Moderation

[Netserk]

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.

I don't see the issue in describing Spain's recent history and how that relates to the place of the race. Contentious value-judgements of political valour can be avoided. It'd only be a problem if the OP makes a reasonably contentious point that couldn't be addressed by those who disagree without violating GRAPES.

So I don't see the issue in neutrally describing the unconstitutional referendum in Catalunya.

 

[noob]

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."

I think it's very easy to form such a rule. I also wonder if Gazprom would've been thrown out if they was leading the world tour and had the world's best rider.

Kicking Gazprom was easy. Nothing was really lost.

Also I assume IPT will do far worse without Gee and possibly fade into distance.

But it's a fact that the sport will become more politicized if states continues to buy and promote teams. I find it really worrisome. It also means more money will be needed to because of all extra police protection needed so the money derived from those state teams might eat itself up anyway.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

If you were to breach the rule, the boilerplate template message that the forum would issue says:
"Your recent message ... violated our policy against political discussion. Whatever your personal beliefs, trying to use our forums in an effort to inflame or divide members of the community on political or nationalistic ideologies is not allowed." And that matter of dividing the community is what I take as a watchpoint.

My take is essentially "If people are going to have negative views of others here, let it be because they disagree with them about cycling issues." It is obviously not trying to say that political issues are not important, or not important to us, but let's make this place a place of refuge from such divisive, fraught, and sometimes depressing, discussion.

Yes, there is a level at which everything is political, but not everything is politically divisive (at least to those distanced from the decision making process). And politics will gradually evolves into history. But for the most part, matters can be discussed factually and in a neutral tone: we do not need to be divisive here, and if anyone is determined to be so, do they have the good of a community for the discussion of cycling at heart?

As to factual and neutral tone, I must commend @Devil's Elbow . Yesterday's stage intro gave a detailed and factual rundown of the relationship between Catalonia and Spain, acknowledged the fact that the debate is still live, and expressed absolutely no opinion on the current matter, and only what is generally considered common grounds of agreement on longer-term matters. He has observed in the intro to today's stage that there is inconsistency in RCS naming climbs in Castilian Spanish or the local tongue, but has promoted neither centralism nor regionalism: that is exemplary acknowledgement that there is politics, without getting into Politics.

I think I have quoted before an editorial from ProCycling magazine as sport re-emerged from covid lockdowns, describing sport as "the most important of the unimportant things." Let's be comfortable in its unimportance, and allow its unimportance to let us be comfortable with each other.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Kicking Gazprom was easy. Nothing was really lost.

We lost the last 7 months of Zakarin's career.

 

[hrotha]

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.

I'm afraid I'm not communicating my point properly here. I'm not saying political posts should stand, I'm saying less obviously political posts such as those lambasting the protestors are nevertheless also political and should also be removed

 

[Netserk]

I'm afraid I'm not communicating my point properly here. I'm not saying political posts should stand, I'm saying less obviously political posts such as those lambasting the protestors are nevertheless also political and should also be removed

Generally opposing the violent attack on races and riders regardless of cause is not political in a sense that is remotely comparable.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I'm afraid I'm not communicating my point properly here. I'm not saying political posts should stand, I'm saying less obviously political posts such as those lambasting the protestors are nevertheless also political and should also be removed

I got what you were saying.

I think that hang-gliding from the Eiffel Tower dressed as Gunnersaurus is irresponsible. I have expressed that opinion independent of any revelation of my favoured football team. You do not know from that opinion whether I think these mascots are a good marketing tool or an embarrassment to all involved.


Those lambasting the protestors whose comments I have allowed to stay (Cookster seems busy, and is time-zone disadvantaged in relation to quick intervention) were not merely "less obviously political", but were, unless one takes a position that no form of protest should be considered unreasonable, entirely apolitical.

 

[E_F_]

I think that hang-gliding from the Eiffel Tower dressed as Gunnersaurus is irresponsible.

Surely your opinion is entirely irrelevant to the discussion in your role as moderator?

unless one takes a position that no form of protest should be considered unreasonable

And it doesn't get much more political than what forms of protests are "reasonable" or not - and in the service of what sorts of causes.

 

[Netserk]

Surely your opinion is entirely irrelevant to the discussion in your role as moderator?

And it doesn't get much more political than what forms of protests are "reasonable" or not - and in the service of what sorts of causes.

You may sympathise with groups like Palestine Action, but as the expression of such support is illegal on this board, it's obviously in a different category than opposing violent protesters.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

And it doesn't get much more political than what forms of protests are "reasonable" or not - and in the service of what sorts of causes.

