Lamenting the passing of Biking Bernie

ddraver

Well, I think he only got a tap at first, but then signed up as someone else to whinge about it, which got him a proper whack with the banstick.

I'm sure he can come back, but he may elect not to...

mercsport

This whole episode smacks of 'killing the messenger'.

At least we are all better informed now that we can see exactly where - and to whom - the moderators' and editor's real allegiances lie.

To lift a line from wiki: 'shooting the messenger' may be a time-honored emotional response to unwelcome news, but it is not a very effective method of remaining well-informed.'

IanLD

Firstly and most importantly, I hope that all goes as well as possible with your son.

I've enjoyed your posts on this forum and have found that when I initially do not agree with some points, after reflection there has often been some that I then accept. Still doesn't mean I agreed with everything, but that is part of what debate is about.

I don't agree with your ban and would hope that the mods review this and offer you the chance to return if you choose.

iainf72

mercsport wrote:

This whole episode smacks of 'killing the messenger'.

At least we are all better informed now that we can see exactly where - and to whom - the moderators' and editor's real allegiances lie.

To lift a line from wiki: 'shooting the messenger' may be a time-honored emotional response to unwelcome news, but it is not a very effective method of remaining well-informed.'

The problem was with Aurileo / Bernie / Howard is the lack of balance. Constant cherry picking of information. I remember ages ago I said that fundamentally Landis was a nice guy and would do the right thing eventually. He told me that Landis was a c**t.

Seems I was right.

But its the way things are said.

rick_chasey

I'd suggest it wasn't the doping message especially, more every thread turning into the BB show, crowbaring his his agenda in wherever he could, regardless of the topic.

You can think what you want re pro cycling, but you need to understand that while all opinions are respected, you also need to respect how a forum functions. Filling every thread possible with your own agenda makes ithe forum a less attractive place.

Imagine if in every single thread I would relentlessly go on about how Boonen is the best rider ever, regardless of topic.

So you'll be chatting about the parcours for this Tour and someone mentions Wiggins as favourite. I suddenly chime in saying Boonen is a bigger rider. I start quoting riders who once said something in the heat of 2005 world's about Boonen moaning about Wiggins is a jumped up trackie. Another thread discusses Cav in the tour and I start going on about Boonen despite that he has nothing to do with Cav this Tour. I then see the Lance doping thread and say Boonen is a etter rider since the only problems he had were recreational, despite the fact it's utterly irrelevant.
Each time derailing the thread towards Boonen, stifling all other comments.

We all have our hobby horses and preferred topics, but a forum is a collection of opinions and discussions, not a gplatform for a crusade agenda.

That he has precedent for poor forum behaviour doesn't help either.

Monty Dog

Sad times, Bernie was at least prepared to make his opinion known - whereas some appear to be sock-puppets who'd attack the poster rather than contribute to the debate. I too have concerns over the heavy-handed modding going on at Bike Radar which may be to retain the 'newbie' members but actually all it results in the same banal subjects over-and-over again and reduces the quality of discussion.

Anonymous

First and foremost, I hope all goes well with your Son, BB.

Frankly I think the mod's agenda was probably the problem. There seems to be someone with a snout in all the troughs telling people what they can and cannot talk about. If some pub landlord told me my conversation was 'off topic', it wouldn't take me long to tell them where to go. Of course, stopping profanities and general gutter chat needs to be reined in (not really though).
What's wrong with people who (via the forum) know each other well enough (after getting into a heated debate) to start slinging a few wet tissues?
As with MD, there seems to be a surge in modding, which is totally unnecessary. I would be interested to see what the complaints are all about. Bare nipples for logged in members and too much talk of LA on drugs. What a riot in the BR office.

Even if (I don't know myself) all his postings were a collection of others' thoughts and articles, he certainly had a wide ranging collection of them, and made for very interesting reading and he was always there to rub people up the wrong way, and made for some shocking facts when you dig into the doping epidemic which was (is?) prevalent in pro cycling (and other sports - I am fairly naive on these kind of things, but did always like LA when I was wet behind the ears), and it was good to have a voice of someone who could argue his (or other people's) corner well.

while i'm here - which commuting tyres, for my 2 mile round trip?

nicklouse

Right, as there seems to be some confusion, lets set this straight.

BB was banned as he had broken the rules by returning from a ban imposed on his user Aurelio who was banned by an admin for consistent personal attacks.

The creator of the Aurelio persona managed to get away with flouting the forum rules for some time. But he went too far by doing the same as before. A link was then made as the rules applied.

Now the person who made these accounts may or may not have made more. and if these "characters" draw attention to themselves then they will go the same way.

Bakunin

How's the weather in North Korea?

Tom BB

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd suggest it wasn't the doping message especially, more every thread turning into the BB show, crowbaring his his agenda in wherever he could, regardless of the topic.

You can think what you want re pro cycling, but you need to understand that while all opinions are respected, you also need to respect how a forum functions. Filling every thread possible with your own agenda makes ithe forum a less attractive place.

Imagine if in every single thread I would relentlessly go on about how Boonen is the best rider ever, regardless of topic.

It could be argued that FF does just that with Contador....not every thread, but a high number....not that it matters though, its pretty funny tbh and although I've not met him so can''t judge his character I'm pretty sure that it is mostly tongue in cheek. Its just the interweb though isn't it....as long as it doesn't get overly personal and nasty then do we really need to go banning people? I found a lot of the links that Bernie posted quite informative and I just ignored the other 95% of crap that he posted

Gooner69

nicklouse wrote:

Right, as there seems to be some confusion, lets set this straight.

BB was banned as he had broken the rules by returning from a ban imposed on his user Aurelio who was banned by an admin for consistent personal attacks.

The creator of the Aurelio persona managed to get away with flouting the forum rules for some time. But he went too far by doing the same as before. A link was then made as the rules applied.

Now the person who made these accounts may or may not have made more. and if these "characters" draw attention to themselves then they will go the same way.

So to clarify please, are you saying he made further "consistent personal attacks" and this enabled you to identify him as the "Aurelio" persona? Or that you (as everybody else did) knew he was Aurelio, which you tolerated.
However he began to revert to his previous behavior, resulting in a new ban for BB?
He sure got worked up frequently, but was a good source of reading material and a nice "yang" for the likes of MG and Dave1.

I for one will miss his opinions.

Anonymous

I think these allegations are getting out of hand. Bans all round

frenchfighter

This is a shame and should not have happened. I am another one who liked his posts and said so on numerous occasions.

He was clearly intelligent and mostly quoted other people's opinions or facts which presented people with new sources of information to create and inform their own opnions.

Frankly I wish he posted more on the actual race threads as the few times he did it was good to read and he has raced before himself.

I think it is telling and speaks volumes that there are many more people on here annoyed at his ban and liking his posts than not.

At the end of the day on a forum there are people you disagree with and annoy you and posts you dont want to read. The simple way to deal with this is to skip the post whenever you see the avatar/name of the person. I do this for many people and I also dont click on threads where I may not like the subject.

Very poor decisions by the mods which they may retract unless they are full of pride, but thankfully it doesnt happen very often and there is little intervention.

There are many on here who are terrible posters, contribute nothing, add negativity, and yet are still here.

nicklouse wrote:

BB was banned as he had broken the rules by returning from a ban imposed on his user Aurelio who was banned by an admin for consistent personal attacks.

Did you take this decision to ban him by yourself, if not, who else did?

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd suggest it wasn't the doping message especially, more every thread turning into the BB show, crowbaring his his agenda in wherever he could, regardless of the topic.

He posted on very selected threads and not all that often.

iainf72

If someone posted Pro-Armstrong / Bruyneel things with the same zeal, and got banned, I guess everyone would be jumping to their defence too?

tailwindhome

It's all DDDs fault

Bakunin

iainf72 wrote:

If someone posted Pro-Armstrong / Bruyneel things with the same zeal, and got banned, I guess everyone would be jumping to their defence too?

Yeah, you got that right.

Geez, we are quite taken with ourselves.

It's a bike forum -- who cares?

Dennis, Frenchie, all you wiggo/Cav lunatics, the Schlecks fanboys -- who cares? The more the merrier.

nicklouse

Gooner69 wrote:

nicklouse wrote:

Right, as there seems to be some confusion, lets set this straight.

BB was banned as he had broken the rules by returning from a ban imposed on his user Aurelio who was banned by an admin for consistent personal attacks.

The creator of the Aurelio persona managed to get away with flouting the forum rules for some time. But he went too far by doing the same as before. A link was then made as the rules applied.

Now the person who made these accounts may or may not have made more. and if these "characters" draw attention to themselves then they will go the same way.

So to clarify please, are you saying he made further "consistent personal attacks" and this enabled you to identify him as the "Aurelio" persona? Or that you (as everybody else did) knew he was Aurelio, which you tolerated.
However he began to revert to his previous behavior, resulting in a new ban for BB?
He sure got worked up frequently, but was a good source of reading material and a nice "yang" for the likes of MG and Dave1.

I for one will miss his opinions.

what he posted had nothing to do with anything.

that fact that he had been banned before and then came back hence braking the rules is the reason he was banned.

whatever he posted before and was banned for I have no idea as it was done by an employee of Future Publishing.

topic and discussion closed.


and just to add if you are banned but wish to come back, yes sometimes posters do and can come back) it is always best to ask as you would come back as who you were. If you try to get around a ban you will just be banned again.

Also take note of the rules about duplicate accounts. If you need a second account to say something then neither will be around for long.

If you wish to Troll do it elsewhere as it will be removed from here and you may get banned.

But this is all just normal forum etiquette which some of you guys seem to have forgotten.

but in the meantime go mad have fun and enjoy the tour.