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

t.m.h.n.e.t

dpaulett wrote:

Ok, so 2 have expressed an opinion to maintain the threads. But is my previous question too difficult to answer? Do the benefits of maintaining the threads in question outweigh the disadvantages of alienating some members who perceive them as creating an unwelcoming atmosphere?

I am genuinely interested in the answer.

You clearly haven't read the rest of the thread enough to warrant asking questions. Most seem quite happy enough with the thread/s if indeed there is a limit as to what is acceptable. And this requires more moderators/moderation and uniform rules.

By doing this,there is no alienation and it isn't particularly unwelcoming. Then again removing them entirely only solves half of the problem.

rozzer32

dpaulett wrote:

Ok, so 2 have expressed an opinion to maintain the threads. But is my previous question too difficult to answer? Do the benefits of maintaining the threads in question outweigh the disadvantages of alienating some members who perceive them as creating an unwelcoming atmosphere?

I am genuinely interested in the answer.

Yes but if we have new rules and a new mod then those who perceive them as unwelcoming can report it knowing that something will be done about it which will hopefully create a forum where everyone will be happy with the middle ground.

Cleat Eastwood

rozzer32 wrote:

dpaulett wrote:

rozzer32 wrote:

I'm still with if you don't like the threads don't look at them, but I agree that a new set of rules would be good and it would make sure everyone knew the limits and was reading off the same page.

Can you answer my previous question? Do the benefits of maintaining the threads in question outweigh the disadvantages of alienating some members who perceive them as creating an unwelcoming atmosphere?

Are they that important to you or are you objecting to what you perceive as censorship? Because if the majority of members want to keep them and the site owner allows it, then I will bow out of the discussion. And possibly the whole site. (I know, save the jokes, I won't be missed and all that).

I want the threads to stay. Who's with me?

I'm with you rozz

dpaullet for me it is about the censorship. I'm sure you'd agree that what is fine for one is offensive for others - and its difficult on a forum were only the words count to discriminate and fully understand the intent of a post. And if it is censorship where does the line get drawn - as a ludicrous example - do non londoners have a right to ask for posts from the capital to be limited because of the communters metropolitan bias. The logic is understandable but the application of it lacks context - the context being that its a forum, in the original term, a mix of views, sometimes contentious, sometimes supportive.

FWIW I think thats whats missing from this debate, context - because as you rightly point out the different points of view are being homogenised. If the issue is censorship then that should be addressed, if it is genuinely a sense of an aggressive tone in the forum then that needs to be addressed separately. To lump all arguments, which I think is what your question is hinting at, for keeping the thread or changing the thread as one big for or against argument is counter productive.

And on the rohypnol thing, again its about context - there has been a long running joke about one poster on the crudcatcher and this was a slight nod to him and his jokey tastes - to someone dipping into the thread it could seem a bit off, seen in context its just inter member banter - thats my take on it anyway.

cat_with_no_tail

dpaulett It's odd, I don't think I've ever seen you post in the Crudcatcher before. A place that comes with a very clear warning about the sort of content you will find in there in both the sub-forum descriptor, and the self-contained "crudcatcher rules".

Could it possibly be that you've gone looking for threads that you can object to? Rather than merely stumbling upon them accidentally.

Taken from the Crudcatcher rules:

However the Crud Catcher is an area where some of the rules are more relaxed so members can engage in, if they so wish, a more risque level of banter and discussion. Certain rules MUST still be followed:

- Swearing, full frontal nudity and racism will NOT be tolerated and could result in an instant ban

- Do not post pictures of members without their prior permission

- Do not start threads with the sole basis of defamation

- We reserve the right to edit, lock or delete any thread that we feel has been taken too far

- Do not use the Crud Catcher to comment on the other off topic forum, posts within it, or contributors

Members should note that if they use the Crud Catcher, then they risk reading more adult themed chat, and should be aware of this if minors are using the forum. They also risk a level of flaming and posting designed to provoke a reaction. If you don't want this, then don't post.

I'd say it's pretty clear as to what goes on. You need a thick skin to post there. Clearly you havent, which is fine. But as you were pre-warned you've not really got anything to complain about.

fizz

I think that one should remain and that some guidelines are suggested for the content of the thread. Anything else that falls out of those guidelines is reported to the mod or the thread is regularly checked by an active mod for appropriate content and anything that is deemed inappropriate is removed.

