View Full Version : Okay this is stupid.
metaljim
05-01-08, 04:14 PM
We have been blocked for the month of May to help us focus on training for the upcoming season.
it wasn't brians doing really. our team managers asked to lock it so we would spend more time on our bikes, and not be as pale on the track.
it wasn't brians doing really. our team managers asked to lock it so we would spend more time on our bikes, and not be as pale on the track.
Hey Jim, so you know, Your sig has been edited and your link is broken.
Hey Jim, so you know, Your sig has been edited and your link is broken.
He's somewhere else, talking smack.
He's somewhere else, talking smack.
How about replying to my PM instead? This wasn't addressed at you, editor.
I think 'editor' would be better than 'mod'
operator
05-01-08, 05:40 PM
Yeah the mods just wanted to make this a big issue for no reason. I'm cool with it either way, just goes to show how out of touch blue stars are to actuaL trolling and non-productive forum threads/posts. I mean it takes real trolls months, if not a whole year and multiple reports to get banned but people who actually contribute meaningfully are pwned without a blink.
I mean yeah deathare posts some completely wrong **** sometimes but does that mean he deserved to be banned? Seems like all you need to be a mod is
1) hold personal grudges
2) never be up to date on forum activity
3) ban and infract people, selectively nazi style
4) all while leaving the really bad apples in plaY
Outstanding job.
metaljim
05-01-08, 06:05 PM
He's somewhere else, talking smack.
yeah, i was riding home from work. i didn't talk smack to anyone though, sorry to disappoint.
metaljim
05-01-08, 06:11 PM
Hey Jim, so you know, Your sig has been edited and your link is broken.
i'm taking the link out of my signature, because i'd rather play fair and not be sneaky.
Yeah the mods just wanted to make this a big issue for no reason. I'm cool with it either way, just goes to show how out of touch blue stars are to actuaL trolling and non-productive forum threads/posts. I mean it takes real trolls months, if not a whole year and multiple reports to get banned but people who actually contribute meaningfully are pwned without a blink.
I mean yeah deathare posts some completely wrong **** sometimes but does that mean he deserved to be banned? Seems like all you need to be a mod is
1) hold personal grudges
2) never be up to date on forum activity
3) ban and infract people, selectively nazi style
4) all while leaving the really bad apples in plaY
Outstanding job.
You're batting .250 today. It would seem that only #4 is correct.
metaljim
05-01-08, 06:20 PM
You're batting .250 today. It would seem that only #4 is correct.
you may think you're right, but the evidence and the feelings of the users suggests otherwise. you can be "right" all you want, but you'll need concrete proof if you want us to believe you.
metaljim
05-01-08, 06:23 PM
He's somewhere else, talking smack.
from the user guidelines, as quoted right in your signature:
"Harassment occurs when a member insults, attacks, and denigrates another member at any time. We have zero tolerance for taking an argument about a any topic to a personal level..."
your statement about me was, technically, denigrating. you're just as flawed as the rest of us, and stooping to the level you accuse the worst members of (and i would assume you would lump me in with that group, as recent actions show).
bonechilling
05-01-08, 06:36 PM
So why do you even bother posting here? Seriously.
Because I don't have to talk to boring people like you most of the time. You do realize that you're not the whole of Bike Forums, right? Talk about ego..
from the user guidelines, as quoted right in your signature:
"Harassment occurs when a member insults, attacks, and denigrates another member at any time. We have zero tolerance for taking an argument about a any topic to a personal level..."
your statement about me was, technically, denigrating. you're just as flawed as the rest of us, and stooping to the level you accuse the worst members of (and i would assume you would lump me in with that group, as recent actions show).
You're right, I apologize. That was actually much earlier today.
timmyquest
05-01-08, 06:46 PM
Who ban's the banner?
metaljim
05-01-08, 06:47 PM
Now days, in addition to the "non-freeloader" announcement, your $25 contribution allows you exemption from seeing those ghastly advertisements, allows you to post your own ads, and may even cut you a little slack if you happen to forget your manners one day.
and then the truth comes out. none of us have red stars, meaning we didn't buy in. i guess if i forked over 2 and a half hours of a day's work in the name of Bike Forums, i'd have gotten cut some slack. but since i'm a freeloader who only has a pair of eyes that constantly see those ghastly ads (that i've felt obliged to click through before to keep this place open) no slack was cut in my case. sad.
context of the quote? someone asking about red stars. nothing was taken out of context to make billyd look bad. it just goes to show you the mods have unwritten rules they follow, this one being all about the almighty dollar.
metaljim
05-01-08, 06:48 PM
You're right, I apologize. That was actually much earlier today.
i'll accept the off-hand apology, but saying it was "much earlier today" should have no signifigance. an apology should never be given with a disclaimer.
Landgolier
05-01-08, 07:03 PM
OK punx, tell me why I got banned or reinstate me. Also, please tell me which mod edited my words and represented them as my own without my permission. kthxbai.
PS -- Hey Brian, tell me again what Bill Clinton asked the TWA flight attendant? I forgot and you deleted it.
bonechilling
05-01-08, 07:07 PM
Yeah the mods just wanted to make this a big issue for no reason. I'm cool with it either way, just goes to show how out of touch blue stars are to actuaL trolling and non-productive forum threads/posts. I mean it takes real trolls months, if not a whole year and multiple reports to get banned but people who actually contribute meaningfully are pwned without a blink.
I mean yeah deathare posts some completely wrong **** sometimes but does that mean he deserved to be banned? Seems like all you need to be a mod is
1) hold personal grudges
2) never be up to date on forum activity
3) ban and infract people, selectively nazi style
4) all while leaving the really bad apples in plaY
Outstanding job.
Yep. You and I were banned for the same reason. Neither of us are trouble makers, just smart-asses. We never posted any NSFW links or pictures, never picked on "n00b" posters, or caused any of the other "problems" that they're claiming we all made. What we did do was call out the moderators, and since that group is largely comprised of no-fun-niks who can't take a challenge to the nominal amount of authority they have on here, we were banned. I've yet to see a moderator refute this accusation, not even Brian with his usual "You're wrong, I'm right" spiel.
Yeah the mods just wanted to make this a big issue for no reason. I'm cool with it either way, just goes to show how out of touch blue stars are to actuaL trolling and non-productive forum threads/posts. I mean it takes real trolls months, if not a whole year and multiple reports to get banned but people who actually contribute meaningfully are pwned without a blink.
I mean yeah deathare posts some completely wrong **** sometimes but does that mean he deserved to be banned? Seems like all you need to be a mod is
1) hold personal grudges
2) never be up to date on forum activity
3) ban and infract people, selectively nazi style
4) all while leaving the really bad apples in plaY
Outstanding job.
+1
metaljim
05-01-08, 07:19 PM
Yep. You and I were banned for the same reason. Neither of us are trouble makers, just smart-asses. We never posted any NSFW links or pictures, never picked on "n00b" posters, or caused any of the other "problems" that they're claiming we all made. What we did do was call out the moderators, and since that group is largely comprised of no-fun-niks who can't take a challenge to the nominal amount of authority they have on here, we were banned. I've yet to see a moderator refute this accusation, not even Brian with his usual "You're wrong, I'm right" spiel.
spot on man. since i post at work most of the time, i sure as hell wasn't posting anything crude. hope they don
t try and accuse me of that too. i've seen a couple of mods say "while it could have been done cleaner" or something along those lines, so not all the mods are with brian. but no one has refuted anything or even seemed interested in what we have to say, beyond quoting it to make some dumb joke.
Tom Stormcrowe
05-01-08, 07:27 PM
Look guys, let the smoke clear. You are part of a community, and it's called Bikeforums.net. SS/FG got too wild and wooly is what happened and we had to step in and cool it down. SS/FG is PART of BF, and not a separate community. Instead of prolonging the issue, how about stepping back and let us work toward a resolution here.
What resolution would that be, Tom?
Tom Stormcrowe
05-01-08, 07:34 PM
It's under discussion right now. I'm not going to be premature releasing any info, but we're trying to work something out right now. Be patient please is what I'm asking.
and then the truth comes out. [snip] it just goes to show you the mods have unwritten rules they follow, this one being all about the almighty dollar.
Someone has posted an untrue comment, you believed them, and now you're publicly complaining about it? Right off the top of my head, I can think of 3 or 4 members with red stars that got banned this year.
OK punx, tell me why I got banned or reinstate me. Also, please tell me which mod edited my words and represented them as my own without my permission. kthxbai.
PS -- Hey Brian, tell me again what Bill Clinton asked the TWA flight attendant? I forgot and you deleted it.
It's not all about you, but you'll figure it out eventually. And that thread was not deleted, merely moved to an area of the forums where you cannot see it.
Yep. You and I were banned for the same reason. [snip] What we did do was call out the moderators, [snip]
The manner in which you did it, like your edited post above, is considered trolling and disruption. That's enough for a complete banning from this site, and no one will owe you any further explanation.
Well since you guys are not doing anything else explain the Fixed thing. I had a single speed with a coaster brake and a fairly high end ten speed till I started driving a car. I spent most of my time on the ss so I understand the simplicity. I just dont get not being able to coast. I drive home accross a college campus and seen a guy riding one a few days ago, I would have never noticed had I not been a BF reader. Why would you not want to be able to coast? I dont get it.
East Hill
05-01-08, 07:56 PM
Why would you not want to be able to coast? I dont get it.
I like to think it's because it's more exercise. But I hear that I can feel more in tune with my bike. This is why I would like to try one, but I still worry about the hills.
East Hill
kinda a zen thing? wow, bet it would beat you to death on a long downhill about twenty miles out.
I like to think it's because it's more exercise. But I hear that I can feel more in tune with my bike. This is why I would like to try one, but I still worry about the hills.
East Hill
try a lower gearing, maybe 65 gear inches. you'll be spinning, but hills will be a breeze. i highly recommend it. it's super fun and they make for great around town bikes.
quick dig at bf: this post is ot! plz don't ban me!
Tom Stormcrowe
05-01-08, 08:07 PM
Makes for a much more efficient spin on a road bike as well. :D
Makes for a much more efficient spin on a road bike as well. :D
not necessarily. because the wheel will carry you through, you might get lazy. might not.
Tom Stormcrowe
05-01-08, 08:11 PM
Alright, a rephrase. It CAN be a great tool to train for a maximum efficiency spin on a road bike, how's that? :Dnot necessarily. because the wheel will carry you through, you might get lazy. might not.
East Hill
05-01-08, 08:14 PM
Oh yeah, the two of you gang up on me to convince me that I need yet another bike :D .
East Hill
Alright, a rephrase. It CAN be a great tool to train for a maximum efficiency spin on a road bike, how's that? :D
sounds good.
isn't it fun to talk about fixed gears? let's reopen ssfg!
I was trying to change the subject.
Tom Stormcrowe
05-01-08, 08:19 PM
You already know that the correct number of bikes to own is (X+1). ;), Isn't that right, conor?
Oh yeah, the two of you gang up on me to convince me that I need yet another bike :D .
East Hill
You already know that the correct number of bikes to own is (X+1). ;), Isn't that right, conor?
seems about right.
East Hill
05-01-08, 08:27 PM
seems about right.
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k317/East_Hill/My%20bikes/IMG_2329_2.jpg
Tom Stormcrowe
05-01-08, 08:31 PM
EH, that's X, not X+1!
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k317/East_Hill/My%20bikes/IMG_2329_2.jpg
East Hill
05-01-08, 08:39 PM
Well now, you see how the path curves around the house at the background? There's plenty of room for (X + 1) :) .
East Hill
looks like you're gonna building, what kids are calling, a "fixie."
East Hill
05-01-08, 08:42 PM
looks like you're gonna building, what kids are calling, a "fixie."
All those bikes have horizontal dropouts, too ;) .
East Hill
SweetLou
05-01-08, 09:53 PM
EH, that's X, not X+1!No, that's 11 bikes. The 10 in a row plus the one sitting up on the ledge.
