Girls in... threads and the lack of reasonable moderation

DonDaddyD

Why are threads like Girls in:

Lycra Shorts
Knitwear
Rainwear
Realistic situations
Short skirts

Allowed to be prevalent on this website but then they prevent you, by some margin, from swearing?

Yes OK, a picture of breasticles and the word fuck aren't directly comparable but both are, arguably, considered adult/mature content. I just don't get the rationale for allowing one and not the other.

Powers that Be and Mawds, please explain?

supersonic

The original thread can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12839076

greg66_tri_v2.0

Putting it more shortly, why are there "Girls in" threads at all on this site?

MattC59

And so it begins...................

Including the 'Girls in..', Susanna Reid', and Crudcatcher threads (some of which need a government warning), 0.33% of posts are about eerm.... well, the content discussed. I have not included in this the 'Men in warm gloves' or 'Cleats Munters..' threads for obvious reasons.

Neither have I bothered to check in the Commuting Chat forum, as that sort of thing obviously doesn't go on in there. (except for the 'guilty pleasure: Women you 'would' but really shouldn't' thread :roll: )

edit: corrected as I got the decimal point in the wrong place :oops:

MattC59

Greg66 wrote:

Putting it more shortly, why are there "Girls in" threads at all on this site?

For the same reason that there are threads about politics, the weather etc etc etc.

DonDaddyD

Greg, in response to you earlier.

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 have 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. Interestingly sexually explicit seems to be overlooked and it is clear that this is an issue with some female users of the website.

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. I would probably start from there when moderating some of the more sexually suggestive content.

notsoblue

MattC59 wrote:

Neither have I bothered to check in the Commuting Chat forum, as that sort of thing obviously doesn't go on in there. (except for the 'guilty pleasure: Women you 'would' but really shouldn't' thread :roll: )

Couldn't help but chuckle

Could power the country with the irony generated! :P

MonkeyMonster

MattC59 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Putting it more shortly, why are there "Girls in" threads at all on this site?

For the same reason that there are threads about politics, the weather etc etc etc.

no, you might hope they can help educate people? Weather is useful for knowing when cycling. Political discussions for changes to cycling governship, cycle lanes, items that will impact your life and given cycling is a part of that then justifiable etc.
There is nothing wrong with learning useful information. What ladies look like in knitwear won't help outside of the tissuebox however.

notsoblue

DDD, do you think the "Guilty Pleasure" thread is an appropriate one for a forum that would like to be seen to be welcoming to women cyclists?

Not trolling, genuinely interested!

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Neither have I bothered to check in the Commuting Chat forum, as that sort of thing obviously doesn't go on in there. (except for the 'guilty pleasure: Women you 'would' but really shouldn't' thread :roll: )

Couldn't help but chuckle

Could power the country with the irony generated! :P

Without turning this into a "lets attack DDD session". The question has to be raised, where is the line and on this website when does titlation regardless of being cycling related or not cross that preverbial line? Because at present it hasn't been defined, it isn't moderated and many of fall foul of the ambiguity.

sketchley

Cake stop sounds inviting, women like cake (well my wife does), so they go there looking for cake and instead find a not very inviting boy's club. How about creating a sub forum and placing the girl's in threads in there and calling it 'Behind the Bikeshed' as it that would fit better with the juvenile content.

Either that or a ban on image list type threads altogether or even images and links across the site unless they specifcally about cycling.

greg66_tri_v2.0

MattC59 wrote:

Including the 'Girls in..', Susanna Reid', and Crudcatcher threads (some of which need a government warning), 0.0033% of posts

If I put up a single image of (say) a bukkake party that would amount to a teeny tiny %. That wouldn't justify doing so though.

It is a qualitative question. Not a quantitative one.

MattC59 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Putting it more shortly, why are there "Girls in" threads at all on this site?

For the same reason that there are threads about politics, the weather etc etc etc.

That is patently not true. Were it true, it could be used to justify the bukkake picture.



