Proposal to amend forum charter

Chips Lovell · 24-04-2014 3:55pm #1

Hi all,
We'd like to amend the forum charter to introduce a new clause that will make it easier for us to deal with problematic posters. Over the last year or two we've had periodic upsurges in "drive by" visitors, i.e. people who have no real interest in cycling but use the forum to have a go at cyclists. Needless to say, that isn't what the forum is for and it creates a lot of needless antagonism before the guilty party either goes away or gets banned. We'd like to have an article in the charter that makes it clear that this behaviour is unacceptable and that anyone who engages in it will be swiftly banned.

Given that the "Relentless Negativity" rule was a bit more of a vaguely worded attempt to address similar issues, we're proposing that we replace it with the following:

8. Negativity
There are lots of places on the internet where you can have a rant about cyclists. This isn't one of them. This is a place for people with an interest in cycling to discuss cycling. If you treat it as a venue for holding all cyclists to account for perceived or actual misbehaviour by some, you can expect to find your access swiftly removed. In short, we are not your punching bag. If you really do want do want an answer to your gripe, do a search. The usual topics, such as cycle lanes, cycling two abreast etc. have been discussed, ad nauseam, many, many times before.

If you agree/disagree with this proposal, please vote in the poll. We'll leave it open till Monday evening.

Thank you

thebouldwhacker · 24-04-2014 4:58pm

Is this not legislating for trolls, I see the possibility for a baby and bathwater situation from this. I reckon mods get on top of these kinda posts pretty quick. Besides sometimes the forum members benifit from such venting. While many will not phrase their 'concerns' in the most diplomatic way the core point is often valid. As the sportive season kicks in some people get on bikes and feel invincible and fail to recognise the 40 tonne lorry belting straight for them will still do damage even though they have a helmet on and are entitled to be two abreast (touched most of the major ones there).
Anyway I think the mods are doing well as is.

Beasty · 24-04-2014 5:54pm

General Boards rules "legislate" for trolls. We are also not looking to stifle discussion on valid topics - we are looking to find a more straightforward way of dealing with posters who think they can come into the forum just to rant on topics that have probably been covered many times before.

I would add that I am certainly not against posters simply because they may have a different view from the majority. Their views remain valid (assuming they are backed up with reasoned arguments). However we have had a tendency for some people with hardly any posts in the forum to come in and suggest they have the "solution" to certain issues they perceive to be out there - often such solutions have been validly countered previously.

In addition we are trying to avoid the type of "cyclist versus motorist" thread we can often get. We share the facilities and we are all entitled to express our views. If those views seem to be aimed at cyclists becaise they are cyclists rather than specific situations (such as RLJ'ing for example) that can be debated rationally then we are saying we have the possibility of curtailing the "discussion" rather than making it an invitation for anyone with a grudge against cyclists to pile in just to have a dig.

Wishbone Ash · 24-04-2014 6:47pm

Some of these type of threads begin over in the Motors Forum where they gain a head of steam before being moved over here.

Would it be possible to prevent such moves or for the Motors' Mods to liaise prior to moving a controversial thread?

Eamonnator · 24-04-2014 7:58pm

Amend "punching bag" to "punch bag"

Beasty · 24-04-2014 9:01pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Some of these type of threads begin over in the Motors Forum where they gain a head of steam before being moved over here.

How many threads have you seem moved from Motors to over here? I know I've bene suffering from some amnesia but I actually cannot recall any.

Fireball XL5 · 24-04-2014 9:26pm

Beasty wrote: »

However we have had a tendency for some people with hardly any posts in the forum to come in and suggest they have the "solution" to certain issues they perceive to be out there - often such solutions have been validly countered previously.

As a long time and regular reader of this forum I find this to be quite a disconcerting statement. What difference does the number of previous posts make to the validity of anyone's argument? I accept that the writer believes in the validity of the statement but to people who who do not feel the need to commit their thoughts to a public forum on each and every issue they encounter the statement appears to imply that when they do commit themselves their views are in some way less worthy than those coming from people who seem to feel the need to express a view on everything.

On a personal level I tend to have more respect for those who keep their counsel than those who are prepared to express a view on everything. If a person who has made only a few posts genuinely believes they have a "solution" even if their arguments have been "validly" countered previously then so what? Is the forum about free speech for all - in other words an open forum or is it only about free speech for the few? Is it the case that a person with a few posts who raises an argument or point of view which others feel is not "valid" (whatever that might mean) is to be considered a "troll" ?

Can't say I have the answers but this particular statement might lead an objective observer to arrive at certain conclusions.

irishmotorist · 24-04-2014 9:52pm

I disagree with the 'ad nauseum' bit, if it's intended to ban/discourage discussion on regularly occurring topics. It's a discussion forum and new people won't want to read through a 2 year old, 50 page helmet discussion to see if their exact opinion has already been stated. People obviously want to discuss these topics if they keep on appearing.

I personally avoid threads on topics about helmets, for example, because of the 'strong' views of a lot of members on it and I just end up getting annoyed by it. Anybody else who finds these threads repetitive/boring can simply ignore them.

Regarding other general negativity, I think it's hard to write a rule for it. Somebody who is generally/obviously trolling, should be chucked out. Somebody who is validly criticising cyclists or their behaviour, should be able to air their opinions and engage in discussion. E.g., some time ago a driver put up some dashboard camera photos of some invisible cyclists at nighttime and was highlighting their lack of visibility. To me, this wasn't trolling, but he was lit upon by several posters as if he was. IMO, he was raising a valid point from a personal experience - the same as most cycling posters, but just from a different point of view.

Wishbone Ash · 24-04-2014 10:01pm

Beasty wrote: »

How many threads have you seem moved from Motors to over here? I know I've bene suffering from some amnesia but I actually cannot recall any.

I'm pretty sure there were a few which originated in the Motoring Forum and a few moved from After Hours also.

...or perhaps I've just dreamt it!

Beasty · 24-04-2014 10:14pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there were a few which originated in the Motoring Forum and a few moved from After Hours also.

...or perhaps I've just dreamt it!

In my time as a mod I think I can recall perhaps the odd one from AH and I cannot remember any from Motors in recent times (March is a bit of a blur though!!) The Motors mods have always been very co-operative in particular (and have counted a couple of very regular cyclists amongst their ranks in recent years);)

Lumen · 24-04-2014 10:27pm

I don't think most posters would realise the sheer volume of work involved in modding, particularly the correspondence with mentallers over PM which happens out of sight.

I think the relentless negativity clause was introduced to deal with one particular turdspanner who was eventually banned, so it could probably do with repurposing at this stage.

Beasty · 24-04-2014 10:43pm

Lumen wrote: »

I don't think most posters would realise the sheer volume of work involved in modding, particularly the correspondence with mentallers over PM which happens out of sight.

Pah! This place is all sweetness and light compared to Roller Derby.... :pac:

mamax · 25-04-2014 9:10am

It is after all a public forum and freedom of speech is necessary but common sense has to be used to decide the persons motive behind the post, for me it's give the numptys one warning then ban them (after you have made the correct decision regarding their post of course

)

cdaly_ · 25-04-2014 9:32am

deandean · 25-04-2014 11:34am

IMO moderating in the cycling forum is okay as-is.

I don't see what this new rule will do to improve the forum.

Who reads the charter anyway? Certainly not a drive-by visitor!

Darkglasses · 25-04-2014 11:42am

deandean wrote: »

IMO moderating in the cycling forum is okay as-is.

I don't see what this new rule will do to improve the forum.

Who reads the charter anyway? Certainly not a drive-by visitor!

Having specific rules like this in the charter make it easier for us moderators to enforce them. When it's clear in the charter what's acceptable and what's not, it makes the back-and-forth pms a lot less painful.

ford2600 · 25-04-2014 2:03pm

Darkglasses wrote: »

Having specific rules like this in the charter make it easier for us moderators to enforce them. When it's clear in the charter what's acceptable and what's not, it makes the back-and-forth pms a lot less painful.

I used to post on a unmoderated forum except for one administrator; it is now long gone.
Mainly due to lads constantly taking the p1ss.

Write up whatever ye need to do to keep your life's easier and keep forum.

monument · 25-04-2014 4:35pm

deandean wrote: »

IMO moderating in the cycling forum is okay as-is.

I don't see what this new rule will do to improve the forum.

Who reads the charter anyway? Certainly not a drive-by visitor!

One of the rules is that you don't have to read the rules to be infracted or banned due to not following that rule.

CptMackey · 26-04-2014 8:02am

Ban them all I say . We can then move to take over the country and ban cars on race days and other days when I want to head out cycling.
:pac:

On a more serious note it's a good idea if it helps to stop the cyclists don't pay road tax crap

slap/dash · 26-04-2014 11:57am

Personally I think boards is moderated to oblivion already. But that's another story.

IMO moderation in general tends to miss many aspects of casual sexism bro dude type behaviour and enforces a majority common sense ideology which is blind to its own failings

Beasty · 26-04-2014 12:24pm

slap/dash wrote: »

Personally I think boards is moderated to oblivion already. But that's another story.

IMO moderation in general tends to miss many aspects of casual sexism bro dude type behaviour and enforces a majority common sense ideology which is blind to its own failings

This is not a Feedback thread - please stick to the specific proposal described in the OP. However if you do have any problems with what "moderation" may "miss" - that's what the report post function is for. You cannot expect mods to read every post. Mods can then deal with stuff as they see appropriate. Again this is not a topic for this thread so if you have any question please PM a local mod

Diarmuid · 27-04-2014 12:29am

deandean wrote: »

I don't see what this new rule will do to improve the forum.

I'm guessing it's to fix problems that you don't see. (poster -> mod interaction)

Guybrush T · 27-04-2014 11:54pm

I read more than I post, and voted no. From what I've seen the anti cycling trolls get whacked on the head with the ban-hammer pretty smartly as it is, so I don't see any need to modify it.

Chips Lovell · 29-04-2014 6:58am

The ayes have it.

Closing thread. Amending charter.

Proposal to amend forum charter

Should we change the charter to include this new rule? 124 votes

Comments