Girls in... threads and the lack of reasonable moderation
Comments
-
Jonny_Trousers wrote:Just wanted to quickly congratulate the Cycling Plus team on the Tri-Uk advert on page 131 of this month's magazine! The naked young lady only just covering her breasts in the very centre of the page... Phwoaaaar!
I now find myself agreeing with those who say, if it aint in Cycling Plus then it shouldn't be here. Ladies and Gentlemen of Cake Stop! As you were...
PS. Top magazine this edition, breasts aside.
Interesting, when you say naked do you actually mean topless and what is the advert promoting?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
I certainly cannot recall word for word writing those things, no. If I did I will resoundingly apologise. If I didn't word for word write them and they have been altered in any way then I think I will be owed an apology.dirtymonkey1985 wrote:
Furthermore the thing about being a hetro male not being able to share a tandem with another male is not sexist, it could be perceived as homophobic.
Again, I apologise, but its hilarious when you read those comments (they're copied and pasted, just google them to find the OP) within the context of making the BR forums a more welcoming environment for ladyfolk.
*cough*sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous (s ngk t -m n - s). adj. Feigning piety or righteousness*cough*
0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Jonny_Trousers wrote:Just wanted to quickly congratulate the Cycling Plus team on the Tri-Uk advert on page 131 of this month's magazine! The naked young lady only just covering her breasts in the very centre of the page... Phwoaaaar!
I now find myself agreeing with those who say, if it aint in Cycling Plus then it shouldn't be here. Ladies and Gentlemen of Cake Stop! As you were...
PS. Top magazine this edition, breasts aside.
Interesting, when you say naked do you actually mean topless and what is the advert promoting?
Buy the magazine and see for yourself; it actually is a top read this month and the girl on page 131 is unspeakably hot; you'd love her.0 -
Heh heh. He has a point doesn't he. Fine, I believe all have been taken out of context but, I apologise.notsoblue wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
I certainly cannot recall word for word writing those things, no. If I did I will resoundingly apologise. If I didn't word for word write them and they have been altered in any way then I think I will be owed an apology.dirtymonkey1985 wrote:
Furthermore the thing about being a hetro male not being able to share a tandem with another male is not sexist, it could be perceived as homophobic.
Again, I apologise, but its hilarious when you read those comments (they're copied and pasted, just google them to find the OP) within the context of making the BR forums a more welcoming environment for ladyfolk.
*cough*sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous (s ngk t -m n - s). adj. Feigning piety or righteousness*cough*
It still doesn't answer the question. There was a reason why I posted that.
What reason do others have for posted sexually suggestive and nearly nude images of woman?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Greg66 wrote:New avatar required for Mr. Eastwood:
haha, nice one - careful though - there'll be someone come along to complain about objectifying men in hats.
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
I can't really believe this is still going but I ll add my 2 cents.
I'm (I think) one of the few people following this charade who actively posts in all three sections. I ve had some experience in the on and off topic parts of both and occasionally peruse the threds in question.
Personally I don't think the Girls in/Lovlies threads do anyone any harm. There have been a couple of pics that have raised my eyebrows, but often these have been removed. The "doggy style" one was one. Although clearly not an actual pornographic image, it is close enough to be a problem. The girl on the toilet one did nt bother me much to be honest, Girls pee, I know this. Perhaps doing work experience in nursing homes when I was a nipper has made (?forced) me to get comfortable with bodily functions. However, enough people have questioned it that maybe it would be easier if it was removed. The last one was two girls at the naked bike ride who were naked save for a few jewellry adornments. That one is an interesting one as clearly that is entirely ON topic as it was a cycling awareness event (what your opinions on naked bike rides are is irrelevant).
These off topic areas are usually the most popular parts of the forum and do provide a reason for regulars to keep coming back. This means that there is a helathy amount of people to answer the what tyres threads. In fact commonly, it is the same people who answer the what tyres threads that also post in the off topic areas. If you remove those areas,they won't stay and the what tyres threads will have no one to answer them. (dpaulett, alongside the censorship point, this is my answer to the question you posed a while back)
I do not think it is degrading to women to have these threads and I think insinuations that the people that post in them or view them are losers who can't get laid/have derogatory opinions of women/are unemployed/are stupid is lazy and crass. I have discussed pro racing or bike set up with many of them far more than i have discussed pretty girls. People of both sexes like an ogle at their stud/studdette of choice, to claim otherwise is folly, to calim that that automatically lowers their respect for that particular sex, on the basis of a couple of idiots, is just rubbish, just as the "all cyclists RLJ" line is rubbish.
To say that one takes generic "Offence" to such threads is also lazy, to quote Stephen Fry "well so f**king what?" If you can come up with some genuine answers for why they are offensive then fine. You may not like them, but that does not mean that they are wrong. Personally, I would far rather my metaphorical son/daughter see a few pictures of boobies than read MaxwellBygraves one sided, poorly argued diatribe against the health bill fo fear that they might think that that was n acceptable way to discuss a topic. That said, I just don't go in that thread anymore. I ve also gone on record against people using offensive (be it racist or homophobic) language. Particularly with one poster who used the word gay to describe 3/4 tights. Again, I m would be far more concerned about this than a boob.
As discussed, most of the images (and those that go too far, or are flagged to many times may be removed) are no worse than the assos/pearl izumi ads in the magazines, and in fact are no worse that what appears on billboards at bus stations.
Secondly, I also think that the vast majority of people are sensible enough to avoid threads where they know they will be offended, but mostly are capable of seeing past such sillyness and appreciating the good advice people can give.
Thirdly, to think that someone would gain an interrest in cycling, by a bike, a helmet, some fancy shorts, plot a route, sit on said bike then be put off from cycling by an image of a gilr in a bikini is absurd. I have never got into a sport based on the quality of a random internet forum on the subject and I seriously doubt that others do. Foolish old men discussing women in pubs, does nt seem to stop many people enjoyin pubs. Mrs Manc, if you want to join a club, do it, you ll have a great time.
On the whole the forum is well moderated, CrudCatcher went awry a few months ago and was dealt with with a couple of bansticks and some well considered posts from the mods, it is now back to normal. I think it would set a dangerous precedent for the threads to be removed completely although I think that there does need to be a reasonably close eye kept on them to prevent Greg posting that Bukkake picture he was on about on page 1 (:p, sorry, I'd been serious for way too long)
(I am not a professional typist or forum poster, so you ll have to deal with any spullang mistekes and tpyos I ve made)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Heh heh. He has a point doesn't he. Fine, I believe all have been taken out of context but, I apologise.
Well the reason is pretty simple, people like looking at them. Its the same reason why anything is posted to a forum!DonDaddyD wrote:It still doesn't answer the question. There was a reason why I posted that.
What reason do others have for posted sexually suggestive and nearly nude images of woman?0 -
If I can accept that there is a time and a place for certain posts, can't others accept that there is a time and a place for certain images and for said images to be shared?notsoblue wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Heh heh. He has a point doesn't he. Fine, I believe all have been taken out of context but, I apologise.
Well the reason is pretty simple, people like looking at them. Its the same reason why anything is posted to a forum!DonDaddyD wrote:It still doesn't answer the question. There was a reason why I posted that.
What reason do others have for posted sexually suggestive and nearly nude images of woman?
Maybe this is not the place for it. Maybe it is.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:What reason do others have for posted sexually suggestive and nearly nude images of woman?
Funnily enough I remember something of a similar question being asked when the thread first started - the word one poster used was 'puerile'. It began on the c+ forum kind as an extension of people seeing similar on other forums IIRC, and the fact that on rides/sportives there were some fit women in lycra. I remember most of the early images were kind of like this, nothing you couldnt see on any sport website, then it came, i remember this, someone posted a pic with no lycra, which was even commented on by th eposters, so I guess the answer is originally it was innocent, it snowballed and my theory is that as newer members have joined they havent cottoned onto the original spirit of the thread - But I do have to say there's been nothing on there I wouldn't show my niece - mind you she is 36, hehe, joking, but what I would and wouldnt show anybody shouldnt be used as a yardstick, clearly, for censoring content.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
@ ddraver - As the person who posted the girl in the toilet image, may I just re-post what I said from quite a few pages back, as you may have missed it.Cornerblock wrote:
Well as one of the people who has posted an image that has been deemed inappropriate, I felt I should respond. If only one person had mentioned the image as being one of those that was deemed offensive then I freely admit I would probably have passed it off as somebody being a bit uptight. When more than one person mentions it, then you would be a fool not to question it yourself. Which I have. I can honestly say when the image was posted in the Girls In Realistic Situations it was not meant to be in a disrespectful way. It was, naively probably, meant to show a realistic situation, of how sometimes girls go off to the toilet together. I did not stop to consider the fact that someone had obviously taken the image sneakily over the door, ( it was not me honest! Google).
I will accept that on this occasion I posted an image that was in poor taste. I have also carried out self censorship, and as a punishment I am going climb the steepest hill on my ride tomorrow 3 times.0 -
Cleat Eastwood wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:What reason do others have for posted sexually suggestive and nearly nude images of woman?
Funnily enough I remember something of a similar question being asked when the thread first started - the word one poster used was 'puerile'. It began on the c+ forum kind as an extension of people seeing similar on other forums IIRC, and the fact that on rides/sportives there were some fit women in lycra. I remember most of the early images were kind of like this, nothing you couldnt see on any sport website, then it came, i remember this, someone posted a pic with no lycra, which was even commented on by th eposters, so I guess the answer is originally it was innocent, it snowballed and my theory is that as newer members have joined they havent cottoned onto the original spirit of the thread - But I do have to say there's been nothing on there I wouldn't show my niece - mind you she is 36, hehe, joking, but what I would and wouldnt show anybody shouldnt be used as a yardstick, clearly, for censoring content.
Perhaps it is time to "unsnowball" it.
I don't really buy the "censorship" argument. It suggest that there is a freedom of expression on BR that is being interfered with. There is no freedom. This is a commercial site and its content is prescribed by its owners.
The complaint, accurately stated, would be one of interference in an established convention or standard. But as you say, the standard has evolved over time. And it has done so in the absence of guidelines for mods to enforce. Where we are now is a bit "wild west", which isn't a proper basis to carry on. There is a genuine issue here, and the mods and the users need clear published guidelines drawn from scratch as to what is and is not permissible.0 -
A poll, to pin down whether people think the threads should remain, and their reasons for doing so:
1) I appreciated that women may be made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome posting in Cake Stop because of the "Girls in ..." threads but my ability to post sexualised images of women along side discussing cycling is more important to me than other people's discomfort.
2) I appreciated that women may be made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome posting in Cake Stop because of the "Girls in ..." threads but think that keeping the people who frequent those threads happy is more important than Bikeradar being a forum that encourages women into cycling/ to take cycling more seriously. If the presence of the threads discourages women from using this site, so be it.
3) Whilst in principle I think that it is a good thing to encourage women to post on Bike Radar, it is acceptable to me that they may feel excluded from certain areas of this site, even though they feel excluded for the specific reason that they are female. I see no contradiction between these two viewpoints.
4) I don't accept what the (mainly) female posters have said about the presence and content of the "Girls in..." threads making them feel uncomfortable, even though I have read the posts and seen that several people have said this is the case. I think they are lying about their feelings to promote an agenda/ don't really understand their own feelings/ or are stating wholly unreasonable views that should not be taken seriously.
5) I don't feel the need to look at sexualised images of women along side discussing cycling. If I feel the urge to do so, I can go to any of the many other websites on t'internet. It is not a big deal to me if the threads are banned.
Get Voting!0 -
Greg66 wrote:
I don't really buy the "censorship" argument. It suggest that there is a freedom of expression on BR that is being interfered with. There is no freedom. This is a commercial site and its content is prescribed by its owners.
The complaint, accurately stated, would be one of interference in an established convention or standard. But as you say, the standard has evolved over time. And it has done so in the absence of guidelines for mods to enforce. Where we are now is a bit "wild west", which isn't a proper basis to carry on. There is a genuine issue here, and the mods and the users need clear published guidelines drawn from scratch as to what is and is not permissible.
Amen. That's the argument and the answer in a nutshell.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Where we are now is a bit "wild west"
But it's not, though, is it? Everything was pootling along nicely before DDD's thread (I don't believe he intended it to go this far). That is unless the mods have received numerous complaints we don't know about that they decided not to act upon. We all knew which areas of BR we enjoyed spending time in and we knew which ones were not for us. I just don't believe there are female cyclists out there who refuse to take part anywhere on the forum because they object to what goes on in Cake Stop. Nor do I accept that there are teenagers traumatised by the - let's face it pretty softcore - images they will have seen a thousand times over elsewhere on the net, on TV or in magazines. Like I say, storm in a teacup.0 -
velocestrapture wrote:A poll, to pin down whether people think the threads should remain, and their reasons for doing so:
1) I appreciated that women may be made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome posting in Cake Stop because of the "Girls in ..." threads but my ability to post sexualised images of women along side discussing cycling is more important to me than other people's discomfort.
2) I appreciated that women may be made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome posting in Cake Stop because of the "Girls in ..." threads but think that keeping the people who frequent those threads happy is more important than Bikeradar being a forum that encourages women into cycling/ to take cycling more seriously. If the presence of the threads discourages women from using this site, so be it.
3) Whilst in principle I think that it is a good thing to encourage women to post on Bike Radar, it is acceptable to me that they may feel excluded from certain areas of this site, even though they feel excluded for the specific reason that they are female. I see no contradiction between these two viewpoints.
4) I don't accept what the (mainly) female posters have said about the presence and content of the "Girls in..." threads making them feel uncomfortable, even though I have read the posts and seen that several people have said this is the case. I think they are lying about their feelings to promote an agenda/ don't really understand their own feelings/ or are stating wholly unreasonable views that should not be taken seriously.
5) I don't feel the need to look at sexualised images of women along side discussing cycling. If I feel the urge to do so, I can go to any of the many other websites on t'internet. It is not a big deal to me if the threads are banned.
Get Voting!
Nothing loaded about those questions, eh? 0 -
Jonny_Trousers wrote:Greg66 wrote:Where we are now is a bit "wild west"
I just don't believe there are female cyclists out there who refuse to take part anywhere on the forum because they object to what goes on in Cake Stop.
So yours is a vote for 4) then? Or a combination of 3) and 4)? To make it easier I will permit votes in more than one category. 0 -
I have spoken to an employee of Future, and he is of the opinion of cutting down the said threads to one per OT area, with stricter guidelines in place and a clear warning about the nature of content of the thread. He also wants the pictures to be bike related only.
Nothing yet has been decided: and if the above is the way forward, then we/us/you will draft out some rules/guidelines that we can discuss. This of course has already started, with good suggestions: I appreciate the time taken by you to do this.
Is it worth doing an anymonous vote to try an gauge general opinion, and if so, what questions would you include?0 -
supersonic wrote:
Is it worth doing an anymonous vote to try an gauge general opinion, and if so, what questions would you include?
^
|
|
|0 -
supersonic wrote:Is it worth doing an anymonous vote to try an gauge general opinion, and if so, what questions would you include?
Seriously (and I don't mean to offend any other forum members) - but you will NEVER get any kind of useful feedback this way, let alone a consensus, or even a viable majority. By all means use member feedback to get the ball rolling (which you have done), but don't try to involve them (including me) in the rule making process, or you will stilll be here this time next year. I promise you, I speak from experience...
Sort some rules out internally and then nail them to the top of the forum. That's the easy part, by the way. The hard part is enforcing them.0 -
supersonic wrote:Is it worth doing an anymonous vote to try an gauge general opinion, and if so, what questions would you include?
I think there is only a purpose in a vote if you and the other mods think the outcome may affect the site owner's views. And by that I mean either way: the site owner may be prepared to abide by the outcome of a vote, or may take the view that the suggestion of a vote is enough to justify a blanket ban without a vote.
I also suspect that the questions that would interest the site owner ("if "girls in..." threads were banned or restricted on BR, would you continue to use BR?") is not the one that would interest the users ("should "girls in..." threads be banned or restricted?").0 -
let alone a consensus, or even a viable majority.
I guess this is why we have polls, to find out ;-). But discuss away.
As for rules, if we went ahead and nailed them to the top without any interaction from the many people who have started discussion here on them, there will be undoubtedly another thread immediately discussing the rules and why A has been included and not B. At least we can get some suggestions and debate; I don't think it need take all year, and I think in the space of a weekend progress has been made. Of course in the end the admin will make the final decisions.0 -
Jonny_Trousers wrote:Greg66 wrote:Where we are now is a bit "wild west"
But it's not, though, is it? Everything was pootling along nicely before DDD's thread (I don't believe he intended it to go this far). That is unless the mods have received numerous complaints we don't know about that they decided not to act upon. We all knew which areas of BR we enjoyed spending time in and we knew which ones were not for us. I just don't believe there are female cyclists out there who refuse to take part anywhere on the forum because they object to what goes on in Cake Stop. Nor do I accept that there are teenagers traumatised by the - let's face it pretty softcore - images they will have seen a thousand times over elsewhere on the net, on TV or in magazines. Like I say, storm in a teacup.
I don't agree with that. If it hadn't been DDD's thread, it would have been someone else's in a week/month/3 months.
The "realistic situations" thread crossed the line. But when a line is crossed, movement tends to continue. I think that, or another thread would have got worse and prompted a complaint from someone else.
But that's crystal ball gazing.0 -
supersonic wrote:As for rules, if we went ahead and nailed them to the top without any interaction from the many people who have started discussion here on them, there will be undoubtedly another thread immediately discussing the rules and why A has been included and not B. At least we can get some suggestions and debate; I don't think it need take all year, and I think in the space of a weekend progress has been made. Of course in the end the admin will make the final decisions.
If it were down to me, I'd say "these are the rules. Abide by them. If you want to discuss them, do so in the relevant thread in "Discuss the website with the team". Rogue threads outside this forum get moved and merged into the thread in this forum. Persistent disregard of that rule gets a suspension.
I really think you are better off getting something in place and refining it on the hoof. Otherwise you spend ages refining the rules, then implement them, and then still have a massive bunfight about them afterwards.
Bigger problem is what you do about images already on the site that don't comply with the new guidelines.0 -
What troubles me with permitting any threads of the "Girls in..." type is that there has been an obvious lack of self-censorship, and a continual pushing of the boundaries of what can properly be considered as acceptable for this forum. The images posted have, as others have pointed out, moved from merely aesthetically pleasing to soft porn. I refuse to believe that those posters posting the more explicit material did not even consider that they may be approaching or crossing the line of what was acceptable - anyone with enough brain power to ride a bike must realise that there is material that is not suitable for posting on an open, mixed gender forum. Is it the case that they didn't think about whether they may have crossed a line in terms of how other people would perceive their posts, or that they just didn't care? If not, why not?
Secondly, I think that most posters on this site would be far less tolerant of this sort of boundary pushing if it was racist or homophobic material. Why the tolerance of sexist material?
Thirdly, it is genuinely encouraging that many men have now posted to say that they think the "Girls in ..." threads have gone too far, including men who had previously posted on them. Contrary to what some people who have read this thread and the last one might think, I do actually think that most men are the "good guys" and that appreciating the female form does not mean otherwise. However, you surely knew that some of the posters were getting out of hand - why not speak out then? If you object to being tarred with the same brush as the men who are prepared to take things a little too far, then it is your responsibility to show by your words and actions that you should not be. Just standing passively by whilst others cross the line time and time again is not good enough. You had the chance to distinguish yourself then, why didn't you? Why should any woman trust that a man is one of the "good guys" when he doesn't demonstrate by his words or actions that this is the case?
If the "Girls in ..." posts are to be tolerated and remain, I think that the onus will be on the people who want to use them to be self-moderating. If they don't, those posters should get one warning, and if they breach the rules a second time, they should be banned. That way, the message is not that positing images of attractive people is wrong per se, but that making other people uncomfortable by doing so is intolerable.0 -
Bigger problem is what you do about images already on the site that don't comply with the new guidelines.
Yes, sifting through 500 pages is not going to be easy lol. Deleting the whole thread and starting again maybe the best way, or locking it with a clear reason why.0 -
velocestrapture wrote:What troubles me with permitting any threads of the "Girls in..." type is that there has been an obvious lack of self-censorship, and a continual pushing of the boundaries of what can properly be considered as acceptable for this forum. The images posted have, as others have pointed out, moved from merely aesthetically pleasing to soft porn.
So just remove the soft porn.0 -
supersonic wrote:Bigger problem is what you do about images already on the site that don't comply with the new guidelines.
Yes, sifting through 500 pages is not going to be easy lol. Deleting the whole thread and starting again maybe the best way, or locking it with a clear reason why.
Delete and start again. No one is that attached to what has been posted, are they?0 -
supersonic wrote:I have spoken to an employee of Future, and he is of the opinion of cutting down the said threads to one per OT area, with stricter guidelines in place and a clear warning about the nature of content of the thread. He also wants the pictures to be bike related only.
Nothing yet has been decided: and if the above is the way forward, then we/us/you will draft out some rules/guidelines that we can discuss. This of course has already started, with good suggestions: I appreciate the time taken by you to do this.
Is it worth doing an anymonous vote to try an gauge general opinion, and if so, what questions would you include?
I think yes, otherwise people will claim you didn't really listen to them.
If you want a clear majority you might have to run a number of different rounds of votes though.
I think the options are something like this
1) Keep things as they are
2) Introduce a new section of the forum specifically for this type of thread
3) Introduce a set of clearer and tighter guidelines, and start stricter moderation of the boards
4) Remove all girls in type threads apart from in lyrca shorts, introduce guidelines
5) Remove all girls in type threads completely
6) Remove all off topic sections
Probably missed a few options, but I think these are the main ones.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
supersonic wrote:I have spoken to an employee of Future, and he is of the opinion of cutting down the said threads to one per OT area, with stricter guidelines in place and a clear warning about the nature of content of the thread. He also wants the pictures to be bike related only.
Nothing yet has been decided: and if the above is the way forward, then we/us/you will draft out some rules/guidelines that we can discuss. This of course has already started, with good suggestions: I appreciate the time taken by you to do this.
Is it worth doing an anymonous vote to try an gauge general opinion, and if so, what questions would you include?
I'm not fully sure about how ad revenue works, but would the owner(s) be happy with the massive hit ad revenue will take if the threads are removed, as some people want?0 -
notsoblue wrote:velocestrapture wrote:What troubles me with permitting any threads of the "Girls in..." type is that there has been an obvious lack of self-censorship, and a continual pushing of the boundaries of what can properly be considered as acceptable for this forum. The images posted have, as others have pointed out, moved from merely aesthetically pleasing to soft porn.
So just remove the soft porn.
Then leave the existing threads as they are? Perfect, if only we could agree on a definition of soft porn.0
This discussion has been closed.
