Moderators

[Scott SoCal]

Maybe mods should lock threads where there's minimal participation from members. What do you think.... less than 10 members regular contribution should be locked? Sound about right?

theres a difference between being bullied and being challenged. My guess is if you don't know the difference then you probably shouldn't participate in the politics thread and, up to now, the moderators have been able to figure it out.

Alpe was a fantastic mod. If one is looking for perfection then one will constantly be disappointed.

Mutual abuse and bullying does happen but it's obvious and when those that do it cool off there's almost always some form of apology. Trust me, I've been on the receiving end all the way up to death threats. Yet somehow learning from others perspectives outweighs those infrequent occurrences.

Lastly, firm discussion is not equal to abuse. I've made my feelings known regarding the Alpe getting shown the door. It's not abuse... it's displeasure with the mods action.

See if you can spot the difference.

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

theres a difference between being bullied and being challenged.

Yes, but what you should add is that the line between the two is not the same for everyone. What one person accepts as a challenge another may feel is bullying. You provide an obvious example later in your post when you say you’ve been subject to death threats (if you’re referring to what I think you’re referring to, technically that wasn’t a death threat, but the distinction isn’t important), but felt it was worth it from gaining more understanding of someone else’s perspective. If you can look at it in that way, that’s admirable, but I think it’s unreasonable to expect everyone else to conform to that standard. IMO, you have either a very thick skin or a very high pain threshold, but not everyone else does, nor should anyone be criticized or belittled for not being like this.

In fact, I think there's a strong correlation here: people who are the least sensitive to/affected by personal attacks on themselves tend also to be those who are least sensitive to/appreciative of the effect of such attacks on others. It’s actually not that uncommon to be able to tolerate attacks on oneself, and it’s also not that uncommon to feel great empathy for attacks on others. What in my experience is quite rare is to be capable of both at the same time. Thus not only Scott but others here who believe the mods are overreacting feel this way because they themselves don’t experience what they regard as abuse. They either always had or have developed a high tolerance for a certain level of discourse, which not only protects them from feeling hurt, but also makes it more difficult for them to understand the hurt others feel. More sensitive souls self-select out of the thread, so what’s left is a relatively small group of people who are comfortable with both attacking and being attacked.

Mutual abuse and bullying does happen but it's obvious and when those that do it cool off there's almost always some form of apology.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I’ve been subject to what I consider—let’s not say abuse, but definitely behavior that’s against the stated rules, and which led to a suspension (not just the most recent case, but others)—and I’ve never received an apology for any of it. I’m not complaining, I’ve never expected one, but the notion that when people cool off they apologize, the matter is over, and they develop more respect for each other is not one I’ve often seen play out. Not saying it never happens, but I’d say just the opposite is at least equally likely, the people involved become sensitized, so that when an offending issue arises again, the threshold is crossed even sooner.

firm discussion is not equal to abuse.

I think the standard used to distinguish the two is "play the ball, not the man". Attack someone's ideas, not the person. I've frankly never bought into the notion that there's a clear line between the two. We are in fact defined by what we think, and when our beliefs are challenged, we tend to take that as a challenge to our identity. Nowhere is this more obvious than in politics, where reams of studies have shown how our identity shapes our political beliefs.

According to this play the ball notion, calling someone a stupid idiot is not allowed, but calling his views stupid and idiotic is. What's the difference? If your views are stupid and idiotic, doesn't that make you a stupid idiot in that regard? Of course, your views on one particular issue aren't everything about who you are, but they are some of it. So are we saying it's all right to attack part of a person, but not all of him?

I don't have a solution to this problem. I've certainly called some ideas stupid, as a scientist I'd be a discredit to my profession if I didn't in some cases, but at the least I think one does have to be very aware of this problem.

 

[aphronesis]

@merckx, if you want to repost this in the politics thread, i'll respond to it there in civil and expansive fashion. those incurious about the thread can take a break. and vice versa..

short response to your last paragraph (and this would be an topic moderation issue): there's not just a right or wrong view, good or bad idea: as a sensitive human (rather than just a scientist or other professional) one has to account for the multiple levels of formation, aptitude, knowledge and motivation that drive people to dialogue, respond, pronounce, whatever. Many "sensitive" people are just as blind to these strata in themselves as in anyone else, while some "aggressive" people may be highly attuned and responding to some or all aspects for outcomes other than being "right."

Acting "stupid" often serves a similar purpose but may not be an indicator of ignorance.

This is something educators have to be aware of, allow for and to mediate accordingly.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

I just cannot understand why someone would use a cycling forum just to argue about politics for days, weeks, months on end. It is quite telling to me that whenever I open this thread or the now-closed Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation thread, it's always a bunch of Politics thread regulars arguing either with mods or with each other.
Anyway, I hardly ever venture into the Café section so it doesn't bother me, but it does make me wonder.

Politics forums can be like a TDF thread on the queen stage. Posts go fast. You take a sleep and you lose the whole thread. There are hundreds of people.

There is an attraction for those who post her to post in a slower forum I think where you can interract with a select few members who you are familiar with. A lot of the politics posters also probably know eachother from the US cycling forums back in the day, or have similar backgrounds.

A cycling forum is as good a place to discuss it as any. Some probably lurk in the cycling threads a lot as well.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

theres a difference between being bullied and being challenged.

Yes, but what you should add is that the line between the two is not the same for everyone. What one person accepts as a challenge another may feel is bullying. You provide an obvious example later in your post when you say you’ve been subject to death threats (if you’re referring to what I think you’re referring to, technically that wasn’t a death threat, but the distinction isn’t important), but felt it was worth it from gaining more understanding of someone else’s perspective. If you can look at it in that way, that’s admirable, but I think it’s unreasonable to expect everyone else to conform to that standard. IMO, you have either a very thick skin or a very high pain threshold, but not everyone else does, nor should anyone be criticized or belittled for not being like this.

In fact, I think there's a strong correlation here: people who are the least sensitive to/affected by personal attacks on themselves tend also to be those who are least sensitive to/appreciative of the effect of such attacks on others. It’s actually not that uncommon to be able to tolerate attacks on oneself, and it’s also not that uncommon to feel great empathy for attacks on others. What in my experience is quite rare is to be capable of both at the same time. Thus not only Scott but others here who believe the mods are overreacting feel this way because they themselves don’t experience what they regard as abuse. They either always had or have developed a high tolerance for a certain level of discourse, which not only protects them from feeling hurt, but also makes it more difficult for them to understand the hurt others feel. More sensitive souls self-select out of the thread, so what’s left is a relatively small group of people who are comfortable with both attacking and being attacked.

Mutual abuse and bullying does happen but it's obvious and when those that do it cool off there's almost always some form of apology.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I’ve been subject to what I consider—let’s not say abuse, but definitely behavior that’s against the stated rules, and which led to a suspension (not just the most recent case, but others)—and I’ve never received an apology for any of it. I’m not complaining, I’ve never expected one, but the notion that when people cool off they apologize, the matter is over, and they develop more respect for each other is not one I’ve often seen play out. Not saying it never happens, but I’d say just the opposite is at least equally likely, the people involved become sensitized, so that when an offending issue arises again, the threshold is crossed even sooner.

firm discussion is not equal to abuse.

I think the standard used to distinguish the two is "play the ball, not the man". Attack someone's ideas, not the person. I've frankly never bought into the notion that there's a clear line between the two. We are in fact defined by what we think, and when our beliefs are challenged, we tend to take that as a challenge to our identity. Nowhere is this more obvious than in politics, where reams of studies have shown how our identity shapes our political beliefs.

According to this play the ball notion, calling someone a stupid idiot is not allowed, but calling his views stupid and idiotic is. What's the difference? If your views are stupid and idiotic, doesn't that make you a stupid idiot in that regard? Of course, your views on one particular issue aren't everything about who you are, but they are some of it. So are we saying it's all right to attack part of a person, but not all of him?

I don't have a solution to this problem. I've certainly called some ideas stupid, as a scientist I'd be a discredit to my profession if I didn't in some cases, but at the least I think one does have to be very aware of this problem.

Your post is nuanced and well stated. I agree with plenty of it. Just one small thing about bullying (1st paragraph). At least this is just an online forum. If someone feels bullied, if their feelings are hurt or if they are just sensitive, they can leave the conversation. I've been in conversations before where I was the only one pushing a certain viewpoint. I had to pick and choose when I'd take the time to get in knee deep and go back and forth with multiple different posters or just ignore what was said and leave the thread. That's a very real option. It's hard to actually get bullied on this very impersonal forum where we hardly know anything about each other.

Right now the political climate of our country is so tumultuous, that the cafe is probably a safer place to talk then in person with actual people. People can hide behind the safety of their computers, not worry about people getting into their safe space, and actually think a little to form a coherent argument about whatever the subject.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

A serious modding questions that has nothing to do with anything that's been posted here: how far off topic is off topic? OT is cool by me, digressions are great, but not when it's simply repeating the stuff of other threads, derailing whatever little debate there might be and turning all threads into the same thread, which these days is that British Cycling/Sky/Froome/Brailsford cheat. Could you offer some guidance on this, please? GRMA.

