Moderators

Page 432 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.

nevele neves

BANNED
Jun 3, 2019
315
83
880
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
beer is good for you read ghost map for reference. no reason to get upset about it.
 

nevele neves

BANNED
Jun 3, 2019
315
83
880
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.
not sure about what it was like previously but reading before i waddled into the "cesspool" I noticed it was not really a place for democratic discourse but more like an echo chamber also known as one sided discussion.
 

nevele neves

BANNED
Jun 3, 2019
315
83
880
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.
true about why was it on a cycling site in the first place is beyond comprehension but it was and some people seemed to be active in the thread for some time now.
about the brand - is transgender on brand?
 
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.
I'm surprised.

Twitter is a cespool. This board, not so much.

Irrelevant engagement? That is to say cycling fans who are not bashful discussing US politics don't buy products and services advertised on this website? That's laughable.

Disagreements over politics and the arguments that ensue are no more controversial than discussing doping in cycling and having disagreements there. In fact, some of the most disparaging posts I have ever seen are in the Clinic. While the discourse on the politics thread ebb and flows, so does the discourse in the Clinic. Yet nobody is clutching their pearls over it.

Again, it is a poor business decision however I'm confident Future will survive it.
 
I'm surprised.

Twitter is a cespool. This board, not so much.

Irrelevant engagement? That is to say cycling fans who are not bashful discussing US politics don't buy products and services advertised on this website? That's laughable.

Disagreements over politics and the arguments that ensue are no more controversial than discussing doping in cycling and having disagreements there. In fact, some of the most disparaging posts I have ever seen are in the Clinic. While the discourse on the politics thread ebb and flows, so does the discourse in the Clinic. Yet nobody is clutching their pearls over it.

Again, it is a poor business decision however I'm confident Future will survive it.
"Irrelevant engagement numbers" means there may be high engagement, but in reality it's high engagement by very few people in one small part of the site. A lot of clicks by the same 20 people, some of whom do not participate in the cycling area of the site, means those numbers can be high, but they are irrelevant to the goal of the site owners. If any clicks mattered, no matter the content, there are certainly business models for that. But the kind of clicks do matter. Many an internet business has gone down the tubes citing their high numbers when the real story behind those numbers is crapola. Short answer, clicks aren't everything. Real engagement is harder to measure, harder to cultivate, and really easy to lose. Your analysis is simplistic.

Having high engagement in an area of the site where people are constantly fighting and attacking one another, on a topic irrelevant to cycling, can easily be seen as detrimental to the brand of this site as a hub of cycling interest and passion. Claiming it's a poor business decision while admitting it doesn't matter is...not compelling.

Enjoy. I've said my piece. I'm supportive, not that it matters, and will probably come here more often not less.
 
Last edited:
Business's survive poor decisions every day. That this site survives killing the Politics thread isn't surprising. It would also survive killing the entire Forum. Trust me when I tell you I look at far more here than where I post. As stated earlier, I've been here since it was Bill's.

It's telling that you will come to this site more often because the Politics thread is closed. I have never understood censorship in this way. Your inability to avoid that thread is something to behold. You remind me of Tipper Gore and the PMRC. You don't like the music, don't listen to it.

Simple.
 
Reactions: nevele neves
A moderator can talk politics in a thread about transgender athletes.
This is what bothers me about shutting down politics threads. Almost any issue can involve politics. The current Clinic discussion about Freeman and Sky/Ineos certainly involves politics. It's difficult to have a . comprehensive discussion about doping without referring to politics. Maybe we need a Politics of Cycling thread?

where there are fewer on-going moderation issues than many TDF /Clinic threads
Some of the Clinic threads have made the politics threads look tame, that's for sure. LOL, people trying to promote political conspiracy theories could learn some lessons from the Clinic. But again, careful what you wish for. At this point, i worry that the Clinic may be shut down, too. Many cycling and other sports forums don't allow talk about doping, other than maybe announcements that some athlete has tested positive.

Having high engagement in an area of the site where people are constantly fighting and attacking one another, on a topic irrelevant to cycling, can easily be seen as detrimental to the brand of this site as a hub of cycling interest and passion.
I get that, but then why have any non-cycling threads? Why have a music thread, e.g.? Does that contribute to the passion of cycling? Would there be fewer people coming to CN and discussing cycling if there were no music thread? I seriously doubt it.

Other sports forums I've seen don't allow any discussion of any topics not directly related to the sport that the forum is designed to promote. If CN is going to allow non-cycling threads, they need to explain specifically what is and isn't allowed, and why. As I and others have pointed out, heated controversies are not a valid reason, since many currently allowed threads exhibit them.

At this point, i have no idea what is and isn't allowed here any more. Could we have a discussion of climate change? That obviously involves politics, and just as obviously engenders a lot of controversy among certain posters, but it's also a scientific issue, and involves lifestyle and so many other things. Genetically engineered crops? Religion? Travel to certain countries? Where do you draw the line?

I have never understood censorship in this way.
I wouldn't call shutting down the politics threads censorship. A privately owned site has a right to determine what is and what isn't discussed. As I pointed out, many forums allow discussion only of a tightly defined topic, and they certainly have a right to do that without being accused of censorship.

i just think CN needs to be consistent and transparent about where they draw the line, and explain exactly why allowing or not allowing discussion of certain topics promotes their vision. If they want to get rid of every topic that isn't directly related to cycling, I don't have a problem with that. I'll miss the old forum, but will understand. But when they start picking and choosing, i want to know why.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: nevele neves
Business's survive poor decisions every day. That this site survives killing the Politics thread isn't surprising. It would also survive killing the entire Forum. Trust me when I tell you I look at far more here than where I post. As stated earlier, I've been here since it was Bill's.

It's telling that you will come to this site more often because the Politics thread is closed. I have never understood censorship in this way. Your inability to avoid that thread is something to behold. You remind me of Tipper Gore and the PMRC. You don't like the music, don't listen to it.

Simple.
Go down firing, eh? You're just proving their point. Congrats, I guess.
 
Technically speaking I do get what you politically speaking posters keep on going on about. And I actually don't mind it as long as it at some point will, somehow, turn into some sort of cycling form of talk.
But other threads aren't held to that standard. I've posted, as you have (much more) on the do-it-yourself thread, and I appreciate having a thread like that on this forum. I've picked up a lot of useful information from that thread, and I'm sure you and other posters would say the same. But it rarely has any relationship to cycling, unless someone is talking about restoring some old bike (and to be fair, bikes have relevance to political discussion, as when we argue over whether so many people really need to commute to work by cars. I also note the Emma thread on general cycling, which constantly bashes the fact that local governments don't take a harder stance against drivers who hit cyclists). And no one I'm aware of has a problem with that.

Some people have a passion about music, some have a passion about do-it-yourself, some have a passion about politics. Some people have a passion for more than one of these. CN isn't asking any of them to relate that passion to cycling.
 
Last edited:
Oct 22, 2019
21
39
130
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.
i disagree about the cesspool. when I joined here i went back to the last 2 election cycles and read through many pages of posts to get some background on the active members. while many of the players have changed over the years, the level of hostility is nowhere near what it was in the past. i don't know if that is a sign of more active moderating, but the difference is obvious.
 
Oct 22, 2019
21
39
130
"Irrelevant engagement numbers" means there may be high engagement, but in reality it's high engagement by very few people in one small part of the site. A lot of clicks by the same 20 people, some of whom do not participate in the cycling area of the site, means those numbers can be high, but they are irrelevant to the goal of the site owners. If any clicks mattered, no matter the content, there are certainly business models for that. But the kind of clicks do matter. Many an internet business has gone down the tubes citing their high numbers when the real story behind those numbers is crapola. Short answer, clicks aren't everything. Real engagement is harder to measure, harder to cultivate, and really easy to lose. Your analysis is simplistic.

Having high engagement in an area of the site where people are constantly fighting and attacking one another, on a topic irrelevant to cycling, can easily be seen as detrimental to the brand of this site as a hub of cycling interest and passion. Claiming it's a poor business decision while admitting it doesn't matter is...not compelling.

