Moderation concerns

[Izzyeviel]

The end of the world is nigh, but we can always look on the brightside of life...

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

probably easier locking a thread or two than what they've been dealing with.

 

[RedheadDane]

That's completely different from throwing around unfounded doping accusations or defending Hamaz or Netanyahu.

I'm a little tired, and I totally read that as "throwing around unfounded doping accusations of Hamaz or Netanyahu." Which, I don't think anyone has done...

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I'm a little tired, and I totally read that as "throwing around unfounded doping accusations of Hamaz or Netanyahu." Which, I don't think anyone has done...

That would be a permaban.

 

[RedheadDane]

Okay, now that I have slept, I have a bit of a suggestion.

Could it be an idea to change the Rule a little so just like doping talk is mostly prohibited in the Forum... except for in the Clinic, then political talk is mostly prohibited... except for in a new section which you could call the Parliament, or something like that?


(I'm still not sure in which section you'd be allowed to talk about political figures being on drugs...)

 

[Rob5091]

Okay, now that I have slept, I have a bit of a suggestion.

Could it be an idea to change the Rule a little so just like doping talk is mostly prohibited in the Forum... except for in the Clinic, then political talk is mostly prohibited... except for in a new section which you could call the Parliament, or something like that?


(I'm still not sure in which section you'd be allowed to talk about political figures being on drugs...)

Were you not here when we had a political thread? It was n't always very pleasant.

 

[RedheadDane]

Where you not here when we had a political thread? It was n't always very pleasant.

Neither are the doping threads...
People would of course be free to venture into the doping section... or not... as they see fit.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

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

Which is essentially what I did on Stage 11. Was tempted to do so on stage 15, but just about kept up (and to the extent that people had taken on board the message from few days earlier, and heeded it for which I am grateful, that was easier) ; it's a tool I am aware of, but would only want it to be a last resort. And would not want it to be for as long as the 4 hours that you suggest as being brief, just as a catch -up.

 

[Rob5091]

Neither are the doping threads...
People would of course be free to venture into the doping section... or not... as they see fit.

Back in 2020,
https://forum.cyclingnews.com/threads/world-politics.3377/post-2418295

In an effort to keep the forums civil, we've kept the conversations focused directly on cycling. However, we kept our old threads open after the migration to the new Xenforo platform to maintain some links between the old and new forums.

With that said, this political discussion thread requires more moderation than any other part of the forums. In an effort to bring all of our discussion threads in line with our existing forum rules, we're closing down this discussion on politics. We will also close any other threads created to discuss politics on these forums.

We appreciate your understanding and firmly believe that by closing down this type of discussion we can focus our attention on providing the best forum experience possible for passionate fans of professional cycling.

 

[noob]

Which is essentially what I did on Stage 11. Was tempted to do so on stage 15, but just about kept up (and to the extent that people had taken on board the message from few days earlier, and heeded it for which I am grateful, that was easier) ; it's a tool I am aware of, but would only want it to be a last resort. And would not want it to be for as long as the 4 hours that you suggest as being brief, just as a catch -up.

Yup I noticed. I should've said I appreciated that

Shorter is just as good

 

[CyclistAbi]

Please provide some guidelines on what is considered political debate. Questions of legal proceedings in front of some state IMHO can't be considered political debate, as long as the debate is focused on law. Debate about possible legal outcomes set by UCI in the past and in terms of team IPT, such debates are IMHO not political debates. On top of that we now have a situation on where an article is posted on CN and it potentially breaches rules of this forum, by linking it here. I must say that this is a first for me and i would appreciate some guidance.

In short, is discussing law and UCI procedures in terms of IPT team considered political debate? And if UCI takes any actions is it allow to discuss that here?

 

[red_flanders]

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.

This has been asked twice now and no response. I’m curious why not.

 

[Red Rick]

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.

Timing matters. If mods are putting out fires left and right they're gonna get more restrictive on some line to some degree for a short while than when it's a completely isolated post.

I would assume something like that may have happened.

Especially when it's about posts getting deleted without them necessarily leading to bans, that stuff just happens.

 

[aphronesis]

If one is upset about race interruption (setting aside non peaceful action) then they’re taking a sociopolitical stance.

