Moderation

[AmRacer]

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

Yes, me too. But the above discussion is whether we can be pro and against the protesters.

 

[RedheadDane]

Yes, me too. But the above discussion is whether we can be pro and against the protesters.

You can be against the concept of someone stepping out in front of a bike race, without having any opinion* regarding their reasoning for doing so.

Let's say there's an ITT up LPDBF, and Thibaut Pinot decides to launch a protest against the term "GOAT", so he steps out in front of Pogacar with his goats - the kind that goes "BAH!" - I would, in fact, consider him an idiot for doing that, even though I don't generally consider Pinot to be an idiot, and I don't really have any strong opinions about the term GOAT.



*Or, probably more likely in the case during the TTT, having opinion, but not be expressing them simply by stating that you don't think people should step out in front of a bike race.

 

[red_flanders]

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

The content of posts lambasting protesters matters.

1. Lambasting protesters by saying "I wish these stupid ****s would beat it and stop interfering in the race" is not political.
2. Lambasting them by saying "I wish these stupid ****s would would beat it and stop blathering about X idiotic cause" is political.

If your position is that #1 is a problem, that's not a defensible stance IMO. Seems the alternative is "no one can say anything if a protester disrupts a race". I would think that unrealistic and a weird level of censorship, and limiting users from commenting on something clearly and directly affecting the race and the sporting results.

Probably a good self-check to see if you have the same reaction to a protest when it's an issue you don't care about. If not, maybe your issue is more about the politics of the protest than the forum rules.

Similarly, I would think of all discussions of "sportswashing" and "national teams" and the like are inherently and unavoidably political and would not be allowed, whatever my own feelings on the topic.

 

[E_F_]

You can't divorce a protest from its cause and the reasons behind it. Attempting to make a strong argument against all protests which are disruptive of cycling races through a thought-experiment imagining the dumbest and most meaningless cause is quite frankly baffling. Clearly if you want to argue against any and all such protests you would need to find the most righteous and sensible cause you can imagine.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

You can't divorce a protest from its cause and the reasons behind it. Attempting to make a strong argument against all protests which are disruptive of cycling races through a thought-experiment imagining the dumbest and most meaningless cause is quite frankly baffling. Clearly if you want to argue against any and all such protests you would need to find the most righteous and sensible cause you can imagine.

I've already laid out the principles I'm using here. If you don't agree, feel free to email community@futurenet.com

 

[RedheadDane]

You can't divorce a protest from its cause and the reasons behind it.

True, but you can agree with a cause, and still think stepping out in front of a bike race is *** stupid.

Clearly if you want to argue against any and all such protests you would need to find the most righteous and sensible cause you can imagine.

What's righteous and sensible for one person might not be for another. But I guess that's rather political discussion.

 

[Red Rick]

You can't divorce a protest from its cause and the reasons behind it. Attempting to make a strong argument against all protests which are disruptive of cycling races through a thought-experiment imagining the dumbest and most meaningless cause is quite frankly baffling. Clearly if you want to argue against any and all such protests you would need to find the most righteous and sensible cause you can imagine.

Either you can very easily divorce it or I'm supposed to take a more negative opinion on on said cause simply because those protesters are interfering with my leisure time.

So I choose to see the method as divorced from the reason behind it.

 

[the delgados]

Either you can very easily divorce it or I'm supposed to take a more negative opinion on on said cause simply because those protesters are interfering with my leisure time.

So I choose to see the method as divorced from the reason behind it.

You're forcing yourself to take a negative view because the protestors are "interfering with your leisure time." No one is telling you to think otherwise.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Guys: you are beginning to slide into revealing your positions on the Israel/Gaza issue.
Be careful

 

[Red Rick]

You're forcing yourself to take a negative view because the protestors are "interfering with your leisure time." No one is telling you to think otherwise.

I just think a stupid behavior is a stupid behavior, no matter what cause it's attached to. I could perhaps frame it better but I don't force myself to do anything.

It's a much simpler framework to work with, lest I need to decide for every cause out there if I need to bring torch, pitchfork and or sledgehammer to a bicycle race.

 

[red_flanders]

You can't divorce a protest from its cause and the reasons behind it. Attempting to make a strong argument against all protests which are disruptive of cycling races through a thought-experiment imagining the dumbest and most meaningless cause is quite frankly baffling. Clearly if you want to argue against any and all such protests you would need to find the most righteous and sensible cause you can imagine.

Sure you can within the framework of discussing cycling. I gave one simplistic example above. There are many other ways to do it. If you can't, maybe you're trying to talk politics, not cycling?

 

[red_flanders]

Speaking about bringing out torches, pitchforks and sledgehammers: That's exactly why the protestors interrupted the event, but it has nothing to do with a bike race.

...aaaaand...there it is.

Do we think our friend here had strong feelings on the plight of shipyard workers?

No. Just get the **** out of my way, I'm at work.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

15 posts deleted: this has gone a long way from discussion of moderation here, and too far into politics.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

15 posts deleted: this has gone a long way from discussion of moderation here, and too far into politics.

Well, I did read through numerous posts of your own to get a sense of what and wasn't acceptable before deciding to join this discussion.. Not clear to me where I went wrong. Nevertheless I don't want to make your life more difficult. Apologies.

 

[E_F_]

What's righteous and sensible for one person might not be for another. But I guess that's rather political discussion.

Excactly...

 

[RedheadDane]

Wait... mods have lives and "need to get out"?
What is this madness? I thought they were locked up in a basement in Leeds for the duration of the Vuelta...

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Today was perhaps the most obvious intersection between cycling and politics that has happened in the history of the forum, and also the worst day in a long time in terms of moderator action. Given the current [gestures at a whole range of political and societal developments that I really don't want to dive into], it is very possible we see more of the same intersections in the future, perhaps even the near future. In that light, I think we need to ask ourselves the question: how do we, as a community, go from here?

On the one hand, there were a lot of posts being made that were extremely obviously political, many of them not even making an attempt to tie themselves in with cycling. Look, I have some pretty strongly held opinions and sympathies on the matter too, but discussing politics on its own merits is very simply not what a cycling forum should be about, and I don't think it makes this forum a better place either. It certainly doesn't make it a better place for our moderators.

On the other hand... having followed the stage thread from the moment things were neutralised to when it was locked in realtime for most of that period, I got the impression (happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong) that at some point, the moderation standard descended from 'delete all overly political posts and hand out bans for the worst offenders' to 'delete all overly political posts and hand out bans for everyone who had their post deleted'. As a result, there have been, what, 10 or so bans incurred in the span of one or two hours? I completely understand getting frustrated when having to spend basically the entirety of that time doing moderation duties, but at the same time I'm also worried about how draconian the crackdown seemed to be by the time the thread got temporarily locked. While I'm not going to argue that none of them are unjustly banned, it pains me to see so many regulars on the ban list.

So basically what I'm getting at here is: how do we collectively avoid another situation where probably upwards of 50 posts get deleted, about 10 people get banned, and the stage thread of all things has to be locked? Because I think most of us will agree that we don't want things to get that out of hand on here...

 

[hrotha]

Honestly, if they banned like 10-15 of us I wouldn't hold it against them

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Today was perhaps the most obvious intersection between cycling and politics that has happened in the history of the forum, and also the worst day in a long time in terms of moderator action. Given the current [gestures at a whole range of political and societal developments that I really don't want to dive into], it is very possible we see more of the same intersections in the future, perhaps even the near future. In that light, I think we need to ask ourselves the question: how do we, as a community, go from here?

On the one hand, there were a lot of posts being made that were extremely obviously political, many of them not even making an attempt to tie themselves in with cycling. Look, I have some pretty strongly held opinions and sympathies on the matter too, but discussing politics on its own merits is very simply not what a cycling forum should be about, and I don't think it makes this forum a better place either. It certainly doesn't make it a better place for our moderators.

On the other hand... having followed the stage thread from the moment things were neutralised to when it was locked in realtime for most of that period, I got the impression (happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong) that at some point, the moderation standard descended from 'delete all overly political posts and hand out bans for the worst offenders' to 'delete all overly political posts and hand out bans for everyone who had their post deleted'. As a result, there have been, what, 10 or so bans incurred in the span of one or two hours? I completely understand getting frustrated when having to spend basically the entirety of that time doing moderation duties, but at the same time I'm also worried about how draconian the crackdown seemed to be by the time the thread got temporarily locked. While I'm not going to argue that none of them are unjustly banned, it pains me to see so many regulars on the ban list.

