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

jimmcdonnell

I like the thread, it's good that the forum can support a discussion like this.

And then the flippant side of me won over...



It's 'The Passion of St. Tibulus' all over again...

greg66_tri_v2.0

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

Stuff

What does an ogle thread add to a forum?

t.m.h.n.e.t

Greg66 wrote:

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

Stuff

What does an ogle thread add to a forum?

It really has no relevance what the thread contains. It could well be industry news, law change notice or indeed girls wearing lycra(I'm not sure if anyone is aware but girls do do this IRL) it's the draw of a topic that keeps site traffic and activity high,not the same questions about bikes 10 times a day.

greg66_tri_v2.0

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

Greg66 wrote:

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

Stuff

What does an ogle thread add to a forum?

It really has no relevance what the thread contains. It could well be industry news, law change notice or indeed girls wearing lycra(I'm not sure if anyone is aware but girls do do this IRL) it's the draw of a topic that keeps site traffic and activity high,not the same questions about bikes 10 times a day.

But that's not an answer. By the same token you could say that a thread containing hard core porn maintains site traffic. Hell, it might even increase traffic over present levels. But that wouldn't be a justification to retain it.

Content plainly is relevant.

Monkeypump

msmancunia wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

That's fair, but why don' t you come and join in in Cakestop, you'll realise it's far from the picture that's been painted in these recent threads.

Because I'm a girl and there's not enough about cake, obviously...

Seriously though, I have been in several times, just to see if there was anything interesting going on, although I don't think I've ever posted. The volume of Girls in... posts made my skin crawl, and by association I think "well, do I really want to have a conversation with these blokes if this is what they think about women?" because I don't think it's even done in an appreciative way most of the time - in those threads women really are just objectified.

And it's all very well saying that the site regulates itself, but it obviously doesn't. I haven't reported it in the past because I thought it would all go in a vast internet black hole. But I will do so in the future.

I just don't think those threads show men off in the light that they would like to be seen. Most women think that men are generally decent guys, with a funny (if occasionally immature sense of humour), and a strong moral code. You wouldn't think that to read those threads I'm afraid. They just come across as the types of people who would rub up against you on the tube.

I agree with MattC59 and would ask how much you have actually interacted with the posters in Cake Stop. Not much, from what I can recall. You seem happy to paint us all as one-dimensional mysogenists (sp), which in itself is naive and quite offensive. As has been pointed out, most guys will enjoy the thrill of seeing a low-cut top or pair of tight shorts on a 'fit burd' (to employ the vernacular). But those guys are also willing to give advice, take the p*ss, offer condolences, encouragement, banter, help to all (male or female) and who generally make the Cake Stop (and this forum as whole) one of the most welcoming I've found.

There are 5 or 6 'Girls in...' threads in that section, and these have coloured your view on not only all the other threads, but most of the members? Seems a bit of a shame. It would be all too easy to say "If you don't like it, you know where to go", but perhaps spending a little more time here, showing a little tolerance and joining in more, you might get something from what are a good bunch of people.

msmancunia

Greg66 wrote:

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

Greg66 wrote:

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

Stuff

What does an ogle thread add to a forum?

It really has no relevance what the thread contains. It could well be industry news, law change notice or indeed girls wearing lycra(I'm not sure if anyone is aware but girls do do this IRL) it's the draw of a topic that keeps site traffic and activity high,not the same questions about bikes 10 times a day.

But that's not an answer. By the same token you could say that a thread containing hard core porn maintains site traffic. Hell, it might even increase traffic over present levels. But that wouldn't be a justification to retain it.

Content plainly is relevant.

+1 Greg.

T.M.H.N.E.T., I don't think anyone is asking for a forum that is purely cycling specific - just one that doesn't touch on the usual taboo suspects - sexism, racism, paedophilia (not that I've seen that on here), profanity, etc.

If there was a race-based thread, this site could be done for inciting racial hatred, for example. Just because there's porn already on the internet, doesn't mean this site has to follow it. Oh, it's on the internet already, so it's ok. But it isn't. I'm happy with the "what did you have for lunch", "someone cut me up and I kicked his door", "what's the best bank for a mortgage" threads - it's what keeps this site interesting. Ofcom have a list of what's deemed generally acceptable - the owners of this site would do well to have a look at it.

MattC59

msmancunia wrote:

And I have to correct you - the Girls in... threads are ALWAYS on page one.

Except for time of posting, where three are on page one, two are on page two and one has disappeared into the bowls of the forum.

msmancunia

MattC59 wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

And I have to correct you - the Girls in... threads are ALWAYS on page one.

Except for time of posting, where three are on page one, two are on page two and one has disappeared into the bowls of the forum.

Well seeing as they are definitely NSFW I'm willing to bet that out of office hours those threads are well up on page one. Don't try to hide it Matt, bet you've had a sneaky peak before bedtime before now

DonDaddyD

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

I'm not a believer in the reasoning behind the initial discussion on this and if anything the manor in which it was conducted was never going to be fruitful (oh dear was that a homosexual slur?). It doesn't take brain surgeon IQ to figure out that a thread in Commuter about a thread in Road/Cake Stop was never EVER going to come to anything but a lock. I really don't think the issue is girls vs swearing at all,I think someone had posts removed/edited for naughty words and figured he would take it out on everyone else. It's amazing how so many people crawled out from under their rocks to say something against Cake Stop-esque threads yet nobody brought up in a constructive manor before.

---

Do you have anything credible to support the accusations you're making?

No?

That's because your accusations are complete BS. You have a wild imagination and you seemingly struggle to accept maybe those threads are a problem to some.

I have moderated a website and been a webmaster.

Monkeypump

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

I'm not a believer in the reasoning behind the initial discussion on this and if anything the manor in which it was conducted was never going to be fruitful (oh dear was that a homosexual slur?). It doesn't take brain surgeon IQ to figure out that a thread in Commuter about a thread in Road/Cake Stop was never EVER going to come to anything but a lock. I really don't think the issue is girls vs swearing at all,I think someone had posts removed/edited for naughty words and figured he would take it out on everyone else. It's amazing how so many people crawled out from under their rocks to say something against Cake Stop-esque threads yet nobody brought up in a constructive manor before.

---

Do you have anything credible to support the accusations you're making?

No?

That's because your accusations are complete BS. You have a wild imagination and you seemingly struggle to accept maybe those threads are a problem to some.

I have moderated a website and been a webmaster.

DDD - On the subject of credibility, you've also written about your love of stocking-clad women and MILFs (possibly one of the most objectifying slang terms of them all) being 'your new thing'. You're hardly beyond reproach, despite your new-found puritanical ideals.

You complain about being singled out and attacked - how about having the courtesy of not doing it to others?

Monkeypump

msmancunia wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

And I have to correct you - the Girls in... threads are ALWAYS on page one.

Except for time of posting, where three are on page one, two are on page two and one has disappeared into the bowls of the forum.

Well seeing as they are definitely NSFW I'm willing to bet that out of office hours those threads are well up on page one. Don't try to hide it Matt, bet you've had a sneaky peak before bedtime before now

Apart from a few exceptions, the images are not sexually explicit. Suggestive, yes. Explicit, no. NSFW? Possibly.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Greg66 wrote:

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

Greg66 wrote:

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

Stuff

What does an ogle thread add to a forum?

It really has no relevance what the thread contains. It could well be industry news, law change notice or indeed girls wearing lycra(I'm not sure if anyone is aware but girls do do this IRL) it's the draw of a topic that keeps site traffic and activity high,not the same questions about bikes 10 times a day.

But that's not an answer. By the same token you could say that a thread containing hard core porn maintains site traffic. Hell, it might even increase traffic over present levels. But that wouldn't be a justification to retain it.

Content plainly is relevant.

You see though, it would. Didn't you notice that the post you snipped had no direct mention of thread content,rather that threads of interest bring users back. Absolute blanket statement but it is 100% correct.

You've managed to make a bit of a leap there from lycra shorts to hardcore porn. Those aren't anywhere close to being the same,chalk and cheese if you will. But it sounds better than swearing vs lycra girls right?

At the end of the day it isn't up to any of us to justify what content is retained here,because that is largely own opinion and this certainly isn't a democracy. The staff and admins/mods here have the final say in what is acceptable,as it is they who moderate and untimately pay for the server space to host the sites.

T.M.H.N.E.T., I don't think anyone is asking for a forum that is purely cycling specific - just one that doesn't touch on the usual taboo suspects - sexism, racism, paedophilia (not that I've seen that on here), profanity, etc.

If there was a race-based thread, this site could be done for inciting racial hatred, for example. Just because there's porn already on the internet, doesn't mean this site has to follow it. Oh, it's on the internet already, so it's ok. But it isn't. I'm happy with the "what did you have for lunch", "someone cut me up and I kicked his door", "what's the best bank for a mortgage" threads - it's what keeps this site interesting. Ofcom have a list of what's deemed generally acceptable - the owners of this site would do well to have a look at it.

The point at which something becomes taboo or the point where offence is taken is very much personal opinion,much like justification of what's acceptable. People mightn't enjoy things I like but I love a variety of threads different from the normal newb questions and "omg no helmet" rant heavy stuff and I have to admit,while Girls in_ threads are often included.

Bike only chat was skimmed over previously and I don't think that's the end of it.

Do you have anything credible to support the accusations you're making?

No?

That's because your accusations are complete BS. You have a wild imagination and you seemingly struggle to accept maybe those threads are a problem to some.

I have moderated a website and been a webmaster.

Like I said,my personal opinion/take on the whole thing. Do I need a certificate of credability for that? Perhaps I hit a nerve

DDD - On the subject of credibility, you've also written about your love of stocking-clad women and MILFs (possibly one of the most objectifying slang terms of them all) being 'your new thing'. You're hardly beyond reproach, despite your new-found puritanical ideals.

You complain about being singled out and attacked - how about having the courtesy of not doing it to others?

Checkmate

DonDaddyD

Monkeypump wrote:

DDD - On the subject of credibility, you've also written about your love of stocking-clad women and MILFs (possibly one of the most objectifying slang terms of them all) being 'your new thing'. You're hardly beyond reproach, despite your new-found puritanical ideals.

You complain about being singled out and attacked - how about having the courtesy of not doing it to others?

Malcolm X hated the white man and then retreated from this view. There are others who have taken one course of action and then later with hindsight and reflection probably wouldn't do the same again.

So really, your point has been discussed. I believe I even addressed it in this thread.

Hypocrite though I am [and no that doesn't now make me right or absolve me of past actions] I won't apologise for my past behaviour. That said, I made this thread querying why one form of mature content was prohibited but another form wasn't. The discussion went in it's own direction. Believe that if you will. For the my part I stopped, read thought about what was being said and found myself agreeing with MsManc and Velo in regards to the impact on some female members. If that casts my past actions as wrong, then they were.

It isn't wholly clear what is acceptable in terms of visual content of a sexual nature. My personal view is to either raise the minimum age to 18 and/or throw some disclaimers in the forum discriptions stating that 'mature content' may be found inside. I probably would also exercise a more robust level of moderation on the content (text and images) that actually marginalises or is derogatory to a particular group (in this case, gender).

msmancunia

So in the interests of research I just had a browse in the offending threads and surprisingly, I have to say that Girls in Realistic Situations has offended me the most. Good grief - there's one guy on there who must really really hate women/have a very small penis and feels inadequate. Am I allowed to say that? and as for posting a picture that's very obviously taken sneakily over the other side of a toilet cubicle, that's really low. So can you blame me for tarring men in that thread with the same brush?

Well, after cycling 125 miles this week I'm off for a glass of something nice, before building a fence tomorrow. Maybe I'll check in tomorrow to see if any of you have slept on things and have become enlightened, but some how I don't think so.

Night guys, it's been interesting.

Cxx

t.m.h.n.e.t

msmancunia wrote:

So in the interests of research I just had a browse in the offending threads and surprisingly, I have to say that Girls in Realistic Situations has offended me the most. Good grief - there's one guy on there who must really really hate women/have a very small penis and feels inadequate. Am I allowed to say that? and as for posting a picture that's very obviously taken sneakily over the other side of a toilet cubicle, that's really low. So can you blame me for tarring men in that thread with the same brush?

Well, after cycling 125 miles this week I'm off for a glass of something nice, before building a fence tomorrow. Maybe I'll check in tomorrow to see if any of you have slept on things and have become enlightened, but some how I don't think so.

Night guys, it's been interesting.

Cxx

Did you report the post?

ps:Why is there a womens section yet no equivalent defined area for men?

dirtymonkey1985

"there's one guy on there who must really really hate women/have a very small penis and feels inadequate."

Surely that's just as bad as calling anyone that doesn't like the 'girls in.....' thread a lesbian/trog??

I do agree that there are a few pictures that need to be looked at by the mods. However most of them are no more revealing than your standard lady gaga/beyonce video.

MattC59

msmancunia wrote:

I have to say that Girls in Realistic Situations has offended me the most.

I'm not suprised to be honest, there are one or two which made me raise an eyebrow and think 'The Mods will be along in a minute', but I admit they didn't offend me.

Either way, don't tar us all with the same brush........... purleeeeeze.

Monkeypump

DonDaddyD wrote:

Mea culpa

Fair enough, but don't be surprised if your new-found values are taken with a pinch of salt.

DonDaddyD wrote:

My personal view is to either raise the minimum age to 18 and/or throw some disclaimers in the forum discriptions stating that 'mature content' may be found inside.

Not sure about the age-limit, but this is probably the most practical solution. Those who want to look, can. Those who don't want to look (but are seemingly drawn to the content in clearly-titled threads like moths to flames) really can't complain they weren't warned.

DonDaddyD wrote:

I probably would also exercise a more robust level of moderation on the content (text and images) that actually marginalises or is derogatory to a particular group (in this case, gender).

I'm not entirely sure this is needed. Maybe a combination of members reporting inappropriate content, and a response from modmins explaining why content has been removed (rather than mysterious disappearing threads) would work.

cornerblock

Kieran_Burns wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll drink to that.

Monkeypump

msmancunia wrote:

So can you blame me for tarring men in that thread with the same brush?

Yes. It's wrong, and either naive or deliberately narrow-minded. I would hope for more from most members here (although certainly not all), and by taking that attitude you seem to be joining the idiotic minority you complain about.

I want to say 'lighten up a little' without being patronizing or demeaning the point you're making, but instead I'll just ask nicely that you don't make simplistic assumptions about us all.

Enjoy the glass of something nice... I think I'll go do the same.

MattC59

Monkeypump wrote:

Enjoy the glass of something nice... I think I'll go do the same.

I've done exactly the same, a nice Rioja, much more chilled now

t.m.h.n.e.t

Congratulations people. This thread is now famous elsewhere.

fizz

+1 to treating the forum like a pub. I'm the site admin on another forum with a large user base.

If everything that isnt cycling specific is deleted or its over moderated this place will die. The trick is to find a balance.

How I view the forum I run, is like this.

If its OK going out on pre 9pm TV - its OK
If its OK for viewing at work - its OK
If it fits with the U rating provided for FIlm categorisation - its OK

We don't apply the rules religiously or rigorously, but they are there and can be brought into play when the admin / mod team feel people are taking the mick.

I know in Cake stop when I'm at work that I have to stay our of the "pictures of girls" threads or I am going to get into trouble if anybody see's my screen if some of those images pop up onto the screen whilst viewing those threads.

We also have users who will look at my forum when their kids are around and we have had complaints about naughty pictures or pictures that sail close to the wind of acceptability in the past.

Probably waffled on a bit, but I think that theres some stuff in those threads that personally I don't think is appropriate for a cycling forum. My solution to the problem is that I dont read the thread. Simple as...

Theres an argument that I shouldn't have to take that stance on it, but there you are. Which brings me back to the pub analogy again. If somebody is having a conversation in a pub that I dont like or am not enjoying I dont take part in it. So problem solved IMHO.

Running a forum like this is damn difficult / frustrating at times. Sometimes you cant do anything right and you always end up upsetting somebody over something at some point.

Personally I think its gone to far on here with the picture threads in Cake stop, perhaps they could all be merged into one thread and then it would keep it all into one place, rather than having the separate ones. Which for me woudl mean it would be easier to ignore it all as its in one place.

cornerblock

msmancunia wrote:

So in the interests of research I just had a browse in the offending threads and surprisingly, I have to say that Girls in Realistic Situations has offended me the most. Good grief - there's one guy on there who must really really hate women/have a very small penis and feels inadequate. Am I allowed to say that? and as for posting a picture that's very obviously taken sneakily over the other side of a toilet cubicle, that's really low. So can you blame me for tarring men in that thread with the same brush?

Well, after cycling 125 miles this week I'm off for a glass of something nice, before building a fence tomorrow. Maybe I'll check in tomorrow to see if any of you have slept on things and have become enlightened, but some how I don't think so.

Night guys, it's been interesting.

Cxx

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.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

My personal view is to either raise the minimum age to 18 and/or throw some disclaimers in the forum discriptions stating that 'mature content' may be found inside.

Now that would really successfully protect the under 18s from internet porn....

TBH, my only real objection is that that sort of imagery is creeping into other threads as well. The 'Girls in' threads are obviously NSFW but other threads are not so obvious. I'd moderate the hell out of anything that isn't obviously what it is but the rest is just part of that forum IMO. Whether that's a good thing or not is open to debate but all the forums have their downsides (eg the cliquey Londoncentricness of the commuting forum which can be offputting to newcomers).

roger_merriman

I've always though the soft porn threads where always a bit off really.

since this is a public forum, on the whole broadly each photo and post is in it's self fine maybe a tad close to the wind, in some cases but broadly okay for a forum that is lightly moderated.

the issue is well A whole sub forum that is dominated by such threads, yes I know it's only a few but the rest is always going to be overshadowed by boobs and bums.

it's why I read road and very occasionally post but not to cake stop since I don't feel it's the place to gawp at women.

the fact that some folks in road are women is neither here nor there.

Eric Cartman

Ive looked at and posted on a couple of the girls in... threads (I even posted a photo of my girlfriend in one - she liked the replies and didnt find it insulting or demeaning it was her idea) and appreciating a bit of boob or butt does not make you a misogynist nor should it be seen as demeaning or insulting to women (or men). They are threads for sharing beauty and positivity, the equivalent of posting photos of buttercups, rainbows and candy floss. If you find this to be hateful and demeaning it says more about you that those that participate.

Anyway most of what is posted is no more explicit than an Assos advert that the magazines will happily run. There are also hundreds of photos of men (and some women) in these mags wearing skin tight lycra in these magazines too. It is a scandal!

Eric Cartman

And those guys that are complaining about it. You are only saying these things to try and impress some girl showing how mature and respectful you are towards them. I apologize in advance for blowing your game apart but I invented that strategy, it doesn't work and you are far better cutting the crap and being honest not only to them but to yourself too. It is much healthier to respect to other peoples viewpoints and tastes rather than hateing on them as part of some get laid strategy.

clarkey cat

And those guys that are complaining about it. You are only saying these things to try and impress some girl showing how mature and respectful you are towards them. I apologize in advance for blowing your game apart but I invented that strategy, it doesn't work and you are far better cutting the crap and being honest not only to them but to yourself too. It is much healthier to respect to other peoples viewpoints and tastes rather than hateing on them as part of some get laid strategy.

Damn! Busted.

MattC59

Eric Cartman wrote:

Anyway most of what is posted is no more explicit than an Assos advert that the magazines will happily run.

That's a good point.