• 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 33 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
So is 'loudmouth Belgian jerk' (which I have just removed multiple times) to be allowed?

If so, is there any limit as to how abusive you would want to see allowed?
If not, where does the line lie?


Similar to the above questions: what is the qualitative difference between them? How is Vingomort less offensive than Bambi?
First THANKS Armchair for your continuing efforts

Abbreviations: that don't offend should be allowed - e.g. Pog, Vingo, Cav, G
they make rapid forum exchanges possible without making embarrassing spelling mistakes.

Externally recognized nicknames: Chicken, Shark, Dawg , Condor must be okay too.

Descriptive neologisms that emerge in the forum are part of our joy e.g Pidders - okay if not offensive or in bad taste.
Border-line cases:
Skeletor - you can actually see his ribs, like Chicken
Loudmouth
- only if he/she actually shouts

Offensive triggers: Death/Mort Jerk Idiot ... and worse
 
To my mind, it is describing someone as ugly, other than human, incapable of sympathetic emotion: I don't do comic books, but Wikipedia describes the character as the arch enemy of the hero of the series.
Difficult to interpret that as any other than malicious.
I find it easy--in context--to interpret that as without malice. To call competitors names of comic book characters is to cast the duel as out of a comic book. It's fun. Someone will be cast as the protagonist, the other as antagonist. Skeletor is the thin one.

Afaik, @Ripper was the first to call Vingegaard Skeletor (https://forum.cyclingnews.com/search/364168/?q=skeletor&c[older_than]=2022-12-31&o=date)
LOL

While vingo is looking ridiculous right now, some folks have seemed to have forgotten that pogo is 2nd and without that one bad day may actually be even with vingo. Pogo also now has three stage wins, has been pretty insane with the watt bombs, and has had a crazy season. I know your post did not get into this, but the pogo fanboys are just about as hilarious as any.

Anyone remember pogo almost looking irritated that he could not just watt bomb van der Poel off his wheel in Flanders? I am actually glad the vingo skeletor is in the race for some competition (regardless of how it ends) otherwise this would be yet another one sided pogo stomp with the official commentators just oooooing and ahhhhing over his ever move and his perfect metabolism (or perfect blood, or whatever it is).

Since then, it has rather caught on as an endearing term. If you search for how it's been used this year, I think that's easy to see. When both supporters and non-supporters take turns in using the term, it's unlikely to be of negative valence.
 
Similar to the above questions: what is the qualitative difference between them? How is Vingomort less offensive than Bambi?
I like Vingegaard and I’ve always found his nicknames to be a parody of how Pogacar is written as the hero everybody wants to win while he’s the “evil” final boss. At the end of the day it’s just silly nicknames. Maybe Cat Killer can be gotten rid of or when people actually wish harm and suffering on riders.
 
I am a Remco fan so I'll comment on the names that people call him:

Names like Fatco, Slimco, Ramco, Belgian Simon Spilak, ... I don't mind. Those are mostly used for fun and in good faith.

Names like Bambi, Loudmouth, ... I don't particularly like. It's obvious those are only used by people who don't like him. But I also don't think they should be removed or be a bannable offence. Imo they're harmless enough to be allowed.

Names like Jerk, ... should definitely be removed. There's no reason to call someone a jerk (at least without very good cause) other than to insult them. I mean, you can say something like 'that was a jerk move' or 'he behaved like a jerk in that interview' but to (repeatedly) call someone a 'loudmouth Belgian jerk' without good cause is obviously crossing the line imo.

But after all, you are the moderator (thank you for that!) and if you feel like you are taking your decisions in all honesty and objectivity, those decisions will always be fine by me. Everybody's free to step up as moderator if they feel like they would do a better job.

I do like though that you are reaching out to the community to help you make fair and objective decisions.
 
Wouldnt it just be the best solution for the mods sake then to just cut down on all silly nicknames if half the forum gets upset like people say? What does people get from saying it anyway if half the forum gets upset (I don't) but if they do what's even the purpose of it if the intent isn't to be malicious.

If someone does it others does it back and forth and the job of going thru that is murky I would assume what is malicious or not is properly not easy. Seems easy avoidable but might be me who is just young and naiv.
And I did my share of wheelsucking comments if that's even considered a nickname or what it is after Evenpoel put it out there in the heat of the moment during the gravel stage so I'm far from perfect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
I find it easy--in context--to interpret that as without malice. To call competitors names of comic book characters is to cast the duel as out of a comic book. It's fun. Someone will be cast as the protagonist, the other as antagonist. Skeletor is the thin one.

Afaik, @Ripper was the first to call Vingegaard Skeletor (https://forum.cyclingnews.com/search/364168/?q=skeletor&c[older_than]=2022-12-31&o=date)


Since then, it has rather caught on as an endearing term. If you search for how it's been used this year, I think that's easy to see. When both supporters and non-supporters take turns in using the term, it's unlikely to be of negative valence.
For some reason I thought someone else came up with that term first! Hilarious!

This has been a very interesting conversation, and I really need to give kudos to the moderators for putting so much effort into helping the forum be a better place for conversation. A challenging and mostly unrewarding job!

I do think there is a difference between using silly or even satirical names to describe extreme athletes in the public domain (not unlike many a comedian does with politicians), compared to something that enters into hate speech. My own personal stance has been, if somebody doesn't like a nickname of a rider because they like the rider and get "wound up" because somebody has called them skeletor, Vigomort or pogopants, then that is something for them to deal with. We cannot prevent the easily offended from intermittently being offended by reading material that is likely going to annoy them. However, if we're getting into hate speech, calling out somebody's ethnicity, sexual preferences, etc, for attacking other posters for simply having opinions, that is a clear line that is being crossed.
 
if somebody doesn't like a nickname of a rider because they like the rider and get "wound up" because somebody has called them skeletor, Vigomort or pogopants, then that is something for them to deal with. We cannot prevent the easily offended from intermittently being offended by reading material that is likely going to annoy them.
But if someone knows that such nicknames cause offence, and then continues, or seeks out extra opportunities to use the names, they can be seen to be deliberately causing upset/annoyance.

Is acting in deliberate defiance of somebody's tendency to get upset not tantamount to deliberately annoying them?
 
But if someone knows that such nicknames cause offence, and then continues, or seeks out extra opportunities to use the names, they can be seen to be deliberately causing upset/annoyance.

Is acting in deliberate defiance of somebody's tendency to get upset not tantamount to deliberately annoying them?
No. That's handing a veto to whoever gets most easily upset.

That is to say, it is not in itself a sufficient condition.
 
Is asking somebody not to use a nickname really a veto on their right to comment on the racing?
Does civility and consideration not comprise part of conversation?
I did not say it was a veto on their right to comment on the racing. It would be a veto on how you could refer to riders.

Civility and consideration is good, and everything good is good in moderation. Limitless civility and consideration gets taken advantage of. It's good to respect your fellow posters, for what's worthy of respect.
 
But if someone knows that such nicknames cause offence, and then continues, or seeks out extra opportunities to use the names, they can be seen to be deliberately causing upset/annoyance.

Is acting in deliberate defiance of somebody's tendency to get upset not tantamount to deliberately annoying them?
Then there are some people who are too easily annoyed.

Take the two racers I tend to nickname the most. I'm not sure if I have directly offended someone with those nicknames. I cannot actually recall if someone wigged out or seemed directly offended because I called Vingo Vigomort or Pogi Pogo (perhaps someone did I've forgotten). Of course, perhaps that is part of the issue. Someone is offended, let some moderator know, then something is done about the nickname. In other words, we are reacting to an individual who does not like it when a racer gets a nickname they do not like. So we are catering to a small group who are easily offended?

If we have to carve off a sub forum that allows nicknames, analogous to the clinic, that would seem to be a step too far. And if a moderator needs to comb through the forum for every possibly offensive nickname for a bike racer, let would seem to be on your impossible task.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: jmdirt
My inclination is to share the opinion of Logic some pages back: we are here because we enjoy the sport, we only have the sport because there are riders (and we all know the risks and hardships that riders face, as well as the rewards) and so we owe them a basic respect, even if we don't like them.

Ally that mindset with the sense that once a joke ceases to be original it serves no purpose, and therefore I am somewhat bemused by the sense that it is of value to continue it (we have all stopped calling Indurain 'Singing' haven't we?)

I don't like the attitude that other people's irritation is of no relevance when the thing that causes it is gratuitous and unnecessary: I don't want to cast aspersions on those who have suggested otherwise in this discussion (I know nothing of your personalities outside of here), but the attitude strikes me as dismissive and arrogant.

So that is where I am coming from, but my position here doesn't mean that the forum runs to my mores: I want to serve, so I bear in mind what is said, while asking that people exercise consideration and restraint.

But that does not mean that there is open season on calling anyone anything: I liked ToS's categorisation above.
First THANKS Armchair for your continuing efforts

Abbreviations: that don't offend should be allowed - e.g. Pog, Vingo, Cav, G
they make rapid forum exchanges possible without making embarrassing spelling mistakes.

Externally recognized nicknames: Chicken, Shark, Dawg , Condor must be okay too.

Descriptive neologisms that emerge in the forum are part of our joy e.g Pidders - okay if not offensive or in bad taste.
Border-line cases:
Skeletor - you can actually see his ribs, like Chicken
Loudmouth
- only if he/she actually shouts

Offensive triggers: Death/Mort Jerk Idiot ... and worse
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt