Moderation

[SHAD0W93]

I don’t think it helps that we went from Colombian/French/Italian group, Dutch mafia, Evans, Contador, Froome/Sky/British group, Purito, Nibali, Valverde, Cavendish, Kittel, and Sagan as the big backing groups/discussions. It was more diversified back than in my opinion. Now it’s focused on 6-8 riders with the big 6 having more overlap in races they contend compared to before.

 

[Berniece]

I think there are two things that need to happen for a better forum experience.

The biggest one is there should be more moderators. This gives the moderation team the ability to discuss their approach and lead to a more balanced view, compared to 1 person mostly calling the shots. That's not to say that the shots currently taken are bad, just that when you have a team chances are higher it's a better fit with how users see it. This would also balance out someone having a bad day, and overreacting with banning, and the possibility to share the workload.

Secondly there should be more transparency on why people are banned, and for how long. Basically there should be a banlist with 5 columns: username, date of ban, duration of ban, which post, reasoning of ban. This gives the user a clearer idea what is out of line, and overall transparency.

 

[AmRacer]

I think there are two things that need to happen for a better forum experience.

The biggest one is there should be more moderators. This gives the moderation team the ability to discuss their approach and lead to a more balanced view, compared to 1 person mostly calling the shots. That's not to say that the shots currently taken are bad, just that when you have a team chances are higher it's a better fit with how users see it. This would also balance out someone having a bad day, and overreacting with banning, and the possibility to share the workload.

Secondly there should be more transparency on why people are banned, and for how long. Basically there should be a banlist with 5 columns: username, date of ban, duration of ban, which post, reasoning of ban. This gives the user a clearer idea what is out of line, and overall transparency.

1. Do you volunteer?
2. This I agree with.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

OK So I stepped into a vacuum left when other moderators stepped down.
I put up my philosophy of what I would aim to do, and got 24 positive responses for it
I tried to establish a consensus on what is acceptable, but none was forthcoming.

I examine every report I receive in context, from the point of view of somebody who enjoys cycling largely because it does not demand a blind partisanship in the way that many other sports do. In looking at context, I sometimes see posts that are problematic, or that contributed to, or resulted from, the reported one, so may act on those. I still tend to stay away from those threads that don't interest me unless I am directed there by reports. I receive far more reports than those that I warn or sanction, and tend to believe that if some think I am being too strict, and others that I am not harsh enough, I am probably about as close to the right path as is possible.

I know that past moderation here has been far more lax than the forum providers would want, and I have seen the much stricter interventions that the site administrators apply. I have tried to steer a path between the two, and (apart from one totally egregious case that got an instant permaban, and one case of not my not being familiar with automated responses which was quickly fixed) nobody has had any suspension without prior warning and being advised to desist from a course of actions. I have also very rarely escalated the sanctions to the degree that the advice to moderators suggests.

I have therefore done my best to make a middle way between what the providers want and what users are used to; a balance between banter and abuse. If there is such a thing as a perfect way of doing that, I probably have not hit it every time: I doubt there is, so I can only draw that line where I see fit, bearing all things, including constructive criticism (but not accusations of bias) into account.

But I only want to do this voluntary role as a service to the community here, and if what I do is not seen as such, I shall step down. So for the next 48 hours, I shall only do approvals and stickying. If people want lawless bearpit, then as far as I am concerned they can have it for 48 hours (I will act if there is an extreme breach, but not for what is typical): if people do not trust my judgement, they can be freed from it for a couple of days.

So, at 11:30 (UK time) on Sunday, I shall count the thumbs up or angry faces on this post: I shall consider a thumbs up to be a request that I stay (not as necessarily agreeing with everything I do: I understand that) and an angry face as a vote that I step down (again, I shall not assume that you are necessarily angry at me, just that you don't share my judgements). I shall step down immediately if the balance is that I should do so: I shall remain, still willing to receive constructive criticism (although encouragement might be nice as well), if the majority ask me to continue. Please don't confuse the issue with other emojis.

If continuing, I would very much like to have other moderators alongside me, and if I am stepping down, I hope someone (or better, a team) can step up that can meet the expectations of both the membership and the providers.

 

[Berniece]

1. Do you volunteer?
2. This I agree with.

I thought about it when RedRick stopped, but I think I'm too outspoken for a lot of members, and I'm not 100% sure I can be unbiased.

 

[QueenStagiaire]

I thought about it when RedRick stopped, but I think I'm too outspoken for a lot of members, and I'm not 100% sure I can be unbiased.

Can I also like this post if I want you as a moderator?

 

[Nick2413]

OK So I stepped into a vacuum left when other moderators stepped down.
I put up my philosophy of what I would aim to do, and got 24 positive responses for it
I tried to establish a consensus on what is acceptable, but none was forthcoming.

I examine every report I receive in context, from the point of view of somebody who enjoys cycling largely because it does not demand a blind partisanship in the way that many other sports do. In looking at context, I sometimes see posts that are problematic, or that contributed to, or resulted from, the reported one, so may act on those. I still tend to stay away from those threads that don't interest me unless I am directed there by reports. I receive far more reports than those that I warn or sanction, and tend to believe that if some think I am being too strict, and others that I am not harsh enough, I am probably about as close to the right path as is possible.

I know that past moderation here has been far more lax than the forum providers would want, and I have seen the much stricter interventions that the site administrators apply. I have tried to steer a path between the two, and (apart from one totally egregious case that got an instant permaban, and one case of not my not being familiar with automated responses which was quickly fixed) nobody has had any suspension without prior warning and being advised to desist from a course of actions. I have also very rarely escalated the sanctions to the degree that the advice to moderators suggests.

I have therefore done my best to make a middle way between what the providers want and what users are used to; a balance between banter and abuse. If there is such a thing as a perfect way of doing that, I probably have not hit it every time: I doubt there is, so I can only draw that line where I see fit, bearing all things, including constructive criticism (but not accusations of bias) into account.

But I only want to do this voluntary role as a service to the community here, and if what I do is not seen as such, I shall step down. So for the next 48 hours, I shall only do approvals, spam removal and stickying. If people want lawless bearpit, then as far as I am concerned they can have it for 48 hours (I will act if there is an extreme breach, but not for what is typical): if people do not trust my judgement, they can be freed from it for a couple of days.

So, at 11:30 (UK time) tomorrow, I shall count the thumbs up or angry faces on this post: I shall consider a thumbs up to be a request that I stay (not as necessarily agreeing with everything I do: I understand that) and an angry face as a vote that I step down (again, I shall not assume that you are necessarily angry at me, just that you don't share my judgements). I shall step down immediately if the balance is that I should do so: I shall remain, still willing to receive constructive criticism (although encouragement might be nice as well), if the majority ask me to continue. Please don't confuse the issue with other emojis.

If continuing, I would very much like to have other moderators alongside me, and if I am stepping down, I hope someone (or better, a team) can step up that can meet the expectations of both the membership and the providers.

After reading this, it seems like you’re under a lot of pressure to hand out sanctions, especially from above. I think you’re just caught in the middle.

I really think criticism of riders and strong opinions shouldn’t be in the scope of moderation but it seems this is where the bans are lately. Some posters take it personally and label things as trolling to try to get others banned for strongly disagreeing with them or because they got banned for the same thing, and a war of reports and retribution ensues.

I think there needs to be more consensus on trolling as I don’t see the recent banned posters as trolls - that would be following the same users around replying the same belittling and demeaning things to them all day, but voicing frustrations at large is perfectly reasonable on a forum. For example I have seen people be called trolls for pointing out wind changes in a TT.

Imo bans should be reserved for the basics like discrimination, spam, politics, NSFW posts etc. and apart from maybe Mou there doesn’t seem to be too much of those type of posts lately.

A small but vocal minority of posters with a low report threshold can ruin it for the majority imo.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

If the higher-ups have decided we can't have looser moderation than has been applied since the change in moderatorship, then maybe it's time to think about moving the community elsewhere. Because I don't think things are in a good place right now.

 

[Nick2413]

If the higher-ups have decided we can't have looser moderation than has been applied since the change in moderatorship, then maybe it's time to think about moving the community elsewhere. Because I don't think things are in a good place right now.

I’ve been wondering if the higher ups don’t want a forum to be associated with the site any more, unless it’s scrubbed perfectly clean and bright and shiny. It’s probably more of a liability than what it’s worth if their focus is on the main news page.

 

[Froome]

After reading this, it seems like you’re under a lot of pressure to hand out sanctions, especially from above. I think you’re just caught in the middle.

I really think criticism of riders and strong opinions shouldn’t be in the scope of moderation but it seems this is where the bans are lately. Some posters take it personally and label things as trolling to try to get others banned for strongly disagreeing with them or because they got banned for the same thing, and a war of reports and retribution ensues.

I think there needs to be more consensus on trolling as I don’t see the recent banned posters as trolls - that would be following the same users around replying the same belittling and demeaning things to them all day, but voicing frustrations at large is perfectly reasonable on a forum. For example I have seen people be called trolls for pointing out wind changes in a TT.

Imo bans should be reserved for the basics like discrimination, spam, politics, NSFW posts etc. and apart from maybe Mou there doesn’t seem to be too much of those type of posts lately.

A small but vocal minority of posters with a low report threshold can ruin it for the majority imo.

Indeed.

 

[ManicJack]

It’s probably more of a liability than what it’s worth if their focus is on the main news page.

Which I will never even consider paying for access to.

 

[RedheadDane]

I really think criticism of riders and strong opinions shouldn’t be in the scope of moderation but it seems this is where the bans are lately.

Especially since you can be a fan of a rider, and still criticise said rider. In fact, I'd say you should be able to criticise any rider you're a fan of, or more correctly; criticise their actions.

 

[Sciatic]

If the higher-ups have decided we can't have looser moderation than has been applied since the change in moderatorship, then maybe it's time to think about moving the community elsewhere. Because I don't think things are in a good place right now.

I definitely do not want to see that. For me it helps to know where other posters are coming from with their comments—and active membership will definitely change if there was a migration (some will go some won’t).

But I have trouble understanding why it needs to get to this point. There is an ignore button if someone finds something truly objectionable, which rarely seems the case when viewed in the larger context of social media in general.

 

[jmdirt]

I’ve been wondering if the higher ups don’t want a forum to be associated with the site any more, unless it’s scrubbed perfectly clean and bright and shiny. It’s probably more of a liability than what it’s worth if their focus is on the main news page.

velonews dumped their forum years ago.

 

[jmdirt]

I definitely do not want to see that. For me it helps to know where other posters are coming from with their comments—and active membership will definitely change if there was a migration (some will go some won’t).

But I have trouble understanding why it needs to get to this point. There is an ignore button if someone finds something truly objectionable, which rarely seems the case when viewed in the larger context of social media in general.

Without a doubt this is way better than say, X, but that really isn't saying much. I have a few people on ignore because they make the forum less fun for me. That being said, to really weed out my displeasure it might be easier to not read than ignore people in the pro road forum (maybe I;ll take a closer look at that htough...).

 

[Tricycle Rider]

velonews dumped their forum years ago.

Many non-sport websites (including IMDb, one of my faves) ditched their forums a long time ago also, apparently it just wasn't worth the headaches for the site owners to keep them around, and it sure didn't bring in the dollars. Cause if it had they would have kept the forums around methinks.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

Without a doubt this is way better than say, X, but that really isn't saying much. I have a few people on ignore because they make the forum less fun for me. That being said, to really weed out my displeasure it might be easier to not read than ignore people in the pro road forum (maybe I;ll take a closer look at that htough...).

Most of the time I don't read specific rider threads in PRR, for example, because there's probably some fanboyism, as well as poo-flinging, going on - it's almost like watching people fighting over who the latest, greatest boy band is. I'm just too old and too grumpy for that, YMMV.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

I definitely do not want to see that. For me it helps to know where other posters are coming from with their comments—and active membership will definitely change if there was a migration (some will go some won’t).

But I have trouble understanding why it needs to get to this point. There is an ignore button if someone finds something truly objectionable, which rarely seems the case when viewed in the larger context of social media in general.

From my experience forum migrations rarely work, like you said some people stay and some go. But the chemistry you have had with posters (and the hosting website) for years is terminally broken.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

There's even a thread about vacuum cleaners.

There's also the very rarely frequented DIY thread, probably rarely frequented because for those of us who do still DIY we either totally screw things up, or we get ourselves maimed... it takes a while to bounce back from that, you know! 🤣

 

[Sandisfan]

I find that those who are fanboys, as it were, can find themselves personally insulted when opinions go against there favorite rider. I was a Big Fan (fanboy lol) of Sagan and found this Forum because of my Fandom and was surprised at his non-big acceptance. But stayed and learned so much more about cycling and tactics and found a love for the Classics and one days races in general. I have subscribed to Streams because of the Love of the sport that has been nourished here.

One thing that has made it enjoyable is the knowledge shared here which far surpasses what the what is served by publications and broadcasts.

TWO things that I use here is NEVER taking criticism of my favorite Riders and Teams personally and also never blocking anyone but just scanning any posts that I disagree with and getting the gist and Moving On.

There is so much here of value that I find this forum essential to my Fandom/Viewership/Enjoyment of the Sport (Cycling Pro Road Racing) it wouldn't be the same without this space.

I have been Fine with the Moderation that has been going on since I came here... though I would be more lenient on these things with maybe more very short bans but less hard or permanent bans.

 

[Sciatic]

I’m

I find that those who are fanboys, as it were, can find themselves personally insulted when opinions go against there favorite rider. I was a Big Fan (fanboy lol) of Sagan and found this Forum because of my Fandom and was surprised at his non-big acceptance. But stayed and learned so much more about cycling and tactics and found a love for the Classics and one days races in general. I have subscribed to Streams because of the Love of the sport that has been nourished here.

One thing that has made it enjoyable is the knowledge shared here which far surpasses what the what is served by publications and broadcasts.

TWO things that I use here is NEVER taking criticism of my favorite Riders and Teams personally and also never blocking anyone but just scanning any posts that I disagree with and getting the gist and Moving On.

There is so much here of value that I find this forum essential to my Fandom/Viewership/Enjoyment of the Sport (Cycling Pro Road Racing) it wouldn't be the same without this space.

I have been Fine with the Moderation that has been going on since I came here... though I would be more lenient on these things with maybe more very short bans but less hard or permanent bans.

yes, sometimes talking about the problems overshadows all the benefits, which for me are significant.

 

[kingjr]

I've been a member of several cycling forums over the years, usually German ones, and in terms of toxicity, this one is the tamest by far, considering the relatively high level of active users and the intensity of the discussions. For instance, the old Eurosport forum around 2006/2007, right before it went offline, was basically unmoderated and completely insane by today's standards (mostly due to the fallout of Op. Puerto), though great fun could be had there as well.

Regarding benefits, I think this is the best place for someone interested in pro cycling to visit, period. You get all the relevant news, information, rumours, discussions, expertise, and reading the race/stage threads is just a really great time, especially when crazy things happen, like Froome running up Mont Ventoux, or Pogacar winning the Tour on La Planche des Belles Filles.

So I hope Armchair stays as mod and others join him, and that, as a community, we can try to be less trigger-happy with the report button. Not everything that pisses us off needs to be deleted, even if it would be technically justified. At the same time, less needless provocation of users who are perhaps very passionate about certain riders would also be appreciated. There are ways to challenge their takes without being condescending or deliberately trying to wind them up.

 

[RedheadDane]

There's also the very rarely frequented DIY thread, probably rarely frequented because for those of us who do still DIY we either totally screw things up, or we get ourselves maimed... it takes a while to bounce back from that, you know! 🤣

Pretty sure getting yourself maimed when doing DIY projects is considered screwing things up.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

velonews dumped their forum years ago.

As far as I know velonews had a technical problem and never came back.
Their forum was entirely amicable and anodyne AFAIR.
It wasn't as discoverable as this forum so it didn't grow much.
It was started (by dim?) to allow Team Sky fans to banter without flak.

 

[Red Rick]

Feeling a bit conflicted in the sense that while moderation has gotten a bit stricter with Armchair Cyclist than it was with me I also think it isn't like he isn't applying the rules as they're written, and I have no doubt Armchair is simply trying his best to do the job.

When the moderation team dwindled a bit and it started largely falling to me I honestly got a bit more hands off than we were before as a team. I always thought a certain leeway made discussion and sometimes flame wars more lively, and I wasn't that keen on enforcing the trolling rules too strictly simply cause I've always found it a pretty subjective thing, and I didn't wanna swing too hard if all the consensus I got was with myself.

I also decided pretty consciously to not discuss moderation in this thread much cause most of the times some posters are disagreeing with your decision, you can't keep everyone happy, and it would just make it less sustainable for me to keep doing.

So tl;dr having multiple moderators is really preferable, not only for the posters, but for the mods as well.