Moderation

[Armchair Cyclist]

Changing thread titles to try to prove others wrong is not the thing to do.

 

[E_F_]

Changing thread titles to try to prove others wrong is not the thing to do.

Can I ask what happened?

 

[AmRacer]

Changing thread titles to try to prove others wrong is not the thing to do.

It clarifies what the thread is all about.

 

[AmRacer]

Can I ask what happened?

The word "Men's" was added to the 23 thread.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

It clarifies what the thread is all about.

No, it was sending a rather spiky message to another forum member, and trying to make her point invalid after the event.

 

[AmRacer]

No, it was sending a rather spiky message to another forum member, and trying to make her point invalid after the event.

PM between members isn't allowed.

 

[RedheadDane]

Changing thread titles to try to prove others wrong is not the thing to do.

I already had to change the title of the Lesser Known Women's thread a couple of times, because some people were treating it like a generic "Everything about Women" thread.
And just to be clear; I didn't add "Elite" to the Lesser Known Women's Racing thread because "Men" was added to the U23 thread, it's the other way around.

 

[Potomac]

I think the rules should make it clear that you can't use some of the emojis provided in the editor emoji picker.
It seems I offended somebody by using one.

 

[hrotha]

Kinda wack that we can't discuss politics and thus that we're barred from defending the protests but people are still allowed to say the protestors are lunatics or whatever

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Kinda wack that we can't discuss politics and thus that we're barred from defending the protests but people are still allowed to say the protestors are lunatics or whatever

I have always tried to maintain a distinction between the fact of a protest, and the cause of the protestors. I do not believe that I have removed anything that simply tried to defend the right of peaceful protest. If you think I have, please PM me.

 

[RedheadDane]

Kinda wack that we can't discuss politics and thus that we're barred from defending the protests but people are still allowed to say the protestors are lunatics or whatever

Well, anyone who steps out into the path of a bike race - or any other event like that - are lunatics.

 

[red_flanders]

Kinda wack that we can't discuss politics and thus that we're barred from defending the protests but people are still allowed to say the protestors are lunatics or whatever

"Get these clowns off the race course, I want a sporting result" - Cycling talk

"They should be able to disrupt the race to make a point I support" - Politics

Or something like that.

 

[Red Rick]

Kinda wack that we can't discuss politics and thus that we're barred from defending the protests but people are still allowed to say the protestors are lunatics or whatever

Absolutely shocking that we're dissuaded from promoting hindering races on a cycling forum.

Personally I find it shocking that there's somehow this one subject that makes everyone lose their mind within .2 seconds to the point that such behavior is not only condoned but applauded.

 

[hrotha]

I have always tried to maintain a distinction between the fact of a protest, and the cause of the protestors. I do not believe that I have removed anything that simply tried to defend the right of peaceful protest. If you think I have, please PM me.

The point is not that you've removed any posts defending the protests, the point is we know any posts that discussed the crux of the matter would be against the rules so people are not making those posts in the first place. But people are allowed to lambast the protestors, as per the rules. It's hypocritical, unfair and unbalanced - not you, not the mods, but the rules and the forum itself.

 

[Netserk]

It's hypocritical, unfair and unbalanced - not you, not the mods, but the rules and the forum itself.

Arguably the latter two, but not the first.

 

[hrotha]

Arguably the latter two, but not the first.

I'd say it's hypocritical because the stance being allowed in the forum is still very much political

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

The point is not that you've removed any posts defending the protests, the point is we know any posts that discussed the crux of the matter would be against the rules so people are not making those posts in the first place. But people are allowed to lambast the protestors, as per the rules. It's hypocritical, unfair and unbalanced - not you, not the mods, but the rules and the forum itself.

And as I have already stated, I would not have acted on a post that simply said that the poster would defend their right to peaceful protest (although this might have, marginally, gone beyond being that.) IIRC there was an observation made that there was whistling of IPT at the team presentation, but whoever made that observation did not either applaud or criticise that, so no action was taken.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I'd say it's hypocritical because the stance being allowed in the forum is still very much political

I would dispute that. I strongly suspect that there are those criticising the protest who would in no way want to defend the recent actions of the Israeli government. But I am not going to invite them to state that here: if they want to PM me, I will be able to confirm that it is the case.


