lumpy said:I guess he crossed the line somewhere. His posts devolved as time went by - as did his politeness. He had some valid points but how he got them across was what doomed him I think.
It's nice to see the mods keeping a lid on things - Thanks mods!
Euphoric said:well, this part of the forum is about doping, so yeah all he did talk about here was doping. Did he on other parts of the board? i dont know.
but imo if he was banned for posting what he did in this part of the board, thats a load of **** imo.
Hes got every right to argue and express his opinion on doping here.
If he was off spouting about it in the nutrition section or something, then ok, but here? I saw no issues with his post and the only reason I can see is a mod got tired of seeing his posts about doping in the sport.
Unless he was banned for something else, he should be unbanned.
Let us know what happend .
Beastt said:Apparently, some here learned his techniques well. No one seems to know the particular reasons he was banned but most seem to feel justified in condemning the action without knowing the details. That sounds pretty much like Flyer tactics to me.
Having said that, IF... IF... he was banned just for expressing his views, (which I find highly doubtful), then I find the action to be inappropriate. But having my fair share, (and then some), of contact with him I don't find it hard to believe that he crossed the lines concerning rudeness and by more than a bit.
Suppose we save our judgements until we actually find out, (assuming we ever do), what the reason(s) for the ban were? Would that be such a terrible thing?
In my experience here, the mods are not only fair, but tend to bend over backward to avoid making issues over minor infringements. After having been to some other forums, I would suggest that the moderators here are exemplary in knowing when to step in and when to simply let an issue seek its course. I've seen people continually cross the line with myself an others and am unaware of any moderator action. I assume if no complaints are made, the moderators simply monitor the situation.
I don't know that Flyer violated the rules to a serious degree, but I have no problem believing that he could have. If he did, then I'm sure he was warned before he was banned. If he didn't, then there is an issue. But since nobody seems to know for sure, any beratement of the moderators seems to me, to be completely out of line.
There may be issues of privacy and propriety involved here. If you were banned with good reason, would you want the moderators sharing the reasons with everyone on the forum?MJtje said:Well let the moderators speak up then.........it seems that the general view is: 'why the hell did he get banned'......
So moderators........?????
I'm not personally familiar with the internal structure of the forum. But if it is like most I've seen, it is privately owned and therefore, any "right to know" normally granted a community who joiintly own the sight, doesn't apply. If I own a server and decide to sponsor a forum, I retain the right to ban anyone I please for any reason. It's personal property.Jon Jonson said:MJtje is right. If the moderators choose to ban a regular contributer to this forum, one in which a lot of people engage with, I think they owe it to us to explain why s/he was banned.
After all, it is a community; shouldn't the members of the community be consulted? Not to speak for others, but I have a problem when some unknown entity makes decisions on my behalf.
With that said, the unintentional irony of the banning is almost comic. It does nothing more than reinforce the point that Flyer was making -- i.e. everything is fine and good as long as people are making money and no one rocks the boat. Lance et al. are Gods, they achieve results by hard work only, Flyer is banned, so everyone can go back to sleep.
Good night. You've effectively made this forum irrlelevant.
VeloFlash said:I would speculate that there could have been legal intervention here.
If Cyclingforums allowed Flyer to carry on savaging reputations without evidence then the Forum administrators could be held legally accountable.
BTW, it is not difficult to sleuth who Flyer is in real life. Certainly not an ex European pro and Cat 1 with Olympic medals in his safe. Maybe some lawyers have succeeded in that direction also.
Huge difference between calling someone a coward for not stepping up to a verbal challenge to provide proof, calling someone my puppy because he comes running when called and giving back the ad hominum attacks (he whined about but did in almost every post) and making repeated physical threats. If you can't understand this then you are as deluded as Flyer was.MJtje said:LOL, that means what Flyer was saying IS true........keep the dirty side away of cycling and only debate real cycling.......this is just stupid!
And to come back to House.......dude personal threats are not nice, however you were the one who always said he was a coward and puppy and making ad homium attacks.........I mean there are 2 sides to a story and there were definitely 2 sides to the story of you guys!
BTW I support ajax........
MJtje said:LOL, that means what Flyer was saying IS true........keep the dirty side away of cycling and only debate real cycling.......this is just stupid!
When I said "legal intervention" I was meaning the Forum administrators may have reviewed their position.MJtje said:LOL, that means what Flyer was saying IS true........keep the dirty side away of cycling and only debate real cycling.......this is just stupid!
....[snip]
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.