New Forum! Feedback thread

[BlueRoads]

Just because of the headline(s)?

Since usually nobody is answering when you have questions or suggestions regarding the forum I suppose they aren't interested in the forum at all, but they are afraid that problematic topics/ posts may appear which would put them into problems. In a way I can understand it, the operators of a site are responsible for such things. So I guess it was pretty proactive in order to not having to watch every post.
(The honest question is whether it wouldn't be better to have another cycling forum than this which seems to stand on fragile feet at the moment.)

 

[King Boonen]

Just because of the headline(s)?

I'll play the mind reading game but I would guess that you're probably as capable as I am. My suggestion would be that objectifying people, whether the comments are perceived as nice or not (and to be clear some weren't and these continued before I had chance to come back and check after my initial posts) is irrelevant to discussing cycling and something that, especially in women's sport, is detrimental and something people have been fighting against for a long time.

 

[fmk_RoI]

When this conversation started last week I hoped that the soul searching engendered by the deletions might lead to enlightenment. But it's clear in the most recent contributions that that's not going to happen and we're back to the usual playbook, seeing ourselves as champions of free speech oppressed by tyrannical rulers, even down to sophomoronic references to Orwell (was Winston Smith really chucked in Room 101 cause he was perving out on people in Lycra? I seem to have forgotten that chapter).

That being the case:

"It was totally unacceptable and not what we stand for as an editorial team or title. As soon as it was brought to our attention the thread was deleted. "

https://twitter.com/x/status/1455945638496063489

View: https://twitter.com/dnlbenson/status/1455945638496063489


If you are unable to learn from cases like Nassar, Bracke et all why such threads are problematic, if you are unable to see how such threads damage the ability of CN to report on such cases, that explanation isn't going to lead you to enlightenment, I know. But be clear: you are not the ones being oppressed.

 

[BlueRoads]

When this conversation started last week I hoped that the soul searching engendered by the deletions might lead to enlightenment. But it's clear in the most recent contributions that that's not going to happen and we're back to the usual playbook, seeing ourselves as champions of free speech oppressed by tyrannical rulers, even down to sophomoronic references to Orwell (was Winston Smith really chucked in Room 101 cause he was perving out on people in Lycra? I seem to have forgotten that chapter).

That being the case:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1455945638496063489

View: https://twitter.com/dnlbenson/status/1455945638496063489


If you are unable to learn from cases like Nassar, Bracke et all why such threads are problematic, if you are unable to see how such threads damage the ability of CN to report on such cases, that explanation isn't going to lead you to enlightenment, I know. But be clear: you are not the ones being oppressed.

Okay, short response first: "1984" was what Gigs said and as far as I remember he was the one who most openly stated that he disliked the thread very much, so I'm 100% sure 1984 was irony. Nobody here feels oppressed because the threads were taken down. I suppose some, like me, didn't see it necessary, but that doesn't mean we want to fight to keep them.

 

[BlueRoads]

Slightly longer response: It's not like I have never had any contact to such issues, actually I have experienced enough sexism, objectification, grabbing and so on in my everyday life (and also have talked to athletes who have experienced bad comments and even sexual abuse) to have an idea.
Still I stand to my opinion that talking about "sexiness" of an athlete, whether female or male, isn't harmful per se. It can be called objectification, but it is something that we often do in our everyday life. I'd say it's part of our human experience. Talking about people to friends or family I might eventually state that I find a certain person super attractive or "sexy". In that moment I objectify them. I shouldn't do it if I respected them as absolute subjects (what a weird word, actually, the ideo of the one controlling things is the one sub-iect-ed to themselves), but it would be impossible to live without seeing other people as "objects" from time to time, whether that is sexual or not. We also do it when we speak or think of someone as a hinderance in our plans, someone who we need to phone and pay attention to at work in a row of clients, and so on. Even in relationships we do it all the time. Actually, we do it when we just watch someone (which is the essence of what we do as sports viewers.)
In my opinion that is okay as long as it stays momentary and we are able to see the feelings and thoughts of a person in the next moment. As long as it is only part of our experience.
One problem surely is that we, as forum members, stay anonyme for the athletes who are therefor not able to react by objectification of us. On the other hand it is clear that they are not interested in getting to know us and do that, so I think the power balance doesn't switch in our favour.

To connect threads as such to the abuse that many, often female, athletes, have to suffer, seems a simplification to me. When people talk about, let's say, DiCaprio's sexyness that will not make him an easier target for sexual abuse. In some societies grown up women will be hidden behind clothing and nobody is allowed to talk about them in regards to sex at all (for instance because they are married), but that will not make them safe from abuse. I don't deny that there is a certain link between the objectification we do when we talk about the sexiness of an athlete and the behaviour some athletes will have to suffer in real life, but I think it is not what forms the problem, and it is possible to talk about the attraction someone has on us without that leading to abuse and intrusiveness.

 

[fmk_RoI]

One problem surely is that we, as forum members, stay anonyme for the athletes who are therefor not able to react by objectification of us.

WRT anonymity: speak for yourself.

Also, if you think that the correct response to someone objectifying you is for you to objectify them then there really is no point is discussing this further. Even five-year-olds are taught that wrong plus wrong does not equal right.

 

[BlueRoads]

WRT anonymity: speak for yourself.

Also, if you think that the correct response to someone objectifying you is for you to objectify them then there really is no point is discussing this further. Even five-year-olds are taught that wrong plus wrong does not equal right.

In regards to anonymity I am speaking of myself and the majority here. (I wouldn't have a problem with "outing" myself in case a cyclist I talked about feels insulted or wronged by me, though...)

Not "the correct response". In a normal meeting or conversation there is the possibility that a does it to b, and b does it to a. In case none of them is in a superior position that equals the power balance. If a bunch of anonyme people talk about a public person, this power balance shifts - like I said on the other hand the interest that this "bunch" has is very probably not reciprocated, so the balance shifts back.

But since your tone is always so aggressive that I find it hard to have a conversation with you at all and you are obviously not interested in what I think you are right, this discussion is actually useless.

 

[fmk_RoI]

But since your tone is always so aggressive

You read tone. And the site does offer guidance advising against doing that. But you know best...

 

[RedheadDane]

The way I see it, it's perfectly natural to think that a rider - like any other person - is handsome/pretty/cute/sexy/whatever, and to express that, whether it's in said rider's personal thread, a race thread - if said rider is doing/has just done something noteworthy - or, indeed, a thread designated to discussing those things.
Of course it's a fine line, as we saw with the erstwhile Babes on Bikes thread, or the Naked Babes With (Maybe) a Bike in the Picture thread as it sort of evolved into. As I mentioned when I started the Women's thread; that was not my intention, I just thought that maybe the "powers that be" would trust people to not it into anything like that.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I just thought that maybe the "powers that be" would trust people to not it into anything like that.

How did that work out, did everyone abide by your intentions and the moderators had absolutely nothing to do throughout the time the threads were live?

 

[RedheadDane]

How did that work out, did everyone abide by your intentions and the moderators had absolutely nothing to do throughout the time the threads were live?

There was once where someone posted a problematic issue, but we convinved them to take it down.

 

[fmk_RoI]

There was once where someone posted a problematic issue, but we convinved them to take it down.

Just the once, really? And you policed it yourselves and the moderators had no work to do on the threads, left them alone to look after themselves?

 

[RedheadDane]

Just the once, really? And you policed it yourselves and the moderators had no work to do on the threads, left them alone to look after themselves?

(I meant "problematic picture"...)
There might have been other cases, but surely that wouldn't have been much different from any such posts being made elsewhere. It just seems a bit heavy-handed to me to immediately scream "THIS IS OBJECTIFICATION!" within days of a thread being revived/started. Even though discussions about riders' looks can just as easily happen in specific rider threads, just take the discussion about Roglic needing to put on some weight. In fact, rider threads can sometimes get really heated.

But mostly it seems - from KB's post - that the Admins, the above-the-Mods people, didn't even trust the mods. After all; the threads just got deleted, with no prior warning, and even the mods don't know why.

 

[fmk_RoI]

There might have been other cases,

So despite your best intentions (see: road to hell; worst excuses; etc) all was not well on the threads and they were already, even in the short run, (euphemism alert) "problematic", let alone worrying about the long run.

It just seems a bit heavy-handed to me to immediately scream "THIS IS OBJECTIFICATION!" within days of a thread being revived/started.

Maybe you weren't paying attention, but objectification is an issue some people have with the threads but it is not the given reason for why they were deleted. That was: "It was totally unacceptable and not what we stand for as an editorial team or title. As soon as it was brought to our attention the thread was deleted."

