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

Holyzeus

I think the real reason is neither Nicklouse or Super want to turn out like this



Seriously though time is probably the issue, full moderating takes a lot of time

ddraver

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...

This is not a major problem - it's a few people stirring up trouble

What exactly about people posting questions and people answering them would work better?

cat_with_no_tail

Serious question for the people like T.M.H.N.E.T and Pseudonym.

Who think this place needs more moderation. Are you actually taking time to report posts you think should be reported? I do, and when I do, they are dealt with quickly by the mods or admins or whoever is lurking about.

It's all very well whinging about stuff you don't approve of but if you do spot something before the mods, why not report it? They can't be everywhere at the same time. If someone knocks you off your bike, do you ride off then go whining to the police that they should have been there at the time and stopped that person, or do you report them and have it dealt with? Explain to me how this is any different.

and Pseudonym, as for your rediculous comment about how it would work better with "some proper moderating". I assume you mean a team of full-time psychic moderators who can simply remove any post that might offend you the instant it goes up and everyone else be damned, right? Or perhaps you were offering to give up your time to hunt down these posts yourself? No? Thought not. Carry on.

Pseudonym

Cat With No Tail wrote:

and Pseudonym, as for your rediculous comment about how it would work better with "some proper moderating". I assume you mean a team of full-time psychic moderators who can simply remove any post that might offend you the instant it goes up and everyone else be damned, right? Or perhaps you were offering to give up your time to hunt down these posts yourself? No? Thought not. Carry on.

it isn't 'rediculous' fella - you don't need to be psychic - you just need a good set of rules, and a group of moderators prepared to keep an eye on threads where potential issues may arise (like, for instance, you know, a thread with a title such as the one in question here). If you're not doing stuff like that - then you AIN'T moderating,

I already give up my time to mod another set of forums and I have indeed already offered to help out here - but I just ended up getting patronised again by Mr Louse - who seems to have an unhealthy dislike for anyone who doesn't ride a mountain bike and an even unhealthier dislike for anyone else who has the gall to suggest that he (and possibly others like him) may not necessarily have the right temperament for impartial moderating on public forums. Pretty much everything he has said on this thread up to now confirms that impression, in my opinion.

Feel free to carry on yourself, though - not that you need my permission, obviously.....cos I'm not a moderator on here, as you know....

Clank

This has to be the worlds worst case of post-whoring since forums began. :shock:

29 pages and still banging the same tune, on the same drum. So much talk yet so little to say. And still they say it, ad nauseum.

Still, at least its keeping them away from the rest of the forum. Bonus! 8)

Seriously, guys, you're not doing yourselves any favours.

....but I think you already know that......

And as for 'getting patronised by Mr Louse'. Which one are you - the pot or the kettle?

slowlanejane

MattC59 wrote:

... So as it is at the moment then ?

Yes & No, Matt. If posters remebered that at BR they are having a laugh with all their online pals - including girls and people they dont yet know - in a public place, and they therefore kept the tone to what it would be if we were all on a ride or having a drink together, it'd be much better and mods wouldn't be needed. But posters don't remember that, or don't care, in which case we do need more moderation because it has gone a bit too far lately.

MattC59

slowlanejane wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

... So as it is at the moment then ?

Yes & No, Matt. If posters remebered that at BR they are having a laugh with all their online pals - including girls and people they dont yet know - in a public place, and they therefore kept the tone to what it would be if we were all on a ride or having a drink together, it'd be much better and mods wouldn't be needed. But posters don't remember that, or don't care, in which case we do need more moderation because it has gone a bit too far lately.

And, with out wanting to go around in circles, the answer to that is.............. to report anything that you feel has gone too far, or breaks the forum rules. The Mods can't be everywhere or expected to read every single post.

Jimbob_no5

29 pages over a few thread we have in the CC!!!

Your saying we're going too far with having our Girls in threads but we're in check with the rules for the CC.

It's the internet, it's full of offensive things to everyone, doesn't mean we have to tell the whole world about it, yes i've seen some offensive things on facebook etc but i haven't made status's etc and demanded it be moderated better, i reported said material and low and behold it was removed by site admin because it didn't comply with their rules

The moderation on this site is perfectly fine and as Nick says if you don't like something then report it, but if your offended by something and chose not to report it then don't whinge and whine about it and tell the Mods they aint doing their job properly

Northwind

Now this is really important- some people seem to think that reports aren't important, and that just stating your opinion in a thread should achieve the same and bring down the Wrath of Mod.

But arguing with someone in a thread doesn't tell a mod that you have a problem with what they just said. It tells them that you like arguing on the internet. This is not useful information.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Pseudonym wrote:

Cat With No Tail wrote:

and Pseudonym, as for your rediculous comment about how it would work better with "some proper moderating". I assume you mean a team of full-time psychic moderators who can simply remove any post that might offend you the instant it goes up and everyone else be damned, right? Or perhaps you were offering to give up your time to hunt down these posts yourself? No? Thought not. Carry on.

it isn't 'rediculous' fella - you don't need to be psychic - you just need a good set of rules, and a group of moderators prepared to keep an eye on threads where potential issues may arise (like, for instance, you know, a thread with a title such as the one in question here). If you're not doing stuff like that - then you AIN'T moderating,

I already give up my time to mod another set of forums and I have indeed already offered to help out here - but I just ended up getting patronised again by Mr Louse - who seems to have an unhealthy dislike for anyone who doesn't ride a mountain bike and an even unhealthier dislike for anyone else who has the gall to suggest that he (and possibly others like him) may not necessarily have the right temperament for impartial moderating on public forums. Pretty much everything he has said on this thread up to now confirms that impression, in my opinion.

Feel free to carry on yourself, though - not that you need my permission, obviously.....cos I'm not a moderator on here, as you know....

This would have been my answer too.Are we not posting in a thread titled

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

?? Which perhaps shows that there is an issue?

viewtopic.php?f=40033&t=12821781

He goes very quiet when challenged doesn't he?

Mrs Toast

MattC59 wrote:

And, with out wanting to go around in circles, the answer to that is.............. to report anything that you feel has gone too far, or breaks the forum rules. The Mods can't be everywhere or expected to read every single post.

And I think this is part of the problem – quite a few people are put off Bike Radar by the atmosphere of the off-topic sections, but don’t report anything because the stuff that they object to isn’t actually against the rules. CrudCratcher has rules against racism, swearing and full frontal nudity, but sexism, homophobia and partial nudity/hypersexualised imagery is fair game. As far as I can see, the roadie equivalent doesn’t have a rules thread that I could see?

I’m not always enamoured by the attitude or approach of some of the moderators, but it’s unfair on them to ask them to moderate the forum according to rules that don’t exist. Any changes to the “Phwwoar, tits” culture would have to come from a higher level than the moderators, but if Future Publishing are happy at squarely targeting that demographic, then it’s not going to happen.

ddraver

For the love of God, please don't let Pseudonym ever become a mod! The forum would implode instantly.

Pseudonym

ddraver wrote:

For the love of God, please don't let Pseudonym ever become a mod! The forum would implode instantly.

I'm not actually putting myself forward, to be fair, nor would I consider doing so. Although I've managed to maintain my own set of forums for 10 years plus, successfully dealing with princesses like you on a daily basis..

ddraver

Do you post actual answers on those forums though? Sometimes, you seem like a reasonable, intelligent guy. I just don't know why you can't bring to the screen more often...

Gazlar

First time I've ventured over to have a browse of these posts, and it seems that the threads of concern regarding the CC is the ones regarding redheads, dark haired and blonde people. These threads are redhead of the day, Dark haired lovelies and blonde lovelies, all a unisex topic, and if I remember rightly pictures of men have appeared in there as well and discussed and bantered. Yes sometimes pictures in there are a little risque, but they are never lewd.

The threads are banter, If a female poster were to post a man n there in trunks, we'd have a laugh about it.

You can buy a newspaper, and see more than is on show in these posts and as long as it doesn't cross that line into nudity, I don't see what the problem is and if it does, say something, like I did a couple of weeks ago after someone erroneously posted a topless picture and it was dealt with straight away. Everyone finds someone attractive for some reason and an off topic forum is the perfect place to discuss that.

sloppycowpat

I seems so daft that people insist upon winging about these threads, yes they may well bend towards the heterosexual male end of the spectrum but at the end of the day if you don't want to see or read these topics then don't open them, and leave those who do to have their fun, simples

MattC59

You know why we haven't heard anything from the mods ?

They're all having a good laugh at quite how rediculous this thread is.

Cleat Eastwood

Gazlar wrote:

regarding redheads, dark haired and blonde people. .

actually taking your comments out of context thats a good point - the assumption has been that the comments were all written by men- and thus some peeps have created the men = rapists equation - but under the anonymity of the internets they could have been written by anyone.

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.

Good job you didn't specify which Monday....

Kaise

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

YOSSIE wrote:
A detractor - isn't that like a Jamaican farmyard vehicle?

"Eh, Bob, man, ma jeep is stuck in da mud"

"No worries Ziggy, I'll get detractor out and we'll have you at da shops in no time, man…"

just a quick question for you, re your signature

on the subject of moderation, isn't this signature basically a racist slur and marginalise any Jamaican people that come to these forums? because quite frankly i know people that do find that offensive when they have been reading these pages.

this discussion will go on until the cows, sheep or what ever farmyard animal you keep, comes home.

this may be a good time for people to chill out and wait some form of response from the owners and moderators of this site, who work very hard to provide something for FREE to the membership, free comment has made this site what it is today, a place of variety and welcoming to all (a number of women post in the girls in threads) from experience, although i do agree its a male dominated site.

Northwind

Kaise wrote:

on the subject of moderation, isn't this signature basically a racist slur and marginalise any Jamaican people that come to these forums?

No. HTH.

Kaise

Northwind wrote:

Kaise wrote:

on the subject of moderation, isn't this signature basically a racist slur and marginalise any Jamaican people that come to these forums?

No. HTH.

your not the one who was supposed to bit on this.......

Northwind

Sometimes when you see an obvious bait the thing to do is to just steal it off the hook, because you don't want to see someone less observant get caught on it

t.m.h.n.e.t

Kaise wrote:

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

YOSSIE wrote:
A detractor - isn't that like a Jamaican farmyard vehicle?

"Eh, Bob, man, ma jeep is stuck in da mud"

"No worries Ziggy, I'll get detractor out and we'll have you at da shops in no time, man…"

just a quick question for you, re your signature

on the subject of moderation, isn't this signature basically a racist slur and marginalise any Jamaican people that come to these forums? because quite frankly i know people that do find that offensive when they have been reading these pages.

this discussion will go on until the cows, sheep or what ever farmyard animal you keep, comes home.

this may be a good time for people to chill out and wait some form of response from the owners and moderators of this site, who work very hard to provide something for FREE to the membership, free comment has made this site what it is today, a place of variety and welcoming to all (a number of women post in the girls in threads) from experience, although i do agree its a male dominated site.

It's called, context. And you're 15 pages too late.

Good job

DonDaddyD

How arrogant/ignorant do you have to be to simply dismiss being told that something is offensive to the person or the type of person the text relates to?

It's indicative of this thread really. Several women have posted saying that they find some of the images, the more sexually explicit/suggestive ones, offensive. The response in general is to tell them that they are basically wrong for thinking that.

t.m.h.n.e.t

I did ask before were there any Jamaicans who didn't like my signature. Funnily enough,none came forward.

I think I even stated that I would remove it if so.

Holyzeus

Is it not time to lock this thread?
Round and round we go bickering and insulting

DonDaddyD

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

I did ask before were there any Jamaicans who didn't like my signature. Funnily enough,none came forward.

I think I even stated that I would remove it if so.

If you have to ask - an admission of your own doubts - then wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution?

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

I did ask before were there any Jamaicans who didn't like my signature. Funnily enough,none came forward.

I think I even stated that I would remove it if so.

If you have to ask - an admission of your own doubts - then wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution?

I've had this signature since July last year. If I doubted it,I wouldn't have it. But thanks for your concern and trying to put words into my mouth.

viewtopic.php?f=40033&t=12839599&start=280 This clear question. Received NO answer.

Next?

ddraver

DonDaddyD wrote:

How arrogant/ignorant do you have to be to simply dismiss being told that something is offensive to the person or the type of person the text relates to?

It's indicative of this thread really. Several women have posted saying that they find some of the images, the more sexually explicit/suggestive ones, offensive. The response in general is to tell them that they are basically wrong for thinking that.

Who Cares if it is offensive - what right to they have to control what I think say or do. If they can come up with some solid reasons WHY they don't like them then fine, but as yet I ve not seen anything to convince me.

This is not specific to this discussion, it's something that winds me up generally. People (usually politicians) assume that being "offended" automatically means that everyone has to stop doing what ever it is that "offends" them. In reality they just don't like it but that's no reason to stop others doing it.

Edit - Stephen Fry says it much better than me - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnSByCb8 ... re=related

and...

"I'm sorry you take offence at my remarks. I shall be glad when we move on from what seems to me to be an era of offence taking. I have expressed my opinions robustly but, I hope, carefully and thoughtfully. Please disagree with them as robustly as you like. There are now six billion of us, and there are bound to be a lot of opinions and views out there we profoundly disagree with. I wish we could just accept that and have the arguments and think about them not be in such a rush to take offence the whole time. If you find my remarks to be dishonest, thoughtless, malicious or even stupid then I apologise for them wholeheartedly. If you merely find that you strongly disagree with them then please disagree back. But wherein lies the offence?"