Moderators

Page 431 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 22, 2019
21
39
130
Why was the US Politics thread the only one closed? British, World Politics are still active. You can't close one and not all. That is what was claimed by the Admin.
if the US politics thread takes so much of the mods time, why are so few of the suspended members people that post there on a regular basis? i went back and looked and see very few. sounds like a bulls&^% reason to me.
 
Last edited:
Why was the US Politics thread the only one closed? British, World Politics are still active. You can't close one and not all. That is what was claimed by the Admin.
Yes, it's not clear to me if the mods haven't gotten around to closing those other two threads, or are going to leave them open. If the latter, I don't see how they can justify that. They seem to believe the U.S. politics thread results in more heated discussion than the other political threads, but a lot of U.S. politics is of course relevant to British or World politics, and could be transferred there.

OTOH, if all the political threads are shut down, I think the mods are going to have a lot of trouble rationalizing keeping any other threads open that are not about cycling--music, nature, cats, other sports, et al. The only justification would be that these discussions are not as controversial. But of course a lot of cycling discussions--particularly about doping (and I'm afraid even to mention this, as I wonder if this will be the next part of the forum to get axed)--can get just as heated as political discussions.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: GVFTA

nevele neves

BANNED
Jun 3, 2019
315
83
880
exactly the type of censorship you expect from some weak minded people. can't handle debate because people might have different views than their own. you all knew it was coming to that.
maybe it was the border talk that sent them over the cliff.
 
Reactions: F_Cance and GVFTA
Yes, it's not clear to me if the mods haven't gotten around to closing those other two threads, or are going to leave them open. If the latter, I don't see how they can justify that. They seem to believe the U.S. politics thread results in more heated discussion than the other political threads, but a lot of U.S. politics is of course relevant to British or World politics, and could be transferred there.

OTOH, if all the political threads are shut down, I think the mods are going to have a lot of trouble rationalizing keeping any other threads open that are not about cycling--music, nature, cats, other sports, et al. The only justification would be that these discussions are not as controversial. But of course a lot of cycling discussions--particularly about doping (and I'm afraid even to mention this, as I wonder if this will be the next part of the forum to get axed)--can get just as heated as political discussions.
This was all pretty anodyne compared to the pre-ban Armstrong thread(s). I don't even think it's that the discussions get that charged anymore ( I personally can't be bothered and invest my energy elsewhere) so much as that the material can be so ranging: from drugs to the sexuality of candidates and its public perception, etc. Sure that could be injected into the other threads, but it hasn't really been the case so far.
 
Looks like they're going to close all political threads:

With that said, this political discussion thread requires more moderation than any other part of the forums. In an effort to bring all of our discussion threads in line with our existing forum rules, we're closing down this discussion on politics. We will also close any other threads created to discuss politics on these forums.
 

GVFTA

BANNED
Jul 5, 2018
223
133
1,230
I agree regarding closing all the politics threads, rather than just the US one, and I think all will go sooner rather than later. That one was just the start as it caused the most problems.
The Admin said all non-cycling threads were going to be closed? to focus only on cycling. Close them all or none.
 
The Admin said all non-cycling threads were going to be closed? to focus only on cycling. Close them all or none.
I’ll refer you to this part of the post:

In an effort to bring all of our discussion threads in line with our existing forum rules, we're closing down this discussion on politics. We will also close any other threads created to discuss politics on these forums.
 

GVFTA

BANNED
Jul 5, 2018
223
133
1,230
I’ll refer you to this part of the post:

In an effort to bring all of our discussion threads in line with our existing forum rules, we're closing down this discussion on politics. We will also close any other threads created to discuss politics on these forums.
I'll refer you to this. And how do you explain the Trump bashing in the politics in sports thread?

"In an effort to keep the forums civil, we've kept the conversations focused directly on cycling."
 
I'll refer you to this. And how do you explain the Trump bashing in the politics in sports thread?

"In an effort to keep the forums civil, we've kept the conversations focused directly on cycling."
I believe the admin mean that up until this point, they have kept conversations focused directly on cycling. Not referring to any topic in particular.

In regards to the politics threads, they have been locked and that is end of the matter. There have been quite a number of posts over the last couple of weeks that have broken forum rules in the politics threads, but we have left it in the hands of the developers and this is the final outcome.

In one of my warnings in there dated around 7th January I mentioned that if things didn’t improve, there could be consequences.
 

GVFTA

BANNED
Jul 5, 2018
223
133
1,230
I believe the admin mean that up until this point, they have kept conversations focused directly on cycling. Not referring to any topic in particular.

In regards to the politics threads, they have been locked and that is end of the matter. There have been quite a number of posts over the last couple of weeks that have broken forum rules in the politics threads, but we have left it in the hands of the developers and this is the final outcome.

