Moderation concerns

[noob]

As an autistic I must say I have no idea about what's allowed and not anymore as I can't for my life understand how "politics" is defined here. I am absolutely completely clueless at this moment. To my eyes politics is discussed on this forum very often, but it seems it's not the kind of "politics" that is part of grapes. Calling people tin foil hats, snow flakes etc is definitely political, how we talk about the police handling races is political. Covid handling is political. Climate change is definitely political. And heaven knows threads about how men can be idiots are political.

To me that is. Is "politics" here defined more like "

" (and obviously political parties, votes, elections etc.)

I looked at Wikipedia who says it varies what people call politics, so I would love to have a definition I can understand <3

 

[SHaines]

I'm sorry, but you are moving the goalposts here. My comment was quite obviously not on the ban on political discussions, but the decision that any mention of protests (or at least the current ones) now seems to be deemed political. That policy has very much not been in place at any point in the past six years.

I'd love to have the discussion without accusations of ill intent. I'm not moving goal posts, we're just trying to communicate in text and that requires a bit of patience. Please bear with me as I think it's incredibly important that we all come to understand where we're coming from.

I have not been involved in the day to day moderation of the forums here because the current volunteers have stepped up to help out. We're still open for more moderators, if folks want to reach out to me directly to volunteer.

I got personally involved on this occasion because it seemed to me like what took place on the forums over the weekend was unusual. I absolutely recognize now that some folks took my intervention as something more than I intended. My intention was to step in and help out the moderators who had been dealing with a pretty intense period of activity.

This was absolutely never, for even a second, any attempt at jumping in and enforcing new guidelines and since I do not handle the day to day moderation, I went further than you're used to seeing with those removals. With that being the case, I'll take a closer look at our history of handling issues (everyone should feel free to ping me with any threads you think could help serve as an example of these things handled well).

Obviously, there will be disagreements about those things from person to person, so my hope is to get as much feedback as possible from as many of you as are willing. In the interim, we'll trust our mods to continue making the best call in complex situations.

Hopefully, if we keep the communication open and adjust frequently, we can find a path forward we can all live with.

 

[hayneplane]

@SHaines what is particularly welcome and important is you having set up this thread to try and be more active and transparent in explaining the situation with moderation and how the forum is intended to function.

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with certain decisions, gaining more clarity is obviously a desirable thing.

 

[SHaines]

@SHaines what is particularly welcome and important is you having set up this thread to try and be more active and transparent in explaining the situation with moderation and how the forum is intended to function.

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with certain decisions, gaining more clarity is obviously a desirable thing.

I appreciate everyone hearing me out and letting me get more clarity on how folks are feeling. This is one of the many reasons why I still love forums.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I assume that protests in pro road peloton are here to stay, at least for a while, some new ones bound to emerge in the future and i find it hard to imagine people will in general be able to keep this separate. So maybe a sub forum or a special thread concerning politics and cycling could be at play. Similar to doping discussions.

 

[Izzyeviel]

I agree. Having a place to politely vent would surely be better than the current situation. If a post is 'political' surely moving it to that sub forum would be better for the user & the mods sanity?

 

[houtdffan]

is it against the rules to highlight the differences as to how Gouvenou handles protests (stopping the race well before the protest, having the protestors removed, as then restarting the race) vs Guillen (ending the stage near the protests) or discuss possible changes to future routes (2026 grand depart)?

 

[SHaines]

is it against the rules to highlight the differences as to how Gouvenou handles protests (stopping the race well before the protest, having the protestors removed, as then restarting the race) vs Guillen (ending the stage near the protests) or discuss possible changes to future routes (2026 grand depart)?

I'd suggest folks makes the posts they want to make and those that are over the line will be removed. I can't say whether a post will run into issues with moderation until the post is made.

As mentioned, I'm not moderating the forum most of the time, so we're leaving these specific decisions to the moderators. If the posts focus on the facts of route changes or cancellations, there shouldn't be any issues, but everything requires context.

 

[dr.eve]

If we only allow posts that are upset that the race was interrupted by the protests, or that show very specific images of the damage reported, that's absolutely taking a stance, as the only thing anyone would see when they visited is a singular opinion repeated, which is about as far from the reality of what is happening as you can imagine. Rather than shape a false narrative that allows very specific people to have their voices heard over others, I removed it all.

If you’d like to talk about politics, please use other platforms better suited for that purpose.

So posting that you are upset that the race was interrupted by protests is not allowed?

Even if the post has no political opinion? I can be upset about the race being interrupted but be pro or con against an issue.

I think this is not okay and I wonder if you would portray these guidelines in other cases as well.