Its part of the Cake Stop Culture or forum community that the thread is there, I see nothing wrong with looking at girls, I like to look at girls. But what's going on in there at the moment i.e. the tone of what is said and what is being posted, is beyond the original spirit of the thread or the context of it when it was started.

With it all in one thread, it therefore becomes much easier for somebody like me to ignore it. With it al in one thread, it doesn't give the impression that the purpose for the whole Cake Stop is for posting naughty / risqué pictures of girls with not much on, which is the impression that it gives off now. IMHO.

TBH what I have said above, isnt much of a change from what is currently going on in that section. Its more to do with bringing the tone back to something that perhaps is a little more acceptable.

Its not a big culture change, it wouldn't require reams and reams of text or rules to be written and posted and understood and IMHO it would be simple enough for a moderator to keep an eye on.

Edit - the issue you have is that there are different guidelines for what is or isnt acceptable in different sections of the forum. Which then leads to inconsistency across the sections, which is harder to moderate, but I dont have an answer on how that could be solved.

rhialto

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

I'm with you rozz

dpaullet for me it is about the censorship. I'm sure you'd agree that what is fine for one is offensive for others - and its difficult on a forum were only the words count to discriminate and fully understand the intent of a post. And if it is censorship where does the line get drawn - as a ludicrous example - do non londoners have a right to ask for posts from the capital to be limited because of the communters metropolitan bias. The logic is understandable but the application of it lacks context - the context being that its a forum, in the original term, a mix of views, sometimes contentious, sometimes supportive.

FWIW I think thats whats missing from this debate, context - because as you rightly point out the different points of view are being homogenised. If the issue is censorship then that should be addressed, if it is genuinely a sense of an aggressive tone in the forum then that needs to be addressed separately. To lump all arguments, which I think is what your question is hinting at, for keeping the thread or changing the thread as one big for or against argument is counter productive.

And on the rohypnol thing, again its about context - there has been a long running joke about one poster on the crudcatcher and this was a slight nod to him and his jokey tastes - to someone dipping into the thread it could seem a bit off, seen in context its just inter member banter - thats my take on it anyway.

Thank you. I am relieved to finally see a reasonable answer that doesn't resort to being dismissive or condescending. (THM - I have spent way too many hours reading every page of this and the previous thread). I understand the censorship issue. Since this issue was raised I have been puzzled by my perception that the threads in question seem to be such an important part of the forum for some members. Honestly, I didn't understand how this could be possible. If it's about censorship then I can better understand the apparent ire this raises.

I apologize if I am mis-representing the point but it seems to me that there are many members who think that the threads should stay and those members who might find some images and comments distasteful should either stay out of these threads and/or stop being so sensitive.

Again, I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't view or talk about. I wouldn't want to be told that either. I just thought this was a cycling forum.

supersonic

Afternoon everyone, just fired the computer up!

The more I read the posts here, the more I am beginning to conclude that the way forward is as mentioned earlier (though somewhat stating the obvious by me):

Where possible/applicable/acceptable - work with BR staff to draft a universally agreed ruleset and apply them to all forums,perhaps an exemption needed for threads of a more adult nature. (should the thread be kept) And if we (the users) help write them,then there can be no confusion or misunderstandings.

The majority do seem to want to keep some more adult content, but with stricter, more transparent guidelines rather than a total ban on such content.

I think we need discuss these rules more. This does not mean a decision has been made (I/we still need imput from other mods), but a good debate regarding rules/guidelines may well help a decision.

t.m.h.n.e.t

No underage is a given
No nudity inc chest/crotch/penis where gender applicable
No depictions of sexual acts
No Racist/sexist/homophobic
No birth/peeing/erm '#2's blah blah

Thread title to contain a warning (NSFW or other)
1 thread?

rhialto

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

You clearly haven't read the rest of the thread enough to warrant asking questions. Most seem quite happy enough with the thread/s if indeed there is a limit as to what is acceptable. And this requires more moderators/moderation and uniform rules.

If you missed the bits where some members stated that the threads in question do indeed create an unwelcoming tone, then I don't think it's me that needs to read more.

