Two Threads culled in two days

[Norman H]

There's no easy answer to this. The problem is one of balance but also of content. Of late the tea shop has become dominated by such posts, some of which seem to use deliberately provocative titles and gratuitously inflammatory language. It's all very well claiming that people can choose not to read it but if instead they choose to depart, we are on the slippery slope to the sort of tea shop that few would want to enter.

[Bez]

You're wrong, of course, it is a right.

Rights and privileges and responsibilities are just social constructs, there are no absolutes. They're things that are defined moral codes of varying sorts—including legislation, religious texts, and so on. Getting bogged down in the semantics of whether something is a right or a privilege, or whether there's even a difference between the two, is utterly futile. The facts of the matter are that humans respond to other humans and that humans organise themselves so as to do so in groups. Some people live in a society where much can be said without serious personal consequence; others live in societies where that is less true. It's perfectly possible for a society, or any other organisational entity, or any individual to move along that range of reaction to speech, and I think that was roughly 661-Pete's point.

[thirdcrank]

Just like the moderators, posters are volunteers and are only going to post about things that attract them. Banning subjects or themes will reduce the amount of content, with little guarantee or even expectation that something else will flourish.

The only thing that regularly irritates me - and a search of my numerous posts may reveal I'm as guilty as anybody - is a clickbait (a term I've only recently discovered) thread title and an OP consisting of an unexplained link ie a sort of double clickbait. Too lazy to follow such links, I generally wait a few posts to see what it's about before deciding if it's worth the effort.

Beyond that, I fancy the problem is tone rather than content and that's not restricted to politics or the tea shop. There are plenty of posts on things like campaigning which don't mince words. I presume some people don't appreciate how aggressive their stuff seems.

[meic]

It was a right that was fought for and won by our ancestors.

Then recently casually handed back.

[tanglewood]

A healthy society will moderate itself, and won't forums self-correct their tone through a combination of social nudges and Darwinism?


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

[Bez]

I've not visited any gaming forums, but from what I hear of some of them they are good evidence that it is quite misguided to assume that a society is healthy or that a forum will self-adjust to some sort of absolutist moral code. Some places just become meeting places for people with what many of us would see as deeply unpleasant views.

[661-Pete]

Freedom of speech? I first felt the need to question that 'absolute', when I learnt of one Mr Enoch Powell delivering a certain speech on 20 April 1968 (is that date just a sinister coincidence I wonder?). Contrary to popular belief, he never actually uttered the words "Rivers of blood": what he actually said was "Like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood". Nevertheless, he was deemed to have so far stepped across a line, that Edward Heath (no sandal-wearing socialist, he!) sacked him from the shadow cabinet on the spot.

It's because there are lines that simply cannot be crossed, that I maintain that Freedom of Speech is a hard-earned privilege.

There is the well-known saying, originally part of a nursery rhyme so it seems:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

I don't go along with that, I'm afraid. I have plenty of experience in my life, to the contrary. Some of it personal and still upsetting.

[Psamathe]

Freedom of speech? I first felt the need to question that 'absolute', when I learnt of one Mr Enoch Powell delivering a certain speech on 20 April 1968 (is that date just a sinister coincidence I wonder?). Contrary to popular belief, he never actually uttered the words "Rivers of blood": what he actually said was "Like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood". Nevertheless, he was deemed to have so far stepped across a line, that Edward Heath (no sandal-wearing socialist, he!) sacked him from the shadow cabinet on the spot.

It's because there are lines that simply cannot be crossed, that I maintain that Freedom of Speech is a hard-earned privilege.

There is the well-known saying, originally part of a nursery rhyme so it seems:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

I don't go along with that, I'm afraid. I have plenty of experience in my life, to the contrary. Some of it personal and still upsetting.

Do you really think this forum has "crossed the line" where Freedom of Speech has been abused and people are posting such bad hateful stuff that the entire discussion should be banned ? I've not seen it but if any posters were at that point I''d expect them to have been banned by now (and if it is the problem a few are suggesting then I'm surprised I've not noticed it).

In life there are not hard lines between ideas. Brexit (on the minds of many) will probably have a massive impact on cycling and even maybe cycle touring. Should the economy slow do you think the politicians will cut vote wining child care budgets or the unpopular cycle infrastructure funding (or even e.g. CTC grants)? When the UK is no longer part of the EU do people think it will get easier/cheaper to visit the EU (consider cycle regs, visas, charges, health cover, etc.).

Ian

[Heltor Chasca]

A healthy society will moderate itself, and won't forums self-correct their tone through a combination of social nudges and Darwinism?


Flushed down the thunderbox : my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

I like this and suspect this is why YACF is pretty easy going. Lots of older white folk on that forum so *that demographic isn't the problem [emoji6]

I find this forum a fantastic resource. A couple of years ago, it kept me buoyant during a very dark period in my life. For that I am grateful. That's down to the people on here, so pats on backs all round.

I also never forget it is FREE resource and the mods are volunteers. So forgive me when I roll my eyes, when someone moans their threads have been moderated or deleted without notification. Delusions of grandeur methinks.

I completely understand there isn't enough time to notify individuals or explain. Break the rules and take the consequences. Simple. It's happened to me and I take it on the chin. I'm learning better decorum.

*My suggestion is that certain individuals can choose to PAY for the privilege of being a vociferous, surly and ill-mannered member. They will have to contribute towards wages for the mods. Then, when threads are deleted, they will receive a posh email notification and an option for it to be sent by post. Seems fair.





*Usual sarcasm disclaimers apply.

[Psamathe]

...
I also never forget it is FREE resource and the mods are volunteers. So forgive me when I roll my eyes, when someone moans their threads have been moderated or deleted without notification. Delusions of grandeur methinks.....

+1

Ian

[661-Pete]

Do you really think this forum has "crossed the line" where Freedom of Speech has been abused and people are posting such bad hateful stuff that the entire discussion should be banned ?

No I don't think so - not in this forum at any rate, not yet. Hopefully it won't come to that. But the Mods have been kept unusually busy, so it seems, these past few days. I'm certain I've missed some stuff because the Mods got in before I saw it. And I believe certain individuals have been suspended or banned in recent weeks (I only know of one, for sure).

I've seen far worse in Other Places of course. I won't go into detail.

There have also been a number of cases where a single person has repeated the point they're trying to make, over and over again. Whilst one instance of their posts is not objectionable, does this repetitive behaviour amount to trolling?

[Psamathe]

...
There have also been a number of cases where a single person has repeated the point they're trying to make, over and over again. Whilst one instance of their posts is not objectionable, does this repetitive behaviour amount to trolling?

Probably me as I find many threads discussing the same thing confusing and I can't always remember if a point I raised was in the thread being posted to or one of the (many) others on the same subject.

Not having all these multiple threads discussing the same thing would dramatically reduce the prominence of such discussions in the "Active Topics" view (but I'm probably repeating myself yet again).

Ian

[661-Pete]

Probably me....

Certainly not you! If it's not embarrassing you to say this, I find your posts more thoughtful and well-delivered than some folks'.

And we all get a bit forgetful and repetitive, as we get older... I think I can tell the difference, between that and deliberate .... (sorry can't think of another word) ..... trolling.

[Tangled Metal]

Would a page limit on threads be a good idea? IME politics/current affairs threads go on so long and become repetitive or just an argument between a handful of people trying to score points off each other by selectively quoting / deliberately misunderstanding the other side's arguments.

If it was clear that threads of a political or current affairs nature would last say 10 or 20 pages then get locked it might take some of the problems away. These are the taking over of the "new threads" search option that a lot use. Also the descent into opposing arguments dancing around each other towards offence. Plus other issues.

Then you just have to worry about how much freedom of speech or not causing offence should be traded off each other. How much offence are you going to allow before mods step in?

[Psamathe]

...
If it was clear that threads of a political or current affairs nature would last say 10 or 20 pages then get locked...

Or set a time limit.

Or deleted. I regard aspects of a forum as being something of a reference - when knowledgeable people spend their time explaining difficult things it is about more than answering for the individual poster but through "Search" it allows others to learn and use the answer to save re-asking.

But the current affairs threads are about exchange of ideas so their value is lost once the discussion is over. And deleting them helps keep the numbers down and avoid swamping the Tea Shop.

But such manual intervention would put extra workload on the moderators - so they'd have to be happy about that.

Ian