 

[BlueRoads]

If it was not the objectification per se by talking about sexiness of cyclists I wouldn't know what else was problematic. The only problematic picture I saw was of Marion Rousse - I am also no fan of such pictures in sports forums, but since it was from a photo shoot, so something she was very much okay with and in fact wanted people to see, it wasn't exactly outragious. Otherwise it was pictures, like I said, mostly taken from PCS I think - head and shoulder pictures, if at all. Okay, in the men's thread there were pictures of Roglic with a naked upper body - again, pictures he himself posts on his social media, not some holiday photos the paparazzi took. The talk I saw wasn't derogatory at all, like I said, it wasn't rating, there was no talk about body measures or features (at least in the female thread), or anything that I would find problematic. Maybe the mods took other parts out before I saw them, but I would say the discussion was really civil. So the problem must have been the objectification itself as soon as you talk about the sexiness of a (female?) athlete.

If, however, any cyclist that was talked about, felt uneasy about it, I would totally support the taking down. Otherwise I would think it a bit of an overreaction, especially the term "totally unacceptable" seems a bit much for me, like it is outragious to talk about someone being attractive. "We don't want anyone to feel uneasy, don't want to build a road to lookism" would probably be more like what I would have used. But well, okay, it's not like the world needed these threads.

 

[RedheadDane]

That was: "It was totally unacceptable and not what we stand for as an editorial team or title. As soon as it was brought to our attention the thread was deleted."

Except, we don't know why exactly those threads got deleted. Coz... there was absolutely no communication. Not even KB - who is, in fact, a Mod - knows for sure why.
And that is my main issue with the complete removals; the complete lack of communication. Mostly when threads get locked - and the people in charge might for whatever reason have found it necessary to prevent any more postings - they get, well... locked, and often with a brief explanation as to why.
In this case - or rather, in these cases - though, just... "pffff! Gone!" Were those threads really so bad - or rather, did they really have the risk of becoming so bad - that they needed to not just be locked, but completely erased, if not from the face of Earth, then from the face of the forum?

 

[Sciatic]

Slightly longer response: It's not like I have never had any contact to such issues, actually I have experienced enough sexism, objectification, grabbing and so on in my everyday life (and also have talked to athletes who have experienced bad comments and even sexual abuse) to have an idea.
Still I stand to my opinion that talking about "sexiness" of an athlete, whether female or male, isn't harmful per se. It can be called objectification, but it is something that we often do in our everyday life. I'd say it's part of our human experience. Talking about people to friends or family I might eventually state that I find a certain person super attractive or "sexy". In that moment I objectify them. I shouldn't do it if I respected them as absolute subjects (what a weird word, actually, the ideo of the one controlling things is the one sub-iect-ed to themselves), but it would be impossible to live without seeing other people as "objects" from time to time, whether that is sexual or not. We also do it when we speak or think of someone as a hinderance in our plans, someone who we need to phone and pay attention to at work in a row of clients, and so on. Even in relationships we do it all the time. Actually, we do it when we just watch someone (which is the essence of what we do as sports viewers.)
In my opinion that is okay as long as it stays momentary and we are able to see the feelings and thoughts of a person in the next moment. As long as it is only part of our experience.
One problem surely is that we, as forum members, stay anonyme for the athletes who are therefor not able to react by objectification of us. On the other hand it is clear that they are not interested in getting to know us and do that, so I think the power balance doesn't switch in our favour.

To connect threads as such to the abuse that many, often female, athletes, have to suffer, seems a simplification to me. When people talk about, let's say, DiCaprio's sexyness that will not make him an easier target for sexual abuse. In some societies grown up women will be hidden behind clothing and nobody is allowed to talk about them in regards to sex at all (for instance because they are married), but that will not make them safe from abuse. I don't deny that there is a certain link between the objectification we do when we talk about the sexiness of an athlete and the behaviour some athletes will have to suffer in real life, but I think it is not what forms the problem, and it is possible to talk about the attraction someone has on us without that leading to abuse and intrusiveness.

I believe that, unfortunately, your perspective is much too sophisticated and nuanced for the level at which most of our society operates (i.e., polarization of almost any issue) at right now. But I appreciate your thoughtfulness and honesty!

 

[Tricycle Rider]

You read tone. And the site does offer guidance advising against doing that. But you know best...

Tone can go both ways though, can't it? As in how you meant to write it can be grossly misinterpreted in how you meant for it to actually come across?

 

[King Boonen]

Except, we don't know why exactly those threads got deleted. Coz... there was absolutely no communication. Not even KB - who is, in fact, a Mod - knows for sure why.
And that is my main issue with the complete removals; the complete lack of communication. Mostly when threads get locked - and the people in charge might for whatever reason have found it necessary to prevent any more postings - they get, well... locked, and often with a brief explanation as to why.
In this case - or rather, in these cases - though, just... "pffff! Gone!" Were those threads really so bad - or rather, did they really have the risk of becoming so bad - that they needed to not just be locked, but completely erased, if not from the face of Earth, then from the face of the forum?

I don't follow Dan Benson on Twitter, but fmk_RoI has shared a tweet stating why the threads were deleted in this thread.

Usually when threads get removed it's by the mods, and in the majority of cases it's a thread that was fine that strayed over the line. Rather than remove all the content we generally lock the thread so people can still see the posts. In this case it was deemed that the threads shouldn't have even been started, so deleting seems to be the right option.

There's also a hang over from the old forum software. In the past deleting threads would instantly remove all the content from the forum. This meant, if a thread was going to be closed due to trolling or arguments and we needed to go back and see what was posted, our only option was to lock it. Half the time the thread would then just remain locked, because we'd sorted out whatever action needed to be taken and it had disappeared from the front page, so deleting it was forgotten about or felt pointless. Now the deleted threads, and posts, are still visible to the mods.

 

[fmk_RoI]

The only problematic picture I saw was of Marion Rousse - I am also no fan of such pictures in sports forums, but since it was from a photo shoot, so something she was very much okay with and in fact wanted people to see, it wasn't exactly outragious.

If a rider had done a shoot for one of those old fashioned 'gentlemen's magazines' more suited to an OB-GYN clinic, would it be appropriate to post pictures from it on this forum? You're basically saying it would, that the rider has in effect given you permission to post it wherever you want. That, some might say, is outrageous.

The Rousse photo may have been appropriate in a 90s lads mag like FHM or Loaded but even you seem to be able to almost glimpse out of the corner of your eye that, maybe, with careful consideration, you know, here it was not quite appropriate. But I suppose that, unlike the one occasion when someone posted a problematic issue and you collectively convinced them to take it down, as the Rousse picture stayed on the forum no one actually thought it to be really problematic or inappropriate.

Now, while talking about the Rousse picture offers a fascinating insight into your thought processes ("a big girl made me do it and ran away", which scarily reads as "she was asking for it" if you write it backwards) it's kind of a red herring here. Ok, if you're looking for one single issue that caused the threads to be deleted I can see how you might want to fixate on something like that. And, trust me, I do see why you might want to seek a single issue cause. I get it, I really do, a single problematic post causing the deletion would absolve you of any responsibility for what went on. It would offer you the glimmer of a hope that, once things die down, you can try for Babes on Bikes IV - Harder To Kill Than Even A South African WorldTour Team'. Good luck with that.

But, sadly, the threads weren't deleted because of a single post. We've seen why they were deleted. They were totally unacceptable. Totally. Start to finish and all points in between. They were out of line with what CN and its editorial team stand for.

Me, I thought that that last part in particular was obvious to anyone who actually reads CN but what do I know, eh, I ain't no sophisticate and can't even spell nuanced.

 

[BlueRoads]

If a rider had done a shoot for one of those old fashioned 'gentlemen's magazines' more suited to an OB-GYN clinic, would it be appropriate to post pictures from it on this forum? You're basically saying it would, that the rider has in effect given you permission to post it wherever you want. That, some might say, is outrageous.

The Rousse photo may have been appropriate in a 90s lads mag like FHM or Loaded but even you seem to be able to almost glimpse out of the corner of your eye that, maybe, with careful consideration, you know, here it was not quite appropriate. But I suppose that, unlike the one occasion when someone posted a problematic issue and you collectively convinced them to take it down, as the Rousse picture stayed on the forum no one actually thought it to be really problematic or inappropriate.

Now, while talking about the Rousse picture offers a fascinating insight into your thought processes ("a big girl made me do it and ran away", which scarily reads as "she was asking for it" if you write it backwards) it's kind of a red herring here. Ok, if you're looking for one single issue that caused the threads to be deleted I can see how you might want to fixate on something like that. And, trust me, I do see why you might want to seek a single issue cause. I get it, I really do, a single problematic post causing the deletion would absolve you of any responsibility for what went on. It would offer you the glimmer of a hope that, once things die down, you can try for Babes on Bikes IV - Harder To Kill Than Even A South African WorldTour Team'. Good luck with that.

But, sadly, the threads weren't deleted because of a single post. We've seen why they were deleted. They were totally unacceptable. Totally. Start to finish and all points in between. They were out of line with what CN and its editorial team stand for.

Me, I thought that that last part in particular was obvious to anyone who actually reads CN but what do I know, eh, I ain't no sophisticate and can't even spell nuanced.

Don't be so silly. And please stop placing ridiculous words and thoughts in my mouth.

 

[Gigs_98]

First of all, as it has already been pointed out, my 1984 response was sarcastic.

Aside from that, even though I am among those welcoming the deletion of the thread, I must admit that most comments in it weren't overly problematic so I feel like calling it totally unacceptable as a whole is a bit unfair. At least the intention of the OP didn't seem bad (I really trust @RedheadDane on that).

But even if you think that talking about the attractiveness of athletes, without sexualizing them, is perfectly alright there are two reasons why I still think it's good that the thread is gone.

Firstly, if 9 out of 10 posts aren't problematic but the 10th is, should we just be ok with that and put the entire blame on the 10th person? If it's completely foreseeable that some thread will 100% definitely result in cases objectification and sexualization (and let's be real, there really was a 100% chance of that happening) should we just ignore that and instead celebrate for 10 minutes until it happens again? Even if you are ok with 9/10 posts I think the 10th has an importance far exceeding the other 9 combined. I just wouldn't to keep a thread alive by commenting in it if I knew that would spawn future posts I wouldn't be ok with.

And then secondly, and I feel like this will be even more important to the people from the website, how does such a thread look to the outside? What's the first reaction of someone wanting to discuss cycling on a forum and the first thing they see is a thread about the attractiveness of female riders. I know that my first reaction would be "this is clearly not my kind of forum" and I would leave the site without ever even reading the thread. Make of that a "people are only ever reading the headlines" story if you want to, but on the internet I'm just not having any sort of trust in communities not to get problematic as soon as the attractiveness of women is mentioned. I have simply had too many bad experiences to stay an optimist in that regard. If I had never been on this forum and read that thread title I would expect this to be a place overflowing with toxic masculinity, which in reality it gladly really isn't. And we are honestly doing ourselves a favor if we don't portray this forum as something that it isn't.

 

[Red Rick]

First of all, as it has already been pointed out, my 1984 response was sarcastic.

Aside from that, even though I am among those welcoming the deletion of the thread, I must admit that most comments in it weren't overly problematic so I feel like calling it totally unacceptable as a whole is a bit unfair. At least the intention of the OP didn't seem bad (I really trust @RedheadDane on that).

But even if you think that talking about the attractiveness of athletes, without sexualizing them, is perfectly alright there are two reasons why I still think it's good that the thread is gone.

Firstly, if 9 out of 10 posts aren't problematic but the 10th is, should we just be ok with that and put the entire blame on the 10th person? If it's completely foreseeable that some thread will 100% definitely result in cases objectification and sexualization (and let's be real, there really was a 100% chance of that happening) should we just ignore that and instead celebrate for 10 minutes until it happens again? Even if you are ok with 9/10 posts I think the 10th has an importance far exceeding the other 9 combined. I just wouldn't to keep a thread alive by commenting in it if I knew that would spawn future posts I wouldn't be ok with.

And then secondly, and I feel like this will be even more important to the people from the website, how does such a thread look to the outside? What's the first reaction of someone wanting to discuss cycling on a forum and the first thing they see is a thread about the attractiveness of female riders. I know that my first reaction would be "this is clearly not my kind of forum" and I would leave the site without ever even reading the thread. Make of that a "people are only ever reading the headlines" story if you want to, but on the internet I'm just not having any sort of trust in communities not to get problematic as soon as the attractiveness of women is mentioned. I have simply had too many bad experiences to stay an optimist in that regard. If I had never been on this forum and read that thread title I would expect this to be a place overflowing with toxic masculinity, which in reality it gladly really isn't. And we are honestly doing ourselves a favor if we don't portray this forum as something that it isn't.

It was probably inevitable the womens thread would devolve into political talk rapidly and get deleted for that reason anyway, and that similarly the no politics rule largely stops most discussion about the thread dead in its tracks. I could perhaps see the argument that if it's tolerated it should be in the non-cycling section

 

[RedheadDane]

I don't follow Dan Benson on Twitter, but fmk_RoI has shared a tweet stating why the threads were deleted in this thread.

So that's how they communicate? Tweet stuff, and then just hope someone will relay the message?

At least the intention of the OP didn't seem bad (I really trust @RedheadDane on that).

I can't say what the intention of the OP of the men's thread were. But, yeah... mine was basically tongue-in-check, a play on the fact that if there is a men's thread, why not a women's? (And I figured it was better that I, a woman, made it.)

What I'd like to know is; what would the reaction had been if the word "sexiest" had not appeared in the titles of those threads?

 

[fmk_RoI]

So that's how they communicate? Tweet stuff, and then just hope someone will relay the message?

If you look closely you'll see that Benson was replying to something.