Cycling UK Forum

freeflow wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 3:47pm The original post was about accidental deaths due to overexercise. These were not suicides and implying that they were suicides is entirely wrong. My humble opinion is that changing the title of the original post was entirely inappropriate.

That's what I took it to be about when I first read it. I didn't see the suicide interpretation.

Ian

Psamathe wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 3:50pm

freeflow wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 3:47pm The original post was about accidental deaths due to overexercise. These were not suicides and implying that they were suicides is entirely wrong. My humble opinion is that changing the title of the original post was entirely inappropriate.

That's what I took it to be about when I first read it. I didn't see the suicide interpretation.

Ian

The original title of the post included the words "effective suicide". It's not a problem to change the title to something more descriptive, but based upon the content of the post, it should not include the word suicide.

Vorpal wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 4:14pm

Psamathe wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 3:50pm

freeflow wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 3:47pm The original post was about accidental deaths due to overexercise. These were not suicides and implying that they were suicides is entirely wrong. My humble opinion is that changing the title of the original post was entirely inappropriate.

That's what I took it to be about when I first read it. I didn't see the suicide interpretation.

Ian

The original title of the post included the words "effective suicide". It's not a problem to change the title to something more descriptive, but based upon the content of the post, it should not include the word suicide.

I don't have issues with the title being changed but to raise it's use as such a "follow guidance ..." thread subject does seem somewhat OTT i.e. when only using the word in a slightly wrong way.

Ian

Psamathe wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 4:23pm

Vorpal wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 4:14pm

Psamathe wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 3:50pm
That's what I took it to be about when I first read it. I didn't see the suicide interpretation.

Ian

The original title of the post included the words "effective suicide". It's not a problem to change the title to something more descriptive, but based upon the content of the post, it should not include the word suicide.

I don't have issues with the title being changed but to raise it's use as such a "follow guidance ..." thread subject does seem somewhat OTT i.e. when only using the word in a slightly wrong way.

Ian

I thought it OTT too, but to be honest my biggest concern is that the importance of the message has now been lost - I think that rather sad.

Maybe the word was used in a slightly wrong way, but when we talk about ‘suicidal acts’ they do include those not too unlikely to result in death. To my mind Tombstoning is a suicidal act because it wilfully puts you in significant danger of death, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tombstoning . One can nit-pick about words but is it really helpful? Obviously I thought the original tittle to be suitable enough, but to be a member of a forum one really needs to roll with the views of the moderation team and not be too insensitive to others.

Readers might find it interesting to discover that, in the USA at least, more people die of heart disease than of Cancer. I’d call that rather significant. See figure 4 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db427.htm

Vorpal wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 2:18pm

Maillot Rouge wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 2:11pm
I’m not sure about that but maybe there should be laws on forum members who think it’s their job to police threads and no one should see something they don’t like.
It is rather strange how it’s the younger generation who are labelled snowflakes when it is apparent that the opposite is the case.

Laws? Every member should report things that may not be appropriate. It's in our guidelines. viewtopic.php?t=3661

Reports are handled entirely at the discretion of staff. There is nothing snowflakey about editing an inappropriate thread title.

One member thinks it’s inappropriate so it is changed?
I think it’s inappropriate that it was changed so will you now reinstate the original?
That is the actual problem here,not the title but the fact that it was changed as one person didn’t like it.
I wonder how many times this member has reported things?Are they easily offended?Do they take a moral stance by default?
This goes much deeper than this particular incident I think.

Maillot Rouge wrote: ↑13 Jul 2022, 1:00am

Vorpal wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 2:18pm

Maillot Rouge wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 2:11pm
I’m not sure about that but maybe there should be laws on forum members who think it’s their job to police threads and no one should see something they don’t like.
It is rather strange how it’s the younger generation who are labelled snowflakes when it is apparent that the opposite is the case.

Laws? Every member should report things that may not be appropriate. It's in our guidelines. viewtopic.php?t=3661

Reports are handled entirely at the discretion of staff. There is nothing snowflakey about editing an inappropriate thread title.

One member thinks it’s inappropriate so it is changed?
I think it’s inappropriate that it was changed so will you now reinstate the original?
That is the actual problem here,not the title but the fact that it was changed as one person didn’t like it.
I wonder how many times this member has reported things?Are they easily offended?Do they take a moral stance by default?
This goes much deeper than this particular incident I think.

Agree
and looking at those samaritans guidelines i can think of one common example where they very regularly break their own rules.

Maillot Rouge wrote: ↑13 Jul 2022, 1:00am

Vorpal wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 2:18pm

Maillot Rouge wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 2:11pm
I’m not sure about that but maybe there should be laws on forum members who think it’s their job to police threads and no one should see something they don’t like.
It is rather strange how it’s the younger generation who are labelled snowflakes when it is apparent that the opposite is the case.

Laws? Every member should report things that may not be appropriate. It's in our guidelines. viewtopic.php?t=3661

Reports are handled entirely at the discretion of staff. There is nothing snowflakey about editing an inappropriate thread title.

One member thinks it’s inappropriate so it is changed?
I think it’s inappropriate that it was changed so will you now reinstate the original?
That is the actual problem here,not the title but the fact that it was changed as one person didn’t like it.
I wonder how many times this member has reported things?Are they easily offended?Do they take a moral stance by default?
This goes much deeper than this particular incident I think.

I don't think it was changed because one person didn't like it. It was changed because someone felt it was inappropriate and brought this to the attention of the moderators, who agreed.

richardfm wrote: ↑13 Jul 2022, 8:44am
I don't think it was changed because one person didn't like it. It was changed because someone felt it was inappropriate and brought this to the attention of the moderators, who agreed.

Exactly

Vorpal wrote: ↑13 Jul 2022, 8:48am

richardfm wrote: ↑13 Jul 2022, 8:44am
I don't think it was changed because one person didn't like it. It was changed because someone felt it was inappropriate and brought this to the attention of the moderators, who agreed.

Exactly

And imo it might usefully have been left at that

freeflow wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 3:47pm The original post was about accidental deaths due to overexercise. These were not suicides and implying that they were suicides is entirely wrong. My humble opinion is that changing the title of the original post was entirely inappropriate.

Your second and third sentences seem to me to completely contradict one another, so I've obviously misunderstood your point!

roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑13 Jul 2022, 6:29pm

freeflow wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 3:47pm The original post was about accidental deaths due to overexercise. These were not suicides and implying that they were suicides is entirely wrong. My humble opinion is that changing the title of the original post was entirely inappropriate.

Your second and third sentences seem to me to completely contradict one another, so I've obviously misunderstood your point!

Don’t worry, Sometimes people comprehend comments slightly differently and that slight difference makes all the difference.

I thought the original tittle to be fine enough, I wouldn’t have used it otherwise. However I accept that others view lots of things differently to me and to each other.

Whatever, IMO thirdcrank hit the nail on the head in his post above … Now there’s a man who will have seen a lot in his working life and might well have had to talk to distressed relatives, etc.

We can all improve and when I first saw this thread I wondered what on earth it was about. I went right back years through my older stuff till I got bogged down with "suicide" brake levers on the old forum. In reading-between-the-lines mode, I wondered if a report to the mod(s) about a post had been accompanied with a request to have the Samaritans' stuff included in forum guidelines. If it's not permanently on show, it would be soon forgotten. It's probably a sign of the sheltered life I lead that the bit about somebody having a real time discussion on social media had never dawned on me. In the event we had some predictable responses to little purpose. imo

Vorpal wrote: ↑13 Jul 2022, 8:48am

richardfm wrote: ↑13 Jul 2022, 8:44am
I don't think it was changed because one person didn't like it. It was changed because someone felt it was inappropriate and brought this to the attention of the moderators, who agreed.

Exactly

So two people decide what is or is not appropriate?Would it not have been better to see if any more found it inappropriate?
Perhaps this is why more moderators are being sought?

Maillot Rouge wrote: ↑14 Jul 2022, 1:43am

Vorpal wrote: ↑13 Jul 2022, 8:48am

richardfm wrote: ↑13 Jul 2022, 8:44am
I don't think it was changed because one person didn't like it. It was changed because someone felt it was inappropriate and brought this to the attention of the moderators, who agreed.

Exactly

So two people decide what is or is not appropriate?Would it not have been better to see if any more found it inappropriate?
Perhaps this is why more moderators are being sought?

As I read the threads the original title triggered a few people who post a lot, it wasn’t sufficiently perfect and that was not tolerable to them. As they say it takes all types to make a World …

The Moderation team are good people who run themselves ragged trying to keep this place going and everyone happy, they are volunteers and near all they get back from members here is grief. I don’t blame them for taking an easy option (changing a tittle that I made) but have said before that the Moderators have made a rod for their own back, the result is bad for them and bad for this place too. It’s an over simplification but eventually good people throw in the towel with moderation and hence more are needed. I see good members too walk away from this place due to the antics of others … that’s life.

Maillot Rouge wrote: ↑14 Jul 2022, 1:43am

Vorpal wrote: ↑13 Jul 2022, 8:48am

richardfm wrote: ↑13 Jul 2022, 8:44am
I don't think it was changed because one person didn't like it. It was changed because someone felt it was inappropriate and brought this to the attention of the moderators, who agreed.

Exactly

So two people decide what is or is not appropriate?Would it not have been better to see if any more found it inappropriate?
Perhaps this is why more moderators are being sought?

A relatively change was made and there it might have rested. This thread was started and largely because of the cryptic nature of its opening, we had a discussion which might not have happened if the thread had merely linked to the Samaritans's guidelines.

I don't think it's helpful to use something like this to have a dig at the moderator involved.
(Crossed with carlton green)