Girls in... threads but a no swearing plicy, makes no sense.

MattC59

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Anyone remember when Johnathan Ross and Russell Brand got in trouble, all those complaints ? Well, the vast majority of the complaints came in from people who hadn't actually heard the offending comments on the radio, but had actively sought them out, and then complained.

They hadn't heard something offending, so they hadn't been offended. On seeking it out, they knew that they were going to find something which would offend them, and so by their own actions found themselves taking offence.

Sound familiar ?

The offending threads are clearly labled, and bar one or two posts aren't particularly bad. If such 'schoolboy titilation' offends, don't read the threads which you know will contain it.

Why do you assume that's the case? Oh wait... 'Most active forum: Cake Stop (2097 Posts / 72.61% of user’s posts)'. I've certainly been in CakeStop and seen the threads in question prior to this.

And the simple presence of those threads is enough -- see dpaulett's summary above.

Why do I assume what's the case ? That people sought out the offending JR/RB clips (because it was well documented at the time), or that the threads are clearly labled (because they are) ?

If their simple presence is offensive, are you saying that you're offended by the presence of the tops shef magazines in news agents, or do you just ignore them ? How about strip clubs ? Ignore them as well ?

MattC59

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

dpaulett wrote:

..... And in case I haven't made myself clear, in my opinion, photos of girls in stuff is not appropriate for these cycling forums.....

And what about if it's in non cycling OT forums ?

This is a cycling website. All its forums are cycling forums. If you want to post that sort of thing try scantilycladgirlradar.com

except for the forums where OT posts are allowed.

msmancunia

MattC59 wrote:

Anyone remember when Johnathan Ross and Russell Brand got in trouble, all those complaints ? Well, the vast majority of the complaints came in from people who hadn't actually heard the offending comments on the radio, but had actively sought them out, and then complained.

They hadn't heard something offending, so they hadn't been offended. On seeking it out, they knew that they were going to find something which would offend them, and so by their own actions found themselves taking offence.

Sound familiar ?

The offending threads are clearly labled, and bar one or two posts aren't particularly bad. If such 'schoolboy titilation' offends, don't read the threads which you know will contain it.

In your particular cycling utopia telling people "don't read the threads" may work, but unfortunately real life isn't like that, is it? It's the attitude in which they are posted, the way that attitude leeches out into other threads, and into real life. It only takes one "nice @rse" comment to a newbie girl at a bike club/MTB track to make her decide that she'll bail. So would you make a comment like that? How about if someone said it about your girlfriend? Would you grow a pair and tell the offender to back off? Or would you laugh about it and make her feel like crap?

lost_in_thought

MattC59 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Anyone remember when Johnathan Ross and Russell Brand got in trouble, all those complaints ? Well, the vast majority of the complaints came in from people who hadn't actually heard the offending comments on the radio, but had actively sought them out, and then complained.

They hadn't heard something offending, so they hadn't been offended. On seeking it out, they knew that they were going to find something which would offend them, and so by their own actions found themselves taking offence.

Sound familiar ?

The offending threads are clearly labled, and bar one or two posts aren't particularly bad. If such 'schoolboy titilation' offends, don't read the threads which you know will contain it.

Why do you assume that's the case? Oh wait... 'Most active forum: Cake Stop (2097 Posts / 72.61% of user’s posts)'. I've certainly been in CakeStop and seen the threads in question prior to this.

And the simple presence of those threads is enough -- see dpaulett's summary above.

Why do I assume what's the case ? That people sought out the offending JR/RB clips (because it was well documented at the time), or that the threads are clearly labled (because they are) ?

If their simple presence is offensive, are you saying that you're offended by the presence of the tops shef magazines in news agents, or do you just ignore them ? How about strip clubs ? Ignore them as well ?

Why do you assume the Ross/Brand case is a valid comparison?

And the reality is that strip clubs exist on certain streets in certain areas, and the top shelves in newsagents have existed since I was a girl but recently been heavily censored, if you remember rightly it was because they were considered offensive.

This is a cycling forum on a cycling website. If I walked into a strip club I'd be an idiot to be surprised or similar by the presence of barely-dressed ladies. If I walked into a cycling shop, and there was a lap dancing section next to the pannier racks, you bet I'd think it was inappropriate. Yes, even if it had a sign saying 'lap dancing section'.

Do you see?

clarkey cat

If I walked into a cycling shop, and there was a lap dancing section next to the pannier racks,

Linky please

greg66_tri_v2.0

dpaulett wrote:

I can appreciate the female form and I find women in sports attractive, but if I wanted to view images of such, I wouldn't come to BikeRadar for it. In fact, the number of ridiculous threads and offensive comments in various threads on many of the sub-forums is just so much noise and degrades the signal to noise ratio, tarnishing the whole BR brand.

Therein lies part of this problem. If you eschew very strict moderation of the sort found on weightweenies, then where do you draw the line?

On BR the three "main" areas (MTB, Road, Commuting) all have their own dedicated chat forum. The starting point is that if you venture into any of those forums, you're going to find OT material. You can expect there to be no unlawful OT material, but after that, the tenor is set entirely by the site owner. This is a commercial site, and the rules are set by its owners. Until the owners see that the rules are costing them revenue, the rules will not change.

Within that structure, it is users who define the tone of a particular forum. It's noteworthy that unlike Cake Stop (home of the unemployed) and Crudcatcher (home of the unemployable), this forum doesn't have a semi-permanent ogle thread. That's a good thing IMO.

But it is far from the whole story: the tenor of a forum can be offensive to a particular group absent an ogle thread. The tenor can also be ridiculous because the threads have no useful (in this case cycle commuting) content.

For my part, I think the ridiculousness of a lot of the threads in here is what makes this place what it is: a good thing. I think if the line were to be drawn so that the ridiculous threads were moderated out of existence, this place would shut down fast.

Generally I'd say there isn't an offensiveness issue per se here either. There may be a more moderate issue, which one might term a lack of inclusiveness; specifically, that it is very male in here. To a degree that reflects the imbalance you see on the roads between the number of male vs female commuters. But whatever the cause, I don't see an easy line that can be drawn to address this because it isn't a moderation issue. If we want to turn this place into a male hall of residence, it would not be difficult. If we want to turn it into a more welcoming and perhaps civilised place, it is up to us to do it.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

If I walked* into a strip club

<closes eyes and concentrates quite hard for a while...>

And I'm back in the room.

lost_in_thought wrote:

I'd be an idiot to be surprised or similar by the presence of barely-dressed ladies

There ain't no ladies in a strip club, barely dressed or otherwise.


* "If I were to walk into...", I think you'll find.

Greg T

Greg66 wrote:

The Word.

He is right you know.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

But it is far from the whole story: the tenor of a forum can be offensive to a particular group absent an ogle thread. The tenor can also be ridiculous because the threads have no useful (in this case cycle commuting) content.

For my part, I think the ridiculousness of a lot of the threads in here is what makes this place what it is: a good thing. I think if the line were to be drawn so that the ridiculous threads were moderated out of existence, this place would shut down fast.

Snipped for readability -- the bit I'm responding to.

I don't disagree with the silly threads, it's only the ones that serve to alienate people that bother me.

jonny_trousers

Hmm, I'm still not convinced. Bikeradar is clearly more than a forum dedicated to discussing all things cycle related. It's where people with an initial common interest come together to chat and to discuss. Often that is centred around cycling, but often it is much more general. It is a vast site with numerous sub forums and is clearly aiming to offer something for everyone. Now, somewhere, in a couple of little corners are areas where a few boys like sharing pictures of cute girls. We can all choose to visit those corners and join in, or we can all choose to avoid them, it's really that simple. I totally respect that a number of people will have an issue with such pictures being displayed at all, but I suspect they will be in the minority.

As for this perceived 'boys-club' thing: It's just ridiculous. It's completely unfair to accuse us of lowering the tone, of putting off potential female contributors, of partaking in a 'sausage-fest'. It's a heavily male dominated membership and I don't care how new-man any of us are, you lock us in a room together and before long we will start talking about boobies. We are, however, mostly respectful towards our female members and in this sub forum in particular, I think we all know there are lines best not to cross - and on those rare occasions when those lines are dallied with (DDD's 'Women you shouldn't, but would' thread, for example) I'm sure that we would all back away if a member was to say, 'Come on lads, that's going a bit far, don't you think?' The I-dread-to-think-what-a-new-female-member-might-think-if-she-was-accidentally-to-stumble-into-cakestop thing that has been raised a couple of times in this thread is incredibly patronising to woman. Surely she is capable of seeing it for what it is and moving on before she is cyber-gang-raped by the mob of degenerates some of you seem to feel hang-out there? Surely most women are capable of giving as good as they get (and no, DDD, I'm not referring to your, 'Women you'd like to bugger you with a strap-on' thread), or are we all picturing delicate little flowers in Laura Ashley, coasting to a stop on their Pashleys at Sin City's Cake Stop? Ladies: if you'd like to see more of your sex joining us here then it might be an idea for you, the trailblazers, to start posting more regularly. Nothing says, this is a female friendly place better than females being there and joining in.

Right! I seriously ought to go and do something worthwhile with my afternoon.

x

MattC59

msmancunia wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Anyone remember when Johnathan Ross and Russell Brand got in trouble, all those complaints ? Well, the vast majority of the complaints came in from people who hadn't actually heard the offending comments on the radio, but had actively sought them out, and then complained.

They hadn't heard something offending, so they hadn't been offended. On seeking it out, they knew that they were going to find something which would offend them, and so by their own actions found themselves taking offence.

Sound familiar ?

The offending threads are clearly labled, and bar one or two posts aren't particularly bad. If such 'schoolboy titilation' offends, don't read the threads which you know will contain it.

In your particular cycling utopia telling people "don't read the threads" may work, but unfortunately real life isn't like that, is it? It's the attitude in which they are posted, the way that attitude leeches out into other threads, and into real life. It only takes one "nice @rse&quot; comment to a newbie girl at a bike club/MTB track to make her decide that she'll bail. So would you make a comment like that? How about if someone said it about your girlfriend? Would you grow a pair and tell the offender to back off? Or would you laugh about it and make her feel like crap?

People have a choice whether to read the threads. If it's clearly labled and you choose to read it, then that's up to you.
No I wouldn't expect it at a cycling club, but we're not at a cycling club.
No I wouldn't make a comment like that, but I'm not at a cycling club.
If someone said it to my girlfriend, I'd probably get a smack from my wife, but unless she got upset I'd dismiss it as a juvenile comment (as she would and as perhaps should be done here ?)

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

If I walked* into a strip club

<closes eyes and concentrates quite hard for a while...>

And I'm back in the room.

lost_in_thought wrote:

I'd be an idiot to be surprised or similar by the presence of barely-dressed ladies

There ain't no ladies in a strip club, barely dressed or otherwise.


* "If I were to walk into...", I think you'll find.

I've walked into many a strip club, Greggles

EDIT: But actually, your correction may well be... well... correct!

sketchley

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Anyone remember when Johnathan Ross and Russell Brand got in trouble, all those complaints ? Well, the vast majority of the complaints came in from people who hadn't actually heard the offending comments on the radio, but had actively sought them out, and then complained.

They hadn't heard something offending, so they hadn't been offended. On seeking it out, they knew that they were going to find something which would offend them, and so by their own actions found themselves taking offence.

Sound familiar ?

The offending threads are clearly labled, and bar one or two posts aren't particularly bad. If such 'schoolboy titilation' offends, don't read the threads which you know will contain it.

Why do you assume that's the case? Oh wait... 'Most active forum: Cake Stop (2097 Posts / 72.61% of user’s posts)'. I've certainly been in CakeStop and seen the threads in question prior to this.

And the simple presence of those threads is enough -- see dpaulett's summary above.

Why do I assume what's the case ? That people sought out the offending JR/RB clips (because it was well documented at the time), or that the threads are clearly labled (because they are) ?

If their simple presence is offensive, are you saying that you're offended by the presence of the tops shef magazines in news agents, or do you just ignore them ? How about strip clubs ? Ignore them as well ?

Why do you assume the Ross/Brand case is a valid comparison?

And the reality is that strip clubs exist on certain streets in certain areas, and the top shelves in newsagents have existed since I was a girl but recently been heavily censored, if you remember rightly it was because they were considered offensive.

This is a cycling forum on a cycling website. If I walked into a strip club I'd be an idiot to be surprised or similar by the presence of barely-dressed ladies. If I walked into a cycling shop, and there was a lap dancing section next to the pannier racks, you bet I'd think it was inappropriate. Yes, even if it had a sign saying 'lap dancing section'.

Do you see?

I see. However, BR should also by that argument stop discussions about politics and tax in commuting chat as they are not about cycling. Unfortunately what will happen is that off topic discussions will move to the cycling specific forums if cake stop, crud catcher etc are removed and people posting will post those discussion with OT in front in the cycling specific sections. Far better albeit not perfect solution to the problem is to have off topic and general discussion sections where people can discuss non cycling stuff. Again not a comment on my opinon of the threads themselves but one on censorship and acceptable use.

Fact is BR have created areas on the website specifically to keep the non cycling stuff away from the cycling stuff for precisely the reasons given here.

Edit damm autocorrect....

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

I don't disagree with the silly threads, it's only the ones that serve to alienate people that bother me.

I'm not comfortable with threads that alienate people either.*

What's the solution? More receptiveness to those who want to put their hand up and say "I don't think this is appropriate"?

I don't know. I'm interested in a workable solution, and I'd definitely support it**





*With the obvious exception of those that alienate the irritating, contribute-nothing bandwidth-wasting nutters. Yes, you lot. You know who you are. We all know who you are as well.

**Unless someone is pointing the finger at me, in which case they can just go and fcuk themselves!

lost_in_thought

Sketchley wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Anyone remember when Johnathan Ross and Russell Brand got in trouble, all those complaints ? Well, the vast majority of the complaints came in from people who hadn't actually heard the offending comments on the radio, but had actively sought them out, and then complained.

They hadn't heard something offending, so they hadn't been offended. On seeking it out, they knew that they were going to find something which would offend them, and so by their own actions found themselves taking offence.

Sound familiar ?

The offending threads are clearly labled, and bar one or two posts aren't particularly bad. If such 'schoolboy titilation' offends, don't read the threads which you know will contain it.

Why do you assume that's the case? Oh wait... 'Most active forum: Cake Stop (2097 Posts / 72.61% of user’s posts)'. I've certainly been in CakeStop and seen the threads in question prior to this.

And the simple presence of those threads is enough -- see dpaulett's summary above.

Why do I assume what's the case ? That people sought out the offending JR/RB clips (because it was well documented at the time), or that the threads are clearly labled (because they are) ?

If their simple presence is offensive, are you saying that you're offended by the presence of the tops shef magazines in news agents, or do you just ignore them ? How about strip clubs ? Ignore them as well ?

Why do you assume the Ross/Brand case is a valid comparison?

And the reality is that strip clubs exist on certain streets in certain areas, and the top shelves in newsagents have existed since I was a girl but recently been heavily censored, if you remember rightly it was because they were considered offensive.

This is a cycling forum on a cycling website. If I walked into a strip club I'd be an idiot to be surprised or similar by the presence of barely-dressed ladies. If I walked into a cycling shop, and there was a lap dancing section next to the pannier racks, you bet I'd think it was inappropriate. Yes, even if it had a sign saying 'lap dancing section'.

Do you see?

I see. However, BR should also by that argument stop discussions about politics and tax in commuting chat as they are not about cycling. Unfortunately what will happen is that off topic discussions will move to the cycling specific forums if cake stop, crud catcher etc are removed and people posting will post those discussion with OT in front in the cycling specific sections. Far better albeit not perfect solution to the problem is to have off topic and general discussion sections where people can discuss non cycling stuff. Again not a comment on my opinon of the threads themselves but one on censorship and acceptable use.

Fact is BR have created areas on the website superficially to keep the non cycling stuff away from the cycling stuff for precisely the reasons given here.