I refer you to what I said yesterday

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.

Had anyone yesterday posted "I think the right to protest is more important than a bike race", I wouldn't have acted on it: if they had said "This issue deserves to be protested anywhere and everywhere, regardless of bike races or anything else" I would.

 

[E_F_]

You may sympathise with groups like Palestine Action, but as the expression of such support is illegal on this board, it's obviously in a different category than opposing violent protesters.

Expressing support for political actions, groups or causes is against the rules because political discussion is against the rules, but condemning political actions, groups or causes is allowed..? Ojectively whatever (distinctly stawmannish) categories you may draw up shouldn't matter.

 

[E_F_]

Had anyone yesterday posted "I think the right to protest is more important than a bike race", I wouldn't have acted on it.

That would still be divisive and political, though? I don't understand why all of this isn't expressly against the rules..! It disrupts the forum - simply removing all such comments would lead to a purely cycling-related discussion, rather than a tangetially cycling-related political discussion. It would also make the forum more welcoming; I didn't want to read or take part in a discussion of the subject, so I deliberately stayed away from the race-thread yesterday.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Expressing support for political actions, groups or causes is against the rules because political discussion is against the rules, but condemning political actions, groups or causes is allowed..? Ojectively whatever (distinctly stawmannish) categories you may draw up shouldn't matter.

No, that's not the case. Where people's comments have gone beyond criticising interference in the race, to opinions on the cause, they have been deleted and I will discuss sanctions with the other mod.

Wondering what you think the policy ought to be...

 

[Netserk]

Expressing support for political actions, groups or causes is against the rules because political discussion is against the rules, but condemning political actions, groups or causes is allowed..? Ojectively whatever (distinctly stawmannish) categories you may draw up shouldn't matter.

UK law matters. It's illegal to express support of Palestine Action.

 

[E_F_]

No, that's not the case. Where people's comments have gone beyond criticising interference in the race, to opinions on the cause, they have been deleted and I will discuss sanctions with the other mod.

My point is that "criticising interference with the race" is in this case condemning a political protest.

But more importantly any discussion of the morality of protest is inherently political discussion and thus against...

Wondering what you think the policy ought to be...

(I just told you?)

G.R.A.P.E.S.

It says in the rules, that you aren't allowed to discuss politics - it's a good rule.

 

[E_F_]

UK law matters. It's illegal to express support of Palestine Action.

Irrelevant to the discussion. Expressing support for any political group is against the rules of this forum - irrespective of UK law.

 

[Red Rick]

Pretty sure UK law does matter because this forum is subject to UK law, which is why the whole PM abolishing thing is going on.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

G.R.A.P.E.S.

It says in the rules, that you aren't allowed to discuss politics - it's a good rule.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect enthusiastic cycling fans to think "Gosh, there has been an interruption to the race; I should make a comment that there has been an interruption, without any further comment as to whether I am pleased about this or not."

I am happy with where I have drawn the boundary, and I hope I am not deluding myself in thinking that it is an approach that has basic support here (perhaps likes vs angry faces on this post will yield light on that). I am sorry that I have not been able to persuade you of my thinking.

 

[AmRacer]

If according to your political view, some protests are totally acceptable and should not be stopped.
Then you probably also think that everyone who is against the protest, for whatever reason, is wrong. And then you also don't want anti-protest fans to express their view why the protest must be stopped.

 

[Red Rick]

Disliking someone for disrupting what I'm doing isn't exactly inherently political. If I'm walking down the street and some guy is just yelling in my face while I'm trying to mind my own business then it's not a political position to want them to *** off.

In addition, it's hard to make people agree with you about any cause when your strategy revolves around annoying someone.

 

[AmRacer]

Disliking someone for disrupting what I'm doing isn't exactly inherently political. If I'm walking down the street and some guy is just yelling in my face while I'm trying to mind my own business then it's not a political position to want them to *** off.

In addition, it's hard to make people agree with you about any cause when your strategy revolves around annoying someone.

But your foes might think it's political

 

[Red Rick]

But your foes might think it's political

And if they get annoying because of that, we go back to my 2nd point.

And I think foes is a poor choice of word that.

 

[AmRacer]

And if they get annoying because of that, we go back to my 2nd point.

And I think foes is a poor choice of word that.

Political opponents

 

[Red Rick]

Political opponents

Who are my political opponents now? I just want to watch a cycling race.

 

[E_F_]

Pretty sure UK law does matter because this forum is subject to UK law, which is why the whole PM abolishing thing is going on.

Of course it matters, but not to the point, I was trying to make.