Moderator actions

[Corpulent_Porpoise]

[/quote]
Thanks for posting this.

Could we persuade you to stay and give us and Cycling UK a second chance?

And happy pedalling to you, whichever way you choose.

Jonathan
[/quote]

Thanks Jonathan, kind of you.

I don't need to give my fellow forum users a second chance - I'm not withdrawing because any of you have offended me and I wish you all well. My issue lies with one moderator, nobody else. It's no biggie, I wasn't here to change the world and my £40 wouldn't have paid for much lobbying!

All best,

Corpulent Porpoise

[Corpulent_Porpoise]

C_P has said that they don't like flouncing hence their 'exit' went without explanation. However, in response to this thread of Jdsk's, C_P has offered a reasoned explanation for their leaving, even if I don't entirely understand it. Whilst they didn't explain why they deleted their posts, the simplest explanation is that it is simply a means of removing themselves from the forum, noting that it is not obvious how to delete one's account and they didn't have many posts.

It doesn't look like they're throwing neither teddy nor toys out of the pram, nor behaving in an undignified manner. I don't think it is helpful to make accusations suggesting otherwise.

Thank-you.

You're right; I couldn't see a way of just removing my whole profile or deleting whole threads, and so I manually removed the content of each one.

All best,

Corpulent Porpoise

[Tangled Metal]

With this forum I have realised you need to take a good step away from it occasionally to be able to keep using it. In C-P's case it isn't to come back. I understand that POV as it was only my curiosity that got me coming back after stepping away intending not to revisit. Unfortunately there was an interesting post and I was back. However for how long I do not know. No forum is worth the hassle this site occasionaly gives, whether its members and mods realise it or not.

Good Luck C-P and you made your decision that is right for you.

[Carlton green]

With this forum I have realised you need to take a good step away from it occasionally to be able to keep using it. In C-P's case it isn't to come back. I understand that POV as it was only my curiosity that got me coming back after stepping away intending not to revisit. Unfortunately there was an interesting post and I was back. However for how long I do not know. No forum is worth the hassle this site occasionaly gives, whether its members and mods realise it or not.

Good Luck C-P and you made your decision that is right for you.

As an observation I note that over the years this forum has lost some voices that have left this place weakened. Those voices weren’t always ones I agreed with but discussion isn’t all about agreeing with others and differences expressed in a respectful way promote useful thought. Of course some will deliberately give offence, but mostly it’s unintentional and it’s best to both treat it as such and be a little ‘thick skinned’ too.

[Vorpal]

What remains of the thread in question has been restored (locked) here:

viewtopic.php?p=1871198#p1871198

[Jdsk]

What remains of the thread in question has been restored (locked) here:

viewtopic.php?p=1871198#p1871198

Thankyou

One of the concerns in my OP was thread derailment. It's helpful to be able to see the views of the experienced moderator and valued poster who responded strongly about why an existing thread shouldn't be derailed and why a new thread should be started. I recommend everyone to read them.

Jonathan

[Sum]

From reading the deleted posts restored by Vorpal, it looks like it wasn't C_P's intention to derail the thread. It appears that they genuinely thought they were offering something relevant at first even if it was misguided in the eyes of others. Furthermore, by the end of the 1st page, C_P was dissuaded by the strong counter arguments, even if they didn't agree with them and parted with seemed to be a condescending remark perhaps, but they did say they would drop the matter and their behaviour on the remainder of the thread seems to testify to that.

So it should have ended there, but Slowster kept the debate and derailment going. Initially it seemed like Slowster was getting the last word in, but then Slowster went one further by quoting C_P on something they had said a while back. Each time quoting C_P which would draw them back into the argument. Slowster seemed to be getting confrontational and prolonging the one-sided argument at that stage. It was not the de-escalatory approach I would have expected.

Assuming I've read you correctly Jdsk, I don't think the restored posts are the exemplary posts you think they are.

[Jdsk]

...
Assuming I've read you correctly Jdsk, I don't think the restored posts are the exemplary posts you think they are.

I recommend you not to make that assumption.

There's a lot to be learnt from this episode, and I look forward to others' opinions now that most of what happened is visible. Thankyou for adding yours.

Jonathan

[Manc33]

I posted in that thread and I am deeply offended that it was deleted:

viewtopic.php?p=1868610#p1868610

Just kidding, I don't know what you guys are talking about to be honest.

For a thread like that to get deleted though is crazy to me. There's no controversy going on there, but whatever.

This guy (the OP) joined the forum 20 days ago. Here: memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=62695

Don't even give these members the time of day if they are causing hassle or deleting their content, what's the point. The guy was born yesterday. Water off a duck's back.

[Carlton green]

From reading the deleted posts restored by Vorpal, it looks like it wasn't C_P's intention to derail the thread. It appears that they genuinely thought they were offering something relevant at first even if it was misguided in the eyes of others. Furthermore, by the end of the 1st page, C_P was dissuaded by the strong counter arguments, even if they didn't agree with them and parted with seemed to be a condescending remark perhaps, but they did say they would drop the matter and their behaviour on the remainder of the thread seems to testify to that.