In one of my warnings in there dated around 7th January I mentioned that if things didn’t improve, there could be consequences.
The Politics in Sports thread has not been closed. There are two of them. In regards to your comment about "up until this point". What the heck does that mean. I'm pretty sure evidence says the opposite.
 
Interesting.

Here you have a website that is for-profit. Advert revenue is the be-all, end-all. Back in 2009, the then brain-trust decided to add a message board here to both keep and attract new eyeballs while taking some of the seasonality out of - you guessed it - web traffic.

Fast forward to yesterday. The thread on this board with one of, if not the highest viewership (well over 2,000,000 views), where the content is contributed by an handful of political junkies FREE OF CHARGE, where the thread is also moderated FREE OF CHARGE, where there are fewer on-going moderation issues than many TDF /Clinic threads is now locked because.... politics in a non-cycling discussion? Did I get that right?

Probably a poor business decision and it's certainly not the first one here.
 
While I’m mildly ambivalent about the decision and slightly more troubled by some of the implications as they pertain to public discourse and its sanitization in the present, I’d say the choice to privilege a coherent content and presentation over hits and traffic is something that has to be respected in its own way. And the quality of discourse has declined markedly in recent years for reasons other than changes in moderation. Many of the hits I suspect came from people who just wanted to see a fight. I haven’t wanted to contribute to that element for some time now. On the other hand, I know there’s a passive crowd out there who were troubled by a lot of the discussions but unable to muster the wherewithal to state their beliefs (rather than being upset by what they don’t belief.) They can rest easy that this will be one less affront or challenge to their personal existence and restrict their political conflicts and differences to the makeshift solitude of the voting booth.
 
Reactions: djpbaltimore
On the other hand, I know there’s a passive crowd out there who were troubled by a lot of the discussions but unable to muster the wherewithal to state their beliefs (rather than being upset by what they don’t belief.) They can rest easy that this will be one less affront or challenge to their personal existence.
It's exceptionally easy to.. not.. click on the thread where's there is no interest in the topic. I can imagine you and I do it all the time on this very site.
 
Reactions: FrankB and GVFTA

nevele neves

BANNED
Jun 3, 2019
315
83
880
While I’m mildly ambivalent about the decision and slightly more troubled by some of the implications as they pertain to public discourse and its sanitization in the present, I’d say the choice to privilege a coherent content and presentation over hits and traffic is something that has to be respected in its own way. And the quality of discourse has declined markedly in recent years for reasons other than changes in moderation. Many of the hits I suspect came from people who just wanted to see a fight. I haven’t wanted to contribute to that element for some time now. On the other hand, I know there’s a passive crowd out there who were troubled by a lot of the discussions but unable to muster the wherewithal to state their beliefs (rather than being upset by what they don’t belief.) They can rest easy that this will be one less affront or challenge to their personal existence and restrict their political conflicts and differences to the makeshift solitude of the voting booth.
it is the world we live in now. a place where people are too weak to disagree and have to censure any debate. and that is the reason you end up with the results of elections and results in life that reflect the lack of discussion through disagreements.

i could care less about the site hits or whatever that means or represents. as GVFTA states above it is comical that moderation can speak about transgender athletics in the political sense and yet the "developers" have shut down the other locations for discussion.
 
I’m not going to belabor this or turn the moderators thread into a proxy for the politics thread. Re. transgender athletes, people, commercial enterprises and institutions contain and naturalize political content all the time. The latter two do it as a means of organizing power and it’s their prerogative until usefully challenged or they fail. People do it for manifold reasons: coping as much as power. You and GVFTA do it constantly. I might suggest that you both find it in yourselves before complaining about it elsewhere. The fact that you both followed me to the beer thread only confirms the developers’ concerns about the dysfunctionality of the politics thread. Speaking of which: useful article in Jacobin about the failure of both political parties.

Laters
 

GVFTA

BANNED
Jul 5, 2018
223
133
1,230
I’m not going to belabor this or turn the moderators thread into a proxy for the politics thread. Re. transgender athletes, people, commercial enterprises and institutions contain and naturalize political content all the time. The latter two do it as a means of organizing power and it’s their prerogative until usefully challenged or they fail. People do it for manifold reasons: coping as much as power. You and GVFTA do it constantly. I might suggest that you both find it in yourselves before complaining about it elsewhere. The fact that you both followed me to the beer thread only confirms the developers’ concerns about the dysfunctionality of the politics thread. Speaking of which: useful article in Jacobin about the failure of both political parties.

Laters
Get over yourself. Been reading your lectures for almost a decade now.
 
Is anyone really surprised the cesspool is getting hosed out? I'm not. What did clicks on that forum do for cyclingnews.com anyway, except push up irrelevant engagement numbers? It's totally off topic and off brand. I'm surprised it's lasted as long as it has.

If anyone thought this place was a net positive to democratic discourse, they've hung on at least a year too long. It used to be OK some years ago. Certainly no longer the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY