Girls in... threads and the lack of reasonable moderation
Comments
-
msmancunia wrote:I don't know the circumstances of why women's MTB was set up. I don't see the need for gender specific forums for either gender.
Being a mountain bikey type by temperament, and a girl, i can totally see why... The MTB section in general is laddish to the extreme - juvenile and really not somewhere i feel comfortable in engaging... So having a 'no shouty boys' section makes sense... If i want to discuss bikes and riding i don't really want to have to then endure being called 'ghey' by beavis and butthead and then being called a lesbian (i am but my girlfriend isn't!
) if i object. Its just boring...
Actually, having heavily moderated 'locked' areas would be great. OK, that's work for the mods to set up but then once its done... So yeah, why not have 'girls in...' threads in an 'off topic - adults only' area that you have to register for separately (anyone ever been in the bikeforums 'politics and religion' forum? Never again...), and maybe a women/minorities/lgbt area with stricter rules on hate speech and more active moderation?0 -
Pseudonym wrote:supersonic wrote:
We encourage people to do so: as mentioned, as much as the site is pro actively moderated, bits do get missed. When flagged, the topic will be brought to the attention of the full team to moderate.
You were joking about that bit, right..? Truthfully, this is the most re-actively moderated forum I have ever come across. In general, I have never known a moderating team which relies almost exclusively on thread alerts in order to moderate 'proactively'.
I've heard all the excuses - "mods are not paid", "they have proper jobs", "they can't be on here 24/7" - most of that is bollox. Find some individuals that actually want to do the job and actively monitor threads like the one in question here. If that were the case, this discussion would probably not be taking place.
The 'lack of reasonable moderation' (quoted from the thread title) is the reason this discussion is here. Of course some people will push the boundaries and post tasteless and potentially offensive images - there are people like that everywhere. The trick is to remove stuff like that and in doing so, provide some kind of guidance (dare I say a 'moderating influence') to others who may be considering posting on the thread.
Lack of moderating has got you into this mess - nothing else. You really can't blame the users for not pressing the alert button - blame yourselves, for a change.
Nobody is making excuses, except that bits are missed. The Admin and Mod team is rather split, with myself concentrating on the MTB side, and others the Road. Given you cannot possibly know how many threads I read in the MTB section, how many I delete, the amount of time I spend in the ACB, the amount of warnings and bans I issue, I find your comments rather off. A lot of this is without any reports at all. Granted I don't read every post, but I do spend a lot of time not just moderating, but answering questions and forming helpful threads.
However a lot of the comments here are levelled at the Road side of things. If people believe the area needs more of a presence, then it shall be looked into.
Also no one has suggested that the 'red button' replaces active moderating, but is used in combination with it. Even if every thread and post is read, what a mod may pass another user may find offensive. Sometimes context can be missed, or a different interpretation of what has been posted. This doesn't mean the mod is useless, but shows how opinions can differ.0 -
This isn't about banning threads (and threatening to wield the big stick that way is a clumsy way of showing what the mod team thinks about this).
How about some clear guidelines as to where the line is?
Clearly the issue to some revolves around banning such threads, as guidelines to some "misses the point".0 -
Clank wrote:
Here we go.
Blame themselves for what? What 'mess'? They ain't the ones complaining about the way the forum is being run.
It's forum 'members' that are kicking up a fuss about moderation levels, claiming they want something done, yet, just like the poster here, they find it easier to feign outrage with verbose arguement than to actually take some of the resposibility that they have been offered. Now who appears to be lazy?
Right; moderating forums - I'm going to present an experienced veiwpoint for you (despite the fact it'll get readily dsimissed). I've moderated a major forum (similar traffic flow to BR, actually) and it ended taking approximately 80 hours a week of my life, on top of paid work. I tried to be proactive, but in the end it was just not possible. Not only do you have to axe threads and removes posts and generally flockwatch, but you also have to justify yourself to every keyboard-warrior who thinks they have greater right than you do. Here's another little gem we learned - more moderators actually makes the job *harder* ('too many cooks' isn't just a playground meme). 'Bollox'? No, experience. Discussion like this always end up happening - it's an inevitable phenomenon of internet forums - someone will always try to take offence at the way a forum is moderated, opinions will always be different. You'll think I'm a p***k, I'll disagree. See how it happens?
Oh, I've put the word member is quotes as unlike an official Club, posters here have no right of owenership over the domain. We post - we're not actually 'members' in any legal context. Technically, I guess, we are 'service users'.
Here we go indeed. I've been moderating the same internet forum now for eleven years (similar traffic levels to BR, slightly less, perhaps), so I reckon I can 'match' your experience. If I've learnt anything in that time it is this:
1. Forum users will always 'over-step the mark' - that's what they do
2. You cannot rely on the membership to self-regulate
3. Moderation is not just about removing spam, banning trolls or removing offensive material, it is about actively setting boundaries and examples which the users are then invited to follow. Moderation by 'consent' if you want to call it that.
4. Unless mods actually involve themselves in the threads and forums they are supposed to be looking after, you end up with situations like this one.
This thread exists because of a fundamental failure in moderating. That's all I'm saying. Go on, say it ain't so...0 -
If forum users will always 'overstep-the mark', then the 'mark' set ie 'actively setting boundaries and examples' will be missed on many an occasion by users.
This thread exists because of a call for a look at the rules, and policy regarding the use of pictures.
It would have been easy for the thread to be ignored by the admin or kept in the commuting section, but it was myself who recommended it to be here.
A failure of the admin would have been to leave it.0 -
supersonic wrote:Nobody is making excuses, except that bits are missed. The Admin and Mod team is rather split, with myself concentrating on the MTB side, and others the Road. Given you cannot possibly know how many threads I read in the MTB section, how many I delete, the amount of time I spend in the ACB, the amount of warnings and bans I issue, I find your comments rather off. A lot of this is without any reports at all. Granted I don't read every post, but I do spend a lot of time not just moderating, but answering questions and forming helpful threads.
However a lot of the comments here are levelled at the Road side of things. If people believe the area needs more of a presence, then it shall be looked into.
Also no one has suggested that the 'red button' replaces active moderating, but is used in combination with it. Even if every thread and post is read, what a mod may pass another user may find offensive. Sometimes context can be missed, or a different interpretation of what has been posted. This doesn't mean the mod is useless, but shows how opinions can differ.
As the only BR representative that can be bothered to contribute to this thread, then it's probable that you will be in the firing line. None of that was actually aimed at you personally. All I can say is that on the whole, my personal experience of BR moderating is that it is lazy, disinterested, patronising and ultimately, ineffective. Seriously, monkeys would have more impact. That last bit might not actually be true, but someone, somewhere really does need to have a re-think on how these forums are run on a daily basis - especially in off-topic forums like Cake Stop....in my opinion...0 -
but someone, somewhere really does need to have a re-think on how these forums are run on a daily basis - especially in off-topic forums like Cake Stop....in my opinion...
It is something that does need to be discussed, and this thread has certainly raised the topic. I shall start a thread in our office section to discuss expanding the team, and how sections are moderated.0 -
supersonic wrote:
This thread exists because of a call for a look at the rules, and policy regarding the use of pictures.
exactly - this thread exists because a lack of moderating has resulted in a few creeps 'getting away with' posting pictures of women which many would find either offensive or distasteful. If those pics had been spotted, removed and the posters dealt with, together with a quick reminder to everyone of the forum rules, then we probably wouldn't be here now discussing it.0 -
Maybe the mods and admin did not find them distasteful?! Many forum users do not, as demonstrated in this thread. Or, as you say, is very possible that the threads were not looked at. Of course many do not want any pictures at all, so the issue of having to moderate such threads would not exist. This is why I think the thread exists, or at least the reason why was started by DDD.
But to go back to the former, if the Cake Stop is viewed as an area where more adult content will be discussed, then mods may let posts remain that would not be allowed elsewhere. Off topic areas are the hardest to moderate for sure, and is a reason why Future do not want them. The core issue seems to be whether the forums allow these pics or not, and if we do allow, to what extent. This goes back to an earlier post at the subjective nature of some types of pictures.
In addition it arises of what exactly is allowed in off topic areas and the nature of them. This is why I specifically called for two such areas in MTB, and expanded the commuting section with General, to focus on purely bike related posts.0 -
My 2 cents
The 'Girls in' threads have got out of hand...they started as a bit of Page 3 fun...mainly pictures of female cyclists. Now you may object in principle with the very existance of these threads, the pictures weren't unsuitable for the site. For instance we all celebrated British Olympic success with some nice photos of Lady Pendelton....
It has got out of hand now. The images being posted which while not illegal, aren't in my view suitable for a public cycling forum.
My suggestion to the moderators/admin would be to delete all the spin-off 'Girls in' threads...these threads aren't suitable for the forum. I would delete and restart the Girls in Lycra thread and actively moderate it's content and see how it goes from there.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
supersonic wrote:Maybe the mods and admin did not find them distasteful?! Many forum users do not, as demonstrated in this thread. Or, as you say, is very possible that the threads were not looked at. Of course many do not want any pictures at all, so the issue of having to moderate such threads would not exist. This is why I think the thread exists, or at least the reason why was started by DDD.
But to go back to the former, if the Cake Stop is viewed as an area where more adult content will be discussed, then mods may let posts remain that would not be allowed elsewhere. Off topic areas are the hardest to moderate for sure, and is a reason why Future do not want them. The core issue seems to be whether the forums allow these pics or not, and if we do allow, to what extent. This goes back to an earlier post at the subjective nature of some types of pictures.
In addition it arises of what exactly is allowed in off topic areas and the nature of them. This is why I specifically called for two such areas in MTB, and expanded the commuting section with General, to focus on purely bike related posts.
May I ask a question? Are there any female mods, and if so, which forums do they moderate? Just curious.Commute: Chadderton - Sportcity0 -
supersonic wrote:Maybe the mods and admin did not find them distasteful?!
Quite possibly. Although I would ask you whether you feel some of the pics on these last three pages are entirely in keeping with the original spirit of the 'girls in lycra' thread: viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12544013&start=6280. There's far worse than that elsewhere in the thread - and other threads in Cake Stop, and in case you're wondering, this is why you get an adult rating on some search engines.
If you're happy with that, then it's fine. We have a similar thread on the site I look after. But because we have a reputation to consider, and a site which we are determined to keep as 'suitable for all ages' then we have had to impose fairly strict rules on what kind of pic can and cannot be posted. You lot clearly cannot say the same thing....0 -
TailWindHome wrote:My 2 cents
The 'Girls in' threads have got out of hand...they started as a bit of Page 3 fun...mainly pictures of female cyclists. Now you may object in principle with the very existance of these threads, the pictures weren't unsuitable for the site. For instance we all celebrated British Olympic success with some nice photos of Lady Pendelton....
It has got out of hand now. The images being posted which while not illegal, aren't in my view suitable for a public cycling forum.
My suggestion to the moderators/admin would be to delete all the spin-off 'Girls in' threads...these threads aren't suitable for the forum. I would delete and restart the Girls in Lycra thread and actively moderate it's content and see how it goes from there.
This seems to be the most popular 'solution' but will not solve the core issue: why these threads exist at all. A proportion of people do not want any. Some view the problem as some of the content in them, rather than the fact they exist.
If we were to take this route, I think that people will try it on with more racy pics. What rules could we put in place regarding the pictures?0 -
msmancunia wrote:supersonic wrote:Maybe the mods and admin did not find them distasteful?! Many forum users do not, as demonstrated in this thread. Or, as you say, is very possible that the threads were not looked at. Of course many do not want any pictures at all, so the issue of having to moderate such threads would not exist. This is why I think the thread exists, or at least the reason why was started by DDD.
But to go back to the former, if the Cake Stop is viewed as an area where more adult content will be discussed, then mods may let posts remain that would not be allowed elsewhere. Off topic areas are the hardest to moderate for sure, and is a reason why Future do not want them. The core issue seems to be whether the forums allow these pics or not, and if we do allow, to what extent. This goes back to an earlier post at the subjective nature of some types of pictures.
In addition it arises of what exactly is allowed in off topic areas and the nature of them. This is why I specifically called for two such areas in MTB, and expanded the commuting section with General, to focus on purely bike related posts.
May I ask a question? Are there any female mods, and if so, which forums do they moderate? Just curious.
Yes, we have an Admin called Faye - though am not aware of the extent she looks at threads, was emplyed as the 'communites' editor to replace Matt Cole and work on content of the main site. I believe we have a couple more female employees as Admins, but as use pseudonyms I can't work out which sex we all are ;-).
Maybe a more active female moderator is what we need.0 -
Pseudonym wrote:supersonic wrote:Maybe the mods and admin did not find them distasteful?!
Quite possibly. Although I would ask you whether you feel some of the pics on these last three pages are entirely in keeping with the original spirit of the 'girls in lycra' thread: viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12544013&start=6280. There's far worse than that elsewhere in the thread - and other threads in Cake Stop, and in case you're wondering, this is why you get an adult rating on some search engines.
If you're happy with that, then it's fine. We have a similar thread on the site I look after. But because we have a reputation to consider, and a site which we are determined to keep as 'suitable for all ages' then we have had to impose fairly strict rules on what kind of pic can and cannot be posted. You lot clearly cannot say the same thing....
Some certainly are pushing the limits (whatever they are - 'spirit' is a good explanation) - especially the animations. I will ban all animations straight away.0 -
Pseudonym wrote:
This thread exists because of a fundamental failure in moderating. That's all I'm saying. Go on, say it ain't so...
It ain't so.
......here's why.
This thread exists because there is disparity on what is considered 'reasonable moderation' by a cross-section of posters. (edit: or there was when I started writng this!)
'till we establish what is reasonable, we have no failure criteria, therfore no 'failure'.
We've now got mulitple pages of people trying to extert their authority on the matter, and still no closer to finding an answer. All we have a number of more vociferous posters telling the mods they're wrong.
How many posters are their on BR? How many of them are bothered by the 'Girls in.....' threads? No idea, personaly; as SS said, no ones complained about them until now. There's been the oppotunity to highlight objectionable threads and no one was doing so.
Still not sounding like a 'failure' of 'reasonable moderation' to me.
I'm hearing a lot of folk who don't like the level of moderation, but one thing's got nothing to do with the other.
I get you don't like the 'girls in...' threads, and I respect your view in not liking them. But slinging words like 'failure' and generally sniping at the Flockwatchers isn't helping anyone, and it ain't helping your cause.How would I write my own epitaph? With a crayon - I'm not allowed anything I can sharpen to a sustainable point.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are worth exactly what you paid for them.0 -
supersonic wrote:
If we were to take this route, I think that people will try it on with more racy pics. What rules could we put in place regarding the pictures?
The thread on our site is called 'Pit Chicks' (it's a motorcycle forum). The rules are - no topless; must be motorcycle-related (ie they must actually be pit chicks, for want of a better expression), and finally, there must be a bike in the picture. If anyone posts a gif of some woman with digitally-enhanced swinging breasts (like in the link I posted earlier), it would get deleted and the poster would get a warning.
Unfortunately for some of the BR mods though, doing this actually requires you to spend time looking at these threads, rather than relying on someone to hit the 'alert' button on your behalf.0 -
I have banned the animations, and deleted them, plus added these lines:As many will be aware, this thread is under discussion in the BR office: it is very likely there will be rule changes, or even a ban on such threads.
As a start, all animations are banned.
ADMIN.0 -
supersonic wrote:I have banned the animations, and deleted them, plus added these lines:As many will be aware, this thread is under discussion in the BR office: it is very likely there will be rule changes, or even a ban on such threads.
As a start, all animations are banned.
ADMIN.
And I bet I get slated for it in the Cake Stop ;-)0 -
Clank wrote:'till we establish what is reasonable, we have no failure criteria, therfore no 'failure'.
I get you don't like the 'girls in...' threads, and I respect your view in not liking them. But slinging words like 'failure' and generally sniping at the Flockwatchers isn't helping anyone, and it ain't helping your cause.
I've clipped the above - because these are the two main issues.
1 - nobody knows what is reasonable, because it has not been explained. Most sub forums have their own set of rules.
2- 'Flockwatchers' is a good word - or rather it would be, if they actually did any watching.0 -
supersonic wrote:If we were to take this route, I think that people will try it on with more racy pics. What rules could we put in place regarding the pictures?
So you have some basic criteria
Must be covered up, i.e. must be wearing some clothes or the important bits covered up, i.e. nipples.
Should be suitable to be viewed pre watershed if it was going out on TV.
Should not show anything that could be construed as sexual act. So you might say that kissing was OK, but anything heavier than that, or looked like it was heavier than that gets removed.
Most of the pics in those threads will get through, but it would allow you to bring it back towards "appreciation of the female from" rather than something you'd find in one the lads mags for example. Perhaps what I trying to suggest is that its kept "tasteful" and some of the more "gratuitous" or "racey" pics would therefore be removed.
Trouble is with that anybody can walk into a newsagent and pick up a lads mag / the Sun and open it up to page 3 and view an image that doesnt meet the above criteria.
There will always be people who will push boundaries or dont think the rules apply to them and that's something that you will always have to deal with in your role as a moderator.
So perhaps you could go for more of a PG rating rather than U rated forum. So soemthing like this would be the criteria that each picture was judged against.
Discrimination
Discriminatory language or behaviour is unlikely to be acceptable unless clearly disapproved of or in an educational or historical context. Discrimination by a character with which children can readily identify is unlikely to be acceptable.
Drugs
References to illegal drugs or drug misuse must be innocuous or carry a suitable anti-drug message.
Horror
Frightening sequences should not be prolonged or intense. Fantasy settings may be a mitigating factor.
Imitable behaviour
No detail of potentially dangerous behaviour which young children are likely to copy. No glamorisation of realistic or easily accessible weapons.
Language
Mild bad language only.
Nudity
Natural nudity, with no sexual context.
Sex
Sexual activity may be implied, but should be discreet and infrequent. Mild sex references and innuendo only.
Theme
Where more serious issues are featured (for example, domestic violence) nothing in their treatment should condone unacceptable behaviour.
Violence
Moderate violence, without detail, may be allowed, if justified by its context (for example, history, comedy or fantasy).0 -
supersonic wrote:
And I bet I get slated for it in the Cake Stop ;-)
That comes with the territory. If you don't get slated occasionally, then you ain't doing it right.0 -
fizz wrote:supersonic wrote:If we were to take this route, I think that people will try it on with more racy pics. What rules could we put in place regarding the pictures?
So you have some basic criteria
Must be covered up, i.e. must be wearing some clothes or the important bits covered up, i.e. nipples.
Should be suitable to be viewed pre watershed if it was going out on TV.
Should not show anything that could be construed as sexual act. So you might say that kissing was OK, but anything heavier than that, or looked like it was heavier than that gets removed.
Most of the pics in those threads will get through, but it would allow you to bring it back towards "appreciation of the female from" rather than something you'd find in one the lads mags for example. Perhaps what I trying to suggest is that its kept "tasteful" and some of the more "gratuitous" or "racey" pics would therefore be removed.
Trouble is with that anybody can walk into a newsagent and pick up a lads mag / the Sun and open it up to page 3 and view an image that doesnt meet the above criteria.
There will always be people who will push boundaries or dont think the rules apply to them and that's something that you will always have to deal with in your role as a moderator.
So perhaps you could go for more of a PG rating rather than U rated forum. So soemthing like this would be the criteria that each picture was judged against.
Discrimination
Discriminatory language or behaviour is unlikely to be acceptable unless clearly disapproved of or in an educational or historical context. Discrimination by a character with which children can readily identify is unlikely to be acceptable.
Drugs
References to illegal drugs or drug misuse must be innocuous or carry a suitable anti-drug message.
Horror
Frightening sequences should not be prolonged or intense. Fantasy settings may be a mitigating factor.
Imitable behaviour
No detail of potentially dangerous behaviour which young children are likely to copy. No glamorisation of realistic or easily accessible weapons.
Language
Mild bad language only.
Nudity
Natural nudity, with no sexual context.
Sex
Sexual activity may be implied, but should be discreet and infrequent. Mild sex references and innuendo only.
Theme
Where more serious issues are featured (for example, domestic violence) nothing in their treatment should condone unacceptable behaviour.
Violence
Moderate violence, without detail, may be allowed, if justified by its context (for example, history, comedy or fantasy).
Excellent post - it seems we are finding some ground if we allow a thread with men/women in it.
I will still go back to whether we should allow any at all - there are obviously users that do now want any. Can a happy medium be reached? Or is the point that all such threads are demeaning and should not be allowed on a site such as this.
My personal view - strict guidelines: pictures MUST be bike related, and very pro active moderation. Only one such thread should exist per OT area, with a disclaimer.0 -
Yes, we have an Admin called Faye - though am not aware of the extent she looks at threads, was emplyed as the 'communites' editor to replace Matt Cole and work on content of the main site. I believe we have a couple more female employees as Admins, but as use pseudonyms I can't work out which sex we all are ;-).
Maybe a more active female moderator is what we need.
I think it would go a long way to getting a balanced view of what's acceptable. This is in no way comparable, but a while ago I had to sit in on an editorial standards meeting on a documentary on Afghanistan shown on BBC3. One of the clips was a long head-cam clip worn by a soldier during an ambush by the Taliban. A man was shot at distance, then pursued, fell into a river, where he was bayonetted by the soldier, and at headcam view this was very graphic and close-up. We had to debate where we made the edit - before the shot? after the shot? before the bayonetting? show the whole thing? We had to bear in mind our own ed pol, common decency, the watershed, Ofcom guidelines, and that old eye-roller, human rights. I think we made the decision correctly, but my point is that there was no right or wrong decision - the room consisted of people from a range of backgrounds and opinions, and it was up to us to make the most suitable decision for the time of broadcast.
Maybe this is what BR needs - a wider range of mods to set up site standards? Not just more females, but older, younger, racially/sexually diverse. Then these "well it doesn't affect me so it's not offensive" issues won't come up as often.Commute: Chadderton - Sportcity0 -
supersonic wrote:My personal view - strict guidelines: pictures MUST be bike related, and very pro active moderation. Only one such thread should exist per OT area, with a disclaimer.
Personally I think that would work.0 -
I'm a black, one legged, lesbian dwarf. Can I be a mod ? Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
With regards to the picture criteria Fizz's post is pretty much on the money.
I'd put it this way; If a photo is unsuitable for publication in Cycling Plus or MBUK then it shouldn't be considered suitable for the forum.
In principle I have no objection to a Girls In Lycra thread
. Some people might, I'm afraid thats for you and the 'pub' owner to resolvekeeping with the original spirit“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Pseudonym wrote:1 - nobody knows what is reasonable, because it has not been explained. Most sub forums have their own set of rules. I'm calling 'troll'
You haven't worked out that some effort is needed to help decide what is reasonable. Again - there is the offer of responsibility, but the outward appearance of unwillingness to accept it. And for that reason ahm oot.
I respect Fizz for making the effort to put forward a sensible guideline. Good point, well made. I'd support the suggested guidelines.How would I write my own epitaph? With a crayon - I'm not allowed anything I can sharpen to a sustainable point.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are worth exactly what you paid for them.0 -
-
supersonic wrote:
Posted in possible the least offensive of the 'Girls in...." threads.
Do you not get it ?
:roll:Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0
This discussion has been closed.