Enjoy. I've said my piece. I'm supportive, not that it matters, and will probably come here more often not less.
the bold makes no sense what so ever.
 
There was a distinct effort to bring the level down a few years ago and some members left as a result: voluntarily and involuntarily. I haven’t been around much, but it seems to have crept back up over time.

@MI, I can’t truly believe you don’t see the criteria. Yes, anything can be politicized (which is why I let topics take tangents and digress at times) but none of the generalist threads you mention get consistently heated, personal and polemical. Even when there is disagreement of ‘taste’ the arguments remain bound to the subject matter. Other than the clinic and ongoing squabbles between members that has only happened continuously in the politic threads.
 
@MI, I can’t truly believe you don’t see the criteria. Yes, anything can be politicized (which is why I let topics take tangents and digress at times) but none of the generalist threads you mention get consistently heated, personal and polemical. Even when there is disagreement of ‘taste’ the arguments remain bound to the subject matter. Other than the clinic and ongoing squabbles between members that has only happened continuously in the politic threads.
"Other than the clinic and ongoing squabbles" is not a minor point. If the politics threads are being discontinued because of heated, personal attacks, then so should many threads in the Clinic, and even some threads in the Pro Racing forum (where Clinic material sneaks in on more than one occasion). Also some threads in the Fitness and Exercise forum. I think someone almost got permabanned from an argument about wheels.

And if it is all about heated discussions, then it should only be the U.S. Politics thread, and possibly British politics. The discussion in the Worlds politics thread is not nearly as heated, certainly it doesn't come close to what we often see in the Clinic. I can't actually recall a problem in the World politics thread at all, nor in the (original) Politics in Sports thread, either.

The U.S. Politics thread may be the worst in terms of ongoing nastiness, I agree with that. But that brush is being used to smear other politics threads, which really doesn't reflect reality.
 
I didn’t say it was a minor point, but the Clinic is intrinsic to cycling and its politics remain bound to that (excepting some attempts to make broader connection, the role of soft national power, etc) and it’s an informative and unique component of this cycling forum. Others are repressed and pointless by comparison. Sure, one can make the argument that the US politics thread does the same (or World and British) and there was a time when that was the case: when there was a range of posters able to discuss an issue from multiple, informed perspectives. Arguably that may have been the case across the board, but the signal drop is acute in the US politics thread. And as you know, it’s a business/brand call to keep the clinic and let US politics go.If World politics or politics in sports had been left open, the same issues would have migrated there as we saw this morning when I got followed into the beer thread.
 

GVFTA

BANNED
Jul 5, 2018
223
133
1,230
I didn’t say it was a minor point, but the Clinic is intrinsic to cycling and its politics remain bound to that (excepting some attempts to make broader connection, the role of soft national power, etc) and it’s an informative and unique component of this cycling forum. Others are repressed and pointless by comparison. Sure, one can make the argument that the US politics thread does the same (or World and British) and there was a time when that was the case: when there was a range of posters able to discuss an issue from multiple, informed perspectives. Arguably that may have been the case across the board, but the signal drop is acute in the US politics thread. And as you know, it’s a business/brand call to keep the clinic and let US politics go.If World politics or politics in sports had been left open, the same issues would have migrated there as we saw this morning when I got followed into the beer thread.
Of course you had to write the last sentence. What can one say. Did I spell all my words correctly? Don't want to show more of my non intelleck
 
The mods have asked me to you ignore so I will. You of course could do the same. Everyone is intelligent in their own way. It’s why I respect Trike Rider, but disagree with her sometimes. You could stop feeling threatened and inferior and give something. Or not. Play your games. This shutdown is an interesting issue, but mostly worth discussing with the adults in the room. The first step toward being able to articulate yourself is getting over yourself and doing it. Give it a whirl.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: veganrob

GVFTA

BANNED
Jul 5, 2018
223
133
1,230
The mods have asked me to you ignore so I will. You of course could do the same. Everyone is intelligent in their own way. It’s why I respect Trike Rider, but disagree with her sometimes. You could stop feeling threatened and inferior and give something. Or not. Play your games. This shutdown is an interesting issue, but mostly worth discussing with the adults in the room. The first step toward being able to articulate yourself is getting over yourself and doing it. Give it a whirl.
I'm sure the mods are quite capable of recognizing your continual insults to everyone you engage with. But of course it's my inferiority that is responsible for your need to do so.
 
Reactions: nevele neves
I wouldn't call shutting down the politics threads censorship. A privately owned site has a right to determine what is and what isn't discussed. As I pointed out, many forums allow discussion only of a tightly defined topic, and they certainly have a right to do that without being accused of censorship.
Sorry, I was not clear.

I completely agree with CN’s right to do what they wish and what they think is good for their enterprise. Obviously I don‘t agree with this particular decision but it’s irrelevant.

What I was attempting to get at is the mentality of folks who, as an example, will protest the existence of the US Politics thread or denigrate the content there when all they have to do is to decline clicking on the link. My guess is there are opinions written on the thread that the very delicate can not tolerate. If one knows that about themselves then why view the thread? I mentioned the Tipper Gore saga in the 1980’s. That sort of censorship made at least a little sense. Yes, adults could choose not to listen but parents then were worried about their kids.

In the case of posters avoiding the site because of the existence of the US Politics thread is something I don’t understand. If one feels that strongly then why on earth can’t the thread be avoided?

I don’t know for a fact but I sincerely doubt the mods were having any trouble keeping up. So one of two things happened: Advertisers made waves or members did and it wasn’t members participating in the thread. To me, that’s a form of censorship particularly if it was members.
 
Reactions: GVFTA
I don’t know for a fact but I sincerely doubt the mods were having any trouble keeping up. So one of two things happened: Advertisers made waves or members did and it wasn’t members participating in the thread. To me, that’s a form of censorship particularly if it was members.
I’m glad you said ‘I don’t know this for a fact’ so I’ll just reply from my own experience.

The US politics thread was the thread which consistently gave us the most problems throughout the year, that’s including the Tour threads which could also be a handful at times. I’d take an educated guess that around 60-70% of the reports we dealt with were from the politics thread alone, some didn’t require action, but many of which were from members breaking forum rules. Let’s not forget warning were given over the previous few months, but these were ignored by some.

Due to the nature of the discussion and the time zones, any moderation in that thread used to take much more time than any other thread as it always necessitated us going back, re-reading things, removing posts or editing them and so on. We're volunteers who found that the time we had to spend here reading about cycling was increasingly being eaten away by having to deal with a thread that has nothing to do with the core reason for the forum.

Ultimately, with all the evidence provided, a decision was made by the developers.
 
Pricey has been answering a lot of the posts here. We'd prefer not to drag the discussion out as the decision has been made by the admins. I'll just highlight what he said regarding time. Those threads, and at times the British Politics thread was as bad, were a constant drain on moderator time. It got to the point where we'd log in and spend all the time we had dealing with those threads, which both stops us dealing with other problems and stops us reading the content we actually came to read.

The rules are pretty clear on this:
  • G.R.A.P.E.S. (guns, religion, abortion, politics, economics, sexuality) subject matter discussion is prohibited, except where the topics are expressly related to core subject coverage and is initiated by staff. The moderation team reserves the right to remove any such posts and take action as warranted.
These rules are not uncommon on internet forums either. I've been a member of a few different forums (not cycling) and almost all of them have had a variation on these rules. The ones that didn't just had mods who enforced something akin to this anyway. As the admins pointed out, they left legacy threads that fell foul of these rules, however they decided that it was time to end these discussions.
 
Reactions: Red Rick
In that regard, I’ll note that I have great appreciation and respect for the work of the moderators. I think there’s only been a half dozen times over the years when I might truly regret my rhetoric, but I’m aware that it’s likely presented much more work than that. Some of this, as Gadsden notes could have been avoided by other people skipping the threads, but I’m sure I actively contributed at others as have many other posters. Ultimately that seems antithetical to the topic of the threads, so it’s fitting that they go.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS