• 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!

Moderation

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I am not sure what "not playing detective" means. There are some posts that are clearly spam although they don't have a link and do make "sense". But they don't add anything to the conversation, are very vague, pull up old threads, there's just clearly not a person with an interest in the conversation behind. That happens especially in the hobby/advice part of the forum.

I think that's what KB meant; there are posts were it's just so obvious that it's spam, we don't need to play detective.
 
There's an episode of Mythic Quest where a group of neo-Nazis invade the game and the makers deal with them by farming them off to a separate server of their own, away from the users of the main game. As impractical as this suggestion is - I do realise that it is totally impractical, honest - it'd be great if we could somehow do something like for the spambots. I propose using the current Kuat vs Thule Bike Rack thread which so far has three posts, from users with one, one and two posts each, who I'm sure wouldn't complain if their slowburn techs-mechs convo was invaded by spammers.
 
I think that's what KB meant; there are posts were it's just so obvious that it's spam, we don't need to play detective.
Essentially yes. I also take exception to the idea that any broken English or poor grammar will instantly make us think someone is a bot, when it's very clear from having been a mod for years that this isn't how any users operate, AND because the scenario I suggested, where a question is posted into something like CHATGPT with a request for an answer is likely to result in a reply that has very good grammar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cookster15
Well, bots and spam are usually rather easy to detect, if they aren't, they might actually add something to the conversations and in that case I wouldn't mind their posts.

For me the hardest to spot are duplicate posts who just copy an older actual post, but those should be easy to detect for technology.
 
AND because the scenario I suggested, where a question is posted into something like CHATGPT with a request for an answer is likely to result in a reply that has very good grammar.

I think I know what you mean. Sometimes, grammar that is too good can seem off, much more than mistakes. Mainly because it becomes clear that it's not written by a human, who will sometimes make mistakes.

For me the hardest to spot are duplicate posts who just copy an older actual post, but those should be easy to detect for technology.

I dunno... sometimes I think they can be quite easy to detect. If the spammer copies something quite recent, and end up creating a "Much Needed Anna Van der Breggen String"...
 
I think I know what you mean. Sometimes, grammar that is too good can seem off, much more than mistakes. Mainly because it becomes clear that it's not written by a human, who will sometimes make mistakes.

Not really, I was initially saying that I hoped they were working on a way to detect the use of AI for spam because it's going to be hard to spot. It's not that the grammar is too good or anything like that. At the moment the answers generated are usually verbose, so it's easier to spot, but I expect this to improve. To me they currently read like they were written by a person who doesn't know when to stop writing, like when you ask someone a simple question and they'll give you 5 different examples and 7 analogies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salvarani
Another topic: I think the rules are very strict when it comes to talking about rider's looks, but in comparison talking about their weight seems underregulated. Although that is more performance-related, I think it is a much bigger issue. All this "he needs to lose x kilos" etc. is really promoting more and more weight loss. In a sport where eating disorders are so common I think the awareness for how dangerous this is and how many riders, pro and hobby, already suffer from anorexia and bulimia, should be raised much more.
I know this is not in the rules, yet, but it should be thought about. It doesn't need to be punished with an immediate ban, but I would appreciate a mod stepping in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt and nightowl
Another topic: I think the rules are very strict when it comes to talking about rider's looks, but in comparison talking about their weight seems underregulated. Although that is more performance-related, I think it is a much bigger issue. All this "he needs to lose x kilos" etc. is really promoting more and more weight loss. In a sport where eating disorders are so common I think the awareness for how dangerous this is and how many riders, pro and hobby, already suffer from anorexia and bulimia, should be raised much more.
I know this is not in the rules, yet, but it should be thought about. It doesn't need to be punished with an immediate ban, but I would appreciate a mod stepping in.
Please, don't ruin the forum.
 
Please, don't ruin the forum.






 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt and Lequack






Nobody’s denying it’s an issue. Censoring weight discussion on a pro cycling forum would be like censoring people from talking about 6 packs on a bodybuilding forum. Eating disorders in pro sport are caused by performance factors; preventing discussion about weight doesn’t take away the relevance of weight and power to weight ratio, which is intrinsically central to cycling performance. We might as well stop encouraging riders to descend aggressively since that’s dangerous and life threatening as well. Not trying to be mean, but it’s a relevant topic for discussion in the sport.
 





And awareness campaigns only worsen the social contagion and the harm that follows from that.
 
Nobody’s denying it’s an issue. Censoring weight discussion on a pro cycling forum would be like censoring people from talking about 6 packs on a bodybuilding forum. Eating disorders in pro sport are caused by performance factors; preventing discussion about weight doesn’t take away the relevance of weight and power to weight ratio, which is intrinsically central to cycling performance. We might as well stop encouraging riders to descend aggressively since that’s dangerous and life threatening as well. Not trying to be mean, but it’s a relevant topic for discussion in the sport.

It depends on how you talk about it, though. The discussion in the Evenepoel thread was mostly like "he needs to lose xy kilos", "his face looks chubby" etc. Someone like Evenepoel, who seems extremely ambitious and willing to work will do what is necessary for him. I think we can trust him that he will not allow himself to have any more pounds or body fat than he needs to. The relationship between weight and performance is a much more difficult one than just "you lose weight, you get better". Too often the topic is reduced to that, though. I also hear it from a German commentator all the time: "he looks really fit now". Well, he doesn't look fit, dude, what you mean is he looks really, really thin. What this says about his fitness level you don't know just as I don't know. He might have lost superfluous weight. Or he might have lost pounds that he shouldn't have or needn't have. Maybe taking in some more calories would even have improved his fitness. Or maybe it is actually a performance improvement in the short, but not in the longer term.
By saying that basically if E. lost 4 kilos he would certainly be able to dominate the Giro, while if he doesn't it is questionable you don't just put pressure on Evenepoel (who is unlikely to read this very forum) to lose weight regardless of all other facts but also on young hobby riders who might be reading it - of course the discussions here are just one small stone in the whole of the wall, but they are part of the public discourse on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
It depends on how you talk about it, though. The discussion in the Evenepoel thread was mostly like "he needs to lose xy kilos", "his face looks chubby" etc. Someone like Evenepoel, who seems extremely ambitious and willing to work will do what is necessary for him. I think we can trust him that he will not allow himself to have any more pounds or body fat than he needs to. The relationship between weight and performance is a much more difficult one than just "you lose weight, you get better".
Although didn't that whole discussion start with quotes from him and his team about how he had to lose the last bit of weight before the Giro? I realise this can get into tricky areas, but it seems reasonable that we should be able to have a discussion around those quotes without risking moderation of some sort. Unlike talking just about someone's looks which has no performance impact and is unlikely to have been instigated by a quote from the person in question.

It's a difficult one as you're right about the issues that can arise, but personally I'd prefer they err on the side of allowing discussion rather than preventing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedheadDane
This is what being optimally prepared looks like, of course ordinary people will notice and discuss this.

FWcDbJ9XkAcQWLg