Should there be a Lance Armstrong sub-forum?

[Ferminal]

Thanks for going in to bat dim...

Btw I have the same problem, some weeks it's using too many commas, and others it's writing half sentences/paragraphs and then... and a random comment afterwards.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Thanks for going in to bat dim...

Btw I have the same problem, some weeks it's using too many commas, and others it's writing half sentences/paragraphs and then... and a random comment afterwards.

Shouldn't that be posted in the bad grammer sub-forum instead?

 

[Ferminal]

Yes, we have to move the whole thread though.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I understand what you are saying I just don't agree with it. In my mind seperating the clinic from the racing is already bad enough, a discussion of racing can often turn to questions of doping just as a conversation about Evans or Contador can turn to Armstrong. Making more boundaries just acts to inhibit discussion.

Okay, I still can't refute this, but I believe I can address your concerns.

1) There are threads that are obviously primarily about Armstrong, and those would go to the LA sub-forum (if they weren't created there, then an admin would, hopefully, eventually move them). Moving such a discussion shouldn't inhibit anything.

2) There are threads that are obviously not about Armstrong, in which conversation can turn to Armstrong. That doesn't mean every such thread should be moved to the sub-forum. However, the existence of the sub-forum can allow for such discussion to be dissuaded from being dominated by discussion about LA by posting a reminder about the sub-forum, and a polite suggestion to take any out-of-control tangents there. Similarly, moving such a tangent to the sub-forum should not inhibit any discussion either.

So, while I share your concerns about the deleterious effect of the "no drug talk" rule on open dialog in this forum, I would not expect a similarly absolute "no Lance talk" rule to accompany a new LA sub-forum.

Rather, the rule would be "no threads primarily about Lance in this forum AND no 'all about Lance' tangents that dominate any thread in this forum."

What that would hopefully do is eliminate the all-too-frequent domination of "Lance talk" (by h8ers as well as fanboyz) in this forum.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Shouldn't that be posted in the bad grammer sub-forum instead?

Yes, we have to move the whole thread though.

No, the tangent should be curtailed in the existing thread and a new thread should be started in the sub-forum.

Only threads whose initial topic belongs in the sub-forum should be moved to the sub-forum.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Those of you who are opposed to a LA sub-forum, can you agree to not complain about the problem it would solve - the high volume of LA posts and threads in this forum?

 

[Anonymous]

Those of you who are opposed to a LA sub-forum, can you agree to not complain about the problem it would solve - the high volume of LA posts and threads in this forum?

Of course they wont.. thats why they dont want a subforum.. so they can moan..

You dont get it do you

Its all about the chaos..

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Of course they wont.. thats why they dont want a subforum.. so they can moan..

You dont get it do you

Its all about the chaos..

I do get it. I guess I just don't want to believe it's true, because that would be so pathetic.

 

[lagartija]

Sometimes I think the walls in his room are padded.
You can't have a yes/no poll and then discount all the no votes because you didn't like the explanations for voting that way.
Lance gets too much mention here already, no way he should have his own sub-forum. I'd rather make a rule that any thread that mentions his name is instantly deleted.
The single thread for all things Lance is also bad, I vote we go back to what it was before, anarchy. Somebody wants to open a thread called "I love Lance's black socks" fine. If you want to get involved in a deep discussion on that, let 'er rip. If you think it's too stupid for words then don't post on it, if you think that but can't help yourself then post how stupid it is and be secure in the knowledge that you are part of the problem.

thanks hugh, thats exactly right, i posted yesterday being against a lance only forum, i dont feel any rider should have one, and i also stated how convoluted it would become even after a few days, but apparently my opinion is sub par ..........i also dont believe individual threads are anarchistic , its a thread post, dont post,read it or not, its all a matter of choice.......

 

[Ferminal]

Sometimes I think the walls in his room are padded.
You can't have a yes/no poll and then discount all the no votes because you didn't like the explanations for voting that way.
Lance gets too much mention here already, no way he should have his own sub-forum. I'd rather make a rule that any thread that mentions his name is instantly deleted.
The single thread for all things Lance is also bad, I vote we go back to what it was before, anarchy. Somebody wants to open a thread called "I love Lance's black socks" fine. If you want to get involved in a deep discussion on that, let 'er rip. If you think it's too stupid for words then don't post on it, if you think that but can't help yourself then post how stupid it is and be secure in the knowledge that you are part of the problem.

I agree, if you have no set thread/forum it is best. You just need a few people to moderate it. Obviously the CN staff have other work and Alpe can only be on when he can. But if there was sure one mod around at all times of the day you could make sure that stupid threads like that are instantly closed/merged into appropriate threads where it's already being discussed.

People just need to be smarter about making threads and the stupid ones need to be dealt with (like the Contador to The Shack thread).

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I agree, if you have no set thread/forum it is best. You just need a few people to moderate it. Obviously the CN staff have other work and Alpe can only be on when he can. But if there was sure one mod around at all times of the day you could make sure that stupid threads like that are instantly closed/merged into appropriate threads where it's already being discussed.

People just need to be smarter about making threads and the stupid ones need to be dealt with (like the Contador to The Shack thread).

if you have no set thread/forum it is best.
If that's true, then we should combine all forums into one. Let's bring the MTB discussion in here too. I mean, why not? After all, "if you have no set thread/forum it is best."

 

[Ferminal]

if you have no set thread/forum it is best.
If that's true, then we should combine all forums into one. Let's bring the MTB discussion in here too. I mean, why not? After all, "if you have no set thread/forum it is best."

Good comprehension skills. Good job making an open poll then getting ticked off when people disagree with you.

 

[dgodave]

if you have no set thread/forum it is best.
If that's true, then we should combine all forums into one. Let's bring the MTB discussion in here too. I mean, why not? After all, "if you have no set thread/forum it is best."

If MTB and road racing become somehow combined typically into one event in the real world, then yes, combine the forums.
.
As long as Lance races aside the other road pros, then... he gets discussed alongside the other road pros.
.

 

[Mellow Velo]

87-83 tells another story, never mind the posting ratio.
This forum, just like many others, is suffering a coma period.
Hope it isn't down to the TDU effect.
I notice that st 3 became the "unofficial" Lance thread, at one point.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Good comprehension skills. Good job making an open poll then getting ticked off when people disagree with you.

Do you always blame others when your words do not reflect your intended meaning?

I couldn't care less if people agreed with me. But I am curious about their reasons.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

If MTB and road racing become somehow combined typically into one event in the real world, then yes, combine the forums.
.
As long as Lance races aside the other road pros, then... he gets discussed alongside the other road pros.
.

That's fine, as long as you agree to not whine and complain about the proliferation and domination of Lance topics on this forum.

 

[Lifeshape]

Nah. That would be wee todd did. Sofa King wee todd did.

 

[Anonymous]

Nah. That would be wee todd did. Sofa King wee todd did.

I couldnt agree more...

 

[Ferminal]

Do you always blame others when your words do not reflect your intended meaning?

I couldn't care less if people agreed with me. But I am curious about their reasons.

No, only a moron would interpret "There's no need to make a separate forum/thread" (for Lance Armstrong, the topic of conversation) as "All forms of cycling should be discussed in one single forum".

I didn't realise this was the "Should there only be one forum on the CN Forums" poll.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

No, only a moron would interpret "There's no need to make a separate forum/thread" (for Lance Armstrong, the topic of conversation) as "All forms of cycling should be discussed in one single forum".

I didn't realise this was the "Should there only be one forum on the CN Forums" poll.

These were your words: "I agree, if you have no set thread/forum it is best."
In retrospect, I see that what you meant was, "I agree, if you have no set thread/forum [in this particular case] it is best." But it did not occur to me that that was what you were saying, since that's simply reiterating your vote in the poll.

What I thought you meant was that in general, "no set thread/forum is best", and you were stating that to explain your basis for not having a separate forum in this case. So my reply was to illustrate the absurdity of that argument, which (again, in retrospect) turned out to be absurd in itself, since that wasn't your argument.

Anyway, the rest of your argument is just calling for stuff that people have been calling for for months (more moderators, people get smarter), and simply hasn't happened, which is why I proposed this alternative.

I think we agree that there is a problem, but not on how it should/could be solved. And hopefully we at least understand each other now.

 

[Ferminal]

These were your words: "I agree, if you have no set thread/forum it is best."
In retrospect, I see that what you meant was, "I agree, if you have no set thread/forum [in this particular case] it is best." But it did not occur to me that that was what you were saying, since that's simply reiterating your vote in the poll.

What I thought you meant was that in general, "no set thread/forum is best", and you were stating that to explain your basis for not having a separate forum in this case. So my reply was to illustrate the absurdity of that argument, which (again, in retrospect) turned out to be absurd in itself, since that wasn't your argument.

Anyway, the rest of your argument is just calling for stuff that people have been calling for for months (more moderators, people get smarter), and simply hasn't happened, which is why I proposed this alternative.

I think we agree that there is a problem, but not on how it should/could be solved. And hopefully we at least understand each other now.

Cool, sorry if I was harsh then, I genuinely thought you were being a tool.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Cool, sorry if I was harsh then, I genuinely thought you were being a tool.

No problem. This kind of misunderstanding is common. I like the way Wikipedia deals with it by having an "assume good faith" rule.