Spain’s public space may be rented out, but the state has jurisdiction over that rental. Not viewers. Viewing investors? Sure. But I can imagine that they have guards against that hollowing out.

 

[dr.eve]

Timing matters. If mods are putting out fires left and right they're gonna get more restrictive on some line to some degree for a short while than when it's a completely isolated post.

I would assume something like that may have happened.

Especially when it's about posts getting deleted without them necessarily leading to bans, that stuff just happens.

Hmmm... I disagree.

So when something becomes more actual/hot topic leading to more discussion we are going to allow less freedom? Sounds quite oppressive to me.

And 'that stuff just happens' is a horrible excuse.

 

[Red Rick]

Hmmm... I disagree.

So when something becomes more actual/hot topic leading to more discussion we are going to allow less freedom? Sounds quite oppressive to me.

And 'that stuff just happens' is a horrible excuse.

Yes, when poop hits the fan you take more drastic measure than when it does not. It generally works like that in most paths of life.

I don't expect to agree with every decision the mods make, because they're not me. And I don't see the point in making a bigger deal out of deleted posts on a cycling forum than it needs to be.

 

[aphronesis]

Then why are you bothering with this?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Hmmm... I disagree.

So when something becomes more actual/hot topic leading to more discussion we are going to allow less freedom? Sounds quite oppressive to me.

And 'that stuff just happens' is a horrible excuse.

Well, the thing is, when something becomes a hot topic, especially if it is something controversial, in the heat of the moment strong reactions are going to be had and it will take less to cause discussion to descend into fighting and arguments. Mods also are going to inevitably have a higher workload, especially when the controversial topic touches on subjects that the forum has stricter rules pertaining to. It was the same when it came to Clinic implications too, but then at least discussion could just be moved or redirected rather than quashed entirely.

However, it is not unreasonable to expect tighter moderation around controversial subjects when emotions are running high, because in addition to it simply being easier for mods to remove an entire line of discussion than to filter through each one to see which ones break rules and which don't and ascertain which will still make sense when orphaned from the other parts of the discussion and which won't, there's also simply the fact that when emotions are riding high, a post which might not fall foul of the rules might be seen as inciting discussion outside of the rules, and also because other people's emotions are also riding high, the likelihood of a discussion degenerating into anger, insults and arguments is higher too.

I accept it's mighty difficult to touch on a subject like the protests at the Vuelta without venturing into politics, and some posts that I made got deleted that I was a bit annoyed by, because I thought they toed the line and used less inflammatory metaphors and comparisons that I felt enabled me to explain reasoning behind the existence of the protests without delving into the rights or wrongs of their causes, but I was nevertheless not surprised by it happening. I understand the reasons behind there being a politics ban but I think it's not really possible to fully blanket ban something as general and all-encompassing as politics, because there will almost always be some way shape or form by which politics impacts the sport, be it the countries or regions hosting races and their economies or party politics; the soft power and sportswashing of various teams and races, or just which riders we choose to like or dislike can be impacted by the opinions they choose to share or espouse. To take a less divisive example, I think it's not great to have to speak in riddles and hints if somebody asks why there's a section of the fanbase that dislikes José Joaquín Rojas, because that is more to do with historical politics, but I understand why raising a discussion on the politics of, say, Chloe Dygert or Quinn Simmons, who have both nailed their political colours very firmly to the mast, is undesirable for the wellbeing of the forum.

 

[aphronesis]

( )

My space tab kept seizing up. Anyway, most things can be rendered political. How things are expressed, conveyed, articulated is a part of that.

Let’s see, I don’t care for Simmons if he says jackass things and comports himself in ways that don’t appeal to me, but I can respect and/or acknowledge his formation and what he’s doing when it causes no harm.

 

[Danskebjerge]

People are making this far more complex than it is. The news media - except Fox News and the likes - know where the line goes between political and non-political reporting. And ordinary people with just a tiny bit of education know that too. So in discussion forums, the same distinction can easily be applied.

Talking about things such as protests at public events is plain and simple. Posts that promote opinions about the political intention of the protesters can then be sanctioned. That's the job of moderators - not deleting just by keywords.

 

[SHaines]

Hey folks,

The Community Team at Future (including myself) create the guidelines and ask the Moderators to enforce them. Please don't think the mods are making decisions exclusively about any individual, they've been asked to handle specific issues in specific ways.

The decision not to have political discussion is that this is a forum based around fans of professional cycling. If we were about a political topic, obviously the rules would be very different. When something as polarizing as politics comes to the forums, people split up into camps and it becomes a nightmare for the entire community; most of whom don't want to have to deal with politics when they are reading a forum about professional cycling.

I also recognize that this political topic impacts the races themselves. However, we're talking about a protest revolving around a military conflict that has real world ramifications with many thousand of deaths. It's just not a topic of discussion for this particular forum.

We're not going to release a document that says all the specific scenarios that will result in moderator action because that's an impossible request. People can make their posts and we can see after the fact whether or not it violates any of the guidelines. That will literally always be the answer to these requests, so I figured I'd throw it out there again.

I hope that helps in some way to understand our perspective, even if you feel differently.

 

[aphronesis]

Hey folks,

The Community Team at Future (including myself) create the guidelines and ask the Moderators to enforce them. Please don't think the mods are making decisions exclusively about any individual, they've been asked to handle specific issues in specific ways.

The decision not to have political discussion is that this is a forum based around fans of professional cycling. If we were about a political topic, obviously the rules would be very different. When something as polarizing as politics comes to the forums, people split up into camps and it becomes a nightmare for the entire community; most of whom don't want to have to deal with politics when they are reading a forum about professional cycling.

I also recognize that this political topic impacts the races themselves. However, we're talking about a protest revolving around a military conflict that has real world ramifications with many thousand of deaths. It's just not a topic of discussion for this particular forum.

We're not going to release a document that says all the specific scenarios that will result in moderator action because that's an impossible request. People can make their posts and we can see after the fact whether or not it violates any of the guidelines. That will literally always be the answer to these requests, so I figured I'd throw it out there again.

I hope that helps in some way to understand our perspective, even if you feel differently.

I don’t recall you posting on anything cycling related, which leads open the prospect that your managerial role has little to do with the topic.

And so what? The season is over; the “cease fire” is provisional. The “team” ( I feel for the riders) will adapt.

 

[RedheadDane]

I don’t recall you posting on anything cycling related,

They don't.
They never do.
They're not part of the Forum.

 

[SHaines]

I don’t recall you posting on anything cycling related, which leads open the prospect that your managerial role has little to do with the topic.

Me, personally? No, I definitely am not an expert on professional cycling. Future hired me because I have a proven track record with community forums and moderator comment systems for more than a decade.

The volunteer moderators are the ones with a passion for, and deep knowledge of, cycling.

If I was a fan of the sport and I had a favorite cyclist that I spoke about when commenting, then I personally went in and handled moderation for someone who hates my favorite cyclist, but that person objects to my handling so they email in...and I answer their appeal...what does that do to confidence in the management of the forum?

However, if folks disagree with moderation and appeal right now, the appeal will go to someone who did not handle the actual warning, so they will come in with a fresh perspective.

From my experience, this is a better way of managing forums.

 

[aphronesis]

Well, let’s go with this

“Cycling has always been more than just a sport — it intersects with culture, history, and yes, sometimes politics. We recognize that certain races or events may naturally touch on political issues, and it’s not wrong to acknowledge that overlap. That said, protests about a lingering, bloody conflict are far outside the purpose for which this forum was created.”

You were with purposeful creation of the fora? A sampling of early posts suggests something else. This isn’t the argument to have; my question was why bother with the IPT debate after the fact.

 

[RedheadDane]

You were with purposeful creation of the fora? A sampling of early posts suggests something else.

Oh, they weren't. The Forum existed for around a decade before they came in (can't say anything about any other fora they might also be running, but that's not really relevant here).
Don't get me wrong; the Software definitely needed an update; it was getting increasingly... wonky. The problem is they came in, and immeditely set about changing things to their way, rather than finding out how things were already being run.

If I was a fan of the sport and I had a favorite cyclist that I spoke about when commenting, then I personally went in and handled moderation for someone who hates my favorite cyclist, but that person objects to my handling so they email in...and I answer their appeal...what does that do to confidence in the management of the forum?

If you based your moderation on the fact that someone hates your favourite cyclist, then that would obviously be a problem...