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

supersonic

Some one has justpointed out to me that in cycling advertising (include the mags represented on this site!) have included pictures of topless women! Maybe we should rethink that rule if we go ahead.

cat_with_no_tail

Now I may have missed this amidst the pages and pages of self-indulgent twaddle and outright moral indignation from some of these highly strung types, but I can't help but wonder what all the fuss is about.

The people saying this is a cycling forum, and should only contain cycling related chat, you can stick to the sub-forums that are specifically cycling related. Yes, I know it's the old, "if you don't like it, don't look at it" argument, but it's a very valid argument in this case.

The people saying they are offended by the "Girls in..." threads. I respect your right to be offended by whatever you wish, but so long as these threads are not breaking any of the existing forum rules (which with the exception of a few isolated posts, they're not), are in the correct, off-topic areas, and are clearly marked as containing slightly more mature content (possibly something admins could look into, some sort of information marker) I fail to see how you can justify what are essentially demands to censor the forums and force everyone else here to bend to your wishes.

MattC59

Here's a thought:

I'm assuming once the offending threads have been removed, all those who took offence will now be activily joining in with cake stop threads ? If we don't see active participation, can the threads be reinstated ?

MattC59

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Now I may have missed this amidst the pages and pages of self-indulgent twaddle and outright moral indignation from some of these highly strung types, but I can't help but wonder what all the fuss is about.

The people saying this is a cycling forum, and should only contain cycling related chat, you can stick to the sub-forums that are specifically cycling related. Yes, I know it's the old, "if you don't like it, don't look at it" argument, but it's a very valid argument in this case.

The people saying they are offended by the "Girls in..." threads. I respect your right to be offended by whatever you wish, but so long as these threads are not breaking any of the existing forum rules (which with the exception of a few isolated posts, they're not), are in the correct, off-topic areas, and are clearly marked as containing slightly more mature content (possibly something admins could look into, some sort of information marker) I fail to see how you can justify what are essentially demands to censor the forums and force everyone else here to bend to your wishes.

Chapeau !!
+1

Pseudonym

rozzer32 wrote:

I don't think any of the pics go off topic. If the girl is in knitwear then it doesn't matter how much or how little, she's is still in knitwear.

ok, I'm with you now. So if the thread title was 'girls being rogered senseless in a gang-bang', then I guess the pic content would be ok as long as it was on topic.....

Incidentally, could anyone actually point me to the cakestop forum rules? I'll be buggered if I can find them. Oops, see what I did there...?

Pseudonym

Cat With No Tail wrote:

The people saying they are offended by the "Girls in..." threads. I respect your right to be offended by whatever you wish, but so long as these threads are not breaking any of the existing forum rules (which with the exception of a few isolated posts, they're not), are in the correct, off-topic areas, and are clearly marked as containing slightly more mature content (possibly something admins could look into, some sort of information marker) I fail to see how you can justify what are essentially demands to censor the forums and force everyone else here to bend to your wishes.

Someone else made the point earlier that you can find all kinds of dubious content fairly easily on the internet - and lots of it isn't restricted or access-controlled. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be ok to post it on BR.

As I said before, it all boils down to what Bikeradar and Future Publishing actually deem is acceptable on their own forums, given their target audience. I'm fine with it if they are.

MattC59

supersonic wrote:

Some one has justpointed out to me that in cycling advertising (include the mags represented on this site!) have included pictures of topless women! Maybe we should rethink that rule if we go ahead.

I assume that you'll be removing Assos ads from the magazines ?

t.m.h.n.e.t

MattC59 wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Some one has justpointed out to me that in cycling advertising (include the mags represented on this site!) have included pictures of topless women! Maybe we should rethink that rule if we go ahead.

I assume that you'll be removing Assos ads from the magazines ?

And thus avenue from adspace.

*gets popcorn*

Velonutter

I've read this with interest, and I respect all view points.

I enjoy some of the Cake Stop Threads, but I also respect my wife and daughter not to gawp at them in front of them, not because I have anything to hide, but out of respect.

The moderators have a very difficult job, they will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Simple answer that I have applied to many forums that I have run/moderated over the years: -

1. Make a sub forum listed as maybe "NSFW"

2. Only members who personally PM the moderators will be allowed access, no automatic right.

3. As long as the existing rules are maintained in there then no harm done, and by a member asking for access they know what they are letting themselves in for.

Problem sorted and then if people ask for access and don't like it then that is their problem.

supersonic

The point of that post was to suggest that the proposed rule of 'whatever goes in the mags is ok' and 'no breasts/nipples/frontal nudity' is at odds and warrants further discussion - though I have not seen such an ad for a while.

I have no ability to remove any adverts. I have the ability to remove threads and pictures, and will work with any new rules we eventually decide on.

Monkeypump

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Personally I would like to see a regular member of the commuting section as a moderator.

I nominate DDD.

The last thing DDD needs is an even more inflated ego.

MattC59

supersonic wrote:

The point of that post was to suggest that the proposed rule of 'whatever goes in the mags is ok' and 'no breasts/nipples/frontal nudity' is at odds and warrants further discussion - though I have not seen such an ad for a while.

Full page advert for Tri-UK. Page 131, April 2012 issue of Cycling Plus.

Monkeypump

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Now I may have missed this amidst the pages and pages of self-indulgent twaddle and outright moral indignation from some of these highly strung types, but I can't help but wonder what all the fuss is about.

The people saying this is a cycling forum, and should only contain cycling related chat, you can stick to the sub-forums that are specifically cycling related. Yes, I know it's the old, "if you don't like it, don't look at it" argument, but it's a very valid argument in this case.

The people saying they are offended by the "Girls in..." threads. I respect your right to be offended by whatever you wish, but so long as these threads are not breaking any of the existing forum rules (which with the exception of a few isolated posts, they're not), are in the correct, off-topic areas, and are clearly marked as containing slightly more mature content (possibly something admins could look into, some sort of information marker) I fail to see how you can justify what are essentially demands to censor the forums and force everyone else here to bend to your wishes.

+1

Leave the threads as they are and mark them clearly with a warning. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

Pseudonym

Velonutter wrote:

Simple answer that I have applied to many forums that I have run/moderated over the years: -

1. Make a sub forum listed as maybe "NSFW"

2. Only members who personally PM the moderators will be allowed access, no automatic right.

3. As long as the existing rules are maintained in there then no harm done, and by a member asking for access they know what they are letting themselves in for.

Problem sorted and then if people ask for access and don't like it then that is their problem.

we went down that route several years ago on the forum that I moderate - the fact is that the content generally just gets 'worse' and was still traceable through search engines anyway. We closed it in the end, because we ended up asking the question - "why are we supporting these people through a forum which has no bearing on our core business?"

rhialto

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Now I may have missed this amidst the pages and pages of self-indulgent twaddle and outright moral indignation from some of these highly strung types, but I can't help but wonder what all the fuss is about.

That's pretty insulting. If it doesn't jibe with your views then it's twaddle and indignation? Well, my self-indulgent opinion is that I would rather participate in a forum that is inclusive for all. And it seems that some members find the content to be less than welcoming. For me, that's a good enough reason to discuss what is appropriate content on the forum.

Cat With No Tail wrote:

The people saying they are offended by the "Girls in..." threads. I respect your right to be offended by whatever you wish, but so long as these threads are not breaking any of the existing forum rules (which with the exception of a few isolated posts, they're not), are in the correct, off-topic areas, and are clearly marked as containing slightly more mature content (possibly something admins could look into, some sort of information marker) I fail to see how you can justify what are essentially demands to censor the forums and force everyone else here to bend to your wishes.

Is there some inalienable right to post images of scantily clad women that needs to be defended here? Nobody is saying you can't view or discuss those images but that maybe the BR forums aren't the place for it. Why is this so unpleasant a prospect?

fizz

I'm not saying I am offended by the threads. It takes alot to offend me.

