BroDeal said:How long before some pantywaist complains about the phrase "clubbed him like a baby seal" because, you know, beating baby seals to death is hideous?
seriously...we must eliminate all bad things,words,and thoughts...
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
BroDeal said:How long before some pantywaist complains about the phrase "clubbed him like a baby seal" because, you know, beating baby seals to death is hideous?
Susan Westemeyer said:Not everywhere. And not for every one.
Susan
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.
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
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.
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.
krebs303 said:There has been a religion thread for almost 2 years
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=4236
scribe said:Good stuff.
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.
krebs303 said:There has been a religion thread for almost 2 years
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=4236
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.
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.
Rip:30 said:We can discuss politics, but not religion?
Seriously?
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
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
Susan Westemeyer said:That decision was not made by me alone.
Susan
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?
Susan Westemeyer said:That decision was not made by me alone.
Susan
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