Should "Armstrong USADA Case" be a separate subforum?

[Ninety5rpm]

In order to solve the problem of cluttering The Clinic with too many threads about the case, and avoiding the "solution" of lumping most discussions in one unreadable thread, should "Armstrong USADA Case" be a separate subforum under "Road" at the same level as "The Clinic"?

 

[ElChingon]

No. It will eventually end and then what do they do with it? Just leave it as is and once its over down to the gallows! Like everything supposedly earth shattering, besides this way every newbie gets a chance to start a thread and them be chastised by the regulars, its like history repeating itself, can't stop it.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes and I don't know why the suits won't listen to the suggestion.

By my way of thinking, this forum... particularly the clinic, is driving much of the front page news on this site (lately, at least) as well as front page news on other cycling sites.

To be clear, if I were D Benson I'd reach out to RaceRadio and work out something with the guy so that he keeps posting here. If he wants a sub-forum then it would be done already.

Hell, put the guy on the payroll (unless inrng has already acquired his signature).

 

[Benotti69]

Yes. There will probably be a dirge of new threads opening all relating to different parts of the evidence and each player.

A subforum would mean it could all be contained but each have a relevant thread.

The way it is going (keeping Armstrong threads to a min) means that posters like LL come in to dilute the important posts and amke the thread excruciating long to read so it makes it harder for people to read and find the real facts.

 

[ebandit]

no

already so many separate sub forums

and it would make little difference to the number of threads....so no gain

 

[Maxiton]

I'll say yes.

 

[Maxiton]

Yes and I don't know why the suits won't listen to the suggestion.

By my way of thinking, this forum... particularly the clinic, is driving much of the front page news on this site (lately, at least) as well as front page news on other cycling sites.

To be clear, if I were D Benson I'd reach out to RaceRadio and work out something with the guy so that he keeps posting here. If he wants a sub-forum then it would be done already.

Hell, put the guy on the payroll (unless inrng has already acquired his signature).

This.

Ôąÿѧö

 

[Microchip]

I pick yes.

 

[python]

I voted yes. An example of why is the today's long discussion of the poll originator with several other posters about the uci appeal/non appeal apparently unaware that the ground has been covered in several dozens of thoughtful posts.

The moderators dilemma is understandable. Some want the focus on the Armstrong case. Some don't.

The bottom line is that the Armstrong doping charge is front and centre of the media and the clinic.

Having all armstrong related posts rolled into one thread is equivalent to demanding that the CN update one master article each time a news is released instead of showering us with an avalanche of new articles that in reality are either a cut and paste job or a recorded copycat.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

already so many separate sub forums

and it would make little difference to the number of threads....so no gain

It would allow for more threads, each about some different aspect of the case and/or related issues, and would avoid a single incoherent kitchen-sink thread about anything related to the case.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

The problem is overlap - is a Vaughters thread about ex-USP riders an Armstrong thread or a clinic thread? Is a Hamilton thread an Armstrong thread or a clinic thread?

We saw this with the Jaksche thread - we were told to keep it on topic but the discussion morphed into about ex-USP riders and lo and behold we got the admission that various riders had doped.

My concern is the moderation - in the past CN has had some very heavy handed moderators who were very keen to keep everything on a single topic. I could imagine that heavy handed moderation could have killed the JJ thread before we had a chance to get the discussion about the ex-USP riders.

A subform would work but only if the moderators don't **** it up by being heavy-handed and accept that there will be a high degree of over-lap between the topics.

 

[ggusta]

The problem is overlap - is a Vaughters thread about ex-USP riders an Armstrong thread or a clinic thread? Is a Hamilton thread an Armstrong thread or a clinic thread?

We saw this with the Jaksche thread - we were told to keep it on topic but the discussion morphed into about ex-USP riders and lo and behold we got the admission that various riders had doped.

My concern is the moderation - in the past CN has had some very heavy handed moderators who were very keen to keep everything on a single topic. I could imagine that heavy handed moderation could have killed the JJ thread before we had a chance to get the discussion about the ex-USP riders.

A subform would work but only if the moderators don't **** it up by being heavy-handed and accept that there will be a high degree of over-lap between the topics.

Most of the problems I see in this message board are with either heavy handed moderation or with people who cannot resist the urge to respond to trolls.

I strongly agree with your point about where does the topic go. Where would a discussion of Tyler's book go? The whole book or maybe more than half of it is not about Armstrong, so where to put it? And then if it goes in the non-Arm. sub-forum and the whole thread turns into a Armstrong discussion then what? And vice versa.

This is a question in search of a problem.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

The problem is overlap - is a Vaughters thread about ex-USP riders an Armstrong thread or a clinic thread? Is a Hamilton thread an Armstrong thread or a clinic thread?

We saw this with the Jaksche thread - we were told to keep it on topic but the discussion morphed into about ex-USP riders and lo and behold we got the admission that various riders had doped.

My concern is the moderation - in the past CN has had some very heavy handed moderators who were very keen to keep everything on a single topic. I could imagine that heavy handed moderation could have killed the JJ thread before we had a chance to get the discussion about the ex-USP riders.

A subform would work but only if the moderators don't **** it up by being heavy-handed and accept that there will be a high degree of over-lap between the topics.

I understand the overlap problem, and that's why I didn't propose an Armstrong forum. I proposed a "Armstrong USADA Case" forum.

Is the Vaughters thread about his testimony in the case? Then yes, if it's not, and not related to the case in any other way, then no.

A thread about the Hamilton book would be in the The Clinic. A thread about speculating about how information about what Hamilton and others did in the book relates to testimony about that in the case, would be in The Case.

 

[hiero2]

No. Too many grey areas, crossover with other cyclists. And within the next year the level of Armstrong postings will decrease significantly. The next hot topic will be the UCI.

 

[hiero2]

The problem is overlap - is a Vaughters thread about ex-USP riders an Armstrong thread or a clinic thread? Is a Hamilton thread an Armstrong thread or a clinic thread?

We saw this with the Jaksche thread - we were told to keep it on topic but the discussion morphed into about ex-USP riders and lo and behold we got the admission that various riders had doped.

My concern is the moderation - in the past CN has had some very heavy handed moderators who were very keen to keep everything on a single topic. I could imagine that heavy handed moderation could have killed the JJ thread before we had a chance to get the discussion about the ex-USP riders.

A subform would work but only if the moderators don't **** it up by being heavy-handed and accept that there will be a high degree of over-lap between the topics.

Good points. Worth repeating.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

No. Too many grey areas, crossover with other cyclists. And within the next year the level of Armstrong postings will decrease significantly. The next hot topic will be the UCI.

And the problem with a quiet or even abandoned forum is, what?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16

 

[Mishrak]

Yes please. A thread with several hundred pages of posts is nearly impossible to sift through. The Evidence sticky helps, but I don't think it's enough.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Good points. Worth repeating.

They are good points. Too bad they're not relevant since a general Armstrong forum was not proposed.

 

[thirteen]

although i would enjoy the trolls being diluted (please god!), i feel like you've cut this off at the pass by not showing WHO voted for which option.

bad move... start again.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

They are good points. Too bad they're not relevant since a general Armstrong forum was not proposed.

Er they are. I pointed out that i) threads evolve - what happens to a thread in one forum that evolves into another and ii) where do you draw the line in defining a topic as specifically relating to the USADA case?

This only matters if you get bad moderation where moderators try to keep a false distinction between the areas, and start throwing their weight around. If the moderators accept that there is going to be overlap and evolution of discussion then I've no problem with the idea.

If it is moderated sensibly then I see no problems, however, I can't say that I have the greatest of confidence in the moderators to do that based on their track record to date.

 

[python]

If it is moderated sensibly then I see no problems.

This is a clear offtopic, but I will dare a delition to cautiously support your point.

The problem Imo is that the cn has confused sensible moderation (of the obviously mirror threads like 'did armstrong dope' ) with many thought -provoking threads that actually were an aftermath of cn's own articles.

Mindbuggling....

If the trend continuous, I see little reason to invest effort in contributing here.

Not the rr's example is contagious

 

[usedtobefast]

yes, itt eliminates clutter.when it is over hit delete.

 

[Tinman]

voted maybe/other. There may be other (perhaps additional) options to reduce clutter and make for easier reading.

The question is how do you reduce noise and increase quality of postings. To better group posts by threads is only partly addressing this, but with the volume of topic developments and overlaps as well as an increase in posters it's going to be hard to execute.

And therefore I do remain of the opinion that it's at the poster level there needs to be better controls, not only postings. Providing a thread (or more) for the guys who we all know shape opinion here and have inside links/info, are connected, etc is one option. Better moderation another, but again hard to do.

Maybe can look also at how other forums resolve this issue; can't be unique to CN, must be some best practice out there, if not, maybe an opportunity to experiment here at the clinic.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Mixed thoughts. Partly think its needed. Partly think LA is already yesterday's news and should be forgotten and ignored.