 

[RedheadDane]

If the posts focus on the facts of route changes or cancellations, there shouldn't be any issues, but everything requires context.

So, basically if a post is written in a way, so that the route change or cancellation could just as easily be because of a landslide, or a bunch of cows crossing the road*, then it's basically okay.





*Yes, I know that didn't have a major - if any - impact on the race.

 

[dr.eve]

I absolutely love forums and have for decades. That said, one major drawback is that we cannot convey tone well. I will just say plainly that there's no intention here to be ruthless, but this current situation does feel very different, based on the amount of posts coming in all at once on an extremely complex topic.

Since our policy has been to keep politics off the forum for six years, if this is coming as a surprise, then I apologize that I didn't do a better job of making sure folks were clear on the rule. The protests were not something I anticipated and didn't realize there would be confusion about the policy after the fact.

Talking about tone is not very wise I would say. Tone is an interpretation and varies. As such the amount someone feels offended varies per person. This should, in my opinion, not be a measure of moderation since you can not accurately assess this. It would be based on assumptions and personal feelings.

This in my opinion is also what makes effective discussions impossible if everyone would just pull the 'tone' or 'i am offended' card.

Please understand I am not talking about bad language and so on. That's different from tone.

 

[Netserk]

Can you provide additional context?

To what degree is the moderation of this affected by UK laws and regulations?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'd suggest folks makes the posts they want to make and those that are over the line will be removed. I can't say whether a post will run into issues with moderation until the post is made.

As mentioned, I'm not moderating the forum most of the time, so we're leaving these specific decisions to the moderators. If the posts focus on the facts of route changes or cancellations, there shouldn't be any issues, but everything requires context.

Whilst this makes sense, it is then Kafkaesque to maintain suspension/ban as a threat because if we invite people to post the posts that they want to make but they cannot know what has crossed the line until after the fact, then it's impossible to know what is a minor step across the line and what is an egregious overstep without knowing what the line is in the first place. Removing the post is one thing, but I feel that the nuclear option would need to be removed for offences of this nature in the circumstances.

The other issue is the interpretive issue of when politics becomes history and when history becomes politics. In the stage preambles and thread-starting summaries, various historical information - much of which can be of a political nature - is shared, but that doesn't appear to be contentious, no different to the lengthy historical screeds included in things like the Race Design Thread which have a niche audience and do not refer to current races, therefore there is no such threat to derail. However, for example, in the IPT thread a few days ago I predicted yesterday's stage to be one of the ones most at threat of disruption due to protests, by looking at Spanish social and cultural history and noting that the previous stages disrupted had been in particular provinces which shared certain characteristics and noting that stages 15 and 16 were also in such provinces, separated geographically but with certain shared socio-political experiences.

That post may have been interpreted as being primarily historical if interpreted to be specifically about Spain, but may have been interpreted as being primarily political if interpreted to be about the race and protests. The post was also made in a related thread on Thursday rather than in the heat of the moment in the race thread on Wednesday, which may have been a factor in deciding whether or not it merited censure. I can't pretend to know. I'd like to think I've toed the line fairly well for the most part here, but my concern is that the same post I made and was allowed to stay up last week may have been removed for content if I pulled a 'Hog' and quoted it into the race thread to note that my prediction had been accurate.

 

[Red Rick]

For some of the complaints about excessive banning I'll at least say that I've seen some comments thrown around that haven't led to bans that make me think moderators have been more than lenient at least as far as banning people is concerned. Sometimes I get the sense that the image of moderation in the past is a fair bit rosier than it should be.

It's also hard to compare today's environment to previous protests affecting races, simply because the online discourse to this topic is unlike any other topic I know basically, aside from maybe US politics, which also happens to be a banned subject on this forum.

I don't think policy has changed that noticably, but moderators have, and I think the new moderators try to follow the admin guidelines more closely than I did when I was a moderator. I really prefer when moderators are active community participants, because they can better judge what makes sense of a post or argument in the context of the forum. That's why I'm unsurprised that things get a little more strict when the admins are called upon, and to me that's more of a case of it not really being anyone's fault.

The only real suggestion I can make is for more posters to volunteer to be a moderator.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

is it against the rules to highlight the differences as to how Gouvenou handles protests (stopping the race well before the protest, having the protestors removed, as then restarting the race) vs Guillen (ending the stage near the protests) or discuss possible changes to future routes (2026 grand depart)?

I couldn't promise without seeing the text of such a post, but it certainly ought to be possible to make such a comparison without it being problematic. And, infact, you have just done so.

 

[SHaines]

Talking about tone is not very wise I would say. Tone is an interpretation and varies. As such the amount someone feels offended varies per person. This should, in my opinion, not be a measure of moderation since you can not accurately assess this. It would be based on assumptions and personal feelings.