Catching up and I see no-one answered you so I will try.

If someone posts something that is clearly off-topic and belongs in another thread then that isn't cool. An effort must be made to post in the relevant thread. Obvious off-topic posting stuff is obvious. Even the stuff people think they are cleverly hiding is. This can include making comparisons to others, dragging accusations in from other threads etc.

Digressions are fine, any thread that continues for more than a few posts will no-doubt change and grow to incorporate relevant areas of discussion. The problem this brings up is your second item, repeated postings of the same material across multiple threads.

Lets Take Rider X on Team Y supporting Rider Z in Race A. Both riders have a thread, the team does and the race does and these threads are already large. Rider X is flagged for doping in Race A, where do you post that information and discuss it? Well it obviously belongs in Rider X's thread, but it's relevant to Team Y, Rider Z and Race A so arguably is should go in every thread. To make the choice harder, discussion of team-wide problems has gone on in the Team Y thread including Rider X and Rider Z. Does the more relevant discussion over the implications of this one rider returning a positive for the rest of the team belong in the Team Y thread? Or the separate rider threads, or all? And it should go in the race thread as a general point. You either end up with repeated posts or fragmented discussions as people start in one thread discussing the same thing that is already under discussion in another thread. There's no way we can effectively maintain all conversations in relevant threads and direct people to the right place all the time.


Basically it's really, really difficult at times if the information is at least relevant. When a thread has obviously moved to a discussion that a thread already exists for it's pretty easy to tell but many times it isn't. Take motor doping discussions. There is the one thread where it is being discussed but then it is spreading across every single rider thread and at times it makes the clinic almost unreadable. However, if people think someone is motor-doping then it should be discussed and naturally people will look in that rider's thread as well as the motor doping thread.

Hope that helps, not surprised if it doesn't though!

 

[kingjr]

To the admin who deleted Scott's posts, I would apreciate it if you would content yourself with editing out the personal attacks and leave the rest of it as it was. Taking out the whole thing seems pointless to me.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

To the admin who deleted Scott's posts, I would aprreciate it if you would content yourself with editing out the personal attacks and leave the rest of it as it was. Taking out the whole thing seems pointless to me.

Everyone runs the risk of having an entire comment removed if any part of the comment violates forum rules.

Personally, I dislike editing comments tremendously and will leave his comments out of the discussion.

 

[kingjr]

That's a pity.

 

[aphronesis]

I could quote dj's post and reconstruct it, but I'm busy and never learned that block quote. thing.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

I could quote dj's post and reconstruct it, but I'm busy and never learned that block quote. thing.

Umm, please don't do that.

TIA

 

[aphronesis]

I kid.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

I kid.

Got it..

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Lets Take Rider X on Team Y supporting Rider Z in Race A. Both riders have a thread, the team does and the race does and these threads are already large. Rider X is flagged for doping in Race A, where do you post that information and discuss it? Well it obviously belongs in Rider X's thread, but it's relevant to Team Y, Rider Z and Race A so arguably is should go in every thread. To make the choice harder, discussion of team-wide problems has gone on in the Team Y thread including Rider X and Rider Z.

That sort of sprawling conversation I get. Some threads are micro, some macro, they inevitably overlap. My issue is more about what happens when discussion of Rider X and Team Y and Race A starts taking over a thread about ... squirrels.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Lets Take Rider X on Team Y supporting Rider Z in Race A. Both riders have a thread, the team does and the race does and these threads are already large. Rider X is flagged for doping in Race A, where do you post that information and discuss it? Well it obviously belongs in Rider X's thread, but it's relevant to Team Y, Rider Z and Race A so arguably is should go in every thread. To make the choice harder, discussion of team-wide problems has gone on in the Team Y thread including Rider X and Rider Z.

That sort of sprawling conversation I get. Some threads are micro, some macro, they inevitably overlap. My issue is more about what happens when discussion of Rider X and Team Y and Race A starts taking over a thread about ... squirrels.

Pretty sure I covered that in Munro first paragraph, but if it's obviously off-topic report it.

 

[jonas334455]

Hi, I got the following message disaproving a post of mine:

"Hi, I believe this to be a sockpuppet account of the user *******. I'm
guessing you forgot your password? If that's correct please reset it and
use that account. If you can't please post in the moderators thread. Other
posts from this account will be disapproved and may lead to a permanent ban
for both accounts.

Cheers,

KB."

This is not true and I don't know where this guess comes from. :Question:
Same IP? Posting currently from my business-machine in quite a big corporation.

Edit: By the way, the first post got approved?

Edited by KB to remove other username.

 

[jonas334455]

I can do a post from home with another IP later on, if this helps.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Hi, I got the following message disaproving a post of mine:

"Hi, I believe this to be a sockpuppet account of the user *******. I'm
guessing you forgot your password? If that's correct please reset it and
use that account. If you can't please post in the moderators thread. Other
posts from this account will be disapproved and may lead to a permanent ban
for both accounts.

Cheers,

KB."

This is not true and I don't know where this guess comes from. :Question:
Same IP? Posting currently from my business-machine in quite a big corporation.

Edit: By the way, the first post got approved?

Edited by KB to remove other username.

Hi, yep that's the problem. I don't personally know enough about IPs to know how likely it is that any users would post from the same IP but I've been told it's very unlikely. I'll take you at your word, I can see that it's a big institution so I'm guessing that makes it more likely and I don't know enough to disagree . I'm sure another mod/admin will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[jonas334455]

As an IT-guy myself I can tell you that it is unlikely, indeed, but not impossible. I'll send a post from home this evening on the topic which is the reason I joined. This should be another IP then.

 

[Irondan]

Occasionally we run into this problem but for the most part, it's not an issue.

Our only concern is that each person is allowed one account, even if it's been 10 years in between posts. We try to keep consistent in verifying new user accounts and when we run into an issue like this one we have to take a person at their word unless we have good reason not to.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[RedheadDane]

Re: Re:

Lets Take Rider X on Team Y supporting Rider Z in Race A. Both riders have a thread, the team does and the race does and these threads are already large. Rider X is flagged for doping in Race A, where do you post that information and discuss it? Well it obviously belongs in Rider X's thread, but it's relevant to Team Y, Rider Z and Race A so arguably is should go in every thread. To make the choice harder, discussion of team-wide problems has gone on in the Team Y thread including Rider X and Rider Z.

That sort of sprawling conversation I get. Some threads are micro, some macro, they inevitably overlap. My issue is more about what happens when discussion of Rider X and Team Y and Race A starts taking over a thread about ... squirrels.

Or discussion about what you should call various races (in what language you should refer to them) in a specific rider's thread...
Though the rider in question seems to have gotten us right back on track.

 

[Merckx index]

Irondan, what is a "no contact" order? Does that mean you can't interact with some specific other poster on the forum (sounds unlikely and unenforceable), or does it only refer to PMs between them? Or something else entirely?

And is this something new, or has it been in effect for a long time, and I just wasn't aware of it? I assume it's meant to keep two or more posters who are stoking each other up to back off. It sounds almost like a partial suspension, in which you're allowed to keep posting in general, but have some privileges curtailed.

 

[Irondan]

Irondan, what is a "no contact" order? Does that mean you can't interact with some specific other poster on the forum (sounds unlikely and unenforceable), or does it only refer to PMs between them? Or something else entirely?

And is this something new, or has it been in effect for a long time, and I just wasn't aware of it? I assume it's meant to keep two or more posters who are stoking each other up to back off. It sounds almost like a partial suspension, in which you're allowed to keep posting in general, but have some privileges curtailed.

It means that over the past month I've been an intermediary between two posters that don't like each other and like to bait and troll each other in the public forum and PM's. I told them numerous times to ignore each other by putting each other on their "foes" list which one of them did and one of them didn't. The one that did use the foes list decided to read the forum as a "guest" to circumvent the foes list and read the other person's comments and the person that didn't use the "foes" list ignored my direction altogether.

With all due respect, I beg to differ with you about the enforceability of this measure, as it's being enforced as we speak.

This is as much detail as I'm comfortable or willing to go into on this matter.

Cheers

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Or discussion about what you should call various races (in what language you should refer to them) in a specific rider's thread...

There is one simple rule: anyone who refers to the Ronde van Vlaanderen as the Tour of Flanders will rot in hell.

One day, the mods will come up with a tool that sends an electric shock direct to your keyboard when you type the Tour of Flanders instead of the Ronde van Vlaanderen.

 

[RedheadDane]

As I mentioned in that particular thread, I have on occasion written Tour of Flanders because I couldn't spell Ronde van Vlaanderen to safe my life, and we all know that is a potential life-saver.