# The Armstrong/USPS doping thread



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

This case is a long way off being finished and there are plenty of developments to talk about.


----------



## mickle (6 Sep 2012)

I concur.


----------



## Buddfox (6 Sep 2012)

Hear, hear


----------



## thom (6 Sep 2012)

Yeah but let's try not to go round in circles about stuff.
There will be new developments and its surely reasonable to share info but lets face it, the arguments themselves will be played out elsewhere.


----------



## Crackle (6 Sep 2012)

Yes. New developments only.


----------



## Norm (6 Sep 2012)

Fill your boots with new stuff but I don't think anything new has come out in at least 2 weeks, let alone 'plenty' of it.

Even if there was anything new, it was lost in the slough of despair caused by repeating things which are nothing more nor less than pure speculation.


----------



## Noodley (6 Sep 2012)

I have posted more than anyone else on this matter, so how dare you?!!!


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> Fill your boots with new stuff but I don't think anything new has come out in at least 2 weeks, let alone 'plenty' of it.
> 
> Even if there was anything new, it was lost in the slough of despair caused by repeating things which are nothing more nor less than pure speculation.


You missed this then Norm...http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-confirms-past-doping-by-danielson-others-at-garmin


----------



## Norm (6 Sep 2012)

Is that news?


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> Is that news?


This is a trick question, right?


----------



## Norm (6 Sep 2012)

I'll move this thread into feedback, as I think that's what it is meant to be. It's not about racing anyway. Feel free starting a new thread in racing if something 'new' ever does appear.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Sep 2012)

I agree with Chuffy - this is far from over and it makes a lot of sense to have all the discussion concentrated intoone thread about this. What needs to be prevented is the proliferation of threads on exactly the same topic. But it was (and is) a bad idea to close the Armstrong thread (even if the OP agrees) just because there were a few unproductive posts (and largely by one particular member). Whether any one person likes it or not (and whether the moderators like it or not), this is the most important thing currently happening in pro-cycling.

So, Shaun / Mods - please reopen the Armstrong thread.


----------



## Norm (7 Sep 2012)

There was, IMO, very little discussion which was still happening after over 2,300 posts and I don't see a great deal of point in re-opening that particular thread as it would show little other than very few of the participants didn't partake in the "unproductive posts".

And, is Armstrong, someone who retired a couple of years ago, really the most important thing currently happening in pro-cycling? Not the Vuelta? Not the ToB? If there is anything current about this, it's not Armstrong, it is, as you say elsewhere, the only good thing which could come out of this and that is the politics which could see the UCI shut down or massively transformed.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> There was, IMO, very little discussion which was still happening after over 2,300 posts and I don't see a great deal of point in re-opening that particular thread as it would show little other than very few of the participants didn't partake in the "unproductive posts".
> 
> And, is Armstrong, someone who retired a couple of years ago, really the most important thing currently happening in pro-cycling? Not the Vuelta? Not the ToB? If there is anything current about this, it's not Armstrong, it is, as you say elsewhere, the only good thing which could come out of this and that is the politics which could see the UCI shut down or massively transformed.


 
The problem with this thread (for me) is that the limitation to a single rider and team is avoiding some of the bigger issues that do affect the sport. Armstrong should be the key to investigating the sport at the tme as a whole, not just one rider and team

Take the "new revelations" form Vaughters. One of the riders named (Danielson) is a key to the whole article yet never actually cycled with USPS


----------



## lukesdad (7 Sep 2012)

4 threads locked on the Big Tex subject in 2 weeks, trying to remember the last time a thread was locked in racing. Tells us something I suppose.


----------



## yello (7 Sep 2012)

Imo, the thread had started to unwind. My intention with 'Armstrong Charged and Banned' was only ever to discuss the USADA action. Topics well covered in the past were being introduced and battle lines formed over them. What had been a generally amicably debated and on-topic discussion was in danger of being soured. So I feel it was right to bring it to a close.

I appreciate the desire to talk about other related and/or broader issues, that can be done in other threads.


----------



## mickle (7 Sep 2012)

I've never felt the need to say this before - but closing the Armstrong threads is a very poor moderating decision. There may well be 'more important things' happening in pro cycling. But that's no justification for closing the thread. 

That it acheived 2000+ posts can hardly be described as 'very little discussion'.


----------



## rich p (7 Sep 2012)

I'm ambivalent. It certainly needs discussing, and I'm pretty sure it will be, but that thread was derailed by some pretty earnest trolling.
Closing it, however, is heavy-handed moderation. For some of us, this *is* the biggest story in cycling and I don't particularly like someone else telling me that it isn't. I'll decide what I think, thanks.
The thread could have been resurrected if the Mods had stepped in and warned a couple of the posters to alter their behaviour.


----------



## TheDoctor (7 Sep 2012)

I'm with Mickle on this - I'd never have closed a live thread with over 2000 posts.
Not the right decision IMHO.


----------



## Crackle (7 Sep 2012)

As this is moved to feedback, here's mine.

The Armstrong thread was very much a current thread, it's very much a current issue and one of the biggest in cycling since I started following the sport in 1984, closing it is not the right thing.

There are problems in the thread and repeated circular arguments, well, quite honestly, you mods know why that is and the people involved have a history of trolling threads, normally helmet threads. If you want to moderate the thread, tackle the source of the problem. No thread in racing has been closed until those posters got involved and they have nothing of any note to add, so ban them from the thread, in fact ban them from racing, no one cares for their opinions anyway. It's not the first time threads have been derailed by them, they're just two people who don't like to lose a debate and resort to flooding it with the same old tripe even when it's been refuted. Ban them, that's the proper decision and re-open the thread.


----------



## MacB (7 Sep 2012)

It shouldn't have been closed and I really don't care for mods expressing their opinion on what is valid for others to discuss or whether they think something is interesting or relevant. Under those criteria there are so many threads that could be closed it's ludicrous.

If a thread bores you then don't visit it, if you get complaints about it then deal with the specific complaint and post/s.

IMO we have a resident troll who is allowed to destroy thread after thread for his/her own pedantic amusement. If the mods aren't smart enough to deal with that then they certainly aren't smart enough to decide what the rest of us should deem worthy of discussion.

Of course if Shaum wants to close something then his house his rules but let's not try and cloak this as something other than an expression of a few individuals personal preferences.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Sep 2012)

This was in the last comment on the thread:



> The matter has been decided.


 
What does that mean?


----------



## martint235 (7 Sep 2012)

I hope I'm not one of those labelled as trolls, if I am I never intended to be but I admit to being pedantic.

However on this idea, I think it's worth noting that most discussions (and negotiations) have a level of repetition and a cyclical nature. Can you imagine the Good Friday Agreement if someone had come in after 6 weeks and said "Right guys, you're not saying anything new anymore. Let's wrap it up and all go home".


----------



## thom (7 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> I hope I'm not one of those labelled as trolls, if I am I never intended to be but I admit to being pedantic.
> 
> However on this idea, I think it's worth noting that most discussions (and negotiations) have a level of repetition and a cyclical nature. Can you imagine the Good Friday Agreement if someone had come in after 6 weeks and said "Right guys, you're not saying anything new anymore. Let's wrap it up and all go home".


 
Not sure it has to be like that - I think it is to do with the mindset of the personalities involved.

I guess I have various question to the Mods:
Has the whole subject been banned from discussion and does it mean that any kind of drug abuse related story is off the radar ?
Would mods prefer this to be discussed in a different section, like Current Affairs ? If not in the Pro cycling section, where ?

It is true that from my side, there is little worth debating. I'm interested in following a story with it's ongoing revelations, how they relate to current people in the sport and how the future of the sport will be shaped. I have learnt an awful lot from the people on this forum.

But there is little worth debating for a variety of reasons, firstly because opinions are so polarised and incompatible and secondly because in fact none of us have any bearing on the case.
What concerns me is that the same can be said about the Current Affairs forum as a whole.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> The thread could have been resurrected if the Mods had stepped in and warned a couple of the posters to alter their behaviour.


