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

ddraver

Not sure I ve seen anyone say that there isn't a continuum - just that it's irrelevant.

@RLG - why can't you apply that same logic about the Nuts forum to the threads, it's not like the titles are subtle.

DonDaddyD

Velostrapture, for balance, the majority of the images in question are of models and are designed/intended to encourahe a reaction akin to those you describe. They certainly are not taken for art. So you cannot, i think, attack the intended reaction without criticising the image itself.

The question, for me, is whether the more explicit of these images are appropriate for the site. If so then can swearing also be?

rideslikeagirl

ddraver wrote:

Is it a straw man because it shows how fallible your argument is? You ve gone into a light hearted thread deliberately to look for anything to be offended by and, congratulations, you found something.

It's not funny but there is clearly a difference between making a joke (indicated by the smiley) about a picture and saying it to a total stranger. Just because is on they re on a scale, it does nt mean the entire scale should be damned into perpetuity.

No, its a straw man because its stupid. I can't even believe i'm engaging on this, but its annoyed me.

Doctors cure people. A doctor who kills people is either seriously incompetent or doing it deliberately. There is no correlation between between being a GP and a serial killer. And while its utterly true that looking at porn, going 'wargh' over bits of women's bodies or anything else is extremely unlikely to make someone likely to do anything untoward, its really difficult, if you've ever been in a crowd and felt a hand on you, if you've ever been yelled at to 'get yer tits out', not to feel that cold 'fight or flight' response.

Those threads make me stay out of the whole 'road' section. The 'crudcatcher' keeps me out of MTB. The discussion slid into commuting and that's why i got involved.

The question remains, if your behaviour makes someone feel unsafe, is it up to them to get over it, or up to you to stop the behaviour? Where does the responsibility lie? Is this website welcoming to women or not? R

Right now, it doesn't feel it. It feels like a boy's club where they snigger over boobs. Not somewhere i want to hang out, actually! Bye.

Cleat Eastwood

rideslikeagirl wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Is it a straw man because it shows how fallible your argument is? You ve gone into a light hearted thread deliberately to look for anything to be offended by and, congratulations, you found something.

It's not funny but there is clearly a difference between making a joke (indicated by the smiley) about a picture and saying it to a total stranger. Just because is on they re on a scale, it does nt mean the entire scale should be damned into perpetuity.

No, its a straw man because its stupid. I can't even believe i'm engaging on this, but its annoyed me.

Doctors cure people. A doctor who kills people is either seriously incompetent or doing it deliberately. There is no correlation between between being a GP and a serial killer. And while its utterly true that looking at porn, going 'wargh' over bits of women's bodies or anything else is extremely unlikely to make someone likely to do anything untoward, its really difficult, if you've ever been in a crowd and felt a hand on you, if you've ever been yelled at to 'get yer tits out', not to feel that cold 'fight or flight' response.

Those threads make me stay out of the whole 'road' section. The 'crudcatcher' keeps me out of MTB. The discussion slid into commuting and that's why i got involved.

The question remains, if your behaviour makes someone feel unsafe, is it up to them to get over it, or up to you to stop the behaviour? Where does the responsibility lie? Is this website welcoming to women or not? R

Right now, it doesn't feel it. It feels like a boy's club where they snigger over boobs. Not somewhere i want to hang out, actually! Bye.

what about the 'objectifying and crass' boyz in lycra thread - not sure who started that one - maybe you should have a quiet word. Just saying like.

bikefish100

To those who doubt that the pictures and comments on the "Girls in..." threads are not on a continuum with the sort of street harassment that rideslikeagirl has highlighted, please can you honestly consider and answer these questions?:

Your questions are leading. You imply that any words said about another person should not be said unless you are willing to direct the words to them personally, or that any words said about an image means the person should be willing to say it to all people. This is complete nonsense, and the continuum does not hold.

Not in the slightest, but ultimately it depends whether this is a cycling website or nuts.com.

It is a cycling website, with off topic areas. Off topic means topics not cycling related. Shall the admin therefore get rid of Off Topic areas to make it the 100% cycling website that you seem to want?

i come here to read and talk about bikes

So why are you in the off topic areas?

The question remains, if your behaviour makes someone feel unsafe...

Well this depends. If the person is over reacting then it should not hold that every instance of the reasons they over reacted should be removed. If it did there would be no website. Is all about the actual situation. The admin need to hurry up and make their decision.

There should be some sense of self preservation on all forums. If you see a topic that might offend, stay away from it.

supersonic

I've asked admin to hurry the process along! I am hopeful that a representative will post on Monday, and changes will be made.

Pseudonym

supersonic wrote:

I've asked admin to hurry the process along! I am hopeful that a representative will post on Monday, and changes will be made.

move it along a bit please fellas - people are rapidly running out of ways to insult each other on here.....

jonny_trousers

supersonic wrote:

I've asked admin to hurry the process along! I am hopeful that a representative will post on Monday, and changes will be made.

Does the matter need to be hurried along? Wouldn't it be better for the admin to take their time and to consider all options fully? Let's be honest here, those of us getting worked up, on either side of the argument, are just a teeny number of gob-shites compared to the rest of the membership who seem to be going about their business very happily.

shouldbeinbed

rideslikeagirl wrote:

RonB wrote:

Continuum...would suggest a natural, maybe an inevitable progression of behaviour, so I don't identify with that pronouncement at all. I am not trying to be flippant, but many of the images in question are thoroughly posed by models who could be in no doubt of the intended outcome of their (ahem) composition. Do they need some sort of salvation from themselves? Or pity?

Not in the slightest, but ultimately it depends whether this is a cycling website or nuts.com. I wouldn't go anywhere near a 'lads mag' site, but i come here to read and talk about bikes, not look at comments about 'norks' (for some reason that word has really got to me) and how some random person wants to stick his dick in someone. And yeah, it didn't take long to find something offensive on that thread, because its an inherently offensive, crass, and objectifying thread.

Genuine question (although I now hate myself for prolonging this route march) you arrived here in 2011. The lycra thread stretches back to 2007. There are one or two other cycling sites out there that don't have their own version of the lycra thread. What drew you to bikeradar over other sites with its long established as you describe them "crass & objectifying" threads & the owner sanctioned more 'confrontational ' areas?

Also can you put a link to a popular cycling forum that doesn't have some sort of chat /off topic /non cycling area regardless of suitability of content therein? You're moving the argument on from a tiny fraction of the threads on here with your comparisons to nuts etc. I couldn't give a monkeys if the girls in threads stay or go, but if you get to sterilise the site to talking & reading about bikes and nothing else then I'm off to somewhere where idle chatting isn't verboten. Do you speak or think about anything but work when at work? (assuming you work) or nothing but the composition of fairy liquid when doing the washing up?

& Check p5 before writing me off as an apologist for such threads. I'm intrigued on a human level by the sudden outpouring of venom when you & others have voluntarily signed up & coexisted without a murmur of protest for an issue you clearly feel strongly about for your entire BR career to now?

supersonic

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

supersonic wrote:

I've asked admin to hurry the process along! I am hopeful that a representative will post on Monday, and changes will be made.

Does the matter need to be hurried along? Wouldn't it be better for the admin to take their time and to consider all options fully? Let's be honest here, those of us getting worked up, on either side of the argument, are just a teeny number of gob-shites compared to the rest of the membership who seem to be going about their business very happily.

I think we need to conclude it soon! 9 days of discussion so far. I believe a decision has been made, and the words to describe it are been written.

roger_merriman

supersonic wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

supersonic wrote:

I've asked admin to hurry the process along! I am hopeful that a representative will post on Monday, and changes will be made.

Does the matter need to be hurried along? Wouldn't it be better for the admin to take their time and to consider all options fully? Let's be honest here, those of us getting worked up, on either side of the argument, are just a teeny number of gob-shites compared to the rest of the membership who seem to be going about their business very happily.

I think we need to conclude it soon! 9 days of discussion so far. I believe a decision has been made, and the words to describe it are been written.

Good, I don't partially think anyone is adding much here any more.

Cleat Eastwood

roger merriman wrote:

Good, I don't partially think anyone is adding much here any more.

Hey Roger shouldnt you change your name to Roger Merri-oppressor-of-women. hehe

projectsome

Ok,

So I haven't read all 28 pages but I get the general idea? or so I think?

The OP is concerned about the amount of images of women in suggestive clothing (what he/she believes to be soft porn) and the like...

If a woman were to post an image or start a thread containing lots of images with scantily clad men in underwear or barely covering their modesty, would the other female or male members complain*?

*maybe they're loads of scantily clad men in the woman's riding section but as a lot of us don't venture over there, we won't know this.

I for one wouldn't as that would be hypocryrical of me, as I've been guilty of posting images of semi naked women.

To be fair, there is a warning on the subheader of certain forums. Maybe it needs to be a little bigger/clearer or maybe an age restriction of some sort (I doubt it'd work as the younger members would just lie about their age)

DonDaddyD

Nope.

Crib sheet:

The OP was innocently curious as to why one form of adult content, sexually suggestive images, was allowed on the website but another, swearing, wasn't.

In response to the question a few female members on the website pointed out that they felt marginalised/alienated/unwelcome in some sections of the website due to the sexually suggestive images and comments related to said images.

The OP, like others, acknowledged that his own past actions helped contribute to the afforementioned feelings and agreed that that sort of conduct and content might cheapen and weaken female participation on this website. Some took serious exception to this admission by the OP.

Valid and not so valid points were made as to how appropriate the images and comments were on this website. Question were also raised as to where to draw a line and when is this type of discussion OK as cycling for whatever reasons does use sex, sexual imagery to promote itself and it's products. Opinions were thrown in for good measure and the discussion was topped off with accusations, insults, internet stalking and the like.

The point was and is still poignant and within the myriad of internet bluster and flexing the board owners feel it valid enough to warrant a response and action.

We are simply waiting to see what the response and action will be.


Whatever the decision it won't harm my use of the website and I will adjust accordingly.

ddraver

As unbiased ever DDD... :roll:

MattC59

Sgray

I have read most of this thread and would like to put my 2p in. Until I saw this thread I had never been on the Cake Shop thread or Girls in, (as i am a MTBer and just stick to Cc) but out of curiosity I had a look. My thoughts are, there was nothing on there I have not seen on MTV, tabloid newspapers or even in the horrendous magazines my wife buys (I will admit I only looked at the last 3 pages).

As to the OP asking why there can be "sexist" images but not swearing, I have no clue other than I guess this forum is kind of following the standard media rules on decency. On television you can see people in there underwear before the watershed, but I dont think you will hear swearing. Which as a father of two children I agree on. I would rather my children see semi-clad people on the beach than hear people swearing.

To the members who say that they are uncomfortable visiting a website that allows "sexist" images, I am genuinely concerned for you, if visiting such a site where no-one else truly knows you, in the comfort and security of your own home or workplace makes you "uncomfortable". How do you feel in the real world when you walk past a poster of scantly-clad women in a shop window or bus stop? (It's no wonder you want to join a bike club). I guess that is why you seemed to tar all male visitors of that thread with the same brush.

I also find it quite ironic that one of the members who has noted concern, has a Avatar of a high heel shoe, which in my opinion is a item of clothing used mainly by women to make themselves look more attractive to potential partners ( as previous girlfriends and my wife have told me that high heels are not the most comfortable footwear). It looks to me like the same hypocrisy of people who don't like unattractive "looking" at them, but are fine with attractive people "checking them out"

As to the statement along the lines of you wouldn't say or do that in public, most of the posters on this forum are friendly with each other in a banter type of way, and as members of this forum probably don't feel that this is a public place. Instead it is a easy way to talk, ask and joke with people who have a common interest in cycling, thus their behaviour reflects that of a group of like-minded indivuals.

Unfortunately we now live in a world where everything is taken too seriously by a small minority of people, who decide that their opinions are "right" and the world should follow their ideas or they are racist, homophobic or sexist.

Sorry for the long post.

MattC59

Bravo that man !!!

I saw the post and thought, oh no, more of the same, but well put. A sensible view of the issue. Unfortunately, I suspect you may have opened yourself up to a touch of abuse and a lot of p1ssing and whining.

Stevo_666

Sgray wrote:

Unfortunately we now live in a world where everything is taken too seriously by a small minority of people, who decide that their opinions are "right" and the world should follow their ideas or they are racist, homophobic or sexist.

Spot on.

This is exactly what has happened here.

Trickyh

95% of Cycling Plus readers are male


Source: April issue, Cycling Plus reader poll (Future publishing)

slowlanejane

velocestrapture wrote:

...

The comment and attitude behind it doesn't change in any of these scenarios. Most decent men seem to realise that it is pretty offensive to say things like that to women (outside of an intimate relationship of course), and will understand her feelings of hurt and upset if she does hear it. But somehow, it is not considered to be offensive to publicly express such comments if the woman doesn't know about it and you don't know her. Whilst it seems obvious that it is not acceptable to express such attitudes about some women, it is seen as acceptable to express them about others. The difference between the former and the latter is that you are not confronted with the latter as being human beings deserving of respect. They have become an object.

The sad thing is that there are a significant number of men who don't seem to realise when it is 'acceptable' to objectify a woman and, like the "Girls in .." threads have shown, will get carried away and push the boundaries from aesthetic admiration to making sexualised comments. Is it any wonder why women would really like it if they weren't objectified at all?

Chapeau V! Well put that woman.

My ten penneth: I think the "Girls in" threads started funny but quickly went too far with many contributors forgetting they were in a public and mixed space. I've had a few "downs" in my cycling career and many of these guys posting vile stuff have been very helpful and genuinely as sweet, supportive and pleasant a crew as you could want, willing to share their own vulnerabilities too. So I racked it up to them mucking about together and getting a bit carried away, as boys do and I started staying out of those threads.

It seemed for a while that actually, there was not much else going on in cake stop other than the Girls In threads, and popping back in to see what on earth could be found w/regards to rainwear to fill so many pages, realised its a competitive form of porn-finding that encourages these guys to spend god knows how long scouring the net for some very strange images.

Should there be saucy threads on BR that have nowt to do with cycling but that provide great amusement to lots of people ? Yes
Should this include porn or similar stuff on BR? No.
Should there be a "boys only" area on BR? No.
If posters go a bit far and get a bit strong should the mods step in? Yes

Fellow BR-ers need to remember that cycling is a sport for all, we're here because we have a common interest. Its got nothing to do with male dominated / female marginality within the sport, or po-faced thought-police coming to spoil our fun / stay out if you don't like it, etc; this is a public place albeit online and you need to have your public behaviour head on when you post online. You manage to keep a civil tongue in your head and you also need to keep a porn / taste & decency perspective too.

nicklouse

If posters go a bit far and get a bit strong should the mods step in? Yes

and we do and have done but only when Items/posts have been reported.

If things do not get reported then nothing happens unless we happen to come across it. And this is the Problem in the Road section very very few people report anything. they just have an argument.

slowlanejane

nicklouse wrote:

If posters go a bit far and get a bit strong should the mods step in? Yes

and we do and have done but only when Items/posts have been reported.

If things do not get reported then nothing happens unless we happen to come across it. And this is the Problem in the Road section very very few people report anything. they just have an argument.

Ah but those arguments are soo funny. So given the length and quality of input, then, on this thread which clearly demonstrates a largely silent community of members who'd rather the site was toned down, what's the moderator's decisions re the "Girls In" threads and what's to stop suchlike occurring again?

t.m.h.n.e.t

nicklouse wrote:

If posters go a bit far and get a bit strong should the mods step in? Yes

and we do and have done but only when Items/posts have been reported.

If things do not get reported then nothing happens unless we happen to come across it. And this is the Problem in the Road section very very few people report anything. they just have an argument.

As much as you like to tell yourself that not reporting things is the problem.

It simply isn't.

MattC59

slowlanejane wrote:

Should there be saucy threads on BR that have nowt to do with cycling but that provide great amusement to lots of people ? Yes
Should this include porn or similar stuff on BR? No.
Should there be a "boys only" area on BR? No.
If posters go a bit far and get a bit strong should the mods step in? Yes

So as it is at the moment then ?

ddraver

slowlanejane wrote:

nicklouse wrote:

If posters go a bit far and get a bit strong should the mods step in? Yes

and we do and have done but only when Items/posts have been reported.

If things do not get reported then nothing happens unless we happen to come across it. And this is the Problem in the Road section very very few people report anything. they just have an argument.

Ah but those arguments are soo funny. So given the length and quality of input, then, on this thread which clearly demonstrates a largely silent community of members who'd rather the site was toned down, what's the moderator's decisions re the "Girls In" threads and what's to stop suchlike occurring again?

Well....without the questionable post in the first place there would be no arguments. You think people will argue for the sake of it? (yes I read it!!)

This post has involved all of about 5 people who are frequent argument fans, the not so silent majority are a very small proportion of the users.

Other than that I agree with you, Leave as is....

T.M.H.N.E.T - You re happy to repeat that ad nauseam, but again, the fact that the forum has been running for 7 years with no major problems indicates that the current system works fine.

Pseudonym

ddraver wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T - You re happy to repeat that ad nauseam, but again, the fact that the forum has been running for 7 years with no major problems indicates that the current system works fine.

if it 'worked fine', we wouldn't all be having this discussion, would we..? Regardless of how well it 'works' - or not - it would be very easy to make it work so much better with some proper moderating. Mind you, all this was said about 20 pages ago...

nicklouse

Pseudonym wrote:

ddraver wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T - You re happy to repeat that ad nauseam, but again, the fact that the forum has been running for 7 years with no major problems indicates that the current system works fine.

if it 'worked fine', we wouldn't all be having this discussion, would we..? Regardless of how well it 'works' - or not - it would be very easy to make it work so much better with some proper moderating. Mind you, all this was said about 20 pages ago...

And again if you do not report any indiscretions no moderation will happen. That is the way this forum is run. Any other way would change the legal situation of the owners. And they may not want to keep the forum on line. So. Do you get it? If you see something that is not right report it. Don't think a Mod will see it as we have other things to do rather than read every post. But again if we did it would be active moderation which will never do.

Ps more it has worked like this for longer than 7 years. In fact the old C+ forum had next to no moderation but you were not arround then.

t.m.h.n.e.t

nicklouse wrote:

Pseudonym wrote:

ddraver wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T - You re happy to repeat that ad nauseam, but again, the fact that the forum has been running for 7 years with no major problems indicates that the current system works fine.

if it 'worked fine', we wouldn't all be having this discussion, would we..? Regardless of how well it 'works' - or not - it would be very easy to make it work so much better with some proper moderating. Mind you, all this was said about 20 pages ago...

And again if you do not report any indiscretions no moderation will happen. That is the way this forum is run. Any other way would change the legal situation of the owners. And they may not want to keep the forum on line. So. Do you get it? If you see something that is not right report it. Don't think a Mod will see it as we have other things to do rather than read every post. But again if we did it would be active moderation which will never do.

Ps more it has worked like this for longer than 7 years. In fact the old C+ forum had next to no moderation but you were not arround then.

So if you were to actually moderate the forum,it would require a change to what exactly? If moderating would require change,wouldn't expecting users to report posts also require such change?

What are the legal issues with moderating an internet forum? Please make reasonable attempt to answer the question this time nick,a source of info would be appreciated. Thanks

Pseudonym

nicklouse wrote:

Any other way would change the legal situation of the owners.

Like TMHNET said above - you are really going to have to explain this one, fella. Why, exactly, would the 'legal situation' have to change..? Let's have an answer please.