So it should have ended there, but Slowster kept the debate and derailment going. Initially it seemed like Slowster was getting the last word in, but then Slowster went one further by quoting C_P on something they had said a while back. Each time quoting C_P which would draw them back into the argument. Slowster seemed to be getting confrontational and prolonging the one-sided argument at that stage. It was not the de-escalatory approach I would have expected.

Assuming I've read you correctly Jdsk, I don't think the restored posts are the exemplary posts you think they are.

I haven’t reread the thread but that was my recollection of events too, the episode was a bit disappointing and I hope that people in the moderation team have reflected on events. On the other hand who hasn’t - whether they realise it or not - made a mistake? Who amongst us is perfect? IMHO It’s time to both cut Slowster some slack (he does a lot of good work on this forum) and to leave the moderation team to review events.

[Psamathe]

From reading the deleted posts restored by Vorpal, it looks like it wasn't C_P's intention to derail the thread. It appears that they genuinely thought they were offering something relevant at first even if it was misguided in the eyes of others. Furthermore, by the end of the 1st page, C_P was dissuaded by the strong counter arguments, even if they didn't agree with them and parted with seemed to be a condescending remark perhaps, but they did say they would drop the matter and their behaviour on the remainder of the thread seems to testify to that.

So it should have ended there, but Slowster kept the debate and derailment going. Initially it seemed like Slowster was getting the last word in, but then Slowster went one further by quoting C_P on something they had said a while back. Each time quoting C_P which would draw them back into the argument. Slowster seemed to be getting confrontational and prolonging the one-sided argument at that stage. It was not the de-escalatory approach I would have expected.

Assuming I've read you correctly Jdsk, I don't think the restored posts are the exemplary posts you think they are.

I haven’t reread the thread but that was my recollection of events too, the episode was a bit disappointing and I hope that people in the moderation team have reflected on events. On the other hand who hasn’t - whether they realise it or not - made a mistake? Who amongst us is perfect? IMHO It’s time to both cut Slowster some slack (he does a lot of good work on this forum) and to leave the moderation team to review events.

It's more than just one thread
eg
Thread titled "Deleted" about saddles (no controvercy) viewtopic.php?p=1870164
Thread titled "Deleted" about Derailleur hangers ? (no controvercy) viewtopic.php?p=1870042
Thread titled "Deleted" about like/dislike button? (no controvercy) viewtopic.php?p=1869182
Thread titled "Deleted" maybe about roof racks? (no controvercy) viewtopic.php?p=1868748
Thread titled "Deleted" maybe about returning to cycling (no controvercy) viewtopic.php?p=1868109
Thread titled "Deleted" about cycle nostalgia (no controversy) viewtopic.php?p=1868337
etc.

Ian

[mattheus]

...
This guy (the OP) joined the forum 20 days ago. Here: memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=62695

Don't even give these members the time of day if they are causing hassle or deleting their content, what's the point. The guy was born yesterday. Water off a duck's back.

I would add that for someone to say they are joining BC instead of CUK just because of a disagreement on the forum* smacks of not entirely good faith. IMHO

*(wonder how he is finding the BC forum, and their discussion of road use ethics?)

[Sum]

From reading the deleted posts restored by Vorpal, it looks like it wasn't C_P's intention to derail the thread. It appears that they genuinely thought they were offering something relevant at first even if it was misguided in the eyes of others. Furthermore, by the end of the 1st page, C_P was dissuaded by the strong counter arguments, even if they didn't agree with them and parted with seemed to be a condescending remark perhaps, but they did say they would drop the matter and their behaviour on the remainder of the thread seems to testify to that.

So it should have ended there, but Slowster kept the debate and derailment going. Initially it seemed like Slowster was getting the last word in, but then Slowster went one further by quoting C_P on something they had said a while back. Each time quoting C_P which would draw them back into the argument. Slowster seemed to be getting confrontational and prolonging the one-sided argument at that stage. It was not the de-escalatory approach I would have expected.

Assuming I've read you correctly Jdsk, I don't think the restored posts are the exemplary posts you think they are.

I haven’t reread the thread but that was my recollection of events too, the episode was a bit disappointing and I hope that people in the moderation team have reflected on events. On the other hand who hasn’t - whether they realise it or not - made a mistake? Who amongst us is perfect? IMHO It’s time to both cut Slowster some slack (he does a lot of good work on this forum) and to leave the moderation team to review events.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not trying to interfere with the moderator's review of recent events, nor to call Slowster out just for the sake of it. I was responding to Jdsk's recent post, suggesting that we should read the thread in question, after the moderator Vorpal had restored it for our scrutiny. If you have concerns about restoring the thread then you may wish to raise the matter with Vorpal.

Whilst we let the moderators reflect on things then I would also suggest that we all cut C_P some slack too.

[Paulatic]

...
Assuming I've read you correctly Jdsk, I don't think the restored posts are the exemplary posts you think they are.

I recommend you not to make that assumption.

Jonathan

Whilst I wasn’t following that thread I have read on from the link posted above. I’ve come to the same assumption as @Sum. It went unnecessarily downhill at 16 Sep 2024, 4:49
I hate being advised how to think but perhaps you are privy to some information which if known about might change my assumption.

[Vorpal]

I have now removed the thread again at the request of Corpulent_Porpoise.