 
I had this exact same issue on a different thread. I think some of the moderators clearly need to re-acquaint themselves with the meaning of the word 'moderate' - locking threads should be a last resort, not a default option...


----------



## PpPete (7 Sep 2012)

I'd just like to record my own disappointment at the closure of such a popular thread. I rarely participated in it, but read it daily, and learned a lot from it.


----------



## Norm (7 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> Feel free starting a new thread in racing if something 'new' ever does appear.


The subject isn't banned, the feelings on this thread are that only new revelations should appear and the 2,350 post thread was not a good reflection on many of the posters, it certainly was not just one troll.

The problem is that Armstrong has become a religion, with few facts and plenty of faith amongst the believers and the non-believers. And, like most religions, the believers and the non-believers can't understand that anyone can hold a different opinion to their own and, in the absence of facts to support either position, express that frustration through violence.


----------



## Cheddar George (7 Sep 2012)

I didn't contribute to this thread but i did read a lot of it as it developed and some of the information linked to it, like most threads there are superficial posts that you skip past. You should not lock a thread because it does not meet some undefined standard of debate.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> The problem is that Armstrong has become a religion, with few facts and plenty of faith amongst the believers and the non-believers. And, like most religions, the believers and the non-believers can't understand that anyone can hold a different opinion to their own and, in the absence of facts to support either position, express that frustration through violence.


 
So you are saying there was aggression and violence in the Armstrong thread?


----------



## MacB (7 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> The subject isn't banned, the feelings on this thread are that only new revelations should appear and the 2,350 post thread was not a good reflection on many of the posters, it certainly was not just one troll.
> 
> The problem is that Armstrong has become a religion, with few facts and plenty of faith amongst the believers and the non-believers. And, like most religions, the believers and the non-believers can't understand that anyone can hold a different opinion to their own and, in the absence of facts to support either position, express that frustration through violence.


 
Which is your opinion Norm and that's fine, what's not fine is deciding that it will be everyone elses opinion as well.

If a thread breaks the rules then moderate the infringement or lock it. If you just don't like it, don't see the point or don't think it's going anywhere then you can avoid reading it. Just like many people will do with things like tea threads, say something about the poster above, etc, etc.

As for what you consider to be a good/bad reflection on individual posters, again that's you opinion....but if rules aren't being broken then that's exactly what it should remain...your opinion.


----------



## Chuffy (7 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> The subject isn't banned, the feelings on this thread are that only new revelations should appear and the 2,350 post thread was not a good reflection on many of the posters, it certainly was not just one troll.
> 
> The problem is that Armstrong has become a religion, with few facts and plenty of faith amongst the believers and the non-believers. And, like most religions, the believers and the non-believers can't understand that anyone can hold a different opinion to their own and, in the absence of facts to support either position, express that frustration through violence.


Norm - the fact that you didn't consider the revelation of three more ex USPS riders being former dopers to be 'news' suggests that you are in no position to decide what is interesting or relevant to the rest of us.

I've been a mod (as those with loooong memories might remember) and closing the thread with no warning was a bad decision. I hope you and any other mods involved will be big enough to accept this and either unlock it or allow another thread to be started. If you can do this, trust me, people will respect you for it. Also, if there is a problem with the way the thread is going - actively Moderate it. Don't just sit back and then swing the big hammer at the last minute.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Also, if there is a problem with the way the thread is going - actively Moderate it. Don't just sit back and then swing the big hammer at the last minute.


 
completely agree. I actually contacted 'shaun' on this exact issue - but he didn't even have the decency to respond.


----------



## martint235 (7 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> completely agree. I actually contacted 'shaun' on this exact issue - but he didn't even have the decency to respond.


I'd give him time. He's a busy guy but I'm sure he will get back to you.


----------



## Chuffy (7 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> I'd give him time. He's a busy guy but I'm sure he will get back to you.


Wot Martin said. We might be narked about this, but we're not the only ones who want Shaun do do something or sort something out. There's no need to get snotty about it, Shaun doesn't deserve that.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> I'd give him time. He's a busy guy but I'm sure he will get back to you.


 
four days - still nothing. How much time does he need..?


----------



## MacB (7 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> four days - still nothing. How much time does he need..?


 
come on B&Y this is a thread about closing a thread, it's not meant to be a venue for any of us to air individual grievances on specific matters.


----------



## Noodley (7 Sep 2012)

I "reported" the Armstrong threads on a regular basis, due to trolling and irrelevant pedantry. For me, the threads had descended into nothing more than cock-waving nobbishness with a few valid points lost in amongst all the dross that was being spouted.

If people cannot self-moderate, then IMO there is no other choice than to close a thread.

I see that there is another one opened (which I have already reported btw as I can see already that 'proper' discussion is unlikely) to discuss Armstrong. 

So, either grow up and discuss matters like grown-ups, move discussions along rather than going over irrelevant non-issues, and take time to find out the facts rather than making stuff up...or expect me to continue to report threads! Because I can, I will continue to report them.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

MacB said:


> come on B&Y this is a thread about closing a thread, it's not meant to be a venue for any of us to air individual grievances on specific matters.


 
I know - I was just using it as an example. Two poor moderating decisions within a few days (you could argue there was a pattern forming) - and no word from the man on high, despite an effort to contact him directly - that's all I'm saying.


----------



## MacB (7 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> I "reported" the Armstrong threads on a regular basis, due to trolling and irrelevant pedantry. For me, the threads had descended into nothing more than cock-waving nobbishness with a few valid points lost in amongst all the dross that was being spouted.
> 
> If people cannot self-moderate, then IMO there is no other choice than to close a thread.
> 
> ...


 
I'm surprised, why on earth would you keep reporting something and telling people to grow up if you're not able to exercise enough self control to just not read what bothers you?

It does smack a little of posters that pop up on threads to declare how much they don't like the thread or the subject....why?


----------



## Cheddar George (7 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> I "reported" the Armstrong threads on a regular basis, due to trolling and irrelevant pedantry. For me, the threads had descended into nothing more than cock-waving nobbishness with a few valid points lost in amongst all the dross that was being spouted.
> 
> If people cannot self-moderate, then IMO there is no other choice than to close a thread.
> 
> ...


 
Willwaving.
A few valid points.
People spouting dross.

This is an internet forum, none of the above should be reason enough to close a thread. I do agree that self moderation is the key, if you don't like the thread then don't go back there again.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

Cheddar George said:


> I do agree that self moderation is the key, if you don't like the thread then don't go back there again.


 
that's exactly what I did on that thread, incidentally. Tried to argue one particular point, was met with a barrage of sheer idiocy from one particular member, then gave up and never went back - which is unlike me...


----------



## Pottsy (7 Sep 2012)

I thought pedantic willy waving was the whole point of an internet forum?


----------



## Chuffy (7 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> If people cannot self-moderate, then IMO there is no other choice than to close a thread.


No, I don't agree with that. People get wrapped up in the discussion, occasionally they need a reminder to tone it down or move on.The role of the Mods should be to issue warnings before locking threads.



> I see that there is another one opened (which I have already reported btw as I can see already that 'proper' discussion is unlikely) to discuss Armstrong.


I agree that the thread you're refering to is unlikely to turn into anything useful as things stand, but a bit of active Modding could save it and we do need somewhere to discuss this stuff as the situation unfolds.


----------



## thom (7 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I agree that the thread you're refering to is unlikely to turn into anything useful as things stand, but a bit of active Modding could save it and we do need somewhere to discuss this stuff as the situation unfolds.


I have to say, whoever first said "Ignorance is bliss" couldn't have perceived how blissful the ignore button is.
I do think people should self moderate as well and the ignore button is a useful part of it.


----------



## Red Light (7 Sep 2012)




----------



## Noodley (7 Sep 2012)

Whilst I agree with the "if you don't like a thread, then don't go back" sentiment, I am actually interested in the thread subject matter - the systematic doping and trafficking of banned products by Lance Armstrong and others. There were others on the thread with no interest at all, and who dragged it down into the mire of trolldom. Rather than ignoring them, people got into pedantic nobbery and spoiled what should have been a good thread. I expect people to know a bit about the subject matter or state they want clarification on matters, rather than making up pish! 

