Ban Politics from the forum

[Psamathe]

...but I read the Politics threads quite a bit and they do seem very harshly moderated....

I've not noticed it myself (and in the past the moderators have commented that it does not give them any undue workload. You might get an occasional "Argue nicely" post from a mod to remind people to be polite but I've not seem much post editing/deletion and thread deletion is rare.

Ok, just as in life everybody on occasions says something they later regret; phrase things badly or are just having a bad day. But I'm frequently surprised how such contentious subjects can be discussed here by people with widely differing viewpoints and it (mostly) remains polite and constructive discussion. And it does raise ideas and facts that make one adjust one's own viewpoints (people always talk about "change their viewpoint" but view are far more often adjusted slightly, adjusted slightly again, etc.).

Ian

[Heltor Chasca]

Extraordinary how quickly this thread degenerated. There's your cue. I'm in the 'This is a cycling forum' camp. Political debate should be about cycle infrastructure etc only. The rest of the guff should be left out.

I can't vote by the way. Tapatalk won't let me talk [emoji51]

[Bonefishblues]

Extraordinary how quickly this thread degenerated. There's your cue. I'm in the 'This is a cycling forum' camp. Political debate should be about cycle infrastructure etc only. The rest of the guff should be left out.

I can't vote by the way. Tapatalk won't let me talk

I think Tapatalk must be yet another organ of Moderator control. Where will this all end? Wait, that's a knock on the door. They are here for me...



I like it here, it's a well-moderated Forum. I contribute to what I choose to. I disagree with people on occasion, it's generally very civilised. Happy days.

[pwa]

I don't contribute, but I read the Politics threads quite a bit and they do seem very harshly moderated. I'm in engineering IT and contribute to a lot of forums for work. I've only seen a thread removed once in ten years! (and that was because of a threat of violence).

The demographic of this Tea Room seems to be white, middle aged, right of centre. beardy men! I am none of these, so I find it interesting to watch the conversations develop. However it does all seem very anodyne and 'polite', probably because it's over moderated. There are one or two rotten eggs, as you get on any forum who seem to abuse it.

Obviously those who are long term contributors don't want change, but I'm put off the forum by 'Blacking Up' type threads myself. Perhaps a move behind closed doors is long overdue. I for one wouldn't miss it. Best left to the beardy men to wage war with their keyboards

A bit less of the "beardy" please. Beards are more common on younger men at the moment. I didn't mind the "Blacking Up" thread because it was aware of the offence that old fashioned Black and White Minstrels portrayal of black people caused and was looking at how, if at all, a person of one racial type can play another. I thought that was interesting and essentially harmless. We should be more open about things like that.

"Right of centre"? I'd have said two thirds of contributors to the more political threads are a bit lefty, but that's just my feeling.

[Psamathe]

Extraordinary how quickly this thread degenerated. There's your cue. I'm in the 'This is a cycling forum' camp. Political debate should be about cycle infrastructure etc only. The rest of the guff should be left out.
...

So do you think we should not be allowed to discuss e.g. motoring offence penalties or how some drivers use expensive legal teams to wiggle out of driving bans, etc. And as I pointed out on one of the many threads running, Brexit will likely have a massive impact of cycling infrastructure in the UK (as the economy slows, will politicians cut vote wining childcare budgets or the unpopular cycle funding ?).

As I commented before or maybe a different thread (there are so many of them running ow it gets impossible to keep track - and maybe that is the real problem), but for a forum to be useful it needs to be an active and lively place. Only that way will people visit regularly and contribute. To kill-off general discussion would risk turning the forum into a question and answer forum, member joins, asks their "which bike should I get ?" or "when do camp sites open?" question, a few regular experts tell them and then user departs. I've seen it happen on other forums.

Whilst only some participate in the current affairs discussions, it does keep the forum active and lively so people visiting see the threads being updated and things happen. Lose than and things can grind to a crawl.

If there is a problem it's with clickbait threads (as thirdcrank pointed out in one of these duplicate threads) and people starting multiple threads to discuss the same subject (which does swamp the Tea shop a bit - but even than hardly a reason to ban discussion).

Ian

[pwa]

When I first encountered this Forum I didn't really look at the lower categories. I stuck to the directly cycling related stuff at the top. I expect most people new to this Forum would do the same. So I don't think people will be put off by somebody's strident views on political matters.