Well, perhaps they should create a more segregated area, to avoid confusion. CakeStop sounds, on the surface, like such a friendly, welcoming place.

Scantily Clad Ladies section? Objectification of women section? Boys' Club? Make the RL equivalent of a strip club in forum terms... I bet BR wouldn't be so happy with that option, but they're fine for it to take place under the happy title of Cake Stop...

MattC59

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Anyone remember when Johnathan Ross and Russell Brand got in trouble, all those complaints ? Well, the vast majority of the complaints came in from people who hadn't actually heard the offending comments on the radio, but had actively sought them out, and then complained.

They hadn't heard something offending, so they hadn't been offended. On seeking it out, they knew that they were going to find something which would offend them, and so by their own actions found themselves taking offence.

Sound familiar ?

The offending threads are clearly labled, and bar one or two posts aren't particularly bad. If such 'schoolboy titilation' offends, don't read the threads which you know will contain it.

Why do you assume that's the case? Oh wait... 'Most active forum: Cake Stop (2097 Posts / 72.61% of user’s posts)'. I've certainly been in CakeStop and seen the threads in question prior to this.

And the simple presence of those threads is enough -- see dpaulett's summary above.

Why do I assume what's the case ? That people sought out the offending JR/RB clips (because it was well documented at the time), or that the threads are clearly labled (because they are) ?

If their simple presence is offensive, are you saying that you're offended by the presence of the tops shef magazines in news agents, or do you just ignore them ? How about strip clubs ? Ignore them as well ?

Why do you assume the Ross/Brand case is a valid comparison?

And the reality is that strip clubs exist on certain streets in certain areas, and the top shelves in newsagents have existed since I was a girl but recently been heavily censored, if you remember rightly it was because they were considered offensive.

This is a cycling forum on a cycling website. If I walked into a strip club I'd be an idiot to be surprised or similar by the presence of barely-dressed ladies. If I walked into a cycling shop, and there was a lap dancing section next to the pannier racks, you bet I'd think it was inappropriate. Yes, even if it had a sign saying 'lap dancing section'.

Do you see?

Why is is not a valid comparrison ? It would appear that some people have looked at the threads to complain about them.
Where are these heavily censored top shelves ? If anything the content has got worse in recent years !

lost_in_thought wrote:

If I walked into a strip club I'd be an idiot to be surprised or similar by the presence of barely-dressed ladies.

Then why are you not suprised or similar by the presense of barely dressed ladies in a thread titled "Girls in Short Skirts" ?

rjsterry

A significant minority of people find these threads offensive to some degree, either because of specific material posted, or the general blokes-only image they give the forum(s) as a whole. Yes they are mostly clearly labelled and can be avoided, but their existence creates an atmosphere where it's then seen as fine to post similar stuff in other sub-forums - for example that advert with the women in underwear 'cleaning' a bike, which was posted in Commuting Chat.
That there haven't been more complaints is probably more due to the fact that these threads are clearly long established and so to some extent must be 'approved' by mods/admin. From the individual's point of view, what's the point of complaining if it looks as though the 'authorities' have already given it their blessing. From the mods point of view, nobody's complained so it must be fine, so I think a more proactive role needs to be taken rather than waiting for a post to be reported.

Lastly, the argument of 'most of us like it, if you don't just look away' isn't good enough - it just leads to this becoming FHM with bikes. Have some consideration for other users of the forums.

notsoblue

G66 and JT nailed it.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I don't disagree with the silly threads, it's only the ones that serve to alienate people that bother me.

I'm not comfortable with threads that alienate people either.*

What's the solution? More receptiveness to those who want to put their hand up and say "I don't think this is appropriate"?

I don't know. I'm interested in a workable solution, and I'd definitely support it**





*With the obvious exception of those that alienate the irritating, contribute-nothing bandwidth-wasting nutters. Yes, you lot. You know who you are. We all know who you are as well.

**Unless someone is pointing the finger at me, in which case they can just go and fcuk themselves!

I personally think the answer is to remove the threads. But I don't see it happening -- mods won't want to upset the boys.

