New Forum! Feedback thread

[fmk_RoI]

If an explanation had been posted - including why the threads were deemed "totally uacceptable" - then we'd have a better understanding of what's acceptable.

So you'd teat it as the opening of a discussion and we'd still be wanging on about it today. Happily, we've been able to get this far without CN's editor having to explain himself to you. Makes you wonder why we really need him, doesn't it?

We aren't allowed to create specific threads discussing riders we find good-looking. What about mentioning it elsewhere?

Have you tried asking a moderator? I'm guessing this has been a learning experience for them, too. Oh, but hang on a minute, I've just realised: you don't ask, you expect.

 

[RedheadDane]

So you'd teat it as the opening of a discussion and we'd still be wanging on about it today.

Wow, that's the exact opposite of what I wrote. If an explanation had been posted I wouldn't need to wonder- and ask - what was totally unacceptable about them, and what kind of posts to avoid in the future. Well, I still don't really know the last bit...

As for asking the Mods, the Mods communicate. It's communicating with the Admins - DB, Shaines, and whatever the heck they're called - that's the issue. Seems like they don't even communicate with the Mods, as shown by KB initially not knowing why.

 

[fmk_RoI]

If an explanation had been posted I wouldn't need to wonder- and ask - what was totally unacceptable about them, and what kind of posts to avoid in the future.

The explanation would, of course, have to be acceptable to you. And, thus far, no explanations from others have been acceptable, to you. Why should anyone assume even CN's editor could get through to you?

 

[RedheadDane]

The explanation would, of course, have to be acceptable to you. And, thus far, no explanations from others have been acceptable, to you. Why should anyone assume even CN's editor could get through to you?

It would have to make sense. A simple "According to forum rule so-and-so" would make sense.

 

[fmk_RoI]

It would have to make sense. A simple "According to forum rule so-and-so" would make sense.

As I said.

Look, as asking the question is clearly beneath you let me do it for you: @Red Rick , @King Boonen , can you offer any guidance on this? If a single Lovely Girls thread is totally unacceptable would I get away with creating a couple of dozen individual Lovely Girl threads instead? Asking for a friend.

 

[RedheadDane]

As I said.

Look, as asking the question is clearly beneath you let me do it for you: @Red Rick , @King Boonen , can you offer any guidance on this? If a single Lovely Girls thread is totally unacceptable would I get away with creating a couple of dozen individual Lovely Girl threads instead? Asking for a friend.

It wasn't the Mods who made the decision to delete the threads.

 

[Red Rick]

As I said.

Look, as asking the question is clearly beneath you let me do it for you: @Red Rick , @King Boonen , can you offer any guidance on this? If a single Lovely Girls thread is totally unacceptable would I get away with creating a couple of dozen individual Lovely Girl threads instead? Asking for a friend.

It would fall under the G.R.A.P.E.S rule. Dan Benson was abundantly clear in his tweet. In the future we'll delete such threads asap.

 

[fmk_RoI]

It wasn't the Mods who made the decision to delete the threads.

No, but it'll be the mods who'll have to ban you should you go for Babes on Bikes IV. Don't you want to hear what they have to say on this, or are you really set on dragging CN's editor down here to explain himself to you personally?

 

[fmk_RoI]

It would fall under the G.R.A.P.E.S rule. Dan Benson was abundantly clear in his tweet. In the future we'll delete such threads asap.

Thanks! I can't believe I thought that was so difficult to grasp that I actually needed to ask.

 

[RedheadDane]

It would fall under the G.R.A.P.E.S rule. Dan Benson was abundantly clear in his tweet. In the future we'll delete such threads asap.

His tweet? He couldn't even be bothered sending you a PM through the forum?

No, but it'll be the mods who'll have to ban you should you go for Babes on Bikes IV. Don't you want to hear what they have to say on this, or are you really set on dragging CN's editor down here to explain himself to you personally?

I understand by now that a new thread wouldn't be acceptable. My question is about individual posts. Am I allowed to mention if I find a rider cute?
As for what the Mods have to say; one of KB's first post in this discussion was basically "I know as little as you do..."

 

[King Boonen]

His tweet? He couldn't even be bothered sending you a PM through the forum?