It's maybe just that I have become used to the Racing forum on CC attracting people who know a bit about Pro Racing - not the most in-depth minute detail, but certainly enthusiasm for the sport - and that the influx of nobbers has resluted in this being thrown off kilter.

As for moderation of the posts, then I reckon that it would be an almost fulltime job! And result in numerous complaints or crying "foul". 

So my position remains unchanged. We need to grow up collectively or expect threads to close. I include myself in this!


----------



## Chuffy (7 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> I have to say, whoever first said "Ignorance is bliss" couldn't have perceived how blissful the ignore button is.
> I do think people should self moderate as well and the ignore button is a useful part of it.


I had the two prime offenders on 'Ignore' from quite early on, when it became clear they had nothing to contribute other than tedious pedantry and nit-picking. That said, you can't just Ignore everyone with a contrary opinion and on a long thread it's inevitable that people will post without reading the whole thing, hence you get these repetitive arguments. Mind you, my rule when reading The Clinic is that any thread over 100 posts is probably going to contain more heat than light.


----------



## Cheddar George (7 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> Whilst I agree with the "if you don't like a thread, then don't go back" sentiment, I am actually interested in the thread subject matter - the systematic doping and trafficking of banned products by Lance Armstrong and others. There were others on the thread with no interest at all, and who dragged it down into the mire of trolldom. Rather than ignoring them, people got into pedantic nobbery and spoiled what should have been a good thread. I expect people to know a bit about the subject matter or state they want clarification on matters, rather than making up pish!
> 
> It's maybe just that I have become used to the Racing forum on CC attracting people who know a bit about Pro Racing - not the most in-depth minute detail, but certainly enthusiasm for the sport - and that the influx of nobbers has resluted in this being thrown off kilter.
> 
> ...


 
Yes it is disappointing when a thread that should inspire a good "questiontime" style debate turns into "Jerry Springer", but it is not a good enough single reason to close it.


----------



## martint235 (7 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> I know - I was just using it as an example. Two poor moderating decisions within a few days (you could argue there was a pattern forming) - and no word from the man on high, despite an effort to contact him directly - that's all I'm saying.


Shaun may be on holiday or doing other stuff. He might even be working. I certainly don't pay him to offer 24/7 support.


----------



## MacB (7 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> So my position remains unchanged. We need to grow up collectively or expect threads to close. I include myself in this!


 
Hmmm, I do agree with your sentiments Noodley but I think you're getting yourself worked up about something that wouldn't normally bother you. I reckon this is because attitudes and styles have invaded a corner of the net you'd normally expect to be free of them. Elsewhere it would be water off a ducks back - clearly it doesn't bother me in this instance but I feel exactly as you do when I think the wrong sort of posting is happening in Know How - so who am I to say.

Once upon a time I prided myself on never having used an ignore function on the internet. I've now decided that was a sacrifice that only mattered to me and the hassle wasn't worth it for that little bit of pride.

However I do try not to use the mod/reporting facility, can't actually remember if I've ever used it at all on here. Partly I think because I imagine it would be habit forming


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Shaun may be on holiday or doing other stuff. He might even be working. I certainly don't pay him to offer 24/7 support.


 
well, someone's been using his account regularly since Monday - the 'mystery user' was even online earlier this morning....


----------



## MacB (7 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> well, someone's been using his account regularly since Monday - the 'mystery user' was even online earlier this morning....


 
jeez man, don't start coming off like a stalker...remember it's Friday, this is the day that B&Y starts to chill for his weekend


----------



## Cheddar George (7 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> well, someone's been using his account regularly since Monday - the 'mystery user' was even online earlier this morning....


 
Have patience, i notice that Dixon of Dock Green is now online ........ he is sure to bring some good old fashioned common sense to the problem.


----------



## Crackle (7 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> well, someone's been using his account regularly since Monday - the 'mystery user' was even online earlier this morning....


Really, Shaun's a good bloke and this forum is as good as it is because of him. You're aiming your ire in the wrong place.