But I am debating this with someone whose signature pokes fun at a stereotypical Jamaican accent.

t.m.h.n.e.t

dpaulett wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

You clearly haven't read the rest of the thread enough to warrant asking questions. Most seem quite happy enough with the thread/s if indeed there is a limit as to what is acceptable. And this requires more moderators/moderation and uniform rules.

If you missed the bits where some members stated that the threads in question do indeed create an unwelcoming tone, then I don't think it's me that needs to read more.

But I am debating this with someone whose signature pokes fun at a stereotypical Jamaican accent.

Are you Jamaican? Does it offend you? Has it offended anyone else? It's all about context.

walkingbootweather

I like Bike Radar. As a cycle commuter and leisure cyclist I spend most of my time in the Commuting section because for me it contains a good mix of helpful advice, useful tips, serious discussion, banter and humour. I wouldn't claim to be offended by some of the more lurid content in other sections, but it's not really my thing and I can see how some people might find it offensive.

Moderating a site like BR must be very difficult and to be fair the moderators do a pretty decent job

Of the existing published T&C's perhaps the relevant paragraph requires members not to:

T&C's wrote:

Upload, post or otherwise display Content which is or promotes behaviour which violates the rights (including, without limitation, the intellectual property rights) of a third party or which is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, flaming, hateful, offensive (whether in relation to sex, race, religion or otherwise) harassing, hateful, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another’s privacy, solicits personal information from anyone under the age of 18 years, or contains any illegal content;

The problem is who decides what is offensive, vulgar or obscene? In some cultures particular words or (pretty much any) image of the female form would be considered offensive, in other cultures the same language or nudity might be much more acceptable. In the UK the popular press, lads mags, gossip magazines and the advertising industry seem to have set the standards. We might not all agree but “the page 3 girl”. “wonder-bra ad”, and “celebrity cellulite” or “wardrobe malfunction shocker” is part of our culture. Provided images on BR are no stronger than what might be considered acceptable in these other media forms (and some recent ones have been) then I can live with them.

I'm not convinced by the NSFW argument either. If you are supposed to be working then do some work – reading the paper (whether it is looking at page 3 or reading the sports report) is not working; inappropriate surfing of the net (whether it is viewing images of girls or bikes) is not working.

I don't really want to see porn, swearing or offensive comments on the forum, but I don't want it over-sanitised either. Perhaps we might try to establish or better promote an “unsuitable content reporting mechanism” but we might need safeguards to protect the rest of us from both the filth-mongers and puritanical zealots.

DonDaddyD

I think it is telling that there is a sub-culture in this place where the only woman in a thread about the use of inappropriate images of women is promptly ridiculed for posting something constructive, albeit slightly long in length.

ANYWAY.

Sex sells, there is no getting away from that. Sex is used to sell a multitude of consumer products and bicycles are no exception. That said, and to address a point made much earlier, I have never personally seen a nude or topless photo in any advert advertising or promoting a cycling brand intended for the mass market.

I'm not here to change the Western World's use of the female form and I do think a measure of tolerance needs to be exercised on both sides. You are going to get suggestive pictures models (male and female) advertising a product and discussion is going to range from "Phwoar" to "The continuous exploitation of the female form in the Western World and how this marginalises and alienates the vast majority of the female population". I think socially both are accepted no matter what side of the line you stand. The beauty of a forum is that it's a place for both opinions to be expressed.

At the same time I think some, me included, need to exercise more decency and consideration for others. I can't help but feel that a lot of these pro-explicit and/or not safe for work image types are hiding behind their PCs and abusing, on this website at least, their anonymity. ~ The internet/online forums allow people anonymity to do, look at and say things they wouldn't normally do in public. ~ That doesn't necessarily mean that every place on the Internet is a place to explore your inner carnality.

The website allows off topic chat areas to encourage and increase online community engagement. However, there is no real reason or benefit to this site or cycling (the overarching topic) to allow or tolerate not safe for work images. And no one that I can see has given a justifiable rationale for having threads of that kind. It's just something that has never been challenged to this scale before. And like it or not the numerous images of women does alienate and marginalise many of the female user group. It is a valid point.

Therefore I don't see any reason for NSFW images or a NSFW/Mature/Adult section on this website (I may have previously suggested it, but this post is made with more thought on the issue). Seriously why? Cycling is about riding a bike and it is more enjoyable in groups so this website has social areas like Cake Stop, CrudeCatcher and Commuting Chat to allow safe and broader interaction to develop. What benefits does a mature section provide?

Fine, keep the Girls in Lycra on bikes thread for school boy laughs. Keep it clean. But draw a line and leave it there.

I just think aspects of the community may have forgotten themselves.

---

HOWEVER, if the site is suddenly for adults then the swearing filter can be dropped as well. If I can post a picture of a barely covered cunt then it makes no sense that I can't type the actual word cunt.

cornerblock

What? A few people give sarky replies to an needlessly long post and it's part of a sub-culture. Get a grip, you yourself have stated that it was slightly long in length, are you a part of that sub-culture? And again, what has the gender of the person to do with it? We're all capable of posting unnecessarily long posts, male or female, you of all people should know that.

As somebody who has accepted that an image they posted was inappropriate, and therefore deleted it before the whole thing was deleted, I think talk of sub-cultures is a bit dramatic.

MattC59

dpaulett wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

You clearly haven't read the rest of the thread enough to warrant asking questions. Most seem quite happy enough with the thread/s if indeed there is a limit as to what is acceptable. And this requires more moderators/moderation and uniform rules.

If you missed the bits where some members stated that the threads in question do indeed create an unwelcoming tone, then I don't think it's me that needs to read more.

But I am debating this with someone whose signature pokes fun at a stereotypical Jamaican accent.

Are you serious !?! With that last comment I think you've just confirmed your lack of understanding of a number of previous posts and confirmed that the FacePalm pics are indeed justified !!

rozzer32

Try saying beer can without saying bacon in a Jamaican accent.

Pseudonym

rozzer32 wrote:

Try saying beer can without saying bacon in a Jamaican accent.

It might be better for everyone if you would just shut up. Unless of course you would rather keep perpetuating the 'tiresome, loud, bumptious oaf' stereotype, which you seem to carry off pretty well...

rozzer32

Pseudonym wrote:

rozzer32 wrote:

Try saying beer can without saying bacon in a Jamaican accent.

It might be better for everyone if you would just shut up. Unless of course you would rather keep perpetuating the 'tiresome, loud, bumptious oaf' stereotype, which you seem to carry off pretty well...

Had a bad day have we??

Pseudonym

rozzer32 wrote:

Pseudonym wrote:

rozzer32 wrote:

Try saying beer can without saying bacon in a Jamaican accent.

It might be better for everyone if you would just shut up. Unless of course you would rather keep perpetuating the 'tiresome, loud, bumptious oaf' stereotype, which you seem to carry off pretty well...

Had a bad day have we??

On the contrary - it's been very good. But it hasn't made any difference to my impression of you, sadly....

MattC59

Can I point out something that appears to have been missed in the discussion so far............

At time of posting, the 'Girls in Lycra' thread has had 3,242,574 views. I'll repeat that: over 3.2 million views. It can't be that unpopular.

Pseudonym

MattC59 wrote:

Can I point out something that appears to have been missed in the discussion so far............

At time of posting, the 'Girls in Lycra' thread has had 3,242,574 views. I'll repeat that: over 3.2 million views. It can't be that unpopular.

15 pages in and you're still labouring under the misapprehension that this is a popularity issue..?

bompington

MattC59 wrote:

Can I point out something that appears to have been missed in the discussion so far............

At time of posting, the 'Girls in Lycra' thread has had 3,242,574 views. I'll repeat that: over 3.2 million views. It can't be that unpopular.

17,277,180 Germans voted for Hitler, he can't have been that unpopular

MattC59

Pseudonym wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Can I point out something that appears to have been missed in the discussion so far............

At time of posting, the 'Girls in Lycra' thread has had 3,242,574 views. I'll repeat that: over 3.2 million views. It can't be that unpopular.

15 pages in and you're still labouring under the misapprehension that this is a popularity issue..?

eeeerm............ no, as mentioned, just pointing it out. :roll:

MattC59

bompington wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Can I point out something that appears to have been missed in the discussion so far............

At time of posting, the 'Girls in Lycra' thread has had 3,242,574 views. I'll repeat that: over 3.2 million views. It can't be that unpopular.

17,277,180 Germans voted for Hitler, he can't have been that unpopular

Clearly, within his voting catchment area, he wasn't.

shouldbeinbed

@msmancunia: nice to see you advocating on p13 the same solution as I did on p5, glad I'm on the right lines.

BUT

I object to your wondering how many men (why only men?) secretly share the boys club, tits out for the lads mentality because they/we/I didn't object in thread (another suggestion of mine for those whos feelings are particularly strong on the content). Did you? And if (as) you did not, does that entitle the rest of us to wonder if you secretly like it all too?

Clearly not, so maybe like you, we simply voted with our feet. It has taken DDD's new found puritanical zeal to prompt anyone to voice their feelings. You have no justification to imply any sort of tacit approval on anyone who has behaved exactly as you have.

rozzer32

Pseudonym wrote:

rozzer32 wrote:

Pseudonym wrote:

rozzer32 wrote:

Try saying beer can without saying bacon in a Jamaican accent.

It might be better for everyone if you would just shut up. Unless of course you would rather keep perpetuating the 'tiresome, loud, bumptious oaf' stereotype, which you seem to carry off pretty well...

Had a bad day have we??

On the contrary - it's been very good. But it hasn't made any difference to my impression of you, sadly....

Oh that is a shame. Never mind, can't please everyone.

Cleat Eastwood

bompington wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Can I point out something that appears to have been missed in the discussion so far............

At time of posting, the 'Girls in Lycra' thread has had 3,242,574 views. I'll repeat that: over 3.2 million views. It can't be that unpopular.

17,277,180 Germans voted for Hitler, he can't have been that unpopular

rhialto

I was trying to highlight what I think is an important issue in this discussion: sensitivity.

I have never demanded that the threads in question be removed, nor that I find them sexist or even offensive. My opinion is not the point. When I first read that some of the female members found the threads in question created an unwelcome atmosphere I poked around cakestop and crudcatcher and thought, yes, I could see why they might feel that way.

So I asked a question: in light of the fact that these threads make some of the women uncomfortable, are these threads so important that members who enjoy them wouldn't consider the possibility of not having them?

I thought the answer was obvious and that most would respond, of course they aren't that important, it's just for laughs but in the interest of being more inclusive, let them go. No biggee.

Evidently, I was naive and I was wrong.

Sorry that I haven't been more sensitive to the needs of those who enjoy those threads. I wasn't thinking of you guys.

Stone Glider

Thank goodness, we have reached a 'Godwin Moment'. Can we all go home now?

A final thought, frequent posters on this forum, despite advice to the contrary, seem to have acquired a proprietorial view of their role. It ain't so, let us alone, that's the 3.2million of us, BR does fine by me.

MattC59

Stone Glider wrote:

Thank goodness, we have reached a 'Godwin Moment'. Can we all go home now?

I doubt it, I called everyone Nazis a couple of pages back, in an attempt to invole Godwins, but it didn't work.

msmancunia

shouldbeinbed wrote:

@msmancunia: nice to see you advocating on p13 the same solution as I did on p5, glad I'm on the right lines.

BUT

I object to your wondering how many men (why only men?) secretly share the boys club, tits out for the lads mentality because they/we/I didn't object in thread (another suggestion of mine for those whos feelings are particularly strong on the content). Did you? And if (as) you did not, does that entitle the rest of us to wonder if you secretly like it all too?

Clearly not, so maybe like you, we simply voted with our feet. It has taken DDD's new found puritanical zeal to prompt anyone to voice their feelings. You have no justification to imply any sort of tacit approval on anyone who has behaved exactly as you have.

Sorry - I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. If you mean, why didn't I complain before, well, because I've had other things to do, and yes, DDD did bring it to the fore.

I've been on BR for a couple of years now - had a break from BR (and cycling) due to caring responsibilities at home, forgot my login and got a new one. Girls in... was there before, and it's still there now, but some of the posts seem to now go in a direction that I'm not comfortable with. In the past I did vote with my feet, because it wasn't to my taste, but last weekDDD asked a question, and I posted my opinion. There's nothing wrong with that. And I'm well aware that there may well be women who visit Girls in... - I pointed that out to either Matt/Rozzer (sorry - can't remember which!) a couple of pages ago.