• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Moderators

Page 70 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Susan Westemeyer said:
Not everywhere. And not for every one.

Susan
the crime rape is horrible indeed. but, as a man i have felt raped by a situation
that has occurred. as in in getting raped by the IRS. having said all that, men do get raped. still it is also a slang term.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,052
0
0
Rip:30 said:
I'm not sure? In the Chaos thread, mods said to stay away from "religious motifs". But maybe it depends on if it's deemed offensive or not.
This is generally because bringing religion into a discussion is right up there with politics and LA. Once its out there it takes over the conversation and utterly derails it. This is the reason that there is a politics thread and an LA thread - to keep it out of the rest of the threads.

Whether this means we should have a 'general religion" thread is something that may be discussed but the idea of hosting a thread with a whole lot of bashing of various religions (lets face it, thats what would happen) doesn't sound like something that a site would want to inflict upon itself.
 
Oct 5, 2010
1,018
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
Interesting that all of those defending the use of the word "rape" are men. I would like to hear from the female users.....

Susan
I find the use of the word rape in this context to be abhorrent and offensive towards anyone (man or woman) who has ever been sexually assaulted.

Dr. Maserati said:
I haven't seen anyone (male or female) defend that word.

In fact there is absolutely no need for that word to be used in any way to describe anything related to a bike race.
totally agree
 
Mar 16, 2009
19,452
0
0
Martin318is said:
This is generally because bringing religion into a discussion is right up there with politics and LA. Once its out there it takes over the conversation and utterly derails it. This is the reason that there is a politics thread and an LA thread - to keep it out of the rest of the threads.

Whether this means we should have a 'general religion" thread is something that may be discussed but the idea of hosting a thread with a whole lot of bashing of various religions (lets face it, thats what would happen) doesn't sound like something that a site would want to inflict upon itself.
There has been a religion thread for almost 2 years
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=4236
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,052
0
0
Good search skills. It hasn't been posted in for almost that long too. Hopfully it can continue to present as little work for the mods as it does at the moment. :D
 
Apr 29, 2010
1,036
0
0
Martin318is said:
Good search skills. It hasn't been posted in for almost that long too. Hopefully it can continue to present as little work for the mods as it does at the moment. :D
I think it's more who's involved in the discussion rather than the topic of discussion that determines how it turns out.
 
Sep 13, 2010
517
0
0
Martin318is said:
Good search skills. It hasn't been posted in for almost that long too. Hopfully it can continue to present as little work for the mods as it does at the moment. :D
Actually, that's an atheist thread, not a religion one as it makes fun of religion rather than discussing it. Every thread discussing religion would undoubtedly turn into one of those, because religious people are dumb, slow, and deserve it, while atheists are smart, witty, and they delight in it. :rolleyes:
 
Apr 29, 2010
1,036
0
0
kielbasa said:
Actually, that's an atheist thread, not a religion one as it makes fun of religion rather than discussing it. Every thread discussing religion would undoubtedly turn into one of those, because religious people are dumb, slow, and deserve it, while atheists are smart, witty, and they delight in it. :rolleyes:
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Can we get an official listing of the members of the Ministry of Truth that will decide on the words that will be included in Cyclingnews' Newspeak? Do you have to be a member of the Moderation Party or can any prole propose words that offend him?
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,052
0
0
Parrulo said:
i still find the jump from a 24 hour ban to a 1 month long ban rather excessive. . .

1 week would be a bit better imo then 1 month
(I use the term 'you' a lot here but I mean you in general rather than you, Parrulo)

Its unfortunate, but its kind of the point really. To get to 1 month you need to have:
* (possiblly) ignored some friendly warning(s),
* ignored an infraction
* taken a day off to cool down,
* ignored the clear rules and likely warnings from mods,
* and down something stupid anyway.

ALL within a month of the first infraction.

Not sure how much more hand holding than that people expect but frankly if you are behaving like that in that short a period, I as a mod would rather like a month off from dealing with you and the complaints about you. The whole idea of this system is to convince someone to stop breaching rules.

Remember of course, a month after that first infraction you have a clear slate again - IF you are smart enough to pull your head in for a bit
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
Posting religious-related photos in the Chaos forum is not "discussion". The problem there is that all were making fun of or discriminating one certain religion, and there were complaints.

Susan
I'm sorry Susan, but I have to say that I'm really, really disappointed at your personal, heavy-handed intervention in Free form. The one person who publicly admited to having complained has an agenda - he's a 'pro-life', anti-abortion nut. He is also one of a very small minority and you really should not have rushed in to satisfy his particular point of view. The man has no sense of proprtion, or humor.

The fact that you felt it right to censor what Krebs wrote in his 'farewell' a short time ago is extremely regrettable - I'm choosing my words very carefully here because I saw what Krebs wrote, and I think that your decision to delete is both outrageous, and dead wrong

If I start complaining about some of Scott's pronouncements that I might find objectionable, will you censor him too? A sad day for free speech at CN.

:(
 
Feb 16, 2011
1,133
0
0
Don't intend to be an advocate for the mods here, but it's clear they have a difficult job. I didn't see the recent posts AmsterHammer's refering to, but I think I understand the problem.