So that leaves whether it is either unfair or unbalanced: as to unfair, it is expecting people to abide by rules that they implicitly signed up to on joining the forum (we are not about politics here, we are here to discuss cycling without our thoughts about each other being sullied by divisions irrelevant to the sport); as to unbalanced, I would apply the same principle if there were protests against against the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party aimed at delaying XDS Astana, or human rights protestors against Bahrain Victorious, or anti-5G masts as mind control rebels trying to block Movistar.

 

[red_flanders]

I'd say it's hypocritical because the stance being allowed in the forum is still very much political

Not wanting the race I’m watching to be completely disrupted is political?

 

[noob]

This would've been avoided if state owned sponsors and state promoting cycling teams wasn't allowed. It's s easy to make a rule like that as is was banning Gazprom.

This protest won't be the last. We shall all be happy it was a peaceful protest without bloodshed.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

This would've been avoided if state owned sponsors and state promoting cycling teams wasn't allowed. It's s easy to make a rule like that as is was banning Gazprom.

Might be possible to do, but saying "We do not recognise the Russian Cycling Federation (or whatever they may be called), therefore no registration by them of a team is valid" is rather different from saying "We will decide who your organisation takes money from and what they choose to call themselves."

 

[Rob5091]

So would Matt Rendell be banned? https://www.cyclingweekly.com/racin...ana-and-why-mid-race-flights-should-be-banned
or what about Devil's Elbow's thread openers with all the info on places and people?

 

[RedheadDane]

So would Matt Rendell be banned? https://www.cyclingweekly.com/racin...ana-and-why-mid-race-flights-should-be-banned
or what about Devil's Elbow's thread openers with all the info on places and people?

Pretty sure Matt Rendell isn't a forum member, and also pretty sure that if he was/is, his opinions stated elsewhere would have no relevance here.
And DE's thread openers aren't - as far as I'm aware - political.
BTW, the politics we aren't allowed to discuss are current ones? Right? Historical events are okay?

 

[AmRacer]

Pretty sure Matt Rendell isn't a forum member, and also pretty sure that if he was/is, his opinions stated elsewhere would have no relevance here.
And DE's thread openers aren't - as far as I'm aware - political.
BTW, the politics we aren't allowed to discuss are current ones? Right? Historical events are okay?

Is yesterday's event history today?

 

[Devil's Elbow]

And DE's thread openers aren't - as far as I'm aware - political.
BTW, the politics we aren't allowed to discuss are current ones? Right? Historical events are okay?

Politics is tied up with almost everything, more so with history than with most other things, and the line between the two becomes increasingly blurred the more recent history becomes. Thus, a rule against talking politics (which is absolutely needed in some form or another on the main board) is in practice a rule against getting overly political, and thus said rule inherently involves a lot of grey area.

And that creates strange situations. Nobody is going to bat an eyelid if I call, say, the Albensian crusade a genocide in an OP, because it happened 700+ years ago, but had the Giro start in Israel occurred this year rather than in 2018, there is absolutely zero doubt I would have faced moderator action had I discussed what is going on in Palestine right now in the same terms. And there are plenty of situations in between those two in terms of controversiality - can I, for example, discuss the Rwandan genocide in an OP when the peloton goes to Kigali next month? I frankly don't know.

It's especially problematic in areas with more politically controversial recent histories, and I'm really noticing it when deciding what I talk about during this Vuelta. You have a right-wing dictatorship well within living memory and long-standing, ongoing histories of separatism that are vital to explaining Catalonia and the Basque Country in particular. It's impossible to discuss the past century or so of pretty much anything in Spain while ignoring either (heck, the latter is also integral to the Vuelta's history), but at the same time I know full well that both subjects are touchy to say the least. Here, too, I often frankly don't know where to draw the line between politics and history, because said line is really arbitrary.

All I have to say is, thank *** there are no major bike races in the US. It would be impossible to do OPs the way I want to in GTs for any race there.