So basically what I'm getting at here is: how do we collectively avoid another situation where probably upwards of 50 posts get deleted, about 10 people get banned, and the stage thread of all things has to be locked? Because I think most of us will agree that we don't want things to get that out of hand on here...

I certainly think more mods are needed. Having recently been spending way too much time here thanks to moving into a frankylly mind-numbing, boring job, I had considered it. But recent events have made me realize I wouldn't be able to keep my own biases at bay, which makes me unsuitable. I don't know how we get more people involved.

 

[Rackham]

Honestly, if they banned like 10-15 of us I wouldn't hold it against them

There's got to be some sort of leniency on a day like today though, i.e. when politics is literally shoved front and center into the world of cycling and a GT stage is disrupted like that, discussing it becomes inescapable.

I'd recommend a soft approach on this very specific day due to the nature of how events unfolded. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[Red Rick]

Today was perhaps the most obvious intersection between cycling and politics that has happened in the history of the forum, and also the worst day in a long time in terms of moderator action. Given the current [gestures at a whole range of political and societal developments that I really don't want to dive into], it is very possible we see more of the same intersections in the future, perhaps even the near future. In that light, I think we need to ask ourselves the question: how do we, as a community, go from here?

On the one hand, there were a lot of posts being made that were extremely obviously political, many of them not even making an attempt to tie themselves in with cycling. Look, I have some pretty strongly held opinions and sympathies on the matter too, but discussing politics on its own merits is very simply not what a cycling forum should be about, and I don't think it makes this forum a better place either. It certainly doesn't make it a better place for our moderators.

On the other hand... having followed the stage thread from the moment things were neutralised to when it was locked in realtime for most of that period, I got the impression (happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong) that at some point, the moderation standard descended from 'delete all overly political posts and hand out bans for the worst offenders' to 'delete all overly political posts and hand out bans for everyone who had their post deleted'. As a result, there have been, what, 10 or so bans incurred in the span of one or two hours? I completely understand getting frustrated when having to spend basically the entirety of that time doing moderation duties, but at the same time I'm also worried about how draconian the crackdown seemed to be by the time the thread got temporarily locked. While I'm not going to argue that none of them are unjustly banned, it pains me to see so many regulars on the ban list.

So basically what I'm getting at here is: how do we collectively avoid another situation where probably upwards of 50 posts get deleted, about 10 people get banned, and the stage thread of all things has to be locked? Because I think most of us will agree that we don't want things to get that out of hand on here...

Hard to stop things from descending into madness if you don't hand out bans and draw a line somewhere. Assume most would be temporary bans anyway.

Personally I find the degree to which people can't seem to seperate the means from the end to be the most toxic part of it all.

 

[Netserk]

On the other hand... having followed the stage thread from the moment things were neutralised to when it was locked in realtime for most of that period, I got the impression (happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong) that at some point, the moderation standard descended from 'delete all overly political posts and hand out bans for the worst offenders' to 'delete all overly political posts and hand out bans for everyone who had their post deleted'.

Of those who had posts deleted that I got to see before that, I've only seen the former. And plenty of deleted posts without bans.

 

[Red Rick]

Of those who had posts deleted that I got to see before that, I've only seen the former. And plenty of deleted posts without bans.

Seeing some of the deleted posts without the posters receiving a ban makes me not doubt the few bans that were dished out were deserved.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

I certainly think more mods are needed. Having recently been spending way too much time here thanks to moving into a frankylly mind-numbing, boring job, I had considered it. But recent events have made me realize I wouldn't be able to keep my own biases at bay, which makes me unsuitable. I don't know how we get more people involved.

Yes, this is also part of the problem. And somehow, I doubt that the events of today have made the job more attractive.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Personally I find the degree to which people can't seem to seperate the means from the end to be the most toxic part of it all.

And some people would argue that the degree to which people can't seem to separate more important from less important ends to be the most toxic part of it all. I don't think that that's the discussion we need to be having.