Greg T

The obvious answer is to move all the "girls in" threads to Commuting General where no-one will ever see them other than the hybrid pervs and seekers of outrage scandal vultures.

Of course this discussion would be better placed and commented on in cake stop by the people who post there. They may object to some of our discussions as boring, politically naive, wrong or just too ghey (smoked tofu) - if they got caned by the roadie massive flexing their shaved muscles I'd get the arse.

lost_in_thought

MattC59 wrote:

Then why are you not suprised or similar by the presense of barely dressed ladies in a thread titled "Girls in Short Skirts" ?

Are you being deliberately dense or do you genuinely not understand?

msmancunia

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Anyone remember when Johnathan Ross and Russell Brand got in trouble, all those complaints ? Well, the vast majority of the complaints came in from people who hadn't actually heard the offending comments on the radio, but had actively sought them out, and then complained.

They hadn't heard something offending, so they hadn't been offended. On seeking it out, they knew that they were going to find something which would offend them, and so by their own actions found themselves taking offence.

Sound familiar ?

The offending threads are clearly labled, and bar one or two posts aren't particularly bad. If such 'schoolboy titilation' offends, don't read the threads which you know will contain it.

Why do you assume that's the case? Oh wait... 'Most active forum: Cake Stop (2097 Posts / 72.61% of user’s posts)'. I've certainly been in CakeStop and seen the threads in question prior to this.

And the simple presence of those threads is enough -- see dpaulett's summary above.

Why do I assume what's the case ? That people sought out the offending JR/RB clips (because it was well documented at the time), or that the threads are clearly labled (because they are) ?

If their simple presence is offensive, are you saying that you're offended by the presence of the tops shef magazines in news agents, or do you just ignore them ? How about strip clubs ? Ignore them as well ?

Why do you assume the Ross/Brand case is a valid comparison?

And the reality is that strip clubs exist on certain streets in certain areas, and the top shelves in newsagents have existed since I was a girl but recently been heavily censored, if you remember rightly it was because they were considered offensive.

This is a cycling forum on a cycling website. If I walked into a strip club I'd be an idiot to be surprised or similar by the presence of barely-dressed ladies. If I walked into a cycling shop, and there was a lap dancing section next to the pannier racks, you bet I'd think it was inappropriate. Yes, even if it had a sign saying 'lap dancing section'.

Do you see?

I see. However, BR should also by that argument stop discussions about politics and tax in commuting chat as they are not about cycling. Unfortunately what will happen is that off topic discussions will move to the cycling specific forums if cake stop, crud catcher etc are removed and people posting will post those discussion with OT in front in the cycling specific sections. Far better albeit not perfect solution to the problem is to have off topic and general discussion sections where people can discuss non cycling stuff. Again not a comment on my opinon of the threads themselves but one on censorship and acceptable use.

Fact is BR have created areas on the website superficially to keep the non cycling stuff away from the cycling stuff for precisely the reasons given here.

Well, perhaps they should create a more segregated area, to avoid confusion. CakeStop sounds, on the surface, like such a friendly, welcoming place.

Scantily Clad Ladies section? Objectification of women section? Boys' Club? Make the RL equivalent of a strip club in forum terms... I bet BR wouldn't be so happy with that option, but they're fine for it to take place under the happy title of Cake Stop...

I hate to have to admit to this, but the first time I went in to Cake Stop, I did actually think it was about cake :oops:

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

dpaulett wrote:

I can appreciate the female form and I find women in sports attractive, but if I wanted to view images of such, I wouldn't come to BikeRadar for it. In fact, the number of ridiculous threads and offensive comments in various threads on many of the sub-forums is just so much noise and degrades the signal to noise ratio, tarnishing the whole BR brand.

Therein lies part of this problem. If you eschew very strict moderation of the sort found on weightweenies, then where do you draw the line?

On BR the three "main" areas (MTB, Road, Commuting) all have their own dedicated chat forum. The starting point is that if you venture into any of those forums, you're going to find OT material. You can expect there to be no unlawful OT material, but after that, the tenor is set entirely by the site owner. This is a commercial site, and the rules are set by its owners. Until the owners see that the rules are costing them revenue, the rules will not change.

Within that structure, it is users who define the tone of a particular forum. It's noteworthy that unlike Cake Stop (home of the unemployed) and Crudcatcher (home of the unemployable), this forum doesn't have a semi-permanent ogle thread. That's a good thing IMO.

But it is far from the whole story: the tenor of a forum can be offensive to a particular group absent an ogle thread. The tenor can also be ridiculous because the threads have no useful (in this case cycle commuting) content.

For my part, I think the ridiculousness of a lot of the threads in here is what makes this place what it is: a good thing. I think if the line were to be drawn so that the ridiculous threads were moderated out of existence, this place would shut down fast.

Generally I'd say there isn't an offensiveness issue per se here either. There may be a more moderate issue, which one might term a lack of inclusiveness; specifically, that it is very male in here. To a degree that reflects the imbalance you see on the roads between the number of male vs female commuters. But whatever the cause, I don't see an easy line that can be drawn to address this because it isn't a moderation issue. If we want to turn this place into a male hall of residence, it would not be difficult. If we want to turn it into a more welcoming and perhaps civilised place, it is up to us to do it.

Here goes:

I disagree, what you're proposing suggests there is no real need for moderators or moderation of the type of content within the forums beyond cleaning up the forums by deleting old threads and banning vexatious users.

Content is user generated, yes. It is also stated that users are responsible for the content they upload and enter on the website. However, the site owners and designated moderators hold the right to remove any content they consider not suitable or inappropriate for this website [terms and conditions]. So there is a measure of moderation and a line drawn already.

What is being asked for is not a complete zero tolerance level of moderation but an adjustment to the current level to include content that could be considered sexually inapproiate or overtly offensive to a particular gender. This would be consistent with the current policy for content that is found to be overtly homophobic, racist, violent et al.

How would one identify sexually inappropriate or overtly offensive to a particular gender? The site has a minimum age, so you can start there. I.e. If the context of the content, visual or written, is not suitable for someone 16 years of age or older then it is not suitable here.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

It's a heavily male dominated membership

Thing is, there used to be a lot more female posters in here than there are now.

lost_in_thought

msmancunia wrote:

I hate to have to admit to this, but the first time I went in to Cake Stop, I did actually think it was about cake :oops:

Me too, well, about a Cake Stop -- the friendly, welcoming title belies the unwelcoming content.

I said it in jest, but maybe a subsection called 'Boys' club' or 'Scantily Clad Ladies Section' is the answer -- but of course it begs the question: why should that exist on a cycling site?

rjsterry

MattC59 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

If I walked into a strip club I'd be an idiot to be surprised or similar by the presence of barely-dressed ladies.

Then why are you not suprised or similar by the presense of barely dressed ladies in a thread titled "Girls in Short Skirts" ?

You don't generally find a strip club in the corner of Evans or CycleSurgery, labelled or otherwise, do you?

sketchley

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Anyone remember when Johnathan Ross and Russell Brand got in trouble, all those complaints ? Well, the vast majority of the complaints came in from people who hadn't actually heard the offending comments on the radio, but had actively sought them out, and then complained.

They hadn't heard something offending, so they hadn't been offended. On seeking it out, they knew that they were going to find something which would offend them, and so by their own actions found themselves taking offence.

Sound familiar ?

The offending threads are clearly labled, and bar one or two posts aren't particularly bad. If such 'schoolboy titilation' offends, don't read the threads which you know will contain it.

Why do you assume that's the case? Oh wait... 'Most active forum: Cake Stop (2097 Posts / 72.61% of user’s posts)'. I've certainly been in CakeStop and seen the threads in question prior to this.

And the simple presence of those threads is enough -- see dpaulett's summary above.

Why do I assume what's the case ? That people sought out the offending JR/RB clips (because it was well documented at the time), or that the threads are clearly labled (because they are) ?

If their simple presence is offensive, are you saying that you're offended by the presence of the tops shef magazines in news agents, or do you just ignore them ? How about strip clubs ? Ignore them as well ?

Why do you assume the Ross/Brand case is a valid comparison?

And the reality is that strip clubs exist on certain streets in certain areas, and the top shelves in newsagents have existed since I was a girl but recently been heavily censored, if you remember rightly it was because they were considered offensive.

This is a cycling forum on a cycling website. If I walked into a strip club I'd be an idiot to be surprised or similar by the presence of barely-dressed ladies. If I walked into a cycling shop, and there was a lap dancing section next to the pannier racks, you bet I'd think it was inappropriate. Yes, even if it had a sign saying 'lap dancing section'.

Do you see?

I see. However, BR should also by that argument stop discussions about politics and tax in commuting chat as they are not about cycling. Unfortunately what will happen is that off topic discussions will move to the cycling specific forums if cake stop, crud catcher etc are removed and people posting will post those discussion with OT in front in the cycling specific sections. Far better albeit not perfect solution to the problem is to have off topic and general discussion sections where people can discuss non cycling stuff. Again not a comment on my opinon of the threads themselves but one on censorship and acceptable use.

Fact is BR have created areas on the website superficially to keep the non cycling stuff away from the cycling stuff for precisely the reasons given here.

Well, perhaps they should create a more segregated area, to avoid confusion. CakeStop sounds, on the surface, like such a friendly, welcoming place.

Scantily Clad Ladies section? Objectification of women section? Boys' Club? Make the RL equivalent of a strip club in forum terms... I bet BR wouldn't be so happy with that option, but they're fine for it to take place under the happy title of Cake Stop...

Not a bad suggestion, and you have a very good point, cake stops sound inviting, women like cake (well my wife does), so you go there and find a boy's club. How about calling it 'Behind the bikeshed' seems to fit with the juvenile content.

lost_in_thought

Sketchley wrote:

Not a bad suggestion, and you have a very good point, cake stops sound inviting, women like cake (well my wife does), so you go there and find a boy's club. How about calling it 'Behind the bikeshed' seems to fit with the juvenile content.

Behind the Bikeshed: genius.

greg66_tri_v2.0

msmancunia wrote:

I hate to have to admit to this, but the first time I went in to Cake Stop, I did actually think it was about cake :oops:

Not entirely stupid: when the Sunday Surrey roadies stop at the shop at the top of Box Hill they do so to buy cake. Not to ogle the women riders (I assume, with some confidence).

As for Crudcatcher, well, from the little I have seen it and its inhabitants are beyond redemption.

supersonic

DonDaddyD wrote:

supersonic wrote:

The issues raised in this thread have been forwarded to the Admin and Mods and are under discussion.

Further issues have arisen though: if these forums are purely for the pursuit of cycling, should we ban all off topic areas and threads ie EVERY post must be cycling related?

That's just silly. Clearly there is a market for off topic discussions. Those sections are also clearly not open to no-holds-barred discussions. You're telling me that between the moderators, web designers and content editors you can't decide on what is acceptable content of a quasi sexual nature and what isn't?

I'm not "telling" you you what you have suggested. It has arisen in this thread that people want posts only restricted to cycling, hence I mentioned this, so is not "silly". It is plainly obvious that what is acceptable and what is not varies vastly, and hence we are discussing it (or at least trying to). I have asked a few questions, mostly ignored, or have being answered with extremely pedantic questions which are poor efforts to try and undermine what we actually do. The owners of this site do not even want an off topic area.

Instead it seems many people are more intent on arguing, nit picking, being extrememly pedantic not to mention the levels of hypocrisy. Parts of the thread are serious, others are humourous, yet many can't tell the difference which just causes more flaming, trolling and arguing.

On this note I am locking the thread as it is going around in circles. If you want a SERIOUS discussion on issues raised in this thread, go to the Bike Radar office and post in there, especially as the original post wanted input from mods and admin. I have, as mentioned, put up a message in our office to discuss this and measures that we can take.

Until then REPORT pictures you find offensive. As yet, I have not seen any reports, unless have been dealt with quickly by other mods.

Please continue in the Office in a constructive manner.

ADMIN.