This in my opinion is also what makes effective discussions impossible if everyone would just pull the 'tone' or 'i am offended' card.

Please understand I am not talking about bad language and so on. That's different from tone.

My remark on tone was about conveying that I was being sincere in not intending to seem ruthless.

Whilst this makes sense, it is then Kafkaesque to maintain suspension/ban as a threat because if we invite people to post the posts that they want to make but they cannot know what has crossed the line until after the fact, then it's impossible to know what is a minor step across the line and what is an egregious overstep without knowing what the line is in the first place. Removing the post is one thing, but I feel that the nuclear option would need to be removed for offences of this nature in the circumstances.

It's very literally always been the case that people can view the guidelines and make a post, with moderation only coming after the post is made. That's just forums. I mean, it's possible that every forum is Kafkaesque...I have worked with quite a few and you're not wrong, but there isn't a better way.

As to the rest of your post, I'm not going to be the one making the day to day decisions on moderation, but I promise to always be 100% consistent with my answer: I can't judge whether a post would potentially be against the guidelines without seeing the text of the post.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I haven't been active in the suspect threads so far. But i would like to weigh in.

I feel (and have always felt) that facts that are directly related to pro cycling, should have their place in the pro cycling forum. Protesters on the course (whatever their agenda)? A rider getting a doping ban because (s)he tested positive? Things like these should have a place on the pro cycling forum. Facts directly related. Opinions about these FACTS directly should as a result also be fine. "I feel these protesters are not helping their cause by endangering others" or "i feel the ban is too long"... these kinds of posts should also have their place. It's a public forum, meant for people to voice opinions on a specific topic, pro cycling. That's completely different from throwing around unfounded doping accusations or defending Hamaz or Netanyahu.

[Content deleted]

 

[dr.eve]

I haven't been active in the suspect threads so far. But i would like to weigh in.

I feel (and have always felt) that facts that are directly related to pro cycling, should have their place in the pro cycling forum. Protesters on the course (whatever their agenda)? A rider getting a doping ban because (s)he tested positive? Things like these should have a place on the pro cycling forum. Facts directly related. Opinions about these FACTS directly should as a result also be fine. "I feel these protesters are not helping their cause by endangering others" or "i feel the ban is too long"... these kinds of posts should also have their place. It's a public forum, meant for people to voice opinions on a specific topic, pro cycling. That's completely different from throwing around unfounded doping accusations or defending Hamaz or Netanyahu.

[deleted content]

I agree on your first paragraph. The second, well that has nothing to do with pro cycling and contradicts your first paragraph.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I agree on your first paragraph. The second, well that has nothing to do with pro cycling and contradicts your first paragraph.

It does not contradict the first paragraph. It requires reading.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Another thing to consider is world is now a different place, then it was 5 years ago. So if five years ago politics and sports could rather easily be separated, in todays world that IMHO is not possible any more. It's just a different world we live in. Predominant news, after Covid, is basically war and cycling isn't immune to that.

 

[noob]

Personally I'd prefer threads being locked when a protest happens. Or simply locking the forum down to read only mode temporarily, cause people can't be expected not to talk about something as it happens and they're collectively watching it. It just won't happen. No amount of mods are gonna help that. It's just human nature.

Forcing time outs in discussions is much better as it makes people be able to reflect and think before posting. Race threads resembles chats so I'd just block it and have an admin write a post explaining what happened. Unlock it when the heat has cooled down as we can't use it anyway.

That would save you admins and mods a huge amount of work, that is just futile. <3

 

[AmRacer]

Personally I'd prefer threads being locked when a protest happens. Or simply locking the forum down to read only mode temporarily, cause people can't be expected not to talk about something as it happens and they're collectively watching it. It just won't happen. No amount of mods are gonna help that. It's just human nature.

Forcing time outs in discussions is much better as it makes people be able to reflect and think before posting. Race threads resembles chats so I'd just block it and have an admin write a post explaining what happened. Unlock it when the heat has cooled down as we can't use it anyway.

That would save you admins and mods a huge amount of work, that is just futile. <3

New threads can opened to discuss the subject. Locking a specific thread won't help.

 

[noob]

New threads can opened to discuss the subject. Locking a specific thread won't help.

Not if the forum is temporarily read only

 

[AmRacer]

Not if the forum is temporarily read only

Everyone is automatically logged out and cannot login for a day or two.

 

[noob]

Everyone is automatically logged out and cannot login for a day or two.

I was actually thinking shorter spans like 4 hours and up depending on the expected flame. Just to get out of the most acute phases of chat behaviour