Specifically, when the mods try to decide when something is beyond the pale or otherwise gone too far, they face the uncomfortable position of trying to dichotomise over a continuum. There's no real, clear or evident way to identify the point at which something is permissable or not permissable. We can invoke things like a no-harm or offense principle, but again, we face the same problem, at exactly what point does something become inadmissable, and could this point be willed to be a universal law viz Kantian categorical imperative (bearing in mind, anything can be so willed depending on the state of mind of the subject or the state of their society.) Philosophers call it the argument from the heap, or the Sorites problem.

And that concludes our thought for the day. The off-license is about to close.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,592
0
0
I get why people, myself included, are uncomfortable with politics and religion getting special treatment on forums like these, the reality is that both topics tend to derail threads, and forums tend to have one policy to govern both topics (whatever that policy is).

CN's half-way house solution here, for politics, has been to allow it in the General forum, in clearly identifiable threads, and people raising it elsewhere tend to get there post amended or deleted or moved. I don't think we, currently, have a thread for religion (only), but the deletion in the chaos/humour thread of religion-themed posts will have fallen victim to that same thinking: it is in a thread that isn't dealing with that topic exclusively, and it is probably a wee bit to explicit to wave it through anyway.

I am all for free speech, but everyone bites their tongue in some places.

This is a site where CN dictates the rules, and we all ticked the box 'agree to abide' when we signed up and started to post on their forum. CN and the mods are not setting out to ruin folk's fun here, rather the opposite. But we also have to find a way to cope with the conflicting senses of "fun" and "decorum".

There is a lot in the rules and guidelines that I don't like, some of it I would champion. But as a mod, I will have to deal with the guidelines as they are.

I am less clear why any of the mods be ashamed for implementing the rules and guidelines that the site spelled out, and to which posters said "aye, we'll do that"?

To make it absolutely clear: there is a big gap between what I would allow if this was my own site, or if I was implementing guidelines and direct rulings from CN. I get we are the visible face of moderation, and why people personify us with rulings that we have to make, one way or the other.

In this particular case, if you have a problem with the CN policy on politics and religion, or the edit of Krebs' post(s), please raise it with CN (Daniel), rather than the mods.

For what it is worth, I'd rather see Krebs stay. At the same time, I find it hard to believe that he possibly can't stay funny on this site, with the few restrictions in place. Still, I certainly would understand why he wouldn't want to.

But there are plenty of dedicated humour, free speech, porn and politics sites on the internet. I am not sure why CN should cater for all "likes" and "hobbies - side interests" of all posters on this cycling site, or take the attitude of the most permissive and liberal posters as the standard for all?
 
Sep 13, 2010
517
0
0
Francois the Postman said:
I get why people, myself included, are uncomfortable with politics and religion getting special treatment on forums like these, the reality is that both topics tend to derail threads, and forums tend to have one policy to govern both topics (whatever that policy is).

CN's half-way house solution here, for politics, has been to allow it in the General forum, in clearly identifiable threads, and people raising it elsewhere tend to get there post amended or deleted or moved. I don't think we, currently, have a thread for religion (only), but the deletion in the chaos/humour thread of religion-themed posts will have fallen victim to that same thinking: it is in a thread that isn't dealing with that topic exclusively, and it is probably a wee bit to explicit to wave it through anyway.

I am all for free speech, but everyone bites their tongue in some places.

This is a site where CN dictates the rules, and we all ticked the box 'agree to abide' when we signed up and started to post on their forum. CN and the mods are not setting out to ruin folk's fun here, rather the opposite. But we also have to find a way to cope with the conflicting senses of "fun" and "decorum".

There is a lot in the rules and guidelines that I don't like, some of it I would champion. But as a mod, I will have to deal with the guidelines as they are.

I am less clear why any of the mods be ashamed for implementing the rules and guidelines that the site spelled out, and to which posters said "aye, we'll do that"?

To make it absolutely clear: there is a big gap between what I would allow if this was my own site, or if I was implementing guidelines and direct rulings from CN. I get we are the visible face of moderation, and why people personify us with rulings that we have to make, one way or the other.

In this particular case, if you have a problem with the CN policy on politics and religion, or the edit of Krebs' post(s), please raise it with CN (Daniel), rather than the mods.

For what it is worth, I'd rather see Krebs stay. At the same time, I find it hard to believe that he possibly can't stay funny on this site, with the few restrictions in place. Still, I certainly would understand why he wouldn't want to.

But there are plenty of dedicated humour, free speech, porn and politics sites on the internet. I am not sure why CN should cater for all "likes" and "hobbies - side interests" of all posters on this cycling site, or take the attitude of the most permissive and liberal posters as the standard for all?
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. I came here primarily to engage in cycling related discussion. Sadly, because the great majority of the posters here seem to embrace only one side of the political and theological spectrum, I feel compelled to engage them. The lack of civility and outright vitriol that I have encountered because of my deeply held personal views over the last couple of days has been astounding. Having said that, I wouldn't mind if the forum was 100% cycling related.
 
Sep 13, 2010
517
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
That decision was not made by me alone.

Susan
This place has become a school yard and bullying is what they do to get what they want. You owe no explanation Susan.
 
Apr 29, 2010
1,036
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
Posting religious-related photos in the Chaos forum is not "discussion". The problem there is that all were making fun of or discriminating one certain religion, and there were complaints.

Susan

dis·cus·sion
   [dih-skuhsh-uhn] Show IPA

noun
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.

Really so you can't convey information with images or figures?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS