought I'd see the day. HH will go nuts. what will he do all day?

Maybe he'll RIDE his bike...

hmm.. speaking of which...

to be honest I can't imagine A&S is going to get worse without the constant diatribes of HH. It really was like bad t.v. I tune in and watch it and two hours later can't believe I wasted that much of my life absorbed by such nonsense.

It will either improve in here or stay roughly the same but my sense is we'll start to see some improvement and if we don't... we sure can't blame HH or JF.;)

(eleted text after reading it would violate BF guidelines)

Personalities and disputes notwithstanding, I have learned a few things here and, as a result, am a better rider and more effective cycling advocate.

I found both HH and JF right annoying at times, but also educational.

I did too. I learned how I don't want to be when I got older, and I got a reminder of the dangers of zealotry.

to be honest I can't imagine A&S is going to get worse without the constant diatribes of HH...

Only because his antagonists won't have any one person to pick on.

Gotta' feel a little sorry for them.

Only because his antagonists won't have any one person to pick on.

Gotta' feel a little sorry for them.
I'm sure everyone will manage.

Interesting that Bekologist, who has started several threads just to be antagonistic towards HH and JF is still around.

Interesting that Bekologist, who has started several threads just to be antagonistic towards HH and JF is still around.

+1

I just didn't want to be the first to say it. HH was annoying with his constant essays sometimes. But he never engaged in personal attacks, flame baiting, and trolling to the extent that Bek & Co. has.

And if you wanna talk about bad PM's I have some doozy's from Bek.

I guess that is the sort of thing that makes me wonder about the true motives of the mods.

D

:roflmao:

BAD DOG, bek!

Interesting that Bekologist, who has started several threads just to be antagonistic towards HH and JF is still around.

Antagonistic, debatable. Discussion of cycling techniques, not debatable. Exposing hypocracy and inferiority inherent in vehicular cycling zealots, my intent.

Interested in evenhanded exchange and debate of ideas about cycling in here.

a gentlemans social becomes awkward when there's temperance zealots loose in the parlor.

+1

I just didn't want to be the first to say it. HH was annoying with his constant essays sometimes. But he never engaged in personal attacks, flame baiting, and trolling to the extent that Bek & Co. has.

And if you wanna talk about bad PM's I have some doozy's from Bek.

I guess that is the sort of thing that makes me wonder about the true motives of the mods.

D

+1

Some members were a bit harder on him than others. That will be addressed.

+1

I just didn't want to be the first to say it. HH was annoying with his constant essays sometimes. But he never engaged in personal attacks, flame baiting, and trolling to the extent that Bek & Co. has.

And if you wanna talk about bad PM's I have some doozy's from Bek.

I guess that is the sort of thing that makes me wonder about the true motives of the mods.

D

+1 on everything you say

Some members were a bit harder on him than others. That will be addressed.

It's not about them being harder on him. It's about them being harder on everyone who posts or reads the forum. It's not pleasant to be the victim of a personal attack, and it's no fun to read a constant barrage of them either.

There is a single-mindedness to your approach that is disturbing. Yes, there was a problem. But it was more than one member, and it was more than one topic.

It's not about them being harder on him. It's about them being harder on everyone who posts or reads the forum. It's not pleasant to be the victim of a personal attack, and it's no fun to read a constant barrage of them either.

There is a single-mindedness to your approach that is disturbing. Yes, there was a problem. But it was more than one member, and it was more than one topic.

I'm not going to start another debate, but you shouldn't be so quick to point the finger at me.

Thank you.

I'm not going to start another debate, but you shouldn't be so quick to point the finger at me.

Thank you.

Point the finger? You said you were the one who banned him.

My complaint isn't that Serge was banned, it's that there are others who are worse who are still at large. And since the name-calling and disrespect is still going on, as evidenced by posts in this very thread within the past two hours, I feel justified in my complaint.

Point the finger? You said you were the one who banned him.


Did I? Can you point me to that quote?

I might actually start posting in here again, now

Point the finger? You said you were the one who banned him.

My complaint isn't that Serge was banned, it's that there are others who are worse who are still at large. And since the name-calling and disrespect is still going on, as evidenced by posts in this very thread within the past two hours, I feel justified in my complaint.

you have been engaged in just what you are talking about in the past. so has everyone who jumped to HH's defense. So have those who didn't, including myself at times. So don't act so high and mighty. It's my opinion that HH brought this on himself. The Mods were more than generous with him. HH emboldened his allies to cross lines they otherwise wouldn't have crossed. he also tempted those who didn't agree with him to do the same. let's all remember that HH could dish it out too, but he could rarely take it. what he did manage to do was tend to keep the debate centered around him and his ideas/theories and keep controversy going rather than encourage constructive dialogue.

Exposing hypocracy and inferiority inherent in vehicular cycling zealots, my intent.

And much zeal of your own you brought to the task.

I for one do appreciate the work the mods have been doing as of late and that's one reason why I purchased a red star as a way of saying thank you. I do hope comments in this thread are taken in support of your work and in support of making/keeping BF a great place to visit and communicate.

I see the mods work falling into two categories one is just doing what you need to do and I am not questioning or seeking justification in that area. The other is trying to create a desirable place for us to visit and again I am not questioning or seeking justification of your actions in that area but if you are acting in our interest we should be allowed to voice an opinion for your consideration. Decisions based solely on complaints without seeking any positive comments are rarely good decisions. I cannot speak for the forum users as a whole as I am just one user so that's why I started the thread just to see what others think and to seek out a balance of comments.

So again sort of thinking out loud and offering my opinion for consideration; If I look at potential solutions to this problem I come up with a list something like this:

Temporarily ban JF and HH
Permanently ban JF and HH
Permanently ban just JF
Permanently ban just HH

The last option is the least desirable for me. The rational for this has already been stated in this thread so I will not reenumerate.

Again I want to thank the mods for their work and thanks for consideration.

What will it take to make A&S relatively peaceful again? Is there some common denominator here?

I'm going to repost this as I think it is a good comment and worthy of being responded to.

I thought A&S was fine as is and didn't need any "fixing". All of the regular posters here must agree or they wouldn't be sticking around. The mods made their decision based on more information than I have, so I will not question it. They are obviously trying to make the forum better, maybe draw in more people. Let's see how it works. If HH is ever allowed back it would be fine by me.

Who do we ban in order to minimize the disruption? What will it take to make A&S relatively peaceful again? Is there some common denominator here?

Maybe we can do like the show Biggest Loser does every week, and vote out one of the two members who falls below the yellow line! :D

Maybe we can do like the show Biggest Loser does every week, and vote out one of the two members who falls below the yellow line! :D

I like how you think. ;)

A lot of times on A&S, I feel like I'm on the witness stand for the defense being grilled by the prosecuting attorney rather than having a discussion at a coffee house with associates. I've noticed that one poster has toned down his cantor some what, too the point that there might be a sign of a spark of some sociability in him. If the mods had anything to do with it, my hat is off to them.

I've noticed that one poster has toned down his cantor some what, too the point that there might be a sign of a spark of some sociability in him.
And you know, if every one of the more "heated" members turned it down a notch, people who are new to cycling wouldn't be terrified to even enter this forum, much less post here. That would be a good thing.

And you know, if every one of the more "heated" members turned it down a notch, people who are new to cycling wouldn't be terrified to even enter this forum, much less post here. That would be a good thing.

A good thing indeed :)

you have been engaged in just what you are talking about in the past. so has everyone who jumped to HH's defense. So have those who didn't, including myself at times. So don't act so high and mighty. It's my opinion that HH brought this on himself. The Mods were more than generous with him. HH emboldened his allies to cross lines they otherwise wouldn't have crossed. he also tempted those who didn't agree with him to do the same. let's all remember that HH could dish it out too, but he could rarely take it. what he did manage to do was tend to keep the debate centered around him and his ideas/theories and keep controversy going rather than encourage constructive dialogue.

Replace HH with Bek and you still have pretty much a true statement.


-D

And you know, if every one of the more "heated" members turned it down a notch, people who are new to cycling wouldn't be terrified to even enter this forum, much less post here. That would be a good thing.

So then why only perma ban one of those members. There were plenty on the side opposite HH who were just as bad, if not worse in certain respects that walk away without out even a temporary ban?

-D

My complaint isn't that Serge was banned, it's that there are others who are worse who are still at large. And since the name-calling and disrespect is still going on, as evidenced by posts in this very thread within the past two hours, I feel justified in my complaint.

I'm not sure if I think anyone was worse that HH in terms of forum disruption, but I would say there other nominees. Like the Academy Awards, though, sometimes its an honor just to be nominated :D

There is a system of "points" in place, and the mods are clearly being more proactive than in the past. I would suggest to all - instead of worrying who was first out the gate, maybe you should worry that you may be next!

Hopefully, we'll see some new users in here.

My complaint isn't that Serge was banned, it's that there are others who are worse who are still at large. And since the name-calling and disrespect is still going on, as evidenced by posts in this very thread within the past two hours, I feel justified in my complaint.

From earlier posts, there were some other things going on. I can accept that. However, from the perspective of what we can all see, the fairness of singling out HH and JF when there are plenty of antagonists on the other side of the fence is questionable.

My understanding is that the moderators are all volunteers. So giving them leeway to work their way through these issues is appropriate. Although they should realize that the appearance of fairness is important to a successful community.

I just want to add a comment; not take sides or anything. But many of you commenting on who's better than who were a bit late to the game. I know that invisiblehand and drath (I think, if memory serves) came on the scene after a year or more of the HH era after the "battle lines" so to speak had already been drawn and people were already entrenched. There are even a few people who are chiming in on the finger pointing who I have never seen on this forum before as an active member.

This was a hard decision for the moderators and has been a couple years in coming. I encourage each of you to accept the decision for what it is and either continue using this forum site or leave if you cannot live with the moderation. If you still want to interact with HH, he is an active member on the Chainguard mailing list.

Here was one of HH's first posts on the subject back three years ago. His join date is just a month previous.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1097225&postcount=33

Watch how the thread progresses with HH playing a key role to keep tensions high. In the road cycling forum, for example, they would never let the aggression get going. They'd just start posting pictures of bunnys with pancakes on their heads or something. As harsh as the RC forum can be sometimes, they let differing opinions live and let their arguments stand on their own. HH would never just state his opinion and sit pat. He would persist. If somebody entered an opinion into the record that differed from his own, he'd answer back with his standard patter. If the same poster dared to clarify his opinion, HH would launch into him as if the poster were a complete Noob to cycling and didn't know how to read. I cannot tell you the number of times a new person would post, HH would respond, the OP would post a second time, HH would talk down to him/her, and then they'd leave, never to return.

Never changing, always trying to insert minor revisions of the first post I linked to here at every opportunity. Always singing the exact same tune. That was HH.

It was interesting for a while. But now it's not. Go back through that stickied "Bike lane" thread. You'll see that the forum has been stuck in time since then and the number of active participants have gone to as low as three or four people at times.

Great, apparently it's not enough to banish two antagonists, now we get to hear from their apologists. :rolleyes:

It wouldn't have been so bad if the two of them had actually discussed things rather than ramming ideology down our throats and quibbling over minutiae for the past however many YEARS they've been here. I have to say that, while I enjoy a good argument, after a while the constant single-minded view espoused by master and minion gets extremely old, especially when the views of others are dismissed as "inferior". That's when people stop listening to any message of value that may possibly have been presented by them particularly in light of their abject refusal to consider other viewpoints.

In terms of my experiences, I got tired of the density of their rational fairly early and admittedly I'm guilty of some thinly veiled mockery of them on this board, however I make no apologies for that as they (in my experience as they both got put on "ignore" quite some time ago) had lost any credibility in my eyes after witnessing the zealotry they practiced and championed. They became their own parody, I chose to run with it.

Personally, I'm glad they're gone. I'm as happy as can be, because now that the linchpins of the zealotry are gone perhaps now we can have a rational conversation that goes beyond:

Newb: Why are bike lanes bad?
HH: because they are, and if you use them you're an "inferior cyclist".
Newb: What?
HH: I said - <long diatribe that quotes 14 pages of EC yet doesn't answer the question>
Newb: What does that have to do with my question?
HH: <another diatribe that ends with calling the OP an "Inferior Cyclist">
HH: <more raving>
HH: <yet more raving, quotes some more EC>
JF: <random musings on a semi related topic>
HH: <praises JF for his wondrous insight and insults the OP once again>
NonVC'r: Don't listen to them, do what works for you within the law.
HH: <explosion of zealous rage for "blasphemy" comes just short of calling the NonVC'r glib, quotes more L.R.H.>
etc. etc. etc.

You get the idea, if there are any rational VC folks that want to discuss things that's cool, but just because I do what works for me (up to and including utilizing bike lanes and even some VC stuff while staying within the law) don't dare call me, or those like me, "inferior cyclists" or any of the VC pet names. That will gain you no friends, and make your message less likely to be tolerated.

That's my 2 cents, deal with it.

Hmm. We don't need a bashing thread, since we've had plenty of those. But I'm going to let some folks air their grievances for a bit, in the hopes that certain members will read them and take them to heart.

Note: This is not about one member. We are very aware that it takes two to tango.

Personally I would like to see some stressing of positive goals and general concerns to help make BF's A&S a better place but I'll agree with Brian that some venting needs to happen.

Constructive venting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0&feature=related

Great, apparently it's not enough to banish two antagonists, now we get to hear from their apologists. :rolleyes:

It wouldn't have been so bad if the two of them had actually discussed things rather than ramming ideology down our throats and quibbling over minutiae for the past however many YEARS they've been here. I have to say that, while I enjoy a good argument, after a while the constant single-minded view espoused by master and minion gets extremely old, especially when the views of others are dismissed as "inferior". That's when people stop listening to any message of value that may possibly have been presented by them particularly in light of their abject refusal to consider other viewpoints.

In terms of my experiences, I got tired of the density of their rational fairly early and admittedly I'm guilty of some thinly veiled mockery of them on this board, however I make no apologies for that as they (in my experience as they both got put on "ignore" quite some time ago) had lost any credibility in my eyes after witnessing the zealotry they practiced and championed. They became their own parody, I chose to run with it.

Personally, I'm glad they're gone. I'm as happy as can be, because now that the linchpins of the zealotry are gone perhaps now we can have a rational conversation that goes beyond:

Newb: Why are bike lanes bad?
HH: because they are, and if you use them you're an "inferior cyclist".
Newb: What?
HH: I said - <long diatribe that quotes 14 pages of EC yet doesn't answer the question>
Newb: What does that have to do with my question?
HH: <another diatribe that ends with calling the OP an "Inferior Cyclist">
HH: <more raving>
HH: <yet more raving, quotes some more EC>
JF: <random musings on a semi related topic>
HH: <praises JF for his wondrous insight and insults the OP once again>
NonVC'r: Don't listen to them, do what works for you within the law.
HH: <explosion of zealous rage for "blasphemy" comes just short of calling the NonVC'r glib quotes more L.R.H.>
etc. etc. etc.

You get the idea, if there are any rational VC folks that want to discuss things that's cool, but just because I do what works for me (up to and including utilizing bike lanes and even some VC stuff while staying within the law) don't dare call me, or those like me, "inferior cyclists" or any of the pet VC names. That will gain you no friends, and make your message less likely to be tolerated.

That's my 2 cents, deal with it.

This New Age is making me feel mellow all over. I even find myself agreeing 100% with a Raiyn post.:)

Seriously, since Brian has given a temporary free pass on ranting on this subject:

HH (and a few of of his apologists to a lesser degree) play/played the crybaby Lack of Respect/Personal Insult card until it was dogeared from overuse. In HH's scheme, he'd posit some theory or imaginary problem scenario, "logically" analyze the problem and draw his own conclusions, and believe his conclusions were self evident truths. Anyone who did not also accept HH's presumptions and/or agree with his conclusions obviously (to HH) misunderstood what HH wrote or can't read. If the respondent, such as myself, insisted he perfectly well understood what HH wrote and didn't find it worth a spit because HH's stated presumptions, unfounded theories and/or the conclusions under discussion were based on silly over the top rhetoric (at best) with little merit and no substantiation, out came the cry of "Personal Insult" "Lack of Respect" etc.
IAW HH's interpretation of Forum Rules, "Respect" demanded that HH's theories and presumptions, no matter how wacky, must be accepted by any and all respondents as credible and worthy of serious discourse in order to respond to HH's conclusions, anything less was a "Personal Insult" to HH.

End of rant.

I thought A&S was fine as is and didn't need any "fixing". All of the regular posters here must agree or they wouldn't be sticking around. The mods made their decision based on more information than I have, so I will not question it. They are obviously trying to make the forum better, maybe draw in more people. Let's see how it works. If HH is ever allowed back it would be fine by me.

I've barely looked at A&S because of the crap HH started and propagated. In fact, I still doubt I'll become a regular here again.

This New Age is making me feel mellow all over. I even find myself agreeing 100% with a Raiyn post.:)That's twice now - a new trend? :beer:

Seriously, since Brian has given a temporary free pass on ranting on this subject:

HH (and a few of of his apologists to a lesser degree) play/played the crybaby Lack of Respect/Personal Insult card until it was dogeared from overuse. In HH's scheme, he'd posit some theory or imaginary problem scenario, "logically" analyze the problem and draw his own conclusions, and believe his conclusions were self evident truths. Anyone who did not also accept HH's presumptions and/or agree with his conclusions obviously (to HH) misunderstood what HH wrote or can't read. If the respondent, such as myself, insisted he perfectly well understood what HH wrote and didn't find it worth a spit because HH's stated presumptions, unfounded theories and/or the conclusions under discussion were based on silly over the top rhetoric (at best) with little merit and no substantiation, out came the cry of "Personal Insult" "Lack of Respect" etc.
IAW HH's interpretation of Forum Rules, "Respect" demanded that HH's theories and presumptions, no matter how wacky, must be accepted by any and all respondents as credible and worthy of serious discourse in order to respond to HH's conclusions, anything less was a "Personal Insult" to HH.

End of rant.For some reason I picture you saying that all in one breath and panting at he end. I don't know why, it's just what I pictured for whatever reason. :D

I know that invisiblehand and drath (I think, if memory serves) came on the scene after a year or more of the HH era after the "battle lines" so to speak had already been drawn and people were already entrenched.

Definitely true for me. So I don't know of any other A&S world other than one where people were shouting past each other more than discussing things.

Anyway, I think that A&S will be fine. No one person is that important to the community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0&feature=related

:lol:

Now that is funny. Yeah ... things will get better around here.