Monthly: Ask your moderation questions here

But, when one poster insults another, and the other responds, and then both squabble endlessly, how does letting all that derail the thread benefit anyone?

This thread itself became a case in point--doesn't it contain several pages of two posters arguing with each other?

If you do this, at least don't limit the OP's number of replies. There are many good reasons for an OP to start a thread and respond to everything or add to the thread. For example, an AMA thread or an educational thread where the OP is adding useful information and explanations, and responding to questions and comments.

Here's a request to restore most of the deleted the430miler's threads from year at least. His threads are very well-crafted fantasy that many of us appreciate and find humorous and entertaining. He doesn't attack or insult others. I suspect his threads get deleted due to new-to-LR people thinking his fantasy are real-life lies rather than recognizing it for what it is—fantasy. Or maybe there is a moderator that hates him.

In particular, there was a the430miler thread that was very heavily positive ratioed/upvoted that got deleted that should be restored. I think it was the one where he provided very wise and well-illustrated (by words) advice on how to warm up.

You are keeping alive a wholly unnecessary discussion based entirely on a false accusation, and a false understanding of comments from another thread. That is how threads get "taken over", as we now debate whether such false statements are false, and how to interpret statements correctly, and what is true, and who is lying. The troll here is the one who started with the false accusation, "try harder", in an attempt to smear me, and not the one responding to these false accusations in self-defense.

No, "Here's my take" did not call it "Cold War" doping, and is not who I meant that has a "tendency to extrapolate broad and sweeping conclusions from cherry-picking half the facts." He doesn't make arguments so much as tends to concur with the conclusions of others who make the arguments.

I was responding to "confused rekkie", not "Here's my take", who called it "Cold War" doping and yes, you are correct, it was an other unnamed poster from many other previous threads, who is the only one I've ever seen argue "Cold War" doping existence broadly for the fastest non-African distance runners from 800m to the marathon (rather than just the Russian/East German women in the shorter distance events), whom I accused of tending to draw extreme conclusions from cherry-picking half the facts. To be clear, this would be athletes from the '80s like like Cram, Maree, Coe, Bile, Rono, Moorcroft, Barrios, Mamede, Lopes, Abebe, Ondieki, Dinsamo, Salah, Jones, and Kodama, and for the women, Kristiansen, Budd, Wessel, McColgan, Benoit, Mota, Ondieki, and Waitz.

And yes, this is a "commentary" on that person's behavior and methods and conclusions, and not a direct "attack" on that person. I'm also not so sure that that "other person" had nothing to do with that discussion/thread, nor this thread -- he is no longer posting under his registered handle, but anonymous posters pop up from time to time displaying the same telltale patterns, both in that thread and in this one. I guess he recognized his uniqueness, and now wants to give the illusion that many posters share his unique vision.

I'm not surprised that a few posters want to see me banned, being unable to provide successful arguments to support their beliefs for so many years. It must be frustrating and humiliating for them, so they resort to playing games. And I'm not surprised that many other posters are tired of seeing the same failed arguments keep coming back, just to be debunked again.

I don't ever deny insulting people, but it is rare. Some my find the cold-hard truth insulting.

And not just for the OP, any non-controversial, educational, running thread shouldn't have limits to any member's posting. For example, there's a thread asking for Canova's input on training. You don't want to limit how much Canova posts in that thread, or any coach/runner providing good insight in any other non-controversial training thread. Someone replying and getting a "You've posted too much in this thread, wait until tomorrow." can seriously turn off a positive, non-controversial poster from writing good stuff, and convince them to just decide to stop posting.

If you want to put limits on the number of posts per thread, consider only doing it for non-running threads where it might go political. And maybe have a checkbox that has to be checked for PED threads, and limit the number of number of posts in those threads.

HOW on earth do so many regular posters on here know who is posting what, whilst using an anonymous username?

I see it everyday, that people will know who posted what, just by the tone of the post inferred.

Like a sixth sense....

Is there actually just a few people posting who can identify each other's posts easily by their viewpoints?

I don’t recall him responding to me. Did I miss it?

Why is Malmo is still a moderator?

I don’t think squabbling of that nature benefits anyone. But that isn’t my point. My point is that the cure would be worse than the disease. Limiting posts per thread, or per day or whatever, would immediately kill discussion. I think that is more important.

What kills discussion is a dozen posts by one or two people that readers don't want to read. That happens far too often on otherwise interesting threads.

This is cute. You go on and on about this mysterious unnamed person whom you just invented, and who allegedly wasn't the only one noting doping distance runners of the 80s (that was Here's my take) but the only one who included the 80s in the Cold war era. All so you don't have to admit that you attacked Here's my take but the unknown person (which makes it normal and ok and within the forum's rules in your mind), so you keep distracting and obfuscating and keep bombarding us with your classic irrelevant off topic walls of text.

Simultaneously you keep attacking your mysterious freshly invented bogeyman, and then ironically finish with "I don't ever deny insulting people, but it is rare." And then pretend to talk "cold-hard truth". Classic rekrunner.

Strongest forum put off impression; there's only one person at the staff/mods who is responsible for the most of trash and hate posts under different names and registers, peculiar is also that stuff get's never deleted.

yes email me

Are you unaware that providing zero evidence of your assertions is not a winning argument? Apparently you are

So, to provide additional support of a false accusation and a tenuous mis-interpretation, now you want to fabricate a new false claim that I have only just now freshly invented the other target, as if, in the last dozen years, it makes more sense to believe I've only just heard of the "Cold War" doping for distance runners speculation for the first time from "Here's my take" three weeks ago in that thread, despite him not actually arguing "Cold War" doping for distance runners, but simply concurring with me describing one of several competing beliefs.

I heard of this "Cold War" doping for distance runners speculation, for men and women, for short and long distances, at least as far back as 6 years ago. At that time, I described the proponent of that speculative hypothesis as having "a habit of over-interpreting half the facts the way he wants, while ignoring any factual contradictions". Whether it is normal or OK or not, that invention is not new or fresh, but more than 6 years old, and was not targeted at "Here's my take", neither 6 years ago, nor 3 weeks ago, nor now.

What is classic is that there is yet another iteration of this unnecessary fabricated discussion used to prop up artificial outrage -- this appears to be the main goal.

Someone is deleting all of Sally Vix's posts in the Biden thread. Sally is not a problem poster at all! Should not be happening.

I was prescient up front that it was a pointless exercise because you would just deny, deny, deny. You wanted to prime me right anyway.