New Forum! Feedback thread

[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

 

[Netserk]

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.

I find it difficult to unpack what objectification means (under the constraints that it’s “problematic”) without sexuality.

If it does not mean reducing a subject to an object of sexual desire, what does it then mean and how is it “problematic”?

EDIT: you could say that slavery is reducing a subject to an object of capital, but any such objectification is not done by posts on a message board, or in so far as it is, it’s not clear to me how it is harmful.

 

[Sciatic]

I find it difficult to unpack what objectification means (under the constraints that it’s “problematic”) without sexuality.

If it does not mean reducing a subject to an object of sexual desire, what does it then mean and how is it “problematic”?

EDIT: you could say that slavery is reducing a subject to an object of capital, but any such objectification is not done by posts on a message board, or in so far as it is, it’s not clear to me how it is harmful.

This gets back to my comment upthread about there being no nuanced way to discuss objectification.
Clearly (to me, anyways), objectifying another person with the intent (conscious or not) to demean, belittle, diminish their accomplishments, treat them as a means to personal gratification, to establish power over, or simply be malicious, etc. are damaging to individuals, to entire groups, and to productive civil discourse.

But the now-automatic response to point at someone and shout “objectifying” as though it’s a serious moral or nearly criminal offense, means there’s no room to discuss how the question/problem is already framed, inappropriately, as a biased judgment. It is framed to assume there is such a thing as NOT objectifying people.

Our brains, under the load of constant bombardment with information (even in Pre-electronic eras), work automatically to simplify what info is coming in by categorizing input into classes and comparing new input to what is already familiar. It’s much easier for our brains to view people we don’t know as more like paper cut-out figures than whole, unique humans. So with the exception of folks we know quite well, there is always some objectifying of others as packaged information. There is an entire field of psychoanalysis, object relations theory, built around that idea, specifically re: how people view most others as objects on which to unload (project) their own thoughts, feelings, desires, etc.

So in terms of discussions here, we are almost always objectifying when discussing any attributes of individual riders (unless they happen to be a personal friend). To have a Don’t Objectify rule would limit the discussions to times, distances, directions, speed, and specific behaviors. Which would not be very interesting at all and pretty much negate the value of the forum!

 

[King Boonen]

I find it difficult to unpack what objectification means (under the constraints that it’s “problematic”) without sexuality.

If it does not mean reducing a subject to an object of sexual desire, what does it then mean and how is it “problematic”?

EDIT: you could say that slavery is reducing a subject to an object of capital, but any such objectification is not done by posts on a message board, or in so far as it is, it’s not clear to me how it is harmful.

Treating someone as an object, without sexuality, can still be very problematic because it can involve criticism of their body and judging where the line is in these discussions can be very difficult, especially as that line will likely depend on the person assessing it, the situation and the language used.

 

[King Boonen]

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.

The not discussing mod actions rule. Posting explanations is discussing mod actions. This is against the rules. We will still do it at times because there are occasions where we think that it is helpful to the smooth running of the forum, but it's not meant to happen.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Nobody contacted me to explain why I was banned or the rules clearly.

 

[RedheadDane]

The not discussing mod actions rule. Posting explanations is discussing mod actions. This is against the rules. We will still do it at times because there are occasions where we think that it is helpful to the smooth running of the forum, but it's not meant to happen.

I must admit, I might have missed that in the rather huge post about rules... Would it be possible to make another/updated post where the important ones are highlighted, or would that be discussing mod action?

But, anyway... yeah; I made a mistake.
I saw the men's thread, thought it was a perfectly innocent and harmless thread, and thought it would be interesting to create a similar thread about the women.
When I noticed that I couldn't find the threads, I thought my eyes were deceiving me. I thought that either they would have been moved into the Café, since I guess you could argue they were strictly speaking not about Road Racing, but rather about Road Racers (and some people might find "non-roadies" attractive). Or, if the threads really couldn't have continued, simply been locked, and allowed to fade away.
When it became clear that they had indeed been completely obliterated, I just really wanted to know why. Especially when KB - at first - said that he didn't know why either.
I felt like the "Totally unacceptable, not what we stand for!" explanation - that, btw, only got posted because someone posted (parts of) a Twitter conversation - was purely because of the word "Sexiest" in the titles, and that whoever made the decision to delete the threads hadn't actually bothered to look at the actual content of the threads, which - for a large part - were just as much riders we find cute or handsome or whatever. Again; I thought discussions like that were totally fine, as people frequently make comments like that elsewhere.

 

[King Boonen]

I must admit, I might have missed that in the rather huge post about rules... Would it be possible to make another/updated post where the important ones are highlighted, or would that be discussing mod action?

Do you mean the pinned posts with the forum rules? I don't think they're that long and the rules are pretty clear. I'll have a look and see if the list can be re-jigged so ones that are more likely to affect real users are grouped together.

Not your fault you missed it, the rules were changed and we used to have threads where actions were discussed and banned announced. These were definite no-nos when the new admins came in.

But, anyway... yeah; I made a mistake.
I saw the men's thread, thought it was a perfectly innocent and harmless thread, and thought it would be interesting to create a similar thread about the women.
When I noticed that I couldn't find the threads, I thought my eyes were deceiving me. I thought that either they would have been moved into the Café, since I guess you could argue they were strictly speaking not about Road Racing, but rather about Road Racers (and some people might find "non-roadies" attractive). Or, if the threads really couldn't have continued, simply been locked, and allowed to fade away.
When it became clear that they had indeed been completely obliterated, I just really wanted to know why. Especially when KB - at first - said that he didn't know why either.

