Moderation

[Red Rick]

I'm not quite sure what part of this wasn't already part of the rules anyway, even if stated more implicitly.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Personally, I find it rather problematic that when a new rule is added, it is a) something that (as has been pointed out) is largely covered by existing rules, and b) is phrased entirely to target one side of one debate. I find the sentence below especially troubling, because it neither accurately represents one side of the debate as it was on this forum (because hardly anyone made such accusations), nor does it accurately represent the worst breaches of the rules within said debate (as those were committed by people on either side of it). In addition, in the hypothetical scenario where someone were to come onto the forum and explicitly come out in favour of human rights abuses, this rule bans any other poster from calling a spade a spade. To me, it suggests either conscious or subconscious bias in writing the rule.

People should be able to login and post without facing accusations of supporting human rights abuses.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

I also think that a change in the forum rules should always be accompanied by an announcement in a more visible location, because the majority of posters neither regularly checks the forum rules for changes nor reads this thread.

 

[AmRacer]

I also think that a change in the forum rules should always be accompanied by an announcement in a more visible location, because the majority of posters neither regularly checks the forum rules for changes nor reads this thread.

Think there were two separate threads regarding rule changes.

 

[Red Rick]

Personally, I find it rather problematic that when a new rule is added, it is a) something that (as has been pointed out) is largely covered by existing rules, and b) is phrased entirely to target one side of one debate. I find the sentence below especially troubling, because it neither accurately represents one side of the debate as it was on this forum (because hardly anyone made such accusations), nor does it accurately represent the worst breaches of the rules within said debate (as those were committed by people on either side of it). In addition, in the hypothetical scenario where someone were to come onto the forum and explicitly come out in favour of human rights abuses, this rule bans any other poster from calling a spade a spade. To me, it suggests either conscious or subconscious bias in writing the rule.

Cases of "calling a spade a spade" don't really appear the intended target for this added rule. If a post is particularly bad, you always had means to report it and/or mock it without having to use the big words. Not to mention that 'calling a spade a spade' can get pretty subjective in the first place.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Cases of "calling a spade a spade" don't really appear the intended target for this added rule. If a post is particularly bad, you always had means to report it and/or mock it without having to use the big words. Not to mention that 'calling a spade a spade' can get pretty subjective in the first place.

It is quite obviously not my main issue here.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Note that article 19 applies to online expression too:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

A milestone document in the history of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It has been translated into over 500 languages.

www.un.org

Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Any limitations must pursue a legitimate aim, and be both necessary and proportionate. On top of that:

Most people who come here do so because they want something they won't find elsewhere. Social media is a great place to shout into the void, but a forum allows for long form discussion/debate that spans years. People should be able to login and post without facing accusations of supporting human rights abuses.

Are you sure that most people agree with that? There was a whole lot of friction in the past, on where a whole lot of people argued something entirely different. The last part is IMHO a bit problematic as it implies you can support human right abuses and basically nobody can say anything against that.

But OK i still read this as:

Please keep political references minimal, relevant, and non-personal. Posts that cross into political debate will be moderated under the “no politics” rule.

You can for example link to CN articles or an UN statements and similar and then you don't really need to discuss that here. For example both CN journalists and UN members where vocal and objective enough in the recent events and did the talking for us. Basically for the ones that don't have that privilege as it seems.

 

[Potomac]

I don't know exactly what gets people banned.

But spoilers need to result in lengthy bans.

 

[Red Rick]

Brief skim at forum rules says nothing about spoilers. It absolutely should not need to result in length bans.

I too go on social media when I do not want to get spoiled about sports results.

But if anything, this is one of the things you can use the ignore button for.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I agree that it is very bad manners, but it's not against the rules as such (they are largely generalised from the wide range of forums that Future runs) It can happen without malice if someone is wanting to share a co-incidence or enthusiastic about a result. But if anyone were to double down on posting spoilers in the thread for a simultaneous race, or refuse to use spoilers once asked, we might have to ask whether they are really wanting to be a positive part of the community.

I haven't been following the racing yesterday and today live on the threads, so haven't been able to put up spoilers live.

Best I can suggest is report it (if either of us are online* we should be able to react), but also hit the reply button, then delete the offending part from the quote box, and ask the poster to delete or hide it behind a spoiler tag. Using the reply button will send a notification.

But I would re-iterate the request not to give away the results of simultaneous events in race discussion: lots of people watch one race live and another on catch-up. I think we all know that other threads might give away results, but race threads should be a safe place in this regard.

Maybe those creating threads that have other events clashing with them could include a reminder, and I don't think anyone should object if someone were to put a reminder in, for example, a Paris-Nice thread not to post any giveaways for Tirreno Adriatico.

*I probably show as being online a lot more of the time than I am actually online: I often just turn off the screen for the laptop when I walk away from it rather than shutting down the forum page. So don't take the green head and shoulders as a promise that I am poised to respond.

 

[Netserk]

Brief skim at forum rules says nothing about spoilers. It absolutely should not need to result in length bans.

I too go on social media when I do not want to get spoiled about sports results.

But if anything, this is one of the things you can use the ignore button for.

theres so-me , theres broad discussion threads , and then theres the specific race thread of another race on a cycling forum

where we have two different spoiler tags people can use

and no , i cannot mute specific words , so impossible to guard yourself when its more than just one particular poster who needs to talk about the result of another race in the race thread

 

[RedheadDane]

It can happen without malice if someone is wanting to share a co-incidence or enthusiastic about a result.

Hello, I'm slow (please, don't make a "Hello, Slow, I'm..." joke.)

I think the vast majority of cross-thread results posting is indeed done without malice. Either because of the reasons you mention, or because someone simply gets confused about what thread they're posting in.
(Or what race something occurs in.)

 

[aphronesis]

This is an oddly analogue and near infantilizing issue. If checking one source/race/thread/topic, it doesn’t matter at all if there’s cross information. The “live” time is already gone and the how is what’s relevant.

 

[Sciatic]

This is an oddly analogue and near infantilizing issue. If checking one source/race/thread/topic, it doesn’t matter at all if there’s cross information. The “live” time is already gone and the how is what’s relevant.

You seem to want to speak for everyone. I can tell that I, and I know sure several other forum members, want to watch a replay of a race without knowing who won or what happened. That’s true when races are happening simultaneously so that I watch one live and then the other via replay the same day. A situation we have this week with PN and TA. So it IS relevant because that’s what we’re requesting of folks commenting in the race threads. There is nothing in life that is infantile when someone knows what they want and express that desire in clear communication to others.

 

[aphronesis]

You seem to want to speak for everyone. I can tell that I, and I know sure several other forum members, want to watch a replay of a race without knowing who won or what happened. That’s true when races are happening simultaneously so that I watch one live and then the other via replay the same day. A situation we have this week with PN and TA. So it IS relevant because that’s what we’re requesting of folks commenting in the race threads. There is nothing in life that is infantile when someone knows what they want and express that desire in clear communication to others.

So I could have said “potentially” or “subjective”?

Sure.

I followed the same races. No issue.

And, like as not, this request, issue, dilemma, etc. reflects certain tendencies of online culture. It’s also hard to parse which parts of the last sentence separate from infantile.

I don’t presume to speak for everyone, but it’s possible to edit one’s experience without asking others to do so.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

So I could have said “potentially” or “subjective”?

Sure.

I followed the same races. No issue.

And, like as not, this request, issue, dilemma, etc. reflects certain tendencies of online culture. It’s also hard to parse which parts of the last sentence separate from infantile.

I don’t presume to speak for everyone, but it’s possible to edit one’s experience without asking others to do so.

In what way is a reminder not to do something, presumably unintentionally, that would spoil somebody else's enjoyment infantilising? If the "certain tendency of online culture" that you are railing against is consideration of others, then I can only say that it is a tendency that I for one would like to see grow.

By all means remove any sense of anticipation and mystery for yourself if you wish to, by finding out the result of a race before you watch it, or diminish your sense of immersion in a race by watching two of them concurrently, but don't imagine that that is how everyone would wish to watch.

Nobody was being asked to "edit their experience": they were asked to post in the PN thread if what they wanted to say corresponded to that race, and the TA one if that was the subject matter of their comment. If what someone has to say pertains to both, then it probably belongs in the thread relevant to the matter that links the two comments. If you believe that being asked to post in the most appropriate thread is unreasonable, you'll have to provide some extraordinary reasoning to back that up.

I really cannot imagine anyone, who does not have the intention of being offended, being offended by the reminders.

 

[aphronesis]

The reminder is not. The point as potentially extrapolated can be. As seen.

Thanks for the words.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

The reminder is not. The point as potentially extrapolated can be. As seen.

Thanks for the words.

Sorry: that clarifies absolutely nothing. What point are you trying to make?

 

[Sciatic]

So I could have said “potentially” or “subjective”?

Sure.

I followed the same races. No issue.

And, like as not, this request, issue, dilemma, etc. reflects certain tendencies of online culture. It’s also hard to parse which parts of the last sentence separate from infantile.

I don’t presume to speak for everyone, but it’s possible to edit one’s experience without asking others to do so.

Yeah, sorry about the last sentence—stupid of me to try to go there. Ironically, this morning (Friday) it worked out that one of the races finished when the other still had 22km to go so didn’t have to resort to replay.

 

[aphronesis]

Sorry: that clarifies absolutely nothing. What point are you trying to make?

I wasn’t. I stated mine. Some of us disagree. By my lights yours was an overly verbose, marginally archaic (and sanctioned) post reiterating the same disagreement. Nothing more.

 

[RedheadDane]

Just to be clear; my comment up in the T-A thread was mostly a reference to people who insist on only watching one race at a time when there are multiple races going on simultaneously.
I get that for people living in timezones where 90% - math probably not accurate - of racing happens while they sleep, it can be a little frustrating to basically never be able to actually watch a race.
But you could always watch the replays of simultaneous races at the same time, just to get the authentic experience.

 

[aphronesis]

In what way is a reminder not to do something, presumably unintentionally, that would spoil somebody else's enjoyment infantilising? If the "certain tendency of online culture" that you are railing against is consideration of others, then I can only say that it is a tendency that I for one would like to see grow.

By all means remove any sense of anticipation and mystery for yourself if you wish to, by finding out the result of a race before you watch it, or diminish your sense of immersion in a race by watching two of them concurrently, but don't imagine that that is how everyone would wish to watch.

Nobody was being asked to "edit their experience": they were asked to post in the PN thread if what they wanted to say corresponded to that race, and the TA one if that was the subject matter of their comment. If what someone has to say pertains to both, then it probably belongs in the thread relevant to the matter that links the two comments. If you believe that being asked to post in the most appropriate thread is unreasonable, you'll have to provide some extraordinary reasoning to back that up.

I really cannot imagine anyone, who does not have the intention of being offended, being offended by the reminders.

I’ll come back to this as it seems to have gained a little traction. Not directed at you @Armchair Cyclist, but anyone more generally: why would cross race commentary be an issue?

 

[Netserk]

I’ll come back to this as it seems to have gained a little traction. Not directed at you @Armchair Cyclist, but anyone more generally: why would cross race commentary be an issue?

because i like to watch one race at the time , to discuss it live in its race thread , and then afterwards watch the replay of a different race that was on at the same time without knowing the outcome beforehand

what could the issue otherwise possibly be ? it strikes me as extremely obvious

 

[Cookster15]

because i like to watch one race at the time , to discuss it live in its race thread , and then afterwards watch the replay of a different race that was on at the same time without knowing the outcome beforehand

what could the issue otherwise possibly be ? it strikes me as extremely obvious

Thanks. I think its about common courtesy and recognizing how some people follow live racing.

Due to time zones I rarely follow races live but I can certainly understand your POV and would not wish to spoil.

 

[aphronesis]

because i like to watch one race at the time , to discuss it live in its race thread , and then afterwards watch the replay of a different race that was on at the same time without knowing the outcome beforehand

what could the issue otherwise possibly be ? it strikes me as extremely obvious

That may be, and I’m not invalidating it, but it’s also not automatically reflective of current attention or priorities. If it were “obvious” than it wouldn’t have become an issue. You know that.

To the point of your comment: then why not watch each race and have venues for those who only want to comment on that race?

@Cookster15, then it’s not arguably live anyway.