Look at it this way. You have a 13 year old daughter who is interested in cycling. She finds this place. Would you be happy at her finding (a) a politics thread; (b) a weather thread; (c) a girls in ogle thread? If so, why?

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

DDD, do you think the "Guilty Pleasure" thread is an appropriate one for a forum that would like to be seen to be welcoming to women cyclists?

Not trolling, genuinely interested!

Whatever the answer to that question is, I don't think it takes this debate any further forward. This is the time to play the ball, not the man.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sketchley wrote:

How about creating a sub forum and placing the girl's in threads in there and calling it 'Behind the Bikeshed' as it that would fit better with the juvenile content.

I think that illustrates vividly why the ogle threads shouldn't be here. They are not in the same category as the weather/politics/footy/whatever threads. If you were to segregate them, you'd never want to keep what you'd segregated.

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg, in response to you earlier.

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 have 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. Interestingly sexually explicit seems to be overlooked and it is clear that this is an issue with some female users of the website.

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. I would probably start from there when moderating some of the more sexually suggestive content.

My point was more holistic than that. Even if you remove images as you suggest, you can still have a highly misogynistic atmosphere - see numerous sub-forums on Pistonheads, for example.

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DDD, do you think the "Guilty Pleasure" thread is an appropriate one for a forum that would like to be seen to be welcoming to women cyclists?

Not trolling, genuinely interested!

Whatever the answer to that question is, I don't think it takes this debate any further forward. This is the time to play the ball, not the man.

Sorry, it does look a bit ad hominem, but I think its a valid point. The discussion on the original thread did seem to widen from being specifically about posting pictures of women for ogling to the general issue of the forum being a bit of a boy's club that isn't welcoming to women. DDD's thread was just a good example. I should rephrase it to ask the forum rather than specifically DDD. I think it would be a good way to gauge what would and wouldn't be appropriate.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DDD, do you think the "Guilty Pleasure" thread is an appropriate one for a forum that would like to be seen to be welcoming to women cyclists?

Not trolling, genuinely interested!

Whatever the answer to that question is, I don't think it takes this debate any further forward. This is the time to play the ball, not the man.

Sorry, it does look a bit ad hominem, but I think its a valid point. The discussion on the original thread did seem to widen from being specifically about posting pictures of women for ogling to the general issue of the forum being a bit of a boy's club that isn't welcoming to women. DDD's thread was just a good example. I should rephrase it to ask the forum rather than specifically DDD. I think it would be a good way to gauge what would and wouldn't be appropriate.

Sigh, yes because asking the forum wouldn't lead to more ad hominem.

notsoblue, you have a point. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Upon reflection I don't think that thread is appropriate here, no.

MattC59

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Neither have I bothered to check in the Commuting Chat forum, as that sort of thing obviously doesn't go on in there. (except for the 'guilty pleasure: Women you 'would' but really shouldn't' thread :roll: )

Couldn't help but chuckle

Could power the country with the irony generated! :P

Without turning this into a "lets attack DDD session".

Not what I was intending to do DDD

Kieran_Burns

I can't help but think people are majorly missing the point of a forum here.

Think of a forum like a pub - in this case: it's a pub where the regulars all have cycling as a common interest. The pub has rules of conduct or else you get barred and everyone in there has their own conversation going.

You can't legislate on every conversation that takes place in the pub, and on occasion some will get heated or touch on subjects that shouldn't be discussed in public - that's when the Landlord (Admin) or barstaff (Mods) step in.

No one will accept overtly racist or hate-speech of any kind (against whoever) but banter happens and conversations within groups of people who happen to all like the same thing will not ever stay on that one subject. Unless you're a train-spotter and no one talks to them apart from other train-spotter and they're scary.

Removing threads that some find offensive is ridiculous and will kill a site / forum stone dead. People getting upset on behalf of other people is just plain embarrassing - a pub is a place for adults and adult themes will be discussed - as long as the discussions are illegal, you can simply ignore the ones you don't like.