I think that sometimes the content isnt appropriate, the trouble is there are no guidelines as to what appropriate content is so.

1. Us a user base don't know what is acceptable or not
2. The mods don't know what is acceptable or not so it then makes it difficult or impossible to moderate
3. Some of the moderator team aren't very active so the content contained in the threads has been allowed to slip, and then the user base thinks that the content slipping is ok because nobody is correcting them, or the posts aren't being removed.

I stay out of cake stop in general whilst I am at work, because some of what gets posted I will get a rollicking from HR about if it appears on my screen, that's my choice and I have no problem with using the forum in that way.

I'm merely putting the thought out there, that perhaps in the grand scheme of things its not correct behaviour that I or others have to do that.

Its not for me to decide, I'm merely a user. But somebody from the mod team is going have to make a decision otherwise this will go on and on and on, as to

1. What is or is not acceptable content.
2. Documenting what that content is.
3. What will be done when content crosses that line.

If the mod team decide that how those threads are currently being used is OK and fits with whatever the terms and conditions of this site are then that's fine with me.

The other problem I can see is that there maybe a shortage of moderator cover on some sections. Which also isnt helping.

I would say respect to Supersonic for sticking his head up above the parapet and attempting to try and sort this all out.

greg66_tri_v2.0

supersonic wrote:

Some one has justpointed out to me that in cycling advertising (include the mags represented on this site!) have included pictures of topless women! Maybe we should rethink that rule if we go ahead.

Logical fallacy (assuming it is true).

The use of topless shot doesn't justify every topless shot being posted on BR. The fact that Rebecca Romero appears naked on a bike in a well-known publicity shot doesn't mean every photo of a naked female is fair game for BR.

Pseudonym

fizz wrote:

I would say respect to Supersonic for sticking his head up above the parapet and attempting to try and sort this all out.

+1 - completely agree

The fact that none of the other mods are involved in this discussion suggests that:

1. there aren't any other active mods

or

2. there are other mods, but they couldn't give a stuff and/or can't be arsed to get involved

Either way, I think that's part (possibly a very large part) of the problem.

MattC59

fizz wrote:

I stay out of cake stop in general whilst I am at work, because some of what gets posted I will get a rollicking from HR about if it appears on my screen, that's my choice and I have no problem with using the forum in that way.

I would have thought that the NSFW issue is somewhat redundant, as you're all supposed to be doing the job that you're paid to do, not browsing BikeRadar

MattC59

Greg66 wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Some one has justpointed out to me that in cycling advertising (include the mags represented on this site!) have included pictures of topless women! Maybe we should rethink that rule if we go ahead.

Logical fallacy (assuming it is true).

The use of topless shot doesn't justify every topless shot being posted on BR. The fact that Rebecca Romero appears naked on a bike in a well-known publicity shot doesn't mean every photo of a naked female is fair game for BR.

Have you been drinking ?

t.m.h.n.e.t

Greg66 wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Some one has justpointed out to me that in cycling advertising (include the mags represented on this site!) have included pictures of topless women! Maybe we should rethink that rule if we go ahead.

Logical fallacy (assuming it is true).

The use of topless shot doesn't justify every topless shot being posted on BR. The fact that Rebecca Romero appears naked on a bike in a well-known publicity shot doesn't mean every photo of a naked female is fair game for BR.

But it's ok the magazine?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Now I may have missed this amidst the pages and pages of self-indulgent twaddle and outright moral indignation from some of these highly strung types, but I can't help but wonder what all the fuss is about.

The people saying this is a cycling forum, and should only contain cycling related chat, you can stick to the sub-forums that are specifically cycling related. Yes, I know it's the old, "if you don't like it, don't look at it" argument, but it's a very valid argument in this case.

The people saying they are offended by the "Girls in..." threads. I respect your right to be offended by whatever you wish, but so long as these threads are not breaking any of the existing forum rules (which with the exception of a few isolated posts, they're not), are in the correct, off-topic areas, and are clearly marked as containing slightly more mature content (possibly something admins could look into, some sort of information marker) I fail to see how you can justify what are essentially demands to censor the forums and force everyone else here to bend to your wishes.

It's striking that those who are desperate to hold onto the Internet equivalent of the Kays underwear catalogue to aid their masturbation habit routinely trot out the argument "there's something wrong with you if you don't like what I like".

Now in reality I think the first part of that sentence is unfair, probably untrue, and outright offensive. But if we're allowed to bolster our arguments by name-calling, it's probably fair game to say it.

greg66_tri_v2.0

fizz wrote:

I'm not saying I am offended by the threads. It takes alot to offend me.

I think that sometimes the content isnt appropriate, the trouble is there are no guidelines as to what appropriate content is so.

1. Us a user base don't know what is acceptable or not
2. The mods don't know what is acceptable or not so it then makes it difficult or impossible to moderate
3. Some of the moderator team aren't very active so the content contained in the threads has been allowed to slip, and then the user base thinks that the content slipping is ok because nobody is correcting them, or the posts aren't being removed.

I stay out of cake stop in general whilst I am at work, because some of what gets posted I will get a rollicking from HR about if it appears on my screen, that's my choice and I have no problem with using the forum in that way.

I'm merely putting the thought out there, that perhaps in the grand scheme of things its not correct behaviour that I or others have to do that.

Its not for me to decide, I'm merely a user. But somebody from the mod team is going have to make a decision otherwise this will go on and on and on, as to

1. What is or is not acceptable content.
2. Documenting what that content is.
3. What will be done when content crosses that line.

If the mod team decide that how those threads are currently being used is OK and fits with whatever the terms and conditions of this site are then that's fine with me.

The other problem I can see is that there maybe a shortage of moderator cover on some sections. Which also isnt helping.

I would say respect to Supersonic for sticking his head up above the parapet and attempting to try and sort this all out.

Very well said.

cat_with_no_tail

dpaulett wrote:

That's pretty insulting.

Of course it is :roll:

dpaulett wrote:

If it doesn't jibe with your views then it's twaddle and indignation?

Not at all. I don't post on the Girls in... threads as they're not my cup of tea. It's twaddle and indignation because certain people are claiming said threads should be removed rather than giving people a choice to avoid them altogether.

dpaulett wrote:

Well, my self-indulgent opinion is that I would rather participate in a forum that is inclusive for all. And it seems that some members find the content to be less than welcoming. For me, that's a good enough reason to discuss what is appropriate content on the forum.

Yes, me too. The best way to do that is to clearly mark threads that may cause offence to those who are easily offended. Like yourself for example.

dpaulett wrote:

Is there some inalienable right to post images of scantily clad women that needs to be defended here? Nobody is saying you can't view or discuss those images but that maybe the BR forums aren't the place for it. Why is this so unpleasant a prospect?

Why if this not the place for it. More specifically, why are the off-topic portions of the forum not the place for it? Especially is, as mentioned already, they are clearly labeled as such.

We're not talking about porn here folks, at the very worst it's bra and knickers. Stuff you can see in a topshop catalogue for crying out loud. Anything worse than that is removed.

supersonic

I would say respect to Supersonic for sticking his head up above the parapet and attempting to try and sort this all out.

Thank you, is appreciated!

There is no doubt that we need clearer rules - I was quite surprised when I looked at the Road section that none are easily available, unlike in the MTB where I have added them to all the main section and OT areas. The moderator shortage in some areas has been acknowleged and we are very close to adding more.

The use of topless shot doesn't justify every topless shot being posted on BR. The fact that Rebecca Romero appears naked on a bike in a well-known publicity shot doesn't mean every photo of a naked female is fair game for BR.

Personally I agree with the part about justification, however I wasn't suggesting one way or the other, more that I believe that the point needed to be raised: if we went ahead and published a rule list with or without the part relating to bike mags, people would question why it was/wasn't there. Given it was mentioned and agreed by a few.

The adverts are an interesting area. I believe in the past some have been pulled by the ASA.

greg66_tri_v2.0

MattC59 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Some one has justpointed out to me that in cycling advertising (include the mags represented on this site!) have included pictures of topless women! Maybe we should rethink that rule if we go ahead.

Logical fallacy (assuming it is true).

The use of topless shot doesn't justify every topless shot being posted on BR. The fact that Rebecca Romero appears naked on a bike in a well-known publicity shot doesn't mean every photo of a naked female is fair game for BR.

Have you been drinking ?

No. But if you want to know what it's like, PM me.

MattC59

Greg66 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Some one has justpointed out to me that in cycling advertising (include the mags represented on this site!) have included pictures of topless women! Maybe we should rethink that rule if we go ahead.

Logical fallacy (assuming it is true).

The use of topless shot doesn't justify every topless shot being posted on BR. The fact that Rebecca Romero appears naked on a bike in a well-known publicity shot doesn't mean every photo of a naked female is fair game for BR.

Have you been drinking ?

No. But if you want to know what it's like, PM me.

Well judging by one or two of your recent posts, I think your horlicks must have been spiked !

greg66_tri_v2.0

supersonic wrote:

The use of topless shot doesn't justify every topless shot being posted on BR. The fact that Rebecca Romero appears naked on a bike in a well-known publicity shot doesn't mean every photo of a naked female is fair game for BR.

Personally I agree with the part about justification, however I wasn't suggesting one way or the other, more that I believe that the point needed to be raised: if we went ahead and published a rule list with or without the part relating to bike mags, people would question why it was/wasn't there. Given it was mentioned and agreed by a few.

The adverts are an interesting area. I believe in the past some have been pulled by the ASA.

The true comparator would the site owner: if they green light the ogle threads in a stronger or weaker version than they exist currently, then they stay. The risk of the site losing business because of that material (cf the risk of Tri-UK losing business because of that sort of material) is theirs to take.

Although as I understand it, the site owners want zero OT content and so probably don't want the ogle threads at all. And in any event, the current discussion is user-led, not site owner-led.

cat_with_no_tail

Greg66 wrote:

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Now I may have missed this amidst the pages and pages of self-indulgent twaddle and outright moral indignation from some of these highly strung types, but I can't help but wonder what all the fuss is about.

The people saying this is a cycling forum, and should only contain cycling related chat, you can stick to the sub-forums that are specifically cycling related. Yes, I know it's the old, "if you don't like it, don't look at it" argument, but it's a very valid argument in this case.

The people saying they are offended by the "Girls in..." threads. I respect your right to be offended by whatever you wish, but so long as these threads are not breaking any of the existing forum rules (which with the exception of a few isolated posts, they're not), are in the correct, off-topic areas, and are clearly marked as containing slightly more mature content (possibly something admins could look into, some sort of information marker) I fail to see how you can justify what are essentially demands to censor the forums and force everyone else here to bend to your wishes.

It's striking that those who are desperate to hold onto the Internet equivalent of the Kays underwear catalogue to aid their masturbation habit routinely trot out the argument "there's something wrong with you if you don't like what I like".

Now in reality I think the first part of that sentence is unfair, probably untrue, and outright offensive. But if we're allowed to bolster our arguments by name-calling, it's probably fair game to say it.

That's a good one. Apart from the fact I've never posted in any of those threads, and have never said there is something wrong with you if you don't like them. However I DO think there is something wrong with you if you think that people shouldn't be allowed to choose to view them or not. Who are you to remove that choice?

Oh, and it'll take more than that to offend me chum. I spend enough time in the Crudcatcher to have a thicker skin than that.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Who are you to remove that choice?

The site owner could remove that choice in a heartbeat. From what Supersonic has said, would be happy to do so. Your "right" to see that material on BR is not cast in stone. And if it is removed from BR, what is the big deal? You can find it on google images in a fraction of a second.