Landgolier
05-01-08, 10:19 PM
Look, can we please not mod flood this thread like you guys love to do in any other thread you don't like.
Also, reinstate me or tell me why I'm banned. And tell me which mod edited my post to intentionally misrepresent what I said, and tell me how long that mod is banned for.
Catweazle
05-01-08, 11:18 PM
I'm having serious trouble following why people are repeatedly failing to see any reason for the temporary bans imposed. It was rather clearly stated from the outset that concern was held with the aggressive, disrespectful and harassing manner of tone evident in some member's posting styles and the people who have received administrative attention in the matter have done so because it was deemed that they were people doing so, or people aggressively arguing the move in insulting fashion.
In other words, what some people are continuing to claim is an exercise in being "a smartarse" has been deemed to actually be the exercise in "being a troublemaker" that they are claiming it is not. It's simple enough isn't it? Time to revisit that opinion, because it seems clear to me that the definitions adopted by some individuals are not an adequate match with the ones adopted by bikeforums.net administration. When a member's own notions about such things do not have 'fit' with the ones in place for a forum board the only options available are to alter the approach or to cease visiting that forum.
Scant as they are, the Guidelines in place cover the circumstance of that 'aggressive, disrespectful' posting manner being a breach of all three general guidelines mentioned, and also a breach of both the 'harrassment' and 'disruption' specific guidelines.
It is a valid concern for members involved if these attentions have not been accompanied by individual PM or email explanatory communications, but before anyone involved has cause for complaint in this regard they should be sure that they have had the capacity to receive such messages enabled in their forum profile. Some people do disable such messages via their UserCP.
It's also possibly a valid concern that some of the communication and posting initiated by supervisory team members during this exercise have been objectionable themselves in some way. But that is a separate concern which does not belie the original concern and the actions taken in regard for it. 'Tit for tat' argument is counter-productive, rather childish, and also a breach of guidelines in place here.
All involved here should perhaps settle back and reflect upon the title of this thread, methinks. It's quite apt in numerous respects.
Again, no offence intended to anybody. As was the case with my earlier reflections these are simply unbiased comments from a bystander/onlooker, offered in the hope that they will be received as constructive comment.
I only played a very small part in the ssfg forum any way but enjoyed checking in occasionally. I had in the past felt like the forum was often a little unfair to new posters and have myself been on the sharp end of asking a "stupid question" or not getting my prose and spelling right. Which is why had Brian or which ever moderator had handled the situation more appropriately I would have more than likely taken the side of the moderators.
However with brian steaming in so heavy handedly with not even so much as an introduction of himself [I had never read of this guy posting on BF] he might have got a more positive response from members. I seem to have got my self banned from ssfg with no warning no previos infractions or whatever they are called for simply holding a mirror up to brian and his aggressive postings.
The original post by brian has been removed now and I'm not surprised [it didn't act as a beacon of positivity for the administrator/moderators]. A forum should be a forum, people should be allowed to express their views within the guidelines freely and politely without fear of censorship by an arrogant moderator.
Never mind I guess. Less time in the forum means more time on the bike and it looks like its stopped raining - at least for now.
I tried to get Brian to explain why he banned me I'm still waiting to hear why, I would like to know how long I will be shut out of the forum for? But he hasn't done me the courtesy of replying to my PM.
bward1028
05-03-08, 10:44 PM
can i just say that someone needs to take over and either shut the ssfg section down for real, for some period of time, or let everything get back to how it was. or will shutting it off lose some ad money?
SweetLou
05-03-08, 10:52 PM
No!!!! Don't shut it down. If you do a lot of them will come to C&V. Please don't shut it down.
bward1028
05-03-08, 10:57 PM
ah, that's probably true. and i don't really wish that on anyone.
there are other places for them to go, bu they're forbidden to mention.
there's been talk of the bmx or track subs, perhaps foo would be more appropriate.
donnamb
05-04-08, 12:54 AM
can i just say that someone needs to take over and either shut the ssfg section down for real, for some period of time, or let everything get back to how it was. or will shutting it off lose some ad money?
We considered that, but Brian didn't want to punish members who've not done anything.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.