I don't think any of the current mods have exchanged more than a few sentences with Dan (honestly I'd be surprised if any of us had actually spoken to him at all, I certainly haven't) and I don't think any of us would expect him to. Users can't see the thread, but when you delete things you can leave a reason so other mods/admin know and Dan has repeated his reasoning there.

I understand by now that a new thread wouldn't be acceptable. My question is about individual posts. Am I allowed to mention if I find a rider cute?
As for what the Mods have to say; one of KB's first post in this discussion was basically "I know as little as you do..."

To answer your specific example, people should refrain from commenting on riders appearance and how attractive they find them.

More generally, as I said before, there was discussion about this among the moderators, and this kind of thing came up (among other cases) because it can create a difficult situation where we would end up having to police language. How can people discuss things like TT, Hour Record attempts, sprinting, climbing etc. without commenting on the build of riders? I suppose the best we can say is that if it's relevant to the discussion and very unlikely to cause offense things would be left up unless someone complained.

 

[RedheadDane]

Just to clarify: I totally understand that we can't post anything explicit. I just didn't realise that there was anything explicit in the content of those threads! Because, you know, I thought the rules were based on actual content, not just thread titles.

But this just shows that we need a sort of "Announcements Thread" - maybe one of those that appears on top of each sub-section - where stuff like this gets explained. And, yeah, I do think we - the "common folk" around here - deserve an explanation when threads are removed, or, indeed when people are banned.

 

[King Boonen]

Just to clarify: I totally understand that we can't post anything explicit. I just didn't realise that there was anything explicit in the content of those threads! Because, you know, I thought the rules were based on actual content, not just thread titles.

I feel like you're not really getting this still. Every single thing about those threads was a problem. It wasn't the title, it wasn't a post or even several posts and it wasn't potential posts. It was everything, the title, the posts, the very fact they even existed. Absolutely nothing about those threads was acceptable according to the CN editorial/ownership.

 

[King Boonen]

But this just shows that we need a sort of "Announcements Thread" - maybe one of those that appears on top of each sub-section - where stuff like this gets explained. And, yeah, I do think we - the "common folk" around here - deserve an explanation when threads are removed, or, indeed when people are banned.

I separated this as it's really a separate discussion. The rules are clear, there shouldn't be any discussion about moderator actions. This is a very common rule across internet forums and, while I don't necessarily agree with it all the time, it's just something we'll have to deal with.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I totally understand that we can't post anything explicit. I just didn't realise that there was anything explicit in the content of those threads!

Totally unacceptable really does mean nothing to you, doesn't it? You want it to be about one post, you can't accept that the thread was the problem.

 

[BlueRoads]

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding or different assessment what this forum is: obviously the editors and some members want it to be a place where pure cycling, races, equipment, routes and science get discussed, while people like RedheadDane and me see it more like an open salon, where you talk about several things, mostly around cycling, in a civil but companiable way, make jokes, and such, and can communicate about the rules and about with the owners. In the end it's clear who owns this forum and who can set the rules. But obviously there is a desire to have another one, and if this forum is not the place for that I would like to open it, as soon as I find the time.

 

[King Boonen]

The open salon/bar/coffee house etc. comparison gets made a lot when things like this come up, but it's really not applicable. Firstly, your conversations here are not only recorded but continuously broadcast to everyone in the world should they wish to find them. Secondly, if you were having a conversation in a salon with friends about riders you found attractive and a complete stranger interrupted, disagreed with you while demeaning the riders and pointing out perceived flaws in their appearance, then dumped a load of photos in front of you while saying who they found hot and what was wrong with the others, I'm guessing you'd either be outraged and tell them to leave, or at least extremely uncomfortable and you would all end the conversation. It's really not a similar situation. The only part of this forum that might be comparable would be the private messages.



I think a little perspective is needed here. A long dormant thread that was brought back up and another thread, that to my reading the OP tacitly acknowledged may well get removed, have been deleted. This is in line with the removal of a previous, much more gratuitous, thread. These aren't incredibly popular, long running threads vital to the discussion of cycling. They were "throwaway" threads that only really appeared because we're in the road off-season. If it's a hill people want to die on that's up to them (and I understand that a lot of the frustration will come from the lack of communication when the threads were removed) but it really seems like a very inconsequential thing.

 

[BlueRoads]

The open salon/bar/coffee house etc. comparison gets made a lot when things like this come up, but it's really not applicable. Firstly, your conversations here are not only recorded but continuously broadcast to everyone in the world should they wish to find them. Secondly, if you were having a conversation in a salon with friends about riders you found attractive and a complete stranger interrupted, disagreed with you while demeaning the riders and pointing out perceived flaws in their appearance, then dumped a load of photos in front of you while saying who they found hot and what was wrong with the others, I'm guessing you'd either be outraged and tell them to leave, or at least extremely uncomfortable and you would all end the conversation. It's really not a similar situation. The only part of this forum that might be comparable would be the private messages.



I think a little perspective is needed here. A long dormant thread that was brought back up and another thread, that to my reading the OP tacitly acknowledged may well get removed, have been deleted. This is in line with the removal of a previous, much more gratuitous, thread. These aren't incredibly popular, long running threads vital to the discussion of cycling. They were "throwaway" threads that only really appeared because we're in the road off-season. If it's a hill people want to die on that's up to them (and I understand that a lot of the frustration will come from the lack of communication when the threads were removed) but it really seems like a very inconsequential thing.

As far as I'm concerned I was seeing this in a wider range of things happening, members like yaco for instance being uncomfortable with me constantly saying whether I like a rider or not.

 

[King Boonen]

Sorry, I have no idea what that's about (and in the context of the discussion "like" probably needs defining) but if there are issues with other posters please report them. Let's not air that kind of thing out here.

 

[Netserk]

More generally, as I said before, there was discussion about this among the moderators, and this kind of thing came up (among other cases) because it can create a difficult situation where we would end up having to police language. How can people discuss things like TT, Hour Record attempts, sprinting, climbing etc. without commenting on the build of riders? I suppose the best we can say is that if it's relevant to the discussion and very unlikely to cause offense things would be left up unless someone complained.

Given that the deletion was based on the GRAPES rule, isn't it quite straightforward that only comments on riders' appearance that relate to sexuality is forbidden? Commenting on Contador's weight was (usually) not the least related to sexuality, but on what performances one could expect from him.

 

[King Boonen]

Given that the deletion was based on the GRAPES rule, isn't it quite straightforward that only comments on riders' appearance that relate to sexuality is forbidden? Commenting on Contador's weight was (usually) not the least related to sexuality, but on what performances one could expect from him.

We do not know this is the case.

 

[Netserk]

We do not know this is the case.

That was my reading of RR's post.

It would fall under the G.R.A.P.E.S rule. Dan Benson was abundantly clear in his tweet. In the future we'll delete such threads asap.

 

[King Boonen]

That was my reading of RR's post.

I read this as why we would deleted the threads fmk_RoI suggested and that's what we've discussed as mods. Dan's tweet says why he deleted the threads, he's not cited any forum rules, just that they were completely unacceptable. He's left a reason on the thread that does mention objectification and this can cross into comments that do not fall foul of the GRAPES rule. Generally yes, it'll be obvious, but there's always edge cases that need dealing with and when those edge cases can bleed into something that's fundamental to certain discussions it can be hard to navigate.

 

[RedheadDane]

Totally unacceptable really does mean nothing to you, doesn't it? You want it to be about one post, you can't accept that the thread was the problem.

Mostly, I just wanted an actual explanation.
"It's totally unaceptable." = Not an explanation.
"It's totally unaceptable, because of [specific rule]", in this case the G.R.A.P.E.S rule = An explanation.

And I understand by now that the threads were the problem, I just didn't think threads could be declared problematic, without looking at the content. Not just one post, but the general content. But of course, I actually mentioned that in the following sentence.

I separated this as it's really a separate discussion. The rules are clear, there shouldn't be any discussion about moderator actions. This is a very common rule across internet forums and, while I don't necessarily agree with it all the time, it's just something we'll have to deal with.

What rules? The G.R.A.P.E.S? Or not discussing Mod action?
Besides, doesn't have to be discussions; by all means, lock the thread. In fact, a thread like that could have avoided this whole plot, if someone had simply posted an explanation.

 

[fmk_RoI]

"It's totally unaceptable, because of [specific rule]", in this case the G.R.A.P.E.S rule = An explanation.

There was a full explanation in Daniel Benson's Tweet: it was totally unacceptable and not what CN or its editorial team stand for.

Clearly, that is not full enough for you. Nothing said so far has been full enough, even a moderator telling you that future threads like it will fall foul of the GRAPES rule.

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

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