• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Is it safe in Here??

Jun 10, 2009
249
0
0
Visit site
I think the Pro Road Racing forum is a bit crazy at the moment. People cursing each other out, name calling etc... If this was a meeting of some kind half the members would be dead.
But it looks nice and quiet in here. :D
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Safe

It's a sign of the anonymous internet Avatar generation. People can be excessive without being accountable. They need to be reminded that the messages last forever and can be traced and there is a difference between fantasy and reality.
 
Jul 9, 2009
104
0
0
Visit site
shawnrohrbach said:
How much I agree. Here are my thoughts on that subject

http://www.civilsimian.com/page.php?id=55

Read the article in the link. I had a pretty weird experience when I dared make a post on one of these threads - and was completely taken aback by the response. It completely confused me - fortunately there was a positive response from several people and I figured that: 1) if you're new and 2) if you disagree with a regular contributor, namecalling and insults will follow.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
shawnrohrbach said:
How much I agree. Here are my thoughts on that subject

http://www.civilsimian.com/page.php?id=55

Great article - it should be a sticky.
I am pretty new to the forum 'world' - what I have noticed is that some who are rude and obnoxious are trying to quash anyone else from chiping in with an opinion particularly those that are new or with low post count.

It is quite easy to build your post count if most of your contribution to a topic is to go back and forth with another member saying who the biggest douch is.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
It is quite easy to build your post count if most of your contribution to a topic is to go back and forth with another member saying who the biggest douch is.

I love the direct attacks at post count or claims of "tourists". Has never happened to me but I've seen a lot of it. I've been visiting cyclingnews.com for just under ten years, pretty much since the beginning of the site and the internet basically. The forum was only added a few months ago. Hard for ANYONE to claim seniority in it.

I mostly agree with the article but it is only the tip of the iceberg when looking at the psychology of forums.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
After finishing work and checking out the madness going on in the racing forum, I have to admit it is much nicer in here. Thanks for the peace everyone!

Now I am going to take a few deep breaths and check out another thread in the racing forum ...
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
Visit site
Oldman said:
It's a sign of the anonymous internet Avatar generation. People can be excessive without being accountable. They need to be reminded that the messages last forever and can be traced and there is a difference between fantasy and reality.

While that is generally true, what is happening here is much more the product of a web-host that decided to mount a forum and then do absolutely NOTHING once it was up to try to get a baseline of decorum in place before the post volume built up.

If you saw the first week's postings you would have noticed a downhill slide as people explored the 'edge' of acceptability.

The tone of 'conversation' here is due to people realising that the limits are so far to one side of polite human behaviour that they can get all their life frustrations out by deriding the race, age, religion, or actual BIKE of anyone they feel like attacking.

I personally am very disappointed in this as it means that an opportunity for a good cycling forum has been pretty much wasted. Yes it is worth having alook now and then but really most threads don't last 2 pages before being ruined.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
1
0
Visit site
Martin318is said:
While that is generally true, what is happening here is much more the product of a web-host that decided to mount a forum and then do absolutely NOTHING once it was up to try to get a baseline of decorum in place before the post volume built up.

If you saw the first week's postings you would have noticed a downhill slide as people explored the 'edge' of acceptability.

The tone of 'conversation' here is due to people realising that the limits are so far to one side of polite human behaviour that they can get all their life frustrations out by deriding the race, age, religion, or actual BIKE of anyone they feel like attacking.

I personally am very disappointed in this as it means that an opportunity for a good cycling forum has been pretty much wasted. Yes it is worth having alook now and then but really most threads don't last 2 pages before being ruined.

I so totally 100% agree with this!

We tried to address the need for 'proper' moderation in the 'forum' forum, but soon discovered that there was neither time nor interest on the part of those supposedly running this place to enter into a serious dialog about the daily state of affairs. Eventually, the doping forum was set up, which has certainly been a big help. But most topics on the main forum almost inevitably degenerate into dope or LA bashing. Heaven forbid some poor schmuck with few posts makes a post that is not anti-LA. All this, and the constant bouts of personal abuse can only flourish because there are large chunks of every 24 hours where there are clearly no moderators online anywhere. Or, if there are, they pretend not to see and do nothing.

People who happen to work for CN and who look in (or are able to look in) on the forums, especially the busiest one, only very occasionally, if ever, are no use as moderators. Moderators need to be responsible forum members from different time zones who regularly spend time here. (No, I'm not angling for the job!) This has already been suggested, but as usual there's been no response.
 
Amsterhammer said:
We tried to address the need for 'proper' moderation in the 'forum' forum, but soon discovered that there was neither time nor interest on the part of those supposedly running this place to enter into a serious dialog about the daily state of affairs.

how much censorship from mod's would be enuff. that's a difficult compromise b/c you want people to speak freely but it seems pretty clear there's a need for more especially in the area of decorum/profanity/etc.

it means you enter at your own risk and you must have thick skin for now.

it really comes down to why you are using the forum. are you here to get breaking news, discuss issues, and to be exposed to divergent viewpoints or are you here to argue and convince everyone to think the way you do? (rhetorical, not directed at amsterhammer)
 
May 13, 2009
305
0
0
Visit site
lean said:
it means you enter at your own risk and you must have thick skin for now.

pretty much says it right there. There are a few trolls on here just to see how many people they can get agitated, not really contribute. It is an anonymous infrequently moderated message board, and it is being taken full advantage off. Still, I think that there are some good threads and good discussion. (I mean babes on bikes? Fantastic.) We just have to do our best not to get consistently caught up in the, 'you're a douche!' 'No, you're the douche!'. If there are less taking the bait, the better it will get.
Even with moderators, there will still be 'douches' so toughen up the skin.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
lean said:
how much censorship from mod's would be enuff. that's a difficult compromise b/c you want people to speak freely but it seems pretty clear there's a need for more especially in the area of decorum/profanity/etc.

it means you enter at your own risk and you must have thick skin for now.

it really comes down to why you are using the forum. are you here to get breaking news, discuss issues, and to be exposed to divergent viewpoints or are you here to argue and convince everyone to think the way you do? (rhetorical, not directed at amsterhammer)

Some great points here.

I am against censorship or indeed having the mods have too much input. We - the users - unfortunately have to police the forum and show tolerance and patience on the site.
I think the point about peoples motive for being on here is very valid and has a lot to do with how the posting develops.
Amsterhammer - to be fair, there are a number of posters who are pro Lance that can get stuck in too. I actually find it equally difficult to converse with either opinion as their like/dislike often blinds objective thinking.
 
Jul 13, 2009
144
0
0
Visit site
I would have to say that this forum is the most heated I have seen outside of discussions of religion or politics.

The brazenness of anonymous individuals certainly gets under one's skin.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Visit site
Amsterhammer said:
...

But most topics on the main forum almost inevitably degenerate into dope or LA bashing. Heaven forbid some poor schmuck with few posts makes a post that is not anti-LA.

QUOTE]

I just experienced the opposite.
Went to the road racing forum, 3 threads bashing Lemond close together one was a first time poster, another post#2, the 3rd was post #6
while i admit i have not been here very long, when you see alot of similar threads started by new members and then they spew the same hate
it gets tiresome.
One thing that i did not like about Lance in this tour, there was an article after Roche had a run in with the Italians. Roche had been verbally abused while in the break protecting the yellow jersey of the leader. Then the Italians continued berating Nicholas on live TV, even after Roche confronted them they still insisted he was in the wrong. Roche mentioned it to LA, he says he speaks with him every day and Lance gave him some really dumb answer along the lines of everyone has different interests in the tour...
As patron he could have at least agreed with the sound strategy of protecting the yellow jersey.
I have never heard in my life that a domestique in a break should work to remove the leaders jersey for a teammate
:confused:

At the same time Lance has had choice words in the past towards riders & teams, Cofidis, Simeoni et al. So it is funny when he is silent and ignores other shenanigans
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
This used to be such a nice place to rest and recuperate ... still pleasant, but taken a slight twist. I'll twist a little more.

Lance is such a polarizing figure. The fanatics, whether they be lovers or haters, are so blinded by his achievements or faults that they cannot or will form a rational argument. The whole thing then resorts to name calling and personal attacks. This is when the moderators should intervene IMO. Nothing is achieved when threads deteriorate into this kind of mess. The moderators could also clean up the forum - there are so many multiple threads on the same topic that they become redundant and diluted. The moderators should combine these threads so as to not force other good threads on to page 2 and out of sight.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
Visit site
I have to admit...I do get carried away sometimes...I shouldn't but I do...reallly I'm just funnin around. I'll try to chill.

I bet if we were all in the same room watching the race we would all have a ball!!!
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Some great points here.

I am against censorship or indeed having the mods have too much input. We - the users - unfortunately have to police the forum and show tolerance and patience on the site.
I think the point about peoples motive for being on here is very valid and has a lot to do with how the posting develops.
Amsterhammer - to be fair, there are a number of posters who are pro Lance that can get stuck in too. I actually find it equally difficult to converse with either opinion as their like/dislike often blinds objective thinking.

I have never been pro-censorship, Dr.! What I am for, based on my almost 10 years experience of posting, moderating and administering forums, is effective moderation together with some basic rules that actually get enforced.

The first big mistake here was to 'appoint' as moderators people whose only connection is to CN as a place of work, and who show little or no interest in what goes on here. Moderators need to be (regular) users of the forum.

As far as the extremes here go, I beg to differ. The people I label as 'hateboys' - you all know who they are - are so extreme in their views and in the abuse they deal out to anyone who joins up and dares to post anything at all pro-Lance, that there really is no possibility of dialog. They do not play by usual forum rules. The people whom they call 'fanboys', include everyone from the first time poster who says the wrong thing (for their ears) to people like myself and many others who clearly are older, wiser and have some passing interest and love for the sport. I certainly don't consider myself a 'fanboy'. I just don't hate LA with an absurd passion, and occasionally get provoked enough to reply to another barrage of hate and abuse.

The abuse on this board starts with the haters; what abuse ever comes back from the other side is as nothing by comparison. 'Hate' should have no place on a forum, and if only this place was effectively moderated, we could all enjoy normal, civilized discussions about the sport without being subjected to daily attacks of bitterness, rancor and hate. Now wouldn't that be nice?
 
Mar 19, 2009
571
0
0
Visit site
People will not stop hating, cursing, abusing and berating each other until they stop doing it to themselves.

You cannot "make" someone evolve as a human being.

You can kick them out of here, kick them out of there . . . but they will find a way to act out the hatred somewhere. You can bet this is not the only place such actions are taken. This is the age old problem . . .what do we do with misfits, malcontents and unruly people that act out against others? I don't have a blanket answer.

You cannot change them . . .but you can change the way you react to them.

That's all I know for today.
 
Rating your worth through the number of posts is ridiculous. Having a post count that can be seen is an invitation to a d i c k measuring contest and a justification for bullies. As for the other bad behaviour, well being anonymous certainly allows people to act like a s s h o l e s. I really do miss the days of the weekly letters.

However, the forum here is still better than the old boys club of the velonews forum where the bully clique rules and many posts have very little to do with cycling even though they set up a forum for off topic posts. The cycling news forum will not be far behind. Those that live here will feel entitled to rule and civil discussion will be chased away.

I do feel small with a d i c k that is less than 100 posts long, at least I am not one of those members with a member that is less than 20 posts! Can you imagine the shame they must feel? :rolleyes:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I, in the other hand, have a d i c k to die for but as I'm not quite ready yet and I'm off tropic of chancer can I be exuded from posting live on subjects close to my arts.
 
Amsterhammer said:
As far as the extremes here go, I beg to differ. The people I label as 'hateboys' - you all know who they are - are so extreme in their views and in the abuse they deal out to anyone who joins up and dares to post anything at all pro-Lance, that there really is no possibility of dialog. They do not play by usual forum rules. The people whom they call 'fanboys', include everyone from the first time poster who says the wrong thing (for their ears) to people like myself and many others who clearly are older, wiser and have some passing interest and love for the sport. I certainly don't consider myself a 'fanboy'. I just don't hate LA with an absurd passion, and occasionally get provoked enough to reply to another barrage of hate and abuse.

ROTFL. Occasionally? That is a good one. That is classic. Let's review some history here. This is your third post on this site:

"I've only been here a couple of hours (literally), but I've already got Bigboat's number. Sadly, there's always one person like him whenever and wherever cycling is discussed. I expect he also buys into all the 9/11 conspiracy theories and believes in the Illuminati."

Here is another made shortly after:

"What a funny little smug, patronizing hateboy you are, though I haven't figured out yet what sort of bile you sniff.

Typical of your kind to consider 'facts' to be drivel and to avoid answering the question. Now run along...."


And another made shortly after that one:

"And you lot need a hate figure to justify the misery, envy and bitterness that consumes your sad lives."

Clearly your view of older and wiser differs from the common definition. You are no different from these "hateboys" you continually complain about. The fact is that from the very beginning you have stoked the fires with your constant whinging about other members. You have often and deliberately insulted those you disagree with, not only individually but also in sweeping, derogatory statements about the membership as a whole. That other people have opinions that you do not agree with appears to enrage you, so much so that instead of arguing against the opinions, you argue against the right of members to express their opinions. The latest tactic of you and your circle of goons is to put down others for being negative, as though members should not be able to point out things they do not like.

Physician, heal thyself. When have you ever attempted any sort of dialog other than labeling people as haters? If you want civil dialog then both sides have to act more maturely. The situation in your post, where you portay yourself as a poor innocent wiseman beset on all sides by unreasonable "hateboys", is such a ridiculous distortion of of the real situation that it is nothing more than a thinly disguised attack on one side, a far cry from the Solomon-like wisdom and maturity you claim for yourself.