Cycling UK Forum

There has been a noticeable deterioration in this forum since the rebranding was leaked with multiple random duplicate new threads, off topic posts, repetition etc etc. Have the Mods jumped ship already?
If this is how CyclingUk runs a forum it won't be worth visiting here for much longer.

No one has jumped ship as far as I know.
This Spambuster is still here.
Have you seen any spam recently?

Lets wait until the heat dies down maybe?

The mods are Volunteers and a very good job they do to.

Multiple threads on similar subjects are undesireable but the fact that it has happend is not the fault of the moderators.

Tidying it all up would take a lot of time and effort and someone would probably complain that their thread was different to the one it was merged with.

At the moment I expect there's more than enough work in trying to sort out posts that breach the rules without trying to make it look pretty too.

The club's name is something that a lot of people feel very passionately about. If moderation was too heavy handed it would run the risk of people feeling that the moderators were not allowing them their time to speak. Inevitably threads about different aspects of the rebranding have sometimes ended up discussing the topic in general, thus duplicating views expressed elsewhere. I suspect it would require a lot of effort to edit and merge threads to keep topics separate, particularly at the moment where many people are just discovering the news and coming on here to voice their opinions. There is a limit to the time we can reasonably expect volunteer moderators to put into sorting out these ephemeral threads, particularly whilst some posters are very prolific.

There is still moderation. I and others have flagged posts over the past few months where things have got too personal or plainly unacceptable and moderators have taken action.

As Mick says, I'm sure normal forum service will resume when it all calms down. The charity debate got equally heated but normality soon returned. In the meantime, the vast majority of discussion about this 'lively' topic can be avoided by not reading this particular sub-forum.

Bicycler wrote: The charity debate got equally heated but normality soon returned. In the meantime, the vast majority of discussion about this 'lively' topic can be avoided by not reading this particular sub-forum.

So during the introduction of the biggest changes in the organisation for decades you are advising members not to read that section of the forum in which members are discussing the changes?

It's a statement of fact, the vast majority of discussion about this 'lively' topic can be avoided by not reading this particular sub-forum.

That doesn't make it a recommendation.

You were talking about a change in the moderating of the forum. I was pointing out that the forum hasn't changed and in the long run the forum will return to normal. This particular section has got a bit hectic because of the nature of the subject matter, just as it did at the time of the charity debate (IMO a much more significant - but less visible - change to the club).

The rebranding is an important topic, but much of what is on here is not enlightening reading. If reading through the meandering opinions of others is causing you great annoyance then yes you'd be better off not trawling through the long debates in this section. In truth, for all the millions of words there's surprisingly little original information here and most of it is in the initial post of each particular thread, not the 5 pages that follow.

In summary, opinions basically depend upon whether people like and accept the new name and the way it was implemented or not. CTC/CUK have issued statements explaining their reasoning viewtopic.php?f=48&t=103845 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbixI0a ... e=youtu.be which some agree with but haven't convinced everybody. Proponents see it as a vital step in making the club more inclusive and better reflecting its stated goals, opponents see it as disregard for a much loved heritage. The name change came about after apparently extensive consultation with members and other stakeholders, but not a poll or consultation of all members. As a result, approximately 600 members petitioned the CTC under the Articles of Association to have a poll of the whole club, which they are now obliged to conduct.

I don't think you need to worry too much about The Forum. Nothing has changed, and you might like to view the proliferation of threads that are critical of Cycling UK as an indicator that we are not ( yet ! ) in any way controlled by CUK.

If you select 'view new posts' you do see a lot of these topics, and I agree that they can appear overwhelming, but generally they are all together in the 'Cycling UK' section and easily ignored.

Two of the main criticisms of the reorganisation are that 'they didn't consult the members' and 'they don't listen'. Here, at least, everyone is encouraged to say what they think as long as they are moderately civil about it ..................

ncutler wrote:I don't think you need to worry too much about The Forum. Nothing has changed,.....

Perhaps something should have changed in order to cope with the number of postings arising from the changing circumstances within the organisation?
Anyway,it's too late now, chaos reigns, I'll bow out.
Thanks for responses.

One might be forgiven for thinking that it's all part of a conspiracy to devalue the neigh-sayers. I.e, there are so many posts saying the same thing and criticising every little thing they can about CTC/CUK that anyone new coming along will soon get bored and acquire the opinion that some people just have massive chips on their shoulders....and swiftly depart just as Ron has.

Thus one might equally believe that this is why NO has not been bothered about Philip's posts - they are so repetitive and hard to read that the good points* that he makes just get swallowed up and ignored - he says that he has a lot of support but it seems few of these supporters are actually willing to help him out by assisting in delivering a clear, concise, easy to digest message. It has thus, a cynic might conclude, been recognised that the best weapon to be used against Philip is just letting Philip speak.

*Yes, I happily concede that he has made some good points.

Or, if the issue is looked at with any sort of level-headedness one might instead conclude that:
- if a moderator were to delete a post just because it looked a bit like another there would rightly be an uproar about people not being allowed their say,
- that the forum is for the membership to express opinion* and thus they are allowed to express their opinion (*as long as they don't contravene forum rules),
- that the mods are volunteers that do this in their spare time...which is limited, and that your offer to help by giving up hours of your time too, Ron, must have gotten lost in the email system somewhere
- that virtually all of the stuff about rebranding has been moved into the rebranding section of the forum so that, people can carry on enjoying the rest of the forum without any need to see it if they are not interested in it.