Moderation

[Eyeballs Out]

I'd go for superhuman.

BTW I've always read alien with clinic implications but then this is cycling after all.

 

[Izzyeviel]

Way to show that you only pay attention to the posts that complain, and not to those that explain.

I'm not typing that out every time!

 

[RedheadDane]

@Armchair Cyclist, @Cookster15, am I allowed to call Tim Marsman an alien?

 

[Cookster15]

@Armchair Cyclist, @Cookster15, am I allowed to call Tim Marsman an alien?

Why would you want to?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Why would you want to?

His name?

 

[Cookster15]

His name?

Thank you. I am a bit slow this morning

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

@Armchair Cyclist, @Cookster15, am I allowed to call Tim Marsman an alien?

I think we have made it very clear that the term is not prohibited, and frankly, I am getting fed up of people constantly taking digs about it. What is not going to be allowed is obvious accusations of doping outside the clinic.

 

[Berniece]

Moderator:
Back and forth of "you said..you said.." is neither illumination about our sport nor civil discussion.

Several posts deleted

So we can just say whatever we want basically? I can just go around saying people said stuff, even though it's not true. Or say I said something, even though it's not true.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

So we can just say whatever we want basically? I can just go around saying people said stuff, even though it's not true. Or say I said something, even though it's not true.

If you think someone has acted unreasonably, to the extent that you can't respond civilly, report it. Or take some time away from the keyboard to decide whether it is really worth having a row about.

It's unfortunate that I can no longer suggest that you have it out between yourselves in PMs.

 

[Berniece]

It's unfortunate that I can no longer suggest that you have it out between yourselves in PMs.

I agree on that part

 

[Netserk]

forum rules have been edited, the following was added:

Specific Rules

The following activity is expressly disallowed within our community:

• While some cycling teams and races are funded by states/organisations whose environmental or human rights records many people would view negatively, this forum isn't a place for political debate. Please keep political references minimal, relevant, and non-personal. Posts that cross into political debate will be moderated under the “no politics” rule.
  • 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.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

forum rules have been edited, the following was added:

Specific Rules

The following activity is expressly disallowed within our community:

• While some cycling teams and races are funded by states/organisations whose environmental or human rights records many people would view negatively, this forum isn't a place for political debate. Please keep political references minimal, relevant, and non-personal. Posts that cross into political debate will be moderated under the “no politics” rule.
  • 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.

Just what I was about to draw everyone's attention to. Top marks for alertness!

 

[aphronesis]

This is a curious and glib bit of marketed self definition when, in fact, the definition of “most” morphs with time and fashion, anecdotal at best and is more inarguably a self produced outcome of said rules.


“Most people who come here do so because they want something they won't find elsewhere.”

 

[red_flanders]

Interesting that particular brand of politics has a special callout and isn’t simply covered by GRAPES.

 

[Sciatic]

This is a curious and glib bit of marketed self definition when, in fact, the definition of “most” morphs with time and fashion, anecdotal at best and is more inarguably a self produced outcome of said rules.


“Most people who come here do so because they want something they won't find elsewhere.”

However you might disagree with the rule it's definitely not "glib." It's a serious issue for people (like myself) who value the forum as the only place I have to discuss my interests. Forum discussions can get caustic enough and then when politics, social policy, etc. get folks charged up the debate goes off the rails. It's true that this was already covered in the rules (no politics). But an extra warning might help some members keep from getting banned.

 

[red_flanders]

However you might disagree with the rule it's definitely not "glib." It's a serious issue for people (like myself) who value the forum as the only place I have to discuss my interests. Forum discussions can get caustic enough and then when politics, social policy, etc. get folks charged up the debate goes off the rails. It's true that this was already covered in the rules (no politics). But an extra warning might help some members keep from getting banned.

You certainly touch on the heart of the matter.

 

[aphronesis]

However you might disagree with the rule it's definitely not "glib." It's a serious issue for people (like myself) who value the forum as the only place I have to discuss my interests. Forum discussions can get caustic enough and then when politics, social policy, etc. get folks charged up the debate goes off the rails. It's true that this was already covered in the rules (no politics). But an extra warning might help some members keep from getting banned.

Well, you evaded the point of the post by focusing on the superficial word. As typical, as contemporary. Point being, and an old one, that cycling can be discussed in its sociological present and it’s a failure of some on civic adulthood rather than the context. As a lifetime cyclist, I can appreciate shared insight to the activity without shuttering the world.

 

[aphronesis]

Interesting that particular brand of politics has a special callout and isn’t simply covered by GRAPES.

On cue.

 

[Sciatic]

Well, you evaded the point of the post by focusing on the superficial word. As typical, as contemporary. Point being, and an old one, that cycling can be discussed in its sociological present and it’s a failure of some on civic adulthood rather than the context. As a lifetime cyclist, I can appreciate shared insight to the activity without shuttering the world.

As a lifetime cyclist, I want to enjoy discussions about cycling here that don't descend into caustic back-and-forth commentary that sound like arguments on the playground--whether the commentary going into a black hole is about politics or Evenepoel's weight. And as a half-of-a-lifetime social worker, I can tell you that in the context of horrible things happening to people we can decide we're going to keep lunch discussions to hobbies and travel.

 

[aphronesis]

I’d ask you to take a breath and not free stream. I don’t see how Evenpoel’s weight has anything to do with anything I posted.

Lunchtime breaks from “social work” are a function of some funny currents that waft by with words like neo, and the radically transformed liberalism. Are you blaming work for the premise that cycling discussions should be pristine?

 

[Sciatic]

I’d ask you to take a breath and not free stream. I don’t see how Evenpoel’s weight has anything to do with anything I posted.

Lunchtime breaks from “social work” are a function of some funny currents that waft by with words like neo, and the radically transformed liberalism. Are you blaming work for the premise that cycling discussions should be pristine?

No to the latter, I'm saying it's healthy to have boundaries in which we can be intentional re: what we want to talk about there. But I will stop now and leave the final comment to you.

 

[aphronesis]

Maybe we can route this a bit: why and how are ‘boundaries’ as such healthy? What’s the historical edge of that?

 

[Sciatic]

Maybe we can route this a bit: why and how are ‘boundaries’ as such healthy? What’s the historical edge of that?

I'm only speaking for myself. I accept we have different takes on this. I'm fine with that.

 

[aphronesis]

Fair enough, but my post was about the forum and its rules as such. I’m not going to close the loop on the personal and market fora.

take care

 

[Unchained]

It's sort of crazy that the sport has become throwing it against the wall and see what sticks. The UCI not UAE holds the criteria for what is an acceptable sponsor or team. UCI , not UAE in charge of testing athletes for clean competition. It's the UCI's responsibility for ensuring all, fans, riders, sponsors, teams, governments that the sport won't bring controversy and disgust. All the scatter shots about which country or team is more.. Or less diabolical are ridiculous.
Riders can't win, lose, drop out, not show up or retire without endless drug speculation because the UCI hasn't done it's job, building universal confidence. Even people who have never, will never see a bike race have a perception that bike racing, racers are dirty. Not racing clean.
The cheap shots in the forums about countries, cultures, sponsors are expected because UCI has allowed everything to be in question . Nothing is vetted , nobody, cycling fans non cycling fans have confidence in the integrity of bike racing.. Because nobody made integrity their mission