I'd guess it's been answered now then, and why an announcement wasn't made has been too. I will also point out that while the rules will cover most things, there will be times when something needs dealt with even if it's not covered by the rules. As mods we are allowed to remove anything troublesome, regardless of whether it falls foul of a specific rule. We very rarely do this however (I don't think I ever have).

 

[RedheadDane]

Do you mean the pinned posts with the forum rules? I don't think they're that long and the rules are pretty clear.

Not long? It looks to be the size of a couple A4 papers.

But maybe if you could put the big yellow Announcement prefix on it, so it's easier to find (my eyes are bad...).
I suppose you can't... top-pin it... double-pin it... make sure it's always at the top, even among the other pinned posts.

 

[Sciatic]

Do you mean the pinned posts with the forum rules? I don't think they're that long and the rules are pretty clear. I'll have a look and see if the list can be re-jigged so ones that are more likely to affect real users are grouped together.

Not your fault you missed it, the rules were changed and we used to have threads where actions were discussed and banned announced. These were definite no-nos when the new admins came in.



I'd guess it's been answered now then, and why an announcement wasn't made has been too. I will also point out that while the rules will cover most things, there will be times when something needs dealt with even if it's not covered by the rules. As mods we are allowed to remove anything troublesome, regardless of whether it falls foul of a specific rule. We very rarely do this however (I don't think I ever have).

Maybe the thing to do is have a NON-announcement thread: this would allow Mods to stay within the rules but still get some information out there to forumites
For example:
“ There is no announcement about the deletion of the sexiest riders threads per the request of ownership”
“There is no announcement to let you know the “.” thread was moved to The Cafe, because it just got too difficult for some of us to fathom what was going on in there.”

 

[RedheadDane]

“There is no announcement to let you know the “.” thread was moved to The Cafe, because it just got too difficult for some of us to fathom what was going on in there.”

Does anyone actually know? Most recently, there seem to have been a discussion about "Sexiest cyclops"...

 

[King Boonen]

Not long? It looks to be the size of a couple A4 papers.

But maybe if you could put the big yellow Announcement prefix on it, so it's easier to find (my eyes are bad...).
I suppose you can't... top-pin it... double-pin it... make sure it's always at the top, even among the other pinned posts.

I’ve seen the length of the threads we all participate in, the rules really aren’t that long and there aren’t many that aren’t more descriptive variations of “don’t be a d***”.

I’ll have a look at making it more prominent, not sure there’s any option for that in the software though.

 

[King Boonen]

Maybe the thing to do is have a NON-announcement thread: this would allow Mods to stay within the rules but still get some information out there to forumites
For example:
“ There is no announcement about the deletion of the sexiest riders threads per the request of ownership”
“There is no announcement to let you know the “.” thread was moved to The Cafe, because it just got too difficult for some of us to fathom what was going on in there.”

I don’t think we’d want to make it seem like this very obvious tactic to circumvent the rules is acceptable!

 

[RedheadDane]

I’ve seen the length of the threads we all participate in, the rules really aren’t that long and there aren’t many that aren’t more descriptive variations of “don’t be a d***”.

I’ll have a look at making it more prominent, not sure there’s any option for that in the software though.

I think there's a difference between a thread - with multiple people discussing things - being long. And a single post being long.

 

[Sciatic]

I don’t think we’d want to make it seem like this very obvious tactic to circumvent the rules is acceptable!

Of course not—just joking.

 

[King Boonen]

Mod hat on:

A reminder that this thread isn't a place to discuss moderator actions. This is not allowed under the rules.

Cheers,

KB.

 

[King Boonen]

Of course not—just joking.

I know, but it also doesn't hurt to remind people this isn't going to work!

 

[Sciatic]

I know, but it also doesn't hurt to remind people this isn't going to work!

D’accord!

 

[RedheadDane]

Hey, @King Boonen I was considering asking this in Valv's "Ban" thread, but it got closed before I got around to:
I can somewhat understand why we can't openly discuss why someone got banned, but... you're not even sending a PM to the "offending" party?

 

[King Boonen]

Hey, @King Boonen I was considering asking this in Valv's "Ban" thread, but it got closed before I got around to:
I can somewhat understand why we can't openly discuss why someone got banned, but... you're not even sending a PM to the "offending" party?

I guess we can discuss this part here. When someone is banned there is a section where a reason is given. If this is filled in then it should be sent to the user. If the mod is in a rush it might get missed out, but a member can contact the moderators or the admin if they have a question about a ban.

 

[Berniece]

One of the things that really bugs me on this forum is that the thread content (green box) doesn't scroll separately from the side bars (red boxes). If I want to navigate the to specific parts of the forum I always have to go to the top, since on the bottom there is only a breadcrumb.

 

[Netserk]

I find the side bars completely useless and distracting, so I have both of them collapsed.

My bookmark to the forum is https://forum.cyclingnews.com/whats-new/posts/ (unfortunately, none of the threads from the café appears there), so most of the time when I'm finished with a thread I just click that. When I want to post in an inactive thread, I type the title in the address bar to find it or I use the forum's search function.

 

[RedheadDane]

It appears it you write any numbers like this (just with "dots" instead of commas"):

3, (Text)
4, (Text)
5, (Text)

It automatically change the counting to start with "1". Quite useless if you do indeed want your count to start with some other number.