[PH]

When I first encountered this Forum I didn't really look at the lower categories. I stuck to the directly cycling related stuff at the top. I expect most people new to this Forum would do the same. So I don't think people will be put off by somebody's strident views on political matters.

Depends how people view the forum, I use active topics, the political threads can dominate the first page.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Maybe we don't want a vigorous political debate with some who are used to being MODS?
If you say you are a mod then people sometimes shy away, that applies to moderators of that forum or mods of another forum.

Getting in to sensitive discussions about politics / religion even, always ends badly.
Going head to head in a post with someone who has any power over posters, I find it hard to say what I want at fear of being moderated

Edited-
"I've set this up as a binary question, because it really is quite straightforward, do we want vigorous political debate or not?"

That does somewhat tie the voters hands (based on the vote options), either you don't vote like me, or you want to ban / segregate opinions

[blackbike]

If you don't like political threads just don't read them.

Why would anyone want a ban or restrictions on these threads when they have no need to be affected by them at all?

One way to satisfy easily offended, intolerant and censorious types who don't like to see discussion threads on topics they disapprove of would be to have a separate, password protected section of the forum just for them.

It could be called the Snowflake Section or perhaps the Playpen Tantrum Section or the Safe Space. All its participants would be given full moderator status over it so they could instantly delete anything they don't like.

The rest of us could ignore it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =Snowflake

[Richard Fairhurst]

Why would anyone want a ban or restrictions on these threads when they have no need to be affected by them at all?

I don't read them so I don't personally mind them, but there are four possible reasons I can think of - which are also the four reasons I wouldn't permit them on the (non-cycling-related) forum that I do run.

First, the owners and moderators of the site may consider that it projects an unwelcoming image and is therefore detrimental to the site's success as a cycling forum. I did once see on another site the suggestion that "the CTC forum is the ISIS of cycling forums, with arguments , disagreements, and even the occasional stabbing being the norm. Makes our SC&P [Society, Culture & Politics] forum feel all warm and welcoming." FWIW I disagree entirely with that assessment, but clearly there are those who believe it.

Second, the owners of the site may consider that such threads are more likely to create legal issues.

Third, the moderators of the site may consider that administering and reviewing such threads, even if only very lightly moderated, is a time-sink and not something they want to volunteer their time doing.

Fourth, disagreements in politics threads can have a habit of spilling over into the core boards, and that negatively affects the main purpose of the forum - people start getting snippy with each other because they've fallen out over a politics issue. (I used to see this very often on a certain canal forum.)

[Psamathe]

If you don't like political threads just don't read them.

Why would anyone want a ban or restrictions on these threads when they have no need to be affected by them at all?...

It seems the attitude is that because "I'm not interested, I can't be bothered to ignore it so it should be banned (stopping others who do enjoy it from discussing it without impacting me". Can we do the same for football ? and cooking competitions ? and dancing ? etc.

Ian

[Psamathe]

When I first encountered this Forum I didn't really look at the lower categories. I stuck to the directly cycling related stuff at the top. I expect most people new to this Forum would do the same. So I don't think people will be put off by somebody's strident views on political matters.

Depends how people view the forum, I use active topics, the political threads can dominate the first page.

I feel that is a separate problem where recently we have a lot of new threads with a brief comment and a link to a news report of the day. They tend to be more current affairs that political and I admit they do dominate them as there are just so many (but mainly created by a single member). Use just one "News Story of the Day" ongoing thread and problem solved.

Ian

[Spinners]

Perhaps you can conscisely explain what is good about it?

We like it, it works.

Not in my name.

[blackbike]

Why not alter the terms and conditions of use for this forum to warn people that if they call for a ban on topics which others freely choose to discuss they will be banned from the forum?

Do we need forum members who think we should only be allowed to discuss topics they want us to discuss?

We should shun such anti-social, intolerant people on an internet forum just as we'd shun them in other aspects of our lives.

[Canuk]

Why not alter the terms and conditions of use for this forum to warn people that if they call for a ban on topics which others freely choose to discuss they will be banned from the forum?

Do we need forum members who think we should only be allowed to discuss topics they want us to discuss?

We should shun such anti-social, intolerant people on an internet forum just as we'd shun them in other aspects of our lives.

od you'd be the first to be censured.

If you don't like the vote, abstain. Like other binary voting.
Your beloved Brexit for instance.