We've had this same discussion over on Scoobynet and because that has a paid membership policy, we moved the full on no-holds barred discussions into private forums that you pay to access (Full Membership required). What goes on in there is completely juvenile but we don't stop it.

On BR - the site is free, so there must be limits - as far as I am concerned: anything you can see in a daily paper is fine; and I've not seen anything in the Cake Stop picture threads that aren't AS revealing as some images in certain Red Tops.

Full and frank discussion should be encouraged - as long as the insults don't happen and nothing illegal is discussed or said.

MonkeyMonster

I'd like to hear back from BR personnel as to the status on whether there is a direct correlation between visitor numbers and revenue and what an allowable drop would be to keep a cleaner and progressive and inviting atmosphere. You could of course take it the other way and force the issue wider by raising these points in the interworld via twitter etc and see how BR liked the negative press that would be easily generated...

Though your ad figures would go through the roof as everyone came to see how "bad" it all was - infact is your silence a cunning marketing ploy? [/tongueincheek]

supersonic

What are thoughts on more private areas with strict warnings? (this does not mean no rules though!)

MattC59

Greg66 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Including the 'Girls in..', Susanna Reid', and Crudcatcher threads (some of which need a government warning), 0.0033% of posts

If I put up a single image of (say) a bukkake party that would amount to a teeny tiny %. That wouldn't justify doing so though.

It is a qualitative question. Not a quantitative one.

MattC59 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Putting it more shortly, why are there "Girls in" threads at all on this site?

For the same reason that there are threads about politics, the weather etc etc etc.

That is patently not true. Were it true, it could be used to justify the bukkake picture.



Look at it this way. You have a 13 year old daughter who is interested in cycling. She finds this place. Would you be happy at her finding (a) a politics thread; (b) a weather thread; (c) a girls in ogle thread? If so, why?

You're right, but a Bukkake picture (what ever that is :roll: :shock: ) is in a totally different league to a girl in slightly revealing knitted top.
The comment about it being for the same reason etc etc, was because they're all off topic.

As for a 13yr old daughter reading the site, there are far worse sites out there which are aimed at teens and far worse that aren't, all of which are accessable. Plus, there's the previously mentioned:



ok, so said 13yr old girl could read the forum with out being a member, so how about blocking the forum to non members ?

Kieran_Burns

Won't necessarily work - google bots will trawl them and you'll get hits on things you may not want to be associated with BR.

The moment you create a room that is more 'lax' in it's rules; the limits will be hit instantly and you'll be modding it like buggery.

Hence our PAYE forums

DonDaddyD

supersonic wrote:

What are thoughts on more private areas with strict warnings? (this does not mean no rules though!)

I thiink you have to first decide what is the overall premiss of the website. Personally I always saw it as an extention of the Cycling Plus magazine, with an edgy online commuter bought together through a love of bikes.

If you start adding private areas you change that completely and lose the feel of cycling for all ages, for everyone image.

But hey that's just me.

Pufftmw

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I can't help but think people are majorly missing the point of a forum here.

Think of a forum like a pub - in this case: it's a pub where the regulars all have cycling as a common interest. The pub has rules of conduct or else you get barred and everyone in there has their own conversation going.

You can't legislate on every conversation that takes place in the pub, and on occasion some will get heated or touch on subjects that shouldn't be discussed in public - that's when the Landlord (Admin) or barstaff (Mods) step in.

No one will accept overtly racist or hate-speech of any kind (against whoever) but banter happens and conversations within groups of people who happen to all like the same thing will not ever stay on that one subject. Unless you're a train-spotter and no one talks to them apart from other train-spotter and they're scary.

KB - I know I've seen that speech before someplace...

supersonic

With the website being an amalgamation of many magazine's sites, the clientele we get come from a number of readerships. The MBUK 'crowd' for example wanted a pretty much 'no holds barred' off topic area. The readers did not want to lose the previous site's identity, though it has to be said the target audience for the mag, though generally younger and more open in nature, does not reflect what the group actually was doing.

The MTB area therefore got two off topic areas. Interestingly enough, a lot of the original MBUK lot set their own forum up as a rival which quickly fell to pieces!

Kieran_Burns

Pufftmw wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I can't help but think people are majorly missing the point of a forum here.

Think of a forum like a pub - in this case: it's a pub where the regulars all have cycling as a common interest. The pub has rules of conduct or else you get barred and everyone in there has their own conversation going.

You can't legislate on every conversation that takes place in the pub, and on occasion some will get heated or touch on subjects that shouldn't be discussed in public - that's when the Landlord (Admin) or barstaff (Mods) step in.

No one will accept overtly racist or hate-speech of any kind (against whoever) but banter happens and conversations within groups of people who happen to all like the same thing will not ever stay on that one subject. Unless you're a train-spotter and no one talks to them apart from other train-spotter and they're scary.

KB - I know I've seen that speech before someplace...

Hey - it worked over there - it might work here as well

greg66_tri_v2.0

Kieran_Burns wrote:

The moment you create a room that is more 'lax' in it's rules

...

buggery.

Always thinking ahead, KB. Always thinking ahead.

Kieran_Burns

Greg66 wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

The moment you create a room that is more 'lax' in it's rules

...

buggery.

Always thinking ahead, KB. Always thinking ahead.

You Sir, have a mind like a Welsh Railway. One track and dirty.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Think of a forum like a pub - in this case: it's a pub where the regulars all have cycling as a common interest. The pub has rules of conduct or else you get barred and everyone in there has their own conversation going.

You can't legislate on every conversation that takes place in the pub, and on occasion some will get heated or touch on subjects that shouldn't be discussed in public - that's when the Landlord (Admin) or barstaff (Mods) step in.

No one will accept overtly racist or hate-speech of any kind (against whoever) but banter happens and conversations within groups of people who happen to all like the same thing will not ever stay on that one subject. Unless you're a train-spotter and no one talks to them apart from other train-spotter and they're scary.

Removing threads that some find offensive is ridiculous and will kill a site / forum stone dead. People getting upset on behalf of other people is just plain embarrassing - a pub is a place for adults and adult themes will be discussed - as long as the discussions are illegal, you can simply ignore the ones you don't like.

Take the pub, and imagine in one corner a bunch of regulars starting plastering the walls with pictures from FHM, Nuts, Loaded, etc. The tone of the conversation generally in that corner of the pub becomes less guarded and more laddish.

Some people are not going to want to go near that part of the pub. And the pub might start to attract more visitors specifically because they like that part of the pub. That, in turn, leads to those who don't care for that particular corner of the pub to cease to visit.

The pub analogy is good, because what matters is not just the content of the discussions (which can of course be "adult"). It is about the atmosphere in the pub as well.

Cleat Eastwood

The Girls in lycra thread started years ago 2005/2006 when it was the c+ site. The main objector to the thread joined in 2007, if he didnt like it then why join, if he doesnt like it now - feck off.

If you want to know if cakestoppers objectify women ask the female contributors to the road section. Beacon ruth always gives out great advice and is always encouraging others to try out he r clubs rides, one br member came second in a recent TT throughthe mersey tunnel, check out the support for the womens GB team.

Its pointless getting the mods involved because they generally manage the site well, they let crudcatchers do crudcatcher things and set limits when it goes overboard, same with the mods in road section - and I for one think its great that they get where most of the posters are coming from and are treating them with respect.

There been many posts on here with extreme views, all if not most end up being shot down, why the images of women cause such an outcry, because one man, recently became a father a and has a bout of conscience. Well for me i'd rather be on site where most of the posters feel welcome to the point in offering other members genuine condolences when they've suffered loss, than be on a site where posters have to double check their content to see if meets some unwritten rules of a middle class fathers angst.

This site treats all like adults in an adult world with all its complexities, misunderstandings and confusions- if people cant hack being treated like an adult - go somewhere else.