Moderation regarding covid-19

[horizon]

Can anyone point me to any guidelines regarding posting about the virus? Obviously posts must fall within the usual forum guidelines regarding decency and politeness but must they also conform to any policy outlook? And has Cycling UK made any representations to the moderators in this area?

I have this post from Vorpal referring to a post of mine that she deleted (sorry, I no longer have a copy of the post):
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=136714&start=360#p1484689
and I think there may be others but cannot locate them.

I would be happy with a re-stating of the current guidance or a link to it.

[Jdsk]

Guidelines:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3661

Jonathan

[horizon]

Thanks for that Jonathan. Unfortunately these are just the general guidelines (posted in 2006!) and don't refer to covid.

[horizon]

Just giving this an airing again. If a moderator could reply, even if just to say they've seen it, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

[admin]

I'm not aware of any specific moderation changes that might be needed because of COVID-19.

What did you have in mind?

[horizon]

Apologies for the delayed reply!

I just wanted to conclude this thread so that we go forward with some clarity.

Since admin replied to this post I wondered if the other mods were aware of this and the fact that he/she may have been incorrect in their assumption. BTW I very much support the idea that the forum is moderated. It is a public forum, it belongs to a charitably funded organisation and uses their name. It must therefore regulate itself properly.

With this in mind:

1. Please can a moderator point to a current list of moderators so we know who is who. Ideally, IMV, the moderators should have two identities so that we know which role they are posting in, personal or moderator (it isn't always clear). As I understood it, admin was replying to my OP on behalf of the moderator team but this wasn't the case.

2. Some topics are restricted in terms of what can be written. It would be helpful to know on such threads that restriction is in place and that one can post accordingly. I don't have a problem with this provided that it is made clear.

3. Some entire topics are probably not suitable for the forum (mainly ethical, adult and moral ones that have little connection to cycling). Perhaps this could be pointed out in the guidelines. If someone wanted to start such a thread but was unsure, then a request to the the moderators could be made.

4. I would like to see the term "moderation" only be used for action in regard to how something is expressed (e.g. politeness, swearing). I would like to see a different term used for moderation in regard to what view is being put forward. I would suggest "restricted" (I thought of "edited" or "censored" but neither of these seems quite right).

5. I think it would be very helpful if the moderators could clarify the relationship between the forum and CUK in regard to views expressed on the forum. This would save some confusion and wasted effort and indeed, on occasion, indignation. I accept that CUK have a right to regulate the forum, but it would be a mark of respect to forum members if they laid out their position clearly.

Unwittingly or not, CUK has established a resource of great value (and pleasure) for many people (though who it now belongs to is a moot point!). It must surely be worthwhile therefore not only to protect and regulate it but also to make that regulation clear. It has been said that one of England's greatest contributions to the world was the F.A. rulebook: perhaps the world of cycling could benefit in the same way!

[Psamathe]

I'm not aware of any specific moderation changes that might be needed because of COVID-19.

What did you have in mind?

Probably this thread refers to a new requirement that all posts support Government "public health messaging" https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=142212&start=1110#p1578939 i.e. posts cannot raise any information that might raise questions about Government policy regarding Covid public health policy.

I know ... maybe I should go live in Burma.

Ian

[Jdsk]

Probably this thread refers to a new requirement that all posts support Government "public health messaging" https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=142212&start=1110#p1578939 i.e. posts cannot raise any information that might raise questions about Government policy regarding Covid public health policy.

I don't think that is a requirement.

I don't see any sign of rational discussion being unwelcome, inhibited, or prevented. Or anything similar for information or questions.

Repeated unevidenced, unattributed smears, hints and innuendo that create fear, uncertainty and doubt and are dangerous to public health are a completely different matter. And things that aren't true should of course be identified as such.

Jonathan

[Oldjohnw]

I recently reported a contributor. Not because they were questioning government policy - I do plenty of that myself - but because they were denying vaccinations. The post I challenged was removed within about an hour so few will have noticed.

[Jdsk]

Not because they were questioning government policy - I do plenty of that myself - but because they were denying vaccinations.

That's an important difference.

Thank you

Jonathan

[horizon]

I don't see any sign of rational discussion being unwelcome, inhibited, or prevented. Or anything similar for information or questions.

Oldjohnw wrote:
I recently reported a contributor. Not because they were questioning government policy - I do plenty of that myself - but because they were denying vaccinations. The post I challenged was removed within about an hour so few will have noticed

So long as it is clear. It may also help to know whether this applies only to this government policy or others. I'm not saying that it shouldn't happen (I don't own this forum, CUK does), but it would save time and trouble if it is made clear. Whether an individual post deletion should be noted on the thread is another matter.

[horizon]

Not because they were questioning government policy - I do plenty of that myself - but because they were denying vaccinations.

That's an important difference.

Thank you

Jonathan

I'm not sure that that is an important difference. The important thing is to know that your post (or even thread) may be unwelcome or deleted before you start typing. As I mentioned above, I would certainly exclude (were it my decision) a whole raft of adult and moral issues, whether government policy or not - discussing them just isn't helpful on a cycling forum of this type. I would probably include vaccination in that list as it's an emotive topic. We had an open invitation to discuss it and that IMV was probably a mistake (as I said on the thread, I steered clear of it for quite a while).

[Oldjohnw]

When someone, I the middle of a deadly pandemic, writes that distancing, tests, vaccines and the deaths and hospital numbers are all fake I am not at all sure that that is reasonable, rational or even permissible discussion.

[Pebble]

Personally I think the anti-vaxers are mad, but they should have a right to spout their nonsense - slippery slope moderating stuff out that we don't agree with.

[horizon]

When someone, in the middle of a deadly pandemic, writes that distancing, tests, vaccines and the deaths and hospital numbers are all fake I am not at all sure that that is reasonable, rational or even permissible discussion.

I take your point (surprisingly), the problem being that how something is discussed would probably become a minefield of interpretation and nuance. I don't think that would be fair on either the moderators or indeed posters (on either side of the argument). This is a cycling forum: we are not duty bound to argue well or logically (thank goodness). But if a topic is so sensitive that not only might offence be taken by members, but that the wider public might be affected then I would question whether the topic is right for the forum.

In fact part of that minefield is that one might unwittingly find oneself stepping over a grey line and find that one is in fact banned from the forum.

I do acknowledge that the forum constantly evolves, new topics emerge and new rules are put in place. I think the alarm bells should have rung sooner on this. In my OP on this thread all I was asking for (as early as November) was clear guidelines, not the right to offend or endanger.