Spoilers

[Armchair Cyclist]

Let's assume that no-one posts spoilers with the intention of diminishing anyone else's enjoyment of races, but also that spoilers in race threads of races happening the same day are undesirable. Obviously threads such as Last Team to get a win and rider threads will be updated rapidly after a result or incident, it is not these threads, or those like 'Lesser known races' that I am adressing here.

Should we have an agreement that messages with spoilers be deleted

• When it pertains to a race on the same day
• And the spoiler is in a race thread

I would imagine that the situation would run something like this:
In the discussion of Race A, contributor X inadvertently gives key info about simultaneous race B;
Reader Y notices this, realises it will affect the enjoyment of race B by others, and notifies it via the report button;
Admin Z, online at the time, deletes the offending message (or places the offending part under a spoiler tag, if that is possible in the admin's tools: perhaps someone can tell us whether it is).

It is assumed that there was no malevolence on the part of X, so no sanctions are proposed.

Alternatively, do we make it a collective responsibility, such that Y would PM X and point out what they have done, requesting them to delete or place it under the spoiler tags?

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Broadly agree with this. I would personally be in favour in spoiler tags if possible, but there are possible issues:

• if it's technically possible for moderators to add spoiler tags (it probably is), is this a reasonable amount of additional work to expect them to do?
• if not, and it becomes a collective responsibility, anyone who accidentally posts a spoiler probably sees their inbox overflow which isn't ideal. Also, there's time between PMs being sent and read.
• is either option a no-go for the current ownership of CN?

I am of the opinion that deleting posts should be avoided if reasonably possible but then again I'm rarely at risk of having races I still want to watch spoiled for me, so I understand if others think differently on this matter.

I do think this is a valuable discussion to have, a bit of introspection on the forum is helpful from time to time and even if nothing comes of it it puts the issue closer to the front of people's minds which should at least help in the shorter term - I evidently needed that myself.

 

[Netserk]

(or places the offending part under a spoiler tag, if that is possible in the admin's tools: perhaps someone can tell us whether it is).

It is. Mods can edit posts and wrap them in spoiler tags.

 

[RedheadDane]

I'd say it depends.
If it's a case of the classical "Whoops, wrong thread." Delete the post, and move it to the right thread - not necessarily in that order.
If it's a case of alluding to one race result in another race's thread. Use a spoiler tag, not necessarily for the whole post, just the spoilery bits.

 

[Eclipse]

For me, I'd like people to be a able to share in spoiler tags (main problem here is that the spoiler tag button isn't clearest on the UI for newer people I guess)

I'm not that fussed personally, but there definitely been cases where someone has shared something in a race thread that has given me a heads up to swap to a more exciting race or check out a replay when I would have missed it otherwise.

 

[Bolder]

Honestly I think that if you want to ensure you don't get "spoiled," stay off the internet and social media until you've watched your race/match/show episode/whatever. If I'm really invested I'll make sure to avoid anything that could tip off the outcome. My wife spoiled one of the Classics (maybe P-R?) for me a few years ago by reading an alert from her phone...

Any lively discussion of a race is going to have "results drift," I think.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Any lively discussion of a race is going to have "results drift," I think.

Which is why, I think, we should have a protocol for dealing with it, rather than just resigning ourselves to it. Without telling people that they should avoid threads that they should not have to avoid.

 

[RedheadDane]

Which is why, I think, we should have a protocol for dealing with it, rather than just resigning ourselves to it. Without telling people that they should avoid threads that they should not have to avoid.

And that's all well and good when people know what thread they're posting in, and what race they're watching. But sometimes people get confused.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

And that's all well and good when people know what thread they're posting in, and what race they're watching. But sometimes people get confused.

If people make an inappropriate post because they have lost track of wHich thread they are in, why would they mind the error being brought to their attention?

Accidents happen. I don't think anyone suggests that people should be harangued or sanctioned. Just politely asked to edit, or see an admin intervening if they are not responsive.

 

[RedheadDane]

If people make an inappropriate post because they have lost track of wHich thread they are in, why would they mind the error being brought to their attention?

Accidents happen. I don't think anyone suggests that people should be harangued or sanctioned. Just politely asked to edit, or see an admin intervening if they are not responsive.

I don't think anyone will mind their error being brought to attention. However, people who saw the wrong-thread post will still have been "spoiled".

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

But the more quickly it is reverted, the fewer people are adversely affected.

And once somebody has been alerted to this type of accident, they may be less likely to do it again.

What advantage is there in leaving it there?

 

[RedheadDane]

And once somebody has been alerted to this type of accident, they may be less likely to do it again.

Why would people stop getting confused just because they've been made aware of previous confusion? When you're (trying to) keep(ing) track of 2(+) races at once, you're bound to get things mixed up a little.

Basically, as Bolder pointed out, you can't completely avoid "spoilers". However, it's perfectly reasonable to point out when people make errors about what thread they're posting in, I've done that myself, in a humouristic way.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

And in pointing it out, suggest that they change it so as not to spoil the enjoyment of others. Why on earth wouldn't you?

Watching Thursday's PN stage knowing that Burgudeau succeeded in hanging on was not nearly as enjoyable as it would have been watching it without that knowledge. You seem to be arguing against taking steps to make watching races as enjoyable as it could be.

Why would people stop getting confused just because they've been made aware of previous confusion?

If it has been pointed out to me that I made a particular error, I am capable of being more alert to the danger of that error. Is that not the case for most people?

 

[RedheadDane]

Watching Thursday's PN stage knowing that Burgudeau succeeded in hanging on was not nearly as enjoyable as it would have been watching it without that knowledge. You seem to be arguing against taking steps to make watching races as enjoyable as it could be.

I certainly don't understand why people make such a big deal about "spoilers". After all; we're talking about real life here, stuff that only happens once. However, I understand that some people have enough willing suspension of disbelief that they can trick themselves into believing - several hours after the fact - that a race they're watching is not long-since finished, so I'll of course try my best to keep track of the threads when I post. And again; I have also made others aware of similar mistakes, jokingly because I understand how hard it can be to keep track of things.
As for the thing that sparked the whole thread; the "Two wins by [team] in a day!" kind of posts: I know I've made that blunder before - again, because I really don't see the issue with "spoilers" when it comes to real-life events; it's not like a book or anything - and in those cases it'll of course be very easy to put the team-name (or other "spoilery" content) under a spoiler-tag, because in those cases people are presumably aware of which thread they're in, and what race they've been watching. Of course, if you use the "Inline spoiler" tag, it'll probably be quite easy to guess whether it says "UAE" or "Intermarché" underneath, maybe we could agree to stick to the three-letter appreviations in those cases...

If it has been pointed out to me that I made a particular error, I am capable of being more alert to the danger of that error. Is that not the case for most people?

There's a bit of a gap between "more alert to an error" and "never making that error again." Especially since it's not just keeping track of threads, but also races. You never watched three races, and then forgotten which race you were actually looking at?

 

[SHAD0W93]

For me, I'd like people to be a able to share in spoiler tags (main problem here is that the spoiler tag button isn't clearest on the UI for newer people I guess)

I'm not that fussed personally, but there definitely been cases where someone has shared something in a race thread that has given me a heads up to swap to a more exciting race or check out a replay when I would have missed it otherwise.

Also it depends if the user is on phone or computer/laptop. On my phone I wasn’t able to access anything on the toolbar while I could in my laptop and I mostly view the forum on my phone. Though that recently changed where I can go on the toolbar now.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I certainly don't understand why people make such a big deal about "spoilers".

You don't understand that a race is more enjoyable if watched without knowing the result?

However, I understand that some people have enough willing suspension of disbelief that they can trick themselves into believing - several hours after the fact - that a race they're watching is not long-since finished,

Please don't be patronising. I know that Thursday's stage was not raced at 11pm, but that was when I had a chance to watch it. I also know that the actors in a sitcom are not living through that life event with me watching through a live feed candid camera in their living room, but if they say a funny line that I have not heard before, I will laugh. But if someone tells me the punchline at the beginning of the scene, it is not as funny.

it'll of course be very easy to put the team-name (or other "spoilery" content) under a spoiler-tag, because in those cases people are presumably aware of which thread they're in, and what race they've been watching. Of course, if you use the "Inline spoiler" tag, it'll probably be quite easy to guess whether it says "UAE" or "Intermarché" underneath, maybe we could agree to stick to the three-letter appreviations in those cases...

Or people can recognise the reason for using a spoiler and use the spoiler rather than inline spoiler coding if that better acheives the purpose.

There's a bit of a gap between "more alert to an error" and "never making that error again." Especially since it's not just keeping track of threads, but also races. You never watched three races, and then forgotten which race you were actually looking at?

So maybe people make the mistake twice: they get asked twice to do something about it, or an admin edits their text to do something about it twice. I really don't understand why you are making a deal of that.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

Spoiler tags apply to movies as well... if you've had the chance to watch the movie first on opening night good for you, but the rest of us may not wish for the movie to be spoiled until we actually get around to watching it.

I think there should be some sort of time limit - if you haven't seen the movie (or race) in the past 20yrs all bets and spoilers are off.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Spoiler tags apply to movies as well... if you've had the chance to watch the movie first on opening night good for you, but the rest of us may not wish for the movie to be spoiled until we actually get around to watching it.

I think there should be some sort of time limit - if you haven't seen the movie (or race) in the past 20yrs all bets and spoilers are off.

I'm only suggesting that the protocol applies on the same day...

 

[Tricycle Rider]

I'm only suggesting that the protocol applies on the same day...

But where are you going with "same day"?

Obviously I'm being pedantic, but this being a multi-national forum your same day may not be my same day.

 

[gregrowlerson]

People are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Talk about first world problems.

Much of the time, if a race/stage is so important to a fan that they are desperate to watch it, they probably will make that time for it. In other instances work or social commitments might preclude this, but if watching a cycling event for a few hours without knowing the result is that important to you, just stay off a CYCLING forum. How hard can this be? It's not as addictive as something like nicotine, nor is being on it as essential as breathing. If you have to be on any forum for 365 days of the year then that's a far bigger problem for you than potentially being spoiled imo.

 

[RedheadDane]

You don't understand that a race is more enjoyable if watched without knowing the result?

I don't understand how it can be enjoyable to watch a race if it isn't live. The best way to watch a race without knowing the result, is watching it while it's happening.

I also know that the actors in a sitcom are not living through that life event with me watching through a live feed candid camera in their living room, but if they say a funny line that I have not heard before, I will laugh.

A sitcom is something completely different. That's never live. It's not real.

And my point is that if you can't watch a race live, why bother watching at all? However, if you aren't at home, but want to watch the race later, is it really so hard to just not check the relevant threads? Also, what I don't understand about the stages in TA and PN; if you were - as it seems - able to watch the stage in TA, what was keeping you from watching the stage in PN?

So maybe people make the mistake twice: they get asked twice to do something about it, or an admin edits their text to do something about it twice. I really don't understand why you are making a deal of that.

Or maybe they'll make the mistake three times. Or four times. Or ten times. And each time they'll correct it. And others will laugh, because - as you said - it's really not such a big deal.

Though, I do have one question: What about threads that cover multiple races? Such as the "Lesser known races thread", or the National Championships thread, or those race threads that cover both the men's and women's edition of a race?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I don't understand how it can be enjoyable to watch a race if it isn't live.

Maybe you should ask TV companies why they show highlights packages of sports events: I'm guessing because they get decent viewing figures. Or ask GCN/Eurosport why they keep the coverage of races after they finish: because their subscribers expect it and would leave in droves if it were not available. The vast majority of cycling events, especially stage races, take part within what is for most people in Europe working time, yet alone the inconvenience of watching live for people in very different time zones.

The best way to watch a race without knowing the result, is watching it while it's happening...And my point is that if you can't watch a race live, why bother watching at all?

Because watching it without knowing what happened is watching as if live. Why would it make any difference to my enjoyment of a race to know that the riders have already had a shower and enjoyed their dinner. The events I watch on the screen are unchanged by that (hence the loose, but valid, analogy with scripted comedy).

However, if you aren't at home, but want to watch the race later, is it really so hard to just not check the relevant threads?

That is the entire point of this discussion!!!! That if one is taking the trouble to avoid the relevant thread, it is annoying to have the result spoiled by what people write in other threads.

Also, what I don't understand about the stages in TA and PN; if you were - as it seems - able to watch the stage in TA, what was keeping you from watching the stage in PN?

I'm not quite sure why I need to explain my use of leisure time to you, but I got home from work, watched the last 30km or so of TA (not live) while on my trainer, had dinner, visited my batty mother-in-law, watched some TV that we both enjoy with my wife while scrolling though CN Forum (incl the TA thread, but carefully avoiding the PN one), and then watched PN, with far less enjoyment than I otherwise would have, while my wife was watching something I don't really enjoy on telly. Does that seem extreme or unreasonable to you? I suspect that, some details aside, it is pretty much what most fans of the sport who have to work do.

Though, I do have one question: What about threads that cover multiple races? Such as the "Lesser known races thread", or the National Championships thread, or those race threads that cover both the men's and women's edition of a race?

Did you read the first paragraph of the OP?

 

[RedheadDane]

I suspect that, some details aside, it is pretty much what most fans of the sport who have to work do.

I would have assumed that most people who work just don't watch certain races. Again: What's the point? You wouldn't watch the count down for NYE on midday January the 1st, would you?

Why would it make any difference to my enjoyment of a race to know that the riders have already had a shower and enjoyed their dinner.

And that's what I don't understand: How can you get any enjoyment of watching a race if it's obviously long-since finished?

That is the entire point of this discussion!!!! That if one is taking the trouble to avoid the relevant thread, it is annoying to have the result spoiled by what people write in other threads.

And sometimes people slip up!

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I would have assumed that most people who work just don't watch certain races.

I don't have the data, but I would guess that a substantial proportion of people watching any weekday stage do so on a delayed feed or a higlights package.

You wouldn't watch the count down for NYE on midday January the 1st, would you?

I really can't imagine watching the countdown for NYE on 31st December, but if fireworks look spectacular on a TV screen at midnight, they still look spectacular several hours later, especially if you haven't already seen them. That is why news channels repeat them throughout the day on 1st Jan.

And that's what I don't understand: How can you get any enjoyment of watching a race if it's obviously long-since finished?

For the same reason as I can enjoy a drama that I know full well was filmed months or years earlier: I don't know what is going to happen. I cannot conceive of any difference to the experience of watching (unless you are communicating with others watching live) between watching at the time and watching some time later, so long as one does so in blissful ignorance. Is it really so important to be the first person who knows what happens? It is not worth watching a film other than on opening night?

And sometimes people slip up!

Which is what this is about: if people slip up, let's agree that it is OK to prevent that slip-up from impinging on other people's enjoyment of an event.

 

[RedheadDane]

For the same reason as I can enjoy a drama that I know full well was filmed months or years earlier: I don't know what is going to happen. I cannot conceive of any difference to the experience of watching, unless you are communicating with others watching live, between watching at the time and watching some time later so long as one does so in blissful ignorance. Is it really so important to be the first person who knows what happens? It is not worth watching a film other than on opening night?

You just refuse to get the point, don't you? You cannot compare a drama, or a movie, or a book, or any sort of fictional content, with real-life!

Which is what this is about: if people slip up, let's agree that it is OK to prevent that slip-up from impinging on other people's enjoyment of an event.

But there's no need to cause a fit when someone inevitably slips up.