result of censorship

[dieterpi]

I just registered to note the following:
1-the censorship rules I see seem to state that you can't criticize anyone if one small detail is wrong. As I understand the US law (and maybe I don't), public figures can be the target of criticism that has errors. Aren't riders and cycling officials public figures?
2-Whether or not this is true the result is that there is no worthwhile discussion of doping opinions and facts on this website anymore.
3-Does this not contribute to the burying of the issue-one of the worst things that has happened in the past?

 

[Greg Johnson]

I just registered to note the following:
1-the censorship rules I see seem to state that you can't criticize anyone if one small detail is wrong. As I understand the US law (and maybe I don't), public figures can be the target of criticism that has errors. Aren't riders and cycling officials public figures?
2-Whether or not this is true the result is that there is no worthwhile discussion of doping opinions and facts on this website anymore.
3-Does this not contribute to the burying of the issue-one of the worst things that has happened in the past?

1 - Cyclingnews isn't subject to US law (as we use UK as benchmark). Period.
2 - We're not saying you can't discuss facts on doping. We are saying you can't discuss opinion or rumour as fact. If you have proof to support your rumour, then you're more than welcome to e-mail cyclingnews@cyclingnews.com and we will gladly look into it, but the general point here is that you can't call a shovel a pick. If someone hasn't been found to use, or admit to using, banned substances, you have no right to say they are a doper.
3 - Not at all. You can openly discuss anything that's based on fact.

Oh, and fact is based on the outcome of the processes the sport has in place (whether you agree with those processes or not is another issue) or an admission by the person in question. Fact - contrary to popular belief - isn't what Joe Blog told you during a Sunday bunch ride.

Cheers
Greg Johnson

 

[dieterpi]

who determines what is fact?

1-OK, use UK law. But the "period" implies rigidity and here I think the question is how to determine whether something is a fact.
2-Carrying on further it sounds to me that your assumption of the role as a censor means that YOU determine what is fact. Am I right or wrong?
3-Well, I don't see much discussion of doping after the start of the forum. velonews.com has much more.

Don't get me wrong, I love cyclingnews.com, but I really miss the letters section that is gone. Could I ask for statistics on how many, or what fraction of the forum contributions on doping have been eliminated? The letters section had contributions that sounded spontaneous and urgent; they were right out front and caught the eye the minute you entered the site. Now, if they exist, they are filed away with references to them in less obvious places (usually in news summaries).

 

[Anonymous]

2-Carrying on further it sounds to me that your assumption of the role as a censor means that YOU determine what is fact. Am I right or wrong?

i think they are allowed to.. it is their forum, it is on their site, linked to from there, and as they moderate it anything on here if found libellous etc, it would be there bums on the line...

you wanna avoid that, then i suggest independant forums.. not one of the most widely respeected cycling sites ont he internet..

 

[Greg Johnson]

Dieterpi - I appreciate what you're getting at, but I think you're getting carried away with something that isn't an issue.

Nobody determines what is fact - facts are based on a series of events that neither you nor I have any say in. If 'rider a' tests positive in his A test but negative in his B test, you're welcome to discuss that. If 'rider b' is caught with a needle in his arm and is being prosecuted for that, again, you're welcome to discuss that issue.

What you're not entitled to do is just come out and say 'rider c' is a doper - with no evidence, no facts, based on nothing but whatever is going on in your head. You can't attack someone without justification - in the same way that we don't allow forum members to launch personal attacks against each other.

These are the same rules that were applied to the letters section you enjoyed - the only difference is the forum allows for a much larger volume of discussion, as time limitations meant only a small fraction of letters were able to be published.

I can't give you those stats as the only way to figure that out is to go through, count everything that has been deleted then sort them into what is bot SPAM and the rest. To give you an idea however, the moderation is largely based on reporting by other users. We don't actively scan everything on the forum - as time doesn't permit it for our small staff and you might have noted we have a few other things to do (see cyclingnews.com).

If I had to break it down, based on what I myself have done, I've only deleted one baseless doping accusation (one post, not the whole thread), tons of spam and a few trolls (from people who, in my opinion, must have a fabulously wasted life).

Cheers
Greg Johnson

 

[cihruueip]

The arrival of the 2008 Olympic Games

The arrival of the 2008 Olympic Games, the杭州搬家公司 Chinese Red popularity worldwide. For example, Gucci introduced the limited edition red, U2 launched a red theme of charity. Hollywood is the "Redskins" appear frequently, a red衬得evaded a drunk American. This momentum of a red, presumably the influx of cars this year will be, but do not know杭州厂房装修 Who is more affected by the red car a favor.

 

[Big_Blue_Dave]

It would nice to see this enforced on a more rigourous basis, especially seeing as a few members do freely state that "rider X is doped up to the eyeballs" or other statements of a similar nature.

If it requires more moderators, then have a few that are users of the forum that don't make those contraversial comments in order to protect the site from being much more heavily censored. I'm sure people on here would gladly help out if it is the case.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Fact - contrary to popular belief - isn't what Joe Blog told you during a Sunday bunch ride.

Serves me right for riding with that idiot!

Greg,

What is Cyclingnews' position on banning rehashed doping babble from armchair directer sportifs and wanna be psuedo scientists based on just being annoying?

Thanks
Caption Chaos