PRO Race section and forum rules
Comments
-
mike6 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:WBT - I'll make an exception and reply to you here. It will be the last time.
I don't reply to your posts. I don't engage with you. People have respectfully and patiently pointed out numerous flaws in your arguments, but it serves no purpose. You've consistently sought conflict. You've managed to label two of the forum's most vehemently anti-Sky posters as Sky fanboys. You spread insidious and highly tenuous conspiracy theory, engage in conjecture that is always seeking to point the finger of doping blame at Sky or Froome or both, and if Occam's razor were actually a razor then you'd have a beard unrivalled anywhere in Afghanistan.
People (I, though I'm pretty sure there are more than a handful of others) want you gone because you make this forum an unpleasant, aggressive, tedious place.
That's my last word to you.
I concur 100% with this post. For the last few years I have enjoyed the banter and information on this site, and also the good nature disagreements. Recently it has been turned into a deeply dispiriting place with the constant doping accusations being spouted on thread after thread. Not that it matters, in the scheme of things, but I for one will be walking away from here if the tone continues. Life is too short to spend it in the company of trolls.
+as many as I am allowed. I'm totally bored with WBT and his "forensic" conjecture. When quotes are altered to misrepresent the original poster there is another agenda than debate. I have called him/ her a rat, a deceitful rat and a spanker of monkey. None of which are particularly graceful but all sum up my thoughts on his/her character.0 -
The sensible thing is to bid adieu to PR at the Falling Leaves and come back for Paris Nice. Or Het Volk at a push.
Here I am, breaking me own rule.___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
mike6 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:WBT - I'll make an exception and reply to you here. It will be the last time.
I don't reply to your posts. I don't engage with you. People have respectfully and patiently pointed out numerous flaws in your arguments, but it serves no purpose. You've consistently sought conflict. You've managed to label two of the forum's most vehemently anti-Sky posters as Sky fanboys. You spread insidious and highly tenuous conspiracy theory, engage in conjecture that is always seeking to point the finger of doping blame at Sky or Froome or both, and if Occam's razor were actually a razor then you'd have a beard unrivalled anywhere in Afghanistan.
People (I, though I'm pretty sure there are more than a handful of others) want you gone because you make this forum an unpleasant, aggressive, tedious place.
That's my last word to you.
I concur 100% with this post. For the last few years I have enjoyed the banter and information on this site, and also the good nature disagreements. Recently it has been turned into a deeply dispiriting place with the constant doping accusations being spouted on thread after thread. Not that it matters, in the scheme of things, but I for one will be walking away from here if the tone continues. Life is too short to spend it in the company of trolls.
There is something in the 'battle lines' statement made by WBT ... and also in what Mike6 says re. the doping accusations ... Many, many posters outright accused Chris Horner of doping (some even wished him death), most of which was fueled by anti-Armstrong related 'mob rule' ... These same people flipped their coin (and lid) as soon as anything similar was said of a Brit(ish) rider ...
There is a British-centric clique that raises it's ugly head reasonably often that could easily be accused of bullying anyone who dares question 'their hero(es)' ... Name-calling, inciting others to 'ignore' etc.
The majority of problems relate to discussion about SKY and their riders ... Does that not tell us something?0 -
Please don't go nic. Please.
Having said that I understand why you might want to.RichN95 wrote:
Two points:ugo.santalucia wrote:I agree, it will be fine again when you have something to talk about, but the standard of behaviour needs to improve.
I normally don't even read these threads, but then report lights flash and guess what? It's the PRO race section again... someone got offended by someone else's post, so unusual!
1. Seeing as you have rarely been seen in these parts I'm guessing you've had a massive increase in complaints over the past month. Would I be right? And why do you think it is more effective to treat the symptoms of an illness of the cause?
2. You say you don't normally even read these threads. So how are you able to judge what is right or wrong for a forum you don't use? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a moderator (like Rick Chasey) who is familiar with the style of this sub forum? Or do you think it should be moulded in the image of which ever forum you frequent and to hell with the regular users. Never forget, as a moderator you are here to serve our needs, not vice versa.
I would also like to second Rich's post above.Correlation is not causation.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:nic_77 wrote:With that, for the good of the forum, I will refrain from any further engagement on any thread. Apologies to those who have been affronted by my input.
Articulate, rational, patient, knowledgeable, polite, informative.
Sad to see you go.
Likewise. Try the Foe button.
...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Everything but clearNo tA Doctor wrote:nic_77 wrote:With that, for the good of the forum, I will refrain from any further engagement on any thread. Apologies to those who have been affronted by my input.
Articulate, rational, patient, knowledgeable, polite, informative.
Sad to see you go.
The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. I wasn't planning on going completely, just being more selective when choosing to engage. Feel like I ought to leave now though!0 -
Foe button.
I've only foe'd two people on here, and it immediately becomes more pleasant. I'm reminded how much more pleasant if I have forgotten to log in. It's quite a nice place to come normally.0 -
Jeez, PR has become the f**king Ministry of Truth
Or as the Stooges said, "No Fun"
I happen to like the occasional diversion into geology / cheese / ponies or whatever fatuous theme is flavor of the month.
However what I don't like the is the attitude of certain people and the fact the one or two users of the forum have managed to turn some well-documented anti-Sky posters into virtually defending Sky sort of demonstrates their ability or lack of to construct a proper argument and engage in sensible debate
Like many others, I certainly post less that I used to and I don't see that changing any time soon0 -
nic_77 wrote:
Everything but clearNo tA Doctor wrote:nic_77 wrote:With that, for the good of the forum, I will refrain from any further engagement on any thread. Apologies to those who have been affronted by my input.
Articulate, rational, patient, knowledgeable, polite, informative.
Sad to see you go.
The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. I wasn't planning on going completely, just being more selective when choosing to engage. Feel like I ought to leave now though!
You're not going anywhere, mister!
0 -
I only ever really lurk as my lack of knowledge just doesn't cut it. I did, however, find this place used to increase that knowledge day by day. Lately it's been more like this...
Hopefully once the racing starts again things will improve but at the moment it's all a bit depressing.0 -
Correlation is not causation.0
-
That shouldn't stop you. Sometimes the people who think they know little actually have the best ideas.Slim Boy Fat wrote:I only ever really lurk as my lack of knowledge just doesn't cut it.Twitter: @RichN950 -
briantrumpet wrote:Foe button.
I've only foe'd two people on here, and it immediately becomes more pleasant. I'm reminded how much more pleasant if I have forgotten to log in. It's quite a nice place to come normally.
Problem is you still see their drivel when some well meaning person quotes them. It would be a great tool if it could block quotes including the foe's comments although of late several threads would have been multiple pages of blank space
As someone said above, when posters well known for their dislike of Sky by board regulars are being called Sky fanboys for disagreeing with the conspiracy of the day it is reasonable to assume there's an agenda at play.
Oxford dictionary definition of a troll1a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting:
one solution is to make a troll’s postings invisible to the rest of community once they’ve been recognized
So whilst certain posters may not be overtly offensive I would say much of the posting in (almost entirely Sky related) threads in the last two weeks has been deliberately provocative.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:
It was an absolutely fantastic Tour. the vibe on the forum was absolutely superb and I felt a real sense of loss when the race was over. The spoiler threads banter was brilliant and I wouldn't want to see it curbed in any way next year.
Bring on the Tour and let's have a good warm up with the Spring Classics and the Giro!0 -
And it goes against my instinct not to want to see what's going on, but when one person can so easily provoke so many people to engaging in unpleasant and circularly illogical 'arguments' (Monty Python, anyone?), if more people would foe, then the quotes diminish, and the unpleasantness wanes. Though obviously if the mods decide that the unpleasantness needs a heavier hand, I wouldn't complain.Pross wrote:briantrumpet wrote:Foe button.
I've only foe'd two people on here, and it immediately becomes more pleasant. I'm reminded how much more pleasant if I have forgotten to log in. It's quite a nice place to come normally.
Problem is you still see their drivel when some well meaning person quotes them. It would be a great tool if it could block quotes including the foe's comments although of late several threads would have been multiple pages of blank space0 -
.....“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
It is winter. The weather is shite, you can't get out to train as much as you would like to. It is the darkest period of the year. The novelty of the Turbo Trainer/Rollers is wearing off fast. I know - I have a C40 sat there all built up and unridden, the Pinarello is caked in mud and I am fed up of cleaning it.
The upshot: bored, frustrated bunch of cyclists going OTT with their postings and a plethora of whingeing chucked in.
Vitamin D tablets don't work and Mallorca is at least 6 weeks away.
UGO - On a happier note: Any dodgy threads anywhere in the forum, please send them down to BB. We will happilly accomodate the banal, offensive, off topic and downright silly. We love arguments about women in skimpy clothing being either objects or empowered. seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
And it goes against my instinct not to want to see what's going on, but when one person can so easily provoke so many people to engaging in unpleasant and circularly illogical 'arguments' (Monty Python, anyone?), if more people would foe, then the quotes diminish, and the unpleasantness wanes. Though obviously if the mods decide that the unpleasantness needs a heavier hand, I wouldn't complain.Pross wrote:briantrumpet wrote:Foe button.
I've only foe'd two people on here, and it immediately becomes more pleasant. I'm reminded how much more pleasant if I have forgotten to log in. It's quite a nice place to come normally.
Problem is you still see their drivel when some well meaning person quotes them. It would be a great tool if it could block quotes including the foe's comments although of late several threads would have been multiple pages of blank space
Possibly though, those who get foe'd start finding themselves ignored more and more, and become increasingly attention seeking, which would make the forum worse for those who don't use the foe system. It also makes the forum appear worse to newbies...You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
One thing that really also needs clarifying is the rules on defamation. The mods seem to want to close threads becuase the just end up full of bickering but never seem to do it about this. Yesterday it was quoted a member clearly breaking the defamation rules (law) and it was just gone unnoticed.
I agree with WBT about the old boy's club theme. It's evident all around this forum.0 -
Crankbrother wrote:mike6 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:WBT - I'll make an exception and reply to you here. It will be the last time.
I don't reply to your posts. I don't engage with you. People have respectfully and patiently pointed out numerous flaws in your arguments, but it serves no purpose. You've consistently sought conflict. You've managed to label two of the forum's most vehemently anti-Sky posters as Sky fanboys. You spread insidious and highly tenuous conspiracy theory, engage in conjecture that is always seeking to point the finger of doping blame at Sky or Froome or both, and if Occam's razor were actually a razor then you'd have a beard unrivalled anywhere in Afghanistan.
People (I, though I'm pretty sure there are more than a handful of others) want you gone because you make this forum an unpleasant, aggressive, tedious place.
That's my last word to you.
I concur 100% with this post. For the last few years I have enjoyed the banter and information on this site, and also the good nature disagreements. Recently it has been turned into a deeply dispiriting place with the constant doping accusations being spouted on thread after thread. Not that it matters, in the scheme of things, but I for one will be walking away from here if the tone continues. Life is too short to spend it in the company of trolls.
There is something in the 'battle lines' statement made by WBT ... and also in what Mike6 says re. the doping accusations ... Many, many posters outright accused Chris Horner of doping (some even wished him death), most of which was fueled by anti-Armstrong related 'mob rule' ... These same people flipped their coin (and lid) as soon as anything similar was said of a Brit(ish) rider ...
There is a British-centric clique that raises it's ugly head reasonably often that could easily be accused of bullying anyone who dares question 'their hero(es)' ... Name-calling, inciting others to 'ignore' etc.
The majority of problems relate to discussion about SKY and their riders ... Does that not tell us something?
The problem when people want battle lines in cycling it just ends up being silly.
Rogers is your classic example. Ferrari and Freiburg, then goes to Sky for the form of his life. The comments he made at the 2012 Tour were seriously stupid.
He then leaves Sky after being named in the Reasoned Decision but we are told not for ZTP. His form at Saxo is patchey but ok. He then wins a race and subsently tests positive.
How do you draw battle lines out of that? How do you say he maybe was a doper before Sky but during the form of his life and his lowest weight since 16 he went clean? Then when he joined Team Judas with Contador and Riis he doped again to poor form.
All in jest I say this but trying to apply reason and logic to who's clean and who's not just ends up being totally stupid. In cycling there are too many characters and too many links to doping to make enough sense to say one team is clean and another not. Sky are finding that out now with JTL.
Is it evil team Endura or perhaps maybe BC at the World Champs or training with Sky? You see way too hard to try and pick out who's clean, who's the bad guys. They all have shared culpability if he did indeed dope.
People think I'm anti-Sky. I'm not. I'm anti-doping but enough of realist to know what goes on in the sport. I called out Lance, Horner, Contador and JTL alike. There's no selective nature to whom is questioned.
Just call it as it is.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Crankbrother wrote:mike6 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:WBT - I'll make an exception and reply to you here. It will be the last time.
I don't reply to your posts. I don't engage with you. People have respectfully and patiently pointed out numerous flaws in your arguments, but it serves no purpose. You've consistently sought conflict. You've managed to label two of the forum's most vehemently anti-Sky posters as Sky fanboys. You spread insidious and highly tenuous conspiracy theory, engage in conjecture that is always seeking to point the finger of doping blame at Sky or Froome or both, and if Occam's razor were actually a razor then you'd have a beard unrivalled anywhere in Afghanistan.
People (I, though I'm pretty sure there are more than a handful of others) want you gone because you make this forum an unpleasant, aggressive, tedious place.
That's my last word to you.
I concur 100% with this post. For the last few years I have enjoyed the banter and information on this site, and also the good nature disagreements. Recently it has been turned into a deeply dispiriting place with the constant doping accusations being spouted on thread after thread. Not that it matters, in the scheme of things, but I for one will be walking away from here if the tone continues. Life is too short to spend it in the company of trolls.
There is something in the 'battle lines' statement made by WBT ... and also in what Mike6 says re. the doping accusations ... Many, many posters outright accused Chris Horner of doping (some even wished him death), most of which was fueled by anti-Armstrong related 'mob rule' ... These same people flipped their coin (and lid) as soon as anything similar was said of a Brit(ish) rider ...
There is a British-centric clique that raises it's ugly head reasonably often that could easily be accused of bullying anyone who dares question 'their hero(es)' ... Name-calling, inciting others to 'ignore' etc.
The majority of problems relate to discussion about SKY and their riders ... Does that not tell us something?
The problem when people want battle lines in cycling it just ends up being silly.
Rogers is your classic example. Ferrari and Freiburg, then goes to Sky for the form of his life. The comments he made at the 2012 Tour were seriously stupid.
He then leaves Sky after being named in the Reasoned Decision but we are told not for ZTP. His form at Saxo is patchey but ok. He then wins a race and subsently tests positive.
How do you draw battle lines out of that? How do you say he maybe was a doper before Sky but during the form of his life and his lowest weight since 16 he went clean? Then when he joined Team Judas with Contador and Riis he doped again to poor form.
All in jest I say this but trying to apply reason and logic to who's clean and who's not just ends up being totally stupid. In cycling there are too many characters and too many links to doping to make enough sense to say one team is clean and another not. Sky are finding that out now with JTL.
Is it evil team Endura or perhaps maybe BC at the World Champs or training with Sky? You see way too hard to try and pick out who's clean, who's the bad guys. They all have shared culpability if he did indeed dope.
People think I'm anti-Sky. I'm not. I'm anti-doping but enough of realist to know what goes on in the sport. I called out Lance, Horner, Contador and JTL alike. There's no selective nature to whom is questioned.
Just call it as it is.
My beef (got to get a doping reference in) is How you argue your point. there are times when you are wrong, not in a who is and who isn't doping because we just don't know but on other points.
My first interaction with you was about your being unaware of a principle of law. Instead of saying didn't know that you scrambled around trying to cover yourself.
You said that Jens Voigt had been doping and JTL had been doping. You just can't say that yet. Not only is it against the law but at the very minimum it is against the rules of this forum to say that. But you wouldn't admit that either no matter how many times it was pointed out to you.
Please feel free to express your opinion but couch it in a none defamatory manner. Have the good grace to accept when you are being corrected on fact and don't confuse it with opinion. Don't say one thing then deny it or say another.
It'd not about Pro Sky or anti Sky it is about credible debate and you simply waste your credibility in your approach. That's why lots of people don't want to engage with you.0 -
<Never mind>
Cheers, FF ...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Jez mon wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
And it goes against my instinct not to want to see what's going on, but when one person can so easily provoke so many people to engaging in unpleasant and circularly illogical 'arguments' (Monty Python, anyone?), if more people would foe, then the quotes diminish, and the unpleasantness wanes. Though obviously if the mods decide that the unpleasantness needs a heavier hand, I wouldn't complain.Pross wrote:briantrumpet wrote:Foe button.
I've only foe'd two people on here, and it immediately becomes more pleasant. I'm reminded how much more pleasant if I have forgotten to log in. It's quite a nice place to come normally.
Problem is you still see their drivel when some well meaning person quotes them. It would be a great tool if it could block quotes including the foe's comments although of late several threads would have been multiple pages of blank space
Possibly though, those who get foe'd start finding themselves ignored more and more, and become increasingly attention seeking, which would make the forum worse for those who don't use the foe system. It also makes the forum appear worse to newbies...
I use the Foe system, for 1 poster. I don't use it because I dont want to have a debate with someone with a different view to me, that is what the site is all about. I use it to block someone with a single blinkered agenda that links everything in cycling to there mission that Sky and all there riders are doping. Sadly these posts are often quoted. 0 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:I normally don't even read these threads, but then report lights flash and guess what? It's the PRO race section again... someone got offended by someone else's post, so unusual!
Strikes me that the reporting of posts to the mods is the key issue here. That's what brings their attention to PR and results in the locking/loss of threads. The less reporting that goes on the happier life might be.
My view is that contributors to PR present a broad spectrum of views and debating styles. That's part of why I keep coming back. I learn, laugh and at times get infuriated. There are some brilliant posters and several very tedious ones. But we need that range to provide the forum it's character.
I get the feeling that the report button is being used to target contributors that are perceived as being annoying. If we just ignored a bit more and reported a bit less that might keeps the mods away.0 -
dish_dash wrote:
I get the feeling that the report button is being used to target contributors that are perceived as being annoying. If we just ignored a bit more and reported a bit less that might keeps the mods away.
I agree. Personally I don't recognise this decline of the ProRace section that some are referring to. Now maybe I just don't spend as much time here or know the various characters as well but there is always a danger with forums that they become a bit cliquey and anyone that upsets the regulars gets labelled as a troll.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Pross wrote:Problem is you still see their drivel when some well meaning person quotes them.
People are hypocrites if they reply to him and at the same time complain about him. It really doesnt take much intelligence to understand the normal way of doing things will not work with him. Therefore the very simple solution is to 'foe' him and then not reply to him. If everyone did this then he would just be having a monologue with himself and would soon go away.
There is no excuse.
So those quoting and responding to him I am going to assume are happy to do to so and actually enjoying retorting and repeating themselves twenty times a day.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Pross wrote:Problem is you still see their drivel when some well meaning person quotes them.
People are hypocrites if they reply to him and at the same time complain about him. It really doesnt take much intelligence to understand the normal way of doing things will not work with him. Therefore the very simple solution is to 'foe' him and then not reply to him. If everyone did this then he would just be having a monologue with himself and would soon go away.
There is no excuse.
So those quoting and responding to him I am going to assume are happy to do to so and actually enjoying retorting and repeating themselves twenty times a day.
Advice accepted and taken 0 -
Wasn't aimed at you directly by any mean Pross, just your post gave me the in.Contador is the Greatest0
-
People's resolve cracks though.frenchfighter wrote:Pross wrote:Problem is you still see their drivel when some well meaning person quotes them.
People are hypocrites if they reply to him and at the same time complain about him. It really doesnt take much intelligence to understand the normal way of doing things will not work with him. Therefore the very simple solution is to 'foe' him and then not reply to him. If everyone did this then he would just be having a monologue with himself and would soon go away.
There is no excuse.
So those quoting and responding to him I am going to assume are happy to do to so and actually enjoying retorting and repeating themselves twenty times a day.
It's like that time when you were adamant you wouldn't be posting a lovely picture of a horse. But then soon after posted a picture of a very lovely horse.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Why not get it from the horses mouth?Macaloon wrote:*For example you state above that Rogers was in the form of his life in 2012, when a glance at the points tables tells a different story.
http://www.letour.fr/le-tour/2012/us/li ... e-800.htmlRogers comments on yesterday's stage
“I posted some of the best numbers of my career on the final climb yesterday,” Michael Rogers told LeTour.fr this morning. “The whole time I was on the front,” he explained about his turn that began at the base of the ascent of La Planche des Belles Filles and lasted until the 3km to go mark, “until I stopped, I was putting out over 500 watts.“Once I was done, I basically stopped my effort but only for about a minute,” said Rogers of what he did after handing over the lead to team-mate Richie Porte. “But I was still feeling okay and I thought, ‘I might as well keep on going’. So I started riding again and, before I knew it, I caught and passed [Samuel] Sanchez. That last uphill pinch though... man, that was steep!”
So, how about that? Defamatory? Libel? Or just the truth?
Indeed, a strange phenomenon.I agree. Personally I don't recognise this decline of the ProRace section that some are referring to. Now maybe I just don't spend as much time here or know the various characters as well but there is always a danger with forums that they become a bit cliquey and anyone that upsets the regulars gets labelled as a troll.
When you dont want to discuss a subject you could just ignore it? I have no interest in posting on topics like:
* 2014 Gear
* Cave needs to lay off the pies (defamatory?)
etc etc, so do you see me trolling those threads with pictures of rocks and cats? Childish behaviour.
When one disagrees with some posts just correct the post.0
This discussion has been closed.
