Moderators

[Martin318is]

It's not a problem with the software. It's a problem with the list. The software obviously supports flitering entire words, probably delimited with whitespace or punctuation, or substrings of words. Pak1 has been entered in the list in the wrong way so that it is filtered even if it is a substring of another word.

yep thats entirely true - lazy explanation on my part. the list itself isn't maintained by us unfortunately.

 

[Spare Tyre]

BroDeal, when you diminish other people by calling them, eg, "supersensitive busybodies" you are acting as a bully.

 

[ramjambunath]

On the topic of Pakistan, gender and rape, here's an article that encompasses all three issues (it may not be for the very faint hearted)-

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\02\02\story_2-2-2009_pg7_24

I appreciate that the word 'rape' may offend some and it is always less hassle in a forum of 20000 members to use words such as crush or destroy.

Martin, couldn't you guys ask the people who maintain the word filter to remove the word Pak i from the software and if anyone uses such an explicitly racist word, wouldn't it be better for other users to see and allow to report it rather than hide it.

 

[BroDeal]

BroDeal, when you diminish other people by calling them, eg, "supersensitive busybodies" you are acting as a bully.

It seems like a pretty accurate description to me. How else should I describe someone who reads typical forum banter and thinks to himself, "OMG! Someone used a word in a way I don't agree with. I should do something about this."? Of all the things to complain about in the world, words passing into slang use is what he complains about?

 

[Maxiton]

It seems like a pretty accurate description to me. How else should I describe someone who reads typical forum banter and thinks to himself, "OMG! Someone used a word in a way I don't agree with. I should do something about this."? Of all the things to complain about in the world, words passing into slang use is what he complains about?

He simply said that he'd prefer it not be used. This is a world-wide forum, as you know, read by people of all different backgrounds. Some of them are in former conflict zones where rape was used as a weapon of war. They may have mothers, sisters, brothers, or children who were raped. They may have been raped themselves.

If one in five women is raped at least once in her life, and, say, one in 100 men (the statistic for women is arguably real, the one for men I just made up), it's a cinch that lots of participants of this site have some kind of experience with rape. No one likes to talk about it, but it seems understandable that they wouldn't appreciate hearing the word used in a callous way, or a way that implies it's a sign of power. Doesn't it?

Or maybe someone who has no experience of rape simply finds callous use of the word offensive. Should we say they are "super-sensitive busybodies," or should we simply say, OK, no worries, and choose one of the other 500,000 English words?

 

[Ferminal]

The difficulty I have is that do we have to treat each word individually, and then come up with some ruling which is apparently the most fair and in the best interests of the forum.

When does a word become socially acceptable, or antisocial. We can't decide this, not a few moderators, not a few dozen members, yet this is the task we face.

Is it acceptable for Gilbert to destroy, murder, assault, obliterate, annihilate or wage war on the peloton, but unacceptable for him to rape it? Are we okay with Pat's reign being described as cancerous?

Personally I think the key is intent.

 

[thirteen]

I can't wait for some tard to go bongo bongo when I write about getting nazi about my diet for the last eight weeks before an endurance event.

Heck, what about the Soup Nazi? Surely such word usage is an insul to jews and to soup chefs. Ban it.

had to speak up about this... probably because of Seinfeld, i do not find it offensive used in that way... Jerry broke the taboo and brought it into american-speak for those of us of a certain age.

here, in europe (and, i'm sure, other places), they'd be appalled if someone did... not having the reference of the Soup Nazi episode makes a huge difference in how people will view it and get what the context is.

so i understand if people take offense at it, even if i do not -- and i am a jew.

i am also a female who was almost gang-raped in the midwest whilst in college when my religion was found.

who, of you guys that are decrying Susan's asking women for their take on the matter, has either been raped or come close?

i thought not. so, please, STFU.

 

[Maxiton]

The difficulty I have is that do we have to treat each word individually, and then come up with some ruling which is apparently the most fair and in the best interests of the forum.

When does a word become socially acceptable, or antisocial. We can't decide this, not a few moderators, not a few dozen members, yet this is the task we face.

Is it acceptable for Gilbert to destroy, murder, assault, obliterate, annihilate or wage war on the peloton, but unacceptable for him to rape it? Are we okay with Pat's reign being described as cancerous?

Personally I think the key is intent.

Definitely okay with the bold bit. I see what you're saying about intent, but personally I think this boils down to a question of civility. Would it be acceptable for Gilbert to blow his wad all over the peloton's face? I can come up with additional examples, but I think you get my point. Saying that he raped a race or a competitor or the entire peloton is just poor taste, and to me it makes him sound like he should be in jail. It definitely doesn't sound sporting.

 

[Anonymous]

He simply said that he'd prefer it not be used. This is a world-wide forum, as you know, read by people of all different backgrounds. Some of them are in former conflict zones where rape was used as a weapon of war. They may have mothers, sisters, brothers, or children who were raped. They may have been raped themselves

It is interesting to me that you post this considering the harshness of your post to me regarding the zombie Christ issue. Let me rework your words a bit here to see if I can illustrate my point.

"He is simply saying that he'd prefer not to see the sacred embodiment of his faith to be depicted as a cartoonish zombie with flesh falling off his face, and an implication that he wants to eat your brains. This is a world-wide forum, as you know, read my people of all different backgrounds. Some of them are in places where their religion endangers their very lives. Practicing Christianity (you can enter any religion into that line, I use Christianity as it is specific to the reference above) will get your female family members raped and you male family members killed. They may have been raped, or had family members raped and/or killed because of their religion."

The difference here appears to be that you regard censorship of things with which you have personal attachment of some form (you have not revealed your subjective reasoning, but have intimated that there is a personal link in some form to the word "rape") as less onerous than the censorship of something you have not such attachment to. Well, isn't that the form of reasoning used by anyone seeking to censor? How do you justify the harshness with which you undertook your admonishment of me (even when I was admitting that I had made a mistake) when you write the above words? Is your standard subjective or objective? Because you requested that in the future I use only a objective standard in relation to censorship, and then you turn around and use a subjective standard in relation to the word "rape." I think you mentioned hypocrisy to me in your posts regarding the topic of zombie Jesus. I think I mentioned that we are all hypocrites at some point. I did not realize you would provide clear example so quickly.

 

[Anonymous]

Definitely okay with the bold bit. I see what you're saying about intent, but personally I think this boils down to a question of civility. Would it be acceptable for Gilbert to blow his wad all over the peloton's face? I can come up with additional examples, but I think you get my point. Saying that he raped a race or a competitor or the entire peloton is just poor taste, and to me it makes him sound like he should be in jail. It definitely doesn't sound sporting.

Does it now? Well, then, the slipperiness of that slope is readily apparent, no?

I will be interested to see how you react here. Will you recognize the hypocrisy you are showing, or will you deny it and explain why under your subjective reasoning, this is different than the protestations of people who find other things to be so uncivil as to warrant their banishment from public forum?

 

[python]

a word of appreciation for susan..
(despite my fair share of being on the receiving end of here ‘wrath’)

i haven’t had a chance to follow the offending thread but having read through the last 2-3 pages, i feel i’ve got an idea. it’s too regretful that some of my favourite posters can’t appreciate the sensitivities (and most importantly - realities) involved both in gender-sensitive terms and being a female mod on here…can't speak for others, but being a dad, brother, and a son helps me.

it was stated rather clearly that the action was initiated by the site owner. case closed !

and why does she have to ask any user’s permission to solicit an opinion from an important cross-section of users ?…silly stuff

hat’s off to you, susan.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It seems like a pretty accurate description to me. How else should I describe someone who reads typical forum banter and thinks to himself, "OMG! Someone used a word in a way I don't agree with. I should do something about this."? Of all the things to complain about in the world, words passing into slang use is what he complains about?

So, as you are arguing about the use of a word you agree with are you a "notthatsupersensitive busybody"?

The blue is the key issue - other people do not think it is "typical forum banter".

I don't think its accurate to suggest that the term has passed in to slang - sure I have heard its use, a friend used it recently in relation to his bank charges - entirely for its "cause & effect" - but it certainly hasn't passed in to everyday slang.

And you are bang on about the word filter - but rather than having a discussion on which words to include, I would nearly advocate switch it off - but of course that would require posters being able to use good judgement in what context to use certain words or phrases - which is where we are now.

 

[Anonymous]

a word of appreciation for susan..
(despite my fair share of being on the receiving end of here ‘wrath’)

i haven’t had a chance to follow the offending thread but having read through the last 2-3 pages, i feel i’ve got an idea. it’s too regretful that some of my favourite posters can’t appreciate the sensitivities (and most importantly - realities) involved both in gender-sensitive terms and being a female mod on here…can't speak for others, but being a dad, brother, and a son helps me.

it was stated rather clearly that the action was initiated by the site owner. case closed !

and why does she have to ask any user’s permission to solicit an opinion from an important cross-section of users ?…silly stuff

hat’s off to you, susan.

It isn't that I don't appreciate anyone's sensitivities. It is that I do not expect you to change your behavior because of mine. I also believe that ceding censorship authority based on the subjective sensitivities of another person is a morally inferior position to allowing thought to be expressed freely.

And there is no need to point out that this is a commercial forum, and thus not relevant in terms of the issue of free speech in society as a whole. I am completely aware of that fact, so my point is NOT to apply the broadest standard of free speech prohibition imaginable to this forum. It is to point out that any decision regarding free speech should begin with an objective standard (that being that limitation of free speech is per se unwarrantable) and then justifications for reasonable exclusions of that standard should be articulated and applied with caution and in light of a better option. "Sometimes good is the enemy of the best." When deviating from the best, reasoning should be solid and applicable to a wide range of action, and not singular instances of subjective offense. A perfect example of a wider application would be the ban on profanity, as the reasoning for that prohibition on a commercial site are numerous and easily articulable.

In my opinion, this is a borderline subject, but one that I feel falls on the more narrow end of that spectrum, and thus not an appropriate circumstance to apply a standard that will affect a wider spectrum of speech in the future. I also recognize that is simply my opinion.

None of that has anything to do with the implication (as I saw it) in Susan's statement that painted the people defending the usage of the word "rape" as in some minor way defending rape. Because the implication is that men are somehow less sensitive to the issue of rape because we are predominately the rapists in society. I find the minimal implication onerous regardless of how minimal the suggestion.

 

[gregod]

Don't intend to be an advocate for the mods here, but it's clear they have a difficult job.
<snip>.

i disagree. i think they have an easy job and make it difficult by doing too much.

I get why people, myself included, are uncomfortable with politics and religion.
<snip>

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 can give you one reason. the discussions in the general forum are the most interesting to me and keep me coming to the site (and seeing and clicking on the advertising) everyday. if it weren't for the free form/chaos and general politics threads i would probably only visit CN once a week or so from october to march. maybe others feel the same.

I can't wait for some tard to go bongo bongo when I write about getting nazi about my diet for the last eight weeks before an endurance event.

Heck, what about the Soup Nazi? Surely such word usage is an insul to jews and to soup chefs. Ban it.

as a person who is very proud of my jewish heritage, i am completely NOT offended by the word "nazi". it has come to mean anyone who is being dictatorial or even just unreasonable; and it is kind of funny. that said, i would be careful using it around germans. i once saw a guy who was arguing with his (very non-jewish) german landlord and he called the landlord a nazi and got knocked out for it. this being the intertubes, i think you are safe. but even if i were offended by it, it is much more interesting and productive to discuss why it should or should not be used than to ban it by fiat.

The Pakistan issue shows how much difficulty there is in all this. <snip>

why can we write "assess" which contains "a s s" and not "pak!stan" just because it contains "p a k i"?

with regard to the rape word itself, <snip>.

i totally missed this. where did the rape discussion come from? nevermind. i don't think i want to dance in that minefield.

 

[Martin318is]

why can we write "assess" which contains "a s s" and not "pak!stan" just because it contains "p a k i"?

it requires an update of the list which is maintained elsewhere. The request has gone in to fix it but I dont know how long it will take to get it done

 

[Maxiton]

It is interesting to me that you post this considering the harshness of your post to me regarding the zombie Christ issue. Let me rework your words a bit here to see if I can illustrate my point.

Whoa, Nellie. According to you, I was right and you were wrong and you were totally okay with what I said because (again, according to you) you "deserved the criticism". But I guess not really, huh?

I'll be happy to address your post in detail in a few hours, if that's what you really want. Right now I have some commitments outside this forum that require my time. So I'll just apologize again for having been harsh while being right (which always stings more than being harsh but wrong).

The difference here appears to be that you regard censorship of things with which you have personal attachment of some form (you have not revealed your subjective reasoning, but have intimated that there is a personal link in some form to the word "rape") <snipped for now>

Where did you get that? Where did I imply that? I was simply doing what you Christians are supposed to be doing: putting myself in my brother's shoes. Exercising some empathy, a little compassion.

Let me just add this: I was surprised to hear of your deeply held Christian faith. Why? Mostly because you are one of those who chortles loudest and dances a gleeful little jig at the prospect of prison rape for Lance Armstrong (when you're not busy calling his mother a whore, and other nasty stuff).

I'll get back to this later.

 

[gregod]

it requires an update of the list which is maintained elsewhere. The request has gone in to fix it but I dont know how long it will take to get it done

interesting. a bizarre list. why would anyone think to include pakistan in that list is beyond me. also, why would parts of words be included in the list at all? there are japanese names that when written in the alphabet contain the consecutive letters "s h i & t" and that would be censored. (i actually encountered this once.) i also knew of a kazakh rider whose name when rendered from cyrillic into the roman alphabet had the consecutive letters "f u c & k" in his name.

i know it's not you people's fault, but it is strange, annoying and unnecessary.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I can give you one reason. the discussions in the general forum are the most interesting to me and keep me coming to the site (and seeing and clicking on the advertising) everyday. if it weren't for the free form/chaos and general politics threads i would probably only visit CN once a week or so from october to march. maybe others feel the same.

You are not reading me right, I totally value the general area, I firmly believe this is/has-become a community, with a wide range of interests, and cycling as the common denominator. I love that CN has set up the Forum so that folk can engage in much much more. I thoroughly enjoy the chaos thread, wish I had seen it earlier.

The key word you missed is "all". I saying that I don't share the proposition of some that "everything goes". "Or should go". Most things already go, and CN should be applauded for that. I think CN already gives posters here a lot of rope to play with. That certain topics are curtailed, and only at the outlier edges, is more than reasonable, in my eyes. Sex, religion, politics, drugs, violence, and the way folk interact here. For people who like to push the few boundaries in places on this site, I think it is a reasonable position from CN that they take their more outlier interests and topics elsewhere. That still leaves room for just about anything here. Off-topic too. Let's not lose sight of that, by highlighting the few instances in which mods, or CN itself, decide to intervene.

I refuse to believe that the removal of one (type of) image will stop folk from having fun in the chaos thread. I also refuse to believe that simply because "rape" is innocent slang for some, in the context in which it was used, that we have floored free speech on this site, simply by ruling for this particular word that we would prefer an alternative to express the exact same idea (and there are plenty available). We cater for far too many people and regions where using "to rape" in any power-setting in which it suggests it is something to admire or strive for, to ignore that it provokes very uncomfortable connotations. For that reason it was removed (without sanctions, as we certainly understand there was no harmful intent at all). I refuse to believe that that small action warrents this level of nit-picking.

You can pretty much express any idea you want on CN, the restriction is mostly only applied to how you say it, in some more outlier cases, or on some more outlier topics.

I will leave in the middle if I feel if folk should respond the way they do whne they feel uncomfortable or report or PM us, or MTFU as some profess, but it is a simple fact that some stuff here does evoke strong responses in fellow-posters from time to time, rightly or wrongly. And as CN, and as mods, "we" have to deal with the real world, not the idealised version that some might wish it was, or think it should be. We don't rule in one direction only. Most cases are grey by definition, and bound to displease someone.

I also want to stress, again, that it might be worth making an internal check, and put "what you can do here" vs "what you can't do" on two scales, and see how it stacks up. It is a simple reality that the more folk make real issues out of smaller stuff, without showing any gratitude or expressing fondness for the efforts of CN and mods to let you all get away with murder from time to time, the chances are that what is stacked on "what you can't do" will become bigger, not smaller. That is not a threat, but it is how I have seen things evolve organically. I don't like that, but it is a reality. I feel it is something to take into account. I am saying it because I would deplore it if we lost areas/topics because CN decides that it just ain't worth it, or because the mods are unable to cope with what it triggers.

Religion is deemed a sensitive subject and will be kept out of some threads in certain contexts (and most of you will know exactly when, even those that post it), and "rape" is deemed a word with too much baggage for too many people. I refuse to believe that those two attitudes taken by a cycling site are worthy of grandstanding. On a free-speech site, yes. Most certainly. With me leading the charge. Here? Not so sure.

 

[Anonymous]

Whoa, Nellie. According to you, I was right and you were wrong and you were totally okay with what I said because (again, according to you) you "deserved the criticism". But I guess not really, huh?

Oh no, you were right. You are just being a hypocrite now.

I'll be happy to address your post in detail in a few hours, if that's what you really want. Right now I have some commitments outside this forum that require my time. So I'll just apologize again for having been harsh while being right (which always stings more than being harsh but wrong).

I am in class, so no problem there. Nor do I really need a response because at this point, I don't think you are going to change my mind regarding how this time is different. My only real point is that I hope your conscience was as harsh on you as you were on me.

Where did you get that? Where did I imply that? I was simply doing what you Christians are supposed to be doing: putting myself in my brother's shoes. Exercising some empathy, a little compassion.

Christians are hypocrites too, and you were being like them in that respect also.

Let me just add this: I was surprised to hear of your deeply held Christian faith. Why? Mostly because you are one of those who chortles loudest and dances a gleeful little jig at the prospect of prison rape for Lance Armstrong (when you're not busy calling his mother a whore, and other nasty stuff).

I'll get back to this later.

Really, I joy and "dance?" Post the numerous quotes of mine as I am sure you have proof and are not pulling something out of your a$$.

Then please post the quotes I made regarding Linda Armstrong being a "wh*re."

I am unsurprised that you chose to deny your hypocrisy though. Me, I admitted my hypocrisy. You act much like a fundamentalist Christian and deny you could possibly be a hypocrite. Doesn't change the fact that you are a hypocrite though.

Let me add this, I am surprised to hear that you are not a fundamentalist Christian, you sure act like one.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I hate off season coz we get more arguing in this forum of ours.

 

[ElChingon]

I hate off season coz we get more arguing in this forum of ours.

I disagree!

 

[Anonymous]

Religion is deemed a sensitive subject and will be kept out of some threads in certain contexts (and most of you will know exactly when, even those that post it), and "rape" is deemed a word with too much baggage for too many people. I refuse to believe that those two attitudes taken by a cycling site are worthy of grandstanding. On a free-speech site, yes. Most certainly. With me leading the charge. Here? Not so sure.

It annoys me to hell when people use the word rape as "to defeat someone, or to own/annoy someone"

It should be used in one context only and that context is decidedly unpleasant.

 

[usedtobefast]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender

did anyone read this? and what about that word "kill"?

 

[usedtobefast]

The difficulty I have is that do we have to treat each word individually, and then come up with some ruling which is apparently the most fair and in the best interests of the forum.

When does a word become socially acceptable, or antisocial. We can't decide this, not a few moderators, not a few dozen members, yet this is the task we face.

Is it acceptable for Gilbert to destroy, murder, assault, obliterate, annihilate or wage war on the peloton, but unacceptable for him to rape it? Are we okay with Pat's reign being described as cancerous?

Personally I think the key is intent.

they are after all,words,not deeds. words have power for sure,but the context is very important.

 

[BroDeal]

It annoys me to hell when people use the word rape as "to defeat someone, or to own/annoy someone"

It should be used in one context only and that context is decidedly unpleasant.