I disagree with closing the thread as I've already said. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, it's easy to see which posters are responsible for the descent of a thread and I'm not just talking about this one. Hit those posters with bans, simple. Nothing else will work.


----------



## rich p (7 Sep 2012)

Black'nYellow - it would be helpful to those of us with a legitimate complaint about the closure of the Armstrong thread and with constructive views on how it could have been handled better, if you could go and start a thread elsewhere about your grievance. To be honest, you whingeing about the Mods, and Shaun in particular, is something I suspect none of us would like to be associated with.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Black'nYellow - it would be helpful to those of us with a legitimate complaint about the closure of the Armstrong thread and with constructive views on how it could have been handled better, if you could go and start a thread elsewhere about your grievance. To be honest, you whingeing about the Mods, and Shaun in particular, is something I suspect none of us would like to be associated with.


 
I messaged him - he didn't reply. No whingeing, just a simple statement of fact. I'm sure Shaun is a wonderful human being - but it doesn't alter the facts in this case. As for the thread closure, I have already expressed 'constructive' views on the matter. But I'll leave you all to it now...


----------



## rich p (7 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> I messaged him - he didn't reply. No whingeing, just a simple statement of fact. I'm sure Shaun is a wonderful human being - but it doesn't alter the facts in this case. As for the thread closure, I have already expressed 'constructive' views on the matter. *But I'll leave you all to it now*...


 Thank you.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Sep 2012)

for me the thread was an education, and I found my outlook on Armstrong shifting bit by bit


----------



## e-rider (7 Sep 2012)

in all walks of life there are idiots, and CC is no exception - locking the thread was a bad decision
what is needed on CC, is a policy of removing 'repeat offenders' who take pleasure out of trolling threads and argue just for the sake of it
we all know who they are so just get rid


----------



## Noodley (7 Sep 2012)

I'd be happy if the main trolling idiots were banned and the thread was re-instated.

I've always been an advocate of imposing bans where required.


----------



## Scoosh (7 Sep 2012)

<dons Mod hat>

Speaking as the Mod who closed the thread -  or , (depending on your outlook  ), I'll give you some background.

I had an interest in - and read - the whole thread from the beginning . On the whole, the discussion was conducted in a sensible, mature and reasonable manner throughout. It was a credit to CC  and to those engaged in the discussion.  

However, once it expanded to draw in those who didn't/don't have a close, perhaps detailed, interest in the pro cycling scene, past and present, it began to become repetitious, with people who had not read all the previous posts asking questions and expressing opinions which had been answered/discussed some pages earlier.

It was also noticeable that, when news/information was slow in emerging, the thread changed character a bit. 

After the USADA decision, the main purpose of the thread had been fulfilled and it was suggested via PM that the conversation had run its course, discussion was drifting and becoming acrimonious.

To prevent it becoming abusive and to maintain its position as a 'model discussion thread on a potentially minefield subject' (my definition), I re-read the last few pages and could see the validity of the proposal to close it.

So I did - not in any way to stifle debate, more to stifle acrimony and abuse.  Clearly, there is a strong voice calling for its re-instatement. Discussion is on-going amongst the Mods and we have not made a definitive decision yet, AFAIK. 

There have been a few posts in this thread referring to trolls :troll: . If you think someone is only involving themselves in a thread in order to troll - please use the Report button. Remember that we are not full-time Mods, we have other priorities, we are fallible  but we do try to keep CC running according to its tag-line: "A fun and friendly cycling community".

I hope this explains my (our ??) reasoning.


----------



## rich p (7 Sep 2012)

I appreciate your candour Scoosh and I also disliked the way the thread had been derailed by two posters in particular. For some of us, well me anyway, feel it goes against the grain to report posters. I wonder if that would have ben a better idea but I suppose I hoped that independent intervention would have happened but I appreciate that the Mods can't be everywhere and you largely perform a good but thankless task.
One of the serial 'trolls' even posted that he'd 'succeeded' when he drove me to 'ignore' him which summed up his motivation for me.
Keep up the good work Mod men and come to a reasoned decision!


----------



## fossyant (7 Sep 2012)

The mods do take banning people very seriously - i.e they don't do it very often. Maybe that needs reviewing then 

As said there is the handy 'ignore' button


----------



## Shaun (7 Sep 2012)

I'll have a look at this later tonight. In the meantime take it easy and chat about some other stuff.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Sep 2012)

I appreciate revealing your reasoning, Scoosh, but it was still a mistaken decision - and especially to say 'the matter has been decided'! There might be a few days or even weeks of lull in the discussion but this will run and run. Before you had a single contained space for discussion of this issue. Now, all that will happen is that threads will proliferate on the subject, making more work for you and other mods.


----------



## Chuffy (7 Sep 2012)

Thanks for the explanation Scoosh. I don't agree with the decision to close (as you can probably tell) but given that the thread was already being watched and discussed, surely an official warning on-thread would have been appropriate?

I have to say I don't agree entirely with some other posters about the 'trolls'. The people being referred to might be bloody-minded, pedantic and frankly a total pain in the arse, but I think it's unfair to describe them as trolls and call for them to be banned. Again, a warning would have been appropriate.


----------



## rich p (7 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Thanks for the explanation Scoosh. I don't agree with the decision to close (as you can probably tell) but given that the thread was already being watched and discussed, surely an official warning on-thread would have been appropriate?
> 
> I have to say I don't agree entirely with some other posters about the 'trolls'. The people being referred to might be bloody-minded, pedantic and frankly a total pain in the arse, but I think it's unfair to describe them as trolls and call for them to be banned. Again, a warning would have been appropriate.


 Celebrating being ignored as a victory sounds pretty trollish to me !


----------



## Crackle (7 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Thanks for the explanation Scoosh. I don't agree with the decision to close (as you can probably tell) but given that the thread was already being watched and discussed, surely an official warning on-thread would have been appropriate?
> 
> I have to say I don't agree entirely with some other posters about the 'trolls'. The people being referred to might be bloody-minded, pedantic and frankly a total pain in the arse, but I think it's unfair to describe them as trolls and call for them to be banned. Again, a warning would have been appropriate.


You may be right in one case but not the other but I'm all out of charity today.


----------



## Shaun (7 Sep 2012)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll have a look at this later tonight. 

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## Norm (7 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I have to say I don't agree entirely with some other posters about the 'trolls'. The people being referred to might be bloody-minded, pedantic and frankly a total pain in the arse, but I think it's unfair to describe them as trolls and call for them to be banned. Again, a warning would have been appropriate.


I think that this is a critical thing for many to realise. Troll does not mean 'someone who holds a different opinion to mine and can't be bullied into backing down'. 

On the other hand, in response to those who think there should have been a warning, that was, as Lukesdad pointed out, the fourth thread locked because it had nowhere to go and had started the downward spiral.

Would many really spend long deciding between closing a thread and going through it deleting dozens of posts, in the certain knowledge that there would be dozens more the next time you log in? We tried that recently on a thread or two and, IIRC, ended up closing it anyway.


----------



## Shaun (8 Sep 2012)

Having reviewed most of the 119 pages of the thread I concur with scoosh that it had served its main purpose (and could have done so in _far_ fewer pages!!).

I also concur that some people extended and disrupted the thread but unfortunately the moderator team did not have the tools to exclude individuals and so their only option to stop circular repetition was to lock the whole thread; not an ideal option.

So to resolve this I've installed a new thread exclusion tool. This will make it fairer for those of you who are conducting yourselves in a reasonable manner by giving the modding team the flexibility to temporarily exclude individuals who are being disruptive, unnecessarily pedantry, taking a thread off-topic, etc. - whilst allowing a thread to remain open and discussion to contine.

A number of you wanted to continue the _Armstrong_ discussion and started a new thread to do so. I think it's best we let the new thread run on the understanding that should anyone disrupt it they should expect a visit from the _thread exlusion_ fairy!! 

Armstrong thread contined here: http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-new-improved-lance-armstrong-discussion-thread.110635/

Cheers,
Shaun


----------

