Am I reading this right? Rick has suspended DDD?

meanredspider

What I like about Commuting Chat is that, unlike somewhere like Road Training (for instance), there's a sense of humour and nobody much takes themselves too seriously. Long may that continue. Life's too short for the sort of attitude that exists in Road Training :roll:

Ben6899

Does this mean we can have proper Cake Stop back now?

daviesee

Sketchley wrote:

Some people need to grow up and stop taking the Internet so seriously......

I resent that remark!

PS:- I enjoy a good Friday Debate. They are (mostly) nonsense and should be treated as such.

kelsen

Rick Chasey wrote:

'Fraid so.

For every poster complaining he's off for a week there's another who's PM or flagging complaints about his behaviour.

He'll be back soon and hopefully it'll be back to the DDD you lot like!

Let's hope this teaches DDD that there's no place for personal opinion here, misguided or not :roll:

t.m.h.n.e.t

meanredspider wrote:

What I like about Commuting Chat is that, unlike somewhere like Road Training (for instance), there's a sense of humour and nobody much takes themselves too seriously. Long may that continue. Life's too short for the sort of attitude that exists in Road Training :roll:

If you can't make the distinction between a general chat area and a specific forum for training advice (which often includes weight loss stuff - injury recovery and all sorts of other stuff that probably shouldn't be laughed at)

You need to avoid it. Your bitterness over hearing something you didn't want to is getting a little old now.

tailwindhome

Some posters clearly need to revaluate their lives.

Sending PMs to the Mods because of a fairly inoffensive bit of Friday trolling is frankly pathetic.

The Admin then deciding to suspend him was a ridiculous decision.


From the thread on Pro Race.....

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

@ RIck

You're investing too much time in this thread.

I'm up for it.

Bring it on. I'm feeling belligerent.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're an idiot if you think that.


Seriously.

Have you actually seen any of the evidence? Beyond what he himself is saying...

Nice attitude from a moderator there :roll:

Freedom of speech?

I have my opinions, he has his. Haven't deleted anything.

DDD knows what he's doing. I'll play along.

That isn't an opinion your stating there your your making a personal derogatory remark to someone.

I'm not defending DDD here but stating you can't have your cake and eat it.

Probably.

He can report it if he wants. Or you can.

DDD's said worse to me and I've probably said worse to him.

Rick's reference to DDD as an idiot was later retracted

First.Aspect

I think I'm with Greg66 here. What precisely has been deemed to be wrong?

Surely moderation is primarily to ensure that the site doesn't get sued or cause problems for the advertisers, yes? Given that the advertisers are only here for the traffic from sad people like us, precisely what are you achieving by "punishing" intelligent professionals who frequent the site and engage in banter?

(and who spend absurd amounts of money on cycling trinkets advertised by the companies who fund the site)

People like DDD, Greg and ITB are like the branches of a tree. The rest of us are the leaves. If there are no branches, there's no reason for the leaves to be there.

I am seriously considering a more formal approach to the publishers - most of whom won't be in their early 20s with plenty of time on their hands, because this type of "moderation" utterly defeats any object of this site. Aside from anything else, all the news stories are on Velonews and Cycling News a few days earlier. As I type, Bike Radar still hasn't posted the most significant cycling news in the last decade for example. Even the BBC beat you to it. The same advertisers of the tech stuff I am interested in use road.cc and frankly the articles are better. If there is no fun and vibrant forum, why come to this site in particular?

Furthermore, if you really wanted to "moderate" a site to achieve what moderation is there to achieve, you would need to spend a great deal more time doing it, and have someone with legal competence telling you what was slanderous, tortuous, what was copyright infringement and so on. The original Cake Stop was a prime example or posts contrary to ordre public, copyright infringement, sexism, etc. and it was tolerated for years. "Grill the Gash". For god's sake that's revolting but not a finger was raised for years. All you have to do to avoid being offended is to not click the hyperlink. Did the advertisers complain? Did I complain? Did DDD complain? No, but by any reasonable measure it should have been stopped and the people who created it banned in about 2007.

In contrast, in all my years' browsing cycling websites, while I sometimes want to throttle him, I have NEVER read anything by DDD that was offsensive. Controversial, yes, but offensive no. In addition, even when most aggitated, he has remained respectful to a group of anonymous posters - which is often more than I can say for myself, or indeed the moderator who called DDD an idiot.

You don't and cannot be expected to evenly moderate. But given the fact, drilling down to minutii in situations like this is unreasonable, given what else passes without moderation - you take a somewhat random and selective approach to what you happen to notice or is drawn to your attention, based on weight of complaints (which in this instance is bullying by a vocal minority, in my view). It has nothing to do with offence. I read absolutely nothing offensive in statements which amount to no more than "bring it on, I know you all disagree with me".

A weeks' cooling off is patronising and I personally find what you have done offensive. It makes me afraid to post and thus to visit the site. You've cancelled my favourite show, to broadcast repeats of Bergerac. Are you going to ban yourself? Why not? Add up all of the critics on this thread alone and ask yourselves whether, if you weren't a moderator, the weight of numbers would be sufficient for a ban. This demonstrates just how arbitrary this approach is.

With respect, get a grip and stop taking things so seriously. I know its a somewhat thankless job and you do it for free, but this does not mean that you are beyond criticism, nor does it mean that you should not be open to some guidance from the community you are a part of.

If there is anything offensive, ban it by all means, or just lock some threads, but this is absurd and it really isn't the first time I've watched it happen.

tailwindhome

He does post some shite at the same time though.......

First.Aspect

TailWindHome wrote:

He does post some shite at the same time though.......

True. But its the internet, innit?

rolf_f

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4AukZUWHY8
(for douche read troll!)

Seriously though, IMO modding ought to be almost always unnoticeable - a subtle thing rather than a bull in a china shop. Surely this place is meant to be a bit of a virtual 'chat in the pub' type of place? If someone spouts crap you tell them in no uncertain terms that they are being an idiot and then have a rip snorting lively debate about it if the crap spouter has any kind of fight in them - you don't ask the landlord to throw them out and, if you do, the landlord tells you where to get off because he knows that throwing people out all the time isn't what pubs are about (at least not the ones I go to.....)

jejv

Rolf F wrote:

Seriously though, IMO modding ought to be almost always unnoticeable - a subtle thing rather than a bull in a china shop. Surely this place is meant to be a bit of a virtual 'chat in the pub' type of place? If someone spouts crap you tell them in no uncertain terms that they are being an idiot and then have a rip snorting lively debate about it if the crap spouter has any kind of fight in them - you don't ask the landlord to throw them out and, if you do, the landlord tells you where to get off because he knows that throwing people out all the time isn't what pubs are about (at least not the ones I go to.....)

Well, the landlord doesn't need proof beyond reasonable doubt of a criminal offence.

he can ban them just for being an arse. And annoying other customers.

I can do without D's narcissistic content-lite rhetoric.

If I look at a thread, then generally, if it's a thread started by DDD, I'll pass. But then there's been a lot of threads like that.

If he wants freedom of expression, he should go start a blog.

I'm surprised, given the way he's made fools of the mods with the cakestop thing, that they're only banning him for a week.

If they let him back, perhaps he could be prevented from starting new threads ?
He used to have interesting and fun things to say about SCR.

Taking your pub analogy further, it's as if you've got a regular customer who's always been quite flamboyant, which used to be entertaining for other customers, but this customer has started to become more overbearing, and even started to think that it's his pub not the landlord's.

rolf_f

jejv wrote:

Well, the landlord doesn't need proof beyond reasonable doubt of a criminal offence.

he can ban them just for being an ars*. And annoying other customers.

And if the landlord bans everyone who can be irritating and an ars€? How many people are going to be left in the pub? And are those people you'd really want to have a drink with?

First.Aspect

In addition, the only people who made a fool of the moderators concerning the Cake Stop fiasco are the moderators.

jejv

Rolf F wrote:

jejv wrote:

Well, the landlord doesn't need proof beyond reasonable doubt of a criminal offence.

he can ban them just for being an ars*. And annoying other customers.

And if the landlord bans everyone who can be irritating and an ars€? How many people are going to be left in the pub? And are those people you'd really want to have a drink with?

Hello R F.
Nearly everyone is an arse sometimes. The first time they come in the pub they might be an arse. But you don't ban them for that. The next time they might be fine. It's if they go on and on being an arse. If they're a long-time regular, the landlord might try to have a quiet word first. But at this point, the customer is probably past listening.

suzyb

Maybe all the moderators have been told they need to find ways to reduce the amount of posts as the database is feeling the strain again. Easiest way to do that, give DDD a week off

jejv

suzyb wrote:

Maybe all the moderators have been told they need to find ways to reduce the amount of posts as the database is feeling the strain again. Easiest way to do that, give DDD a week off

I note with interest that your rate of posting, and number of posts, are both far higher than mine.

Paul E

jejv wrote:

narcissistic content-lite rhetoric.

I love that phrase, sums it up nicely.

First.Aspect

Is that the measure by which someone should be banned, then? It would be a quiet forum if that's the case.

Yesterday it was libel, today its narcissistic content-lite rhetoric.

CiB

Blimey. Go way for a few days and come back to find DDD's been told to stay away.

FWIW I agree with jejv's post at the top of this page. D used to be ok and was occasionally provocative but then wasn't, and then seemed to lose the plot when he became the first person ever to father child and accidentally let slip that fact on here. Like jejv I tend to avoid threads started by the great man as it's pretty obvious what the content will be about and where the discussion will go. A week off might be a good thing.

Paul E

First Aspect wrote:

Is that the measure by which someone should be banned, then? It would be a quiet forum if that's the case.

Yesterday it was libel, today its narcissistic content-lite rhetoric.

No I just like that phrase and I never mentioned anything about being banned for it, you did that all by yourself, just a quick question, are you now going to comment on my every post?

jejv

jejv wrote:

If he cannot think of anything appropriate to say, he should restrict his remarks to SCR.

It's hard work round here. D'ya not do Austen ?

jejv

First Aspect wrote:

Is that the measure by which someone should be banned, then? It would be a quiet forum if that's the case.

Yesterday it was libel, today its narcissistic content-lite rhetoric.

Hello, F A
I don't think he should be banned because I find him annoying.
But, I find him annoying and disinterestiing, so I'm more than happy if he is banned. The longer the better - as far as I am concerned.

I still owe you a sensible answer on the rim cleaning thread.

jejv

jejv wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Is that the measure by which someone should be banned, then? It would be a quiet forum if that's the case.

Yesterday it was libel, today its narcissistic content-lite rhetoric.

Hello, F A
I don't think he should be banned because I find him annoying.
But, I find him annoying and disinterestiing, so I'm more than happy if he is banned. The longer the better - as far as I am concerned.

In any case, who does, or does not, get banned is nothing whatsoever to do with me.

greg66_tri_v2.0

jejv wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Is that the measure by which someone should be banned, then? It would be a quiet forum if that's the case.

Yesterday it was libel, today its narcissistic content-lite rhetoric.

Hello, F A
I don't think he should be banned because I find him annoying.
But, I find him annoying and disinterestiing, so I'm more than happy if he is banned. The longer the better - as far as I am concerned.

I still owe you a sensible answer on the rim cleaning thread.

We'd all like it if the forum revolved around us.

But we're not all Rick.

Sewinman

Loud and opinionated black guy gets banned....quelle suprise.

tailwindhome

Sewinman wrote:

Loud and opinionated black guy gets banned....quelle suprise.

Oh FFS!

roger_merriman

Sewinman wrote:

Loud and opinionated black guy gets banned....quelle suprise.

um I don't think any one but DDD cared about him being black?

bompington

I don't think I actually knew he's black - if I had found that out at some time in the past I must have forgotten it, which shows how important it was to me.
Personally I found his posts last friday quite bizarre, it was like he was on something - I'm not sure it was worth a ban, even a temporary one, but I really don't think the forum was enhanced for anyone else by being swamped with his ranting.

dhope

Sewinman wrote:

Loud and opinionated black guy gets banned....quelle suprise.

Are you applying for the position of forum troll in DDD's absence?

Ben6899

roger merriman wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Loud and opinionated black guy gets banned....quelle suprise.

um I don't think any one but DDD cared about him being black?

That is bang on the money.