Sussex Cyclist's trolling of the forum

[slowster]

Many of you will recently have followed the discussion on the Gender Critical thread started by Sussex Cyclist, and the subsequent threads about the discussion and moderation of the thread, and about moderation policy and practice generally.

On the original thread some members questioned the motivation of Sussex Cyclist in starting the thread, and some posters noted that he had recently started the same thread on another cycling forum, which had been locked by moderators, and that he had posted about what he was doing on his own website, a website set up to appear like a cycling forum but all the posts are his (viewtopic.php?p=1744467#p1744467).

That thread was locked and removed, and subsequently returned to the open forum still locked, but with various comments removed and a statement by Vorpal. Various posts were made about that statement and the moderation of the thread on two other threads (viewtopic.php?t=154317 and viewtopic.php?t=154354), including a discussion between Vorpal and another member about her statement.

I want members to be aware - before posting any further on the subject - of what Sussex Cyclist has been and is currently doing elsewhere online to draw attention to this forum and to individuals' posts. Whatever you post may be used by him as material for his own website and elsewhere online. For the same reason I will lock this thread immediately after posting for the time being, to give as many members as possible time to read the links below before people start to reply to this thread. In the meantime please do not post on this issue in another thread. I will unlock this thread in an hour or so.

The following are a couple of links to posts on Sussex Cyclist's website referring to the Gender Critical thread he started. There may be others, since much of the website is concerned with his posting on cycling forums.

https://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/ ... pic=6295.0

https://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/ ... 5#msg16295

He has also posted on Mumsnet about his posting on this forum. His first post was on the same day (16/12) he started the Gender Critical thread - I would particularly draw your attention to his first and last posts. His second post was on 20/12 after he was banned on this forum.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rig ... persuasion

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rig ... -up?page=1

His latest post on the Mumsnet thread is a link to a Twitter post he has made, tagging CUK. The full tweet thead is here:

https://twitter.com/jollygoodthen/statu ... 6246137856

[Jdsk]

Dear Moderators

Thanks for all of the work.

Jonathan

[slowster]

Thread now unlocked.

NB I will at some point post more information about Sussex Cyclist's posting on this forum.

[Nearholmer]

Excellent bit of detective work, which I’m afraid confirms my suspicions.

This guy is so good at this stuff that two possibilities occur to me, one being that he is a professional mischief maker (I wonder how that will be selectively edited and reproduced to maximise the disturbance it causes).

[richards]

He/she/it has made life so hard for you moderators. Thank you for doing the job you do. You are being attacked, nastily, for undertaking a necessary task voluntarily. We could discuss the minutiae of what SC is writing, but is it worth it? It won’t change his mind, or indeed ours.

[richards]

Oh, and let’s lay off Vorpal.

[Labrat]

So, as a result of what you deem to be ‘trolling’ by one member, you have now censored multiple posts by other members discussing the subject critically - despite those posts being entirely reasonable, polite and respectful, in no way breaching forum rules, and supported by direct references to a published NHS report which called into question the suitability and safety of the treatment regime being offered.

Where do you think you are, East Germany?

[tim-b]

snip...despite those posts being entirely reasonable, polite and respectful, in no way breaching forum rules...snip

Rules have to evolve to support their intention and they're sometimes unspoken
Whether we like it or not we're on CUK's bicycle and if they want to develop it, it's theirs. I'm very sure that a lot of thought, conversation and moderator time goes into decisions, whether we agree with them or not

[Nearholmer]

Labrat

Why don’t you do what SussexCyclist was so squirmingly resistant to doing, and which nobody here who took his bait has so far done, by opening a thread where you clearly state your propositions, and expose them to open debate?

Nail your manifesto to the church door, in short.

If you do decide to do that, please write plainly though.

If, for instance, you advocate leaving trans people with the rights they have now in the UK, but not extending those rights in any way, say so; if you advocate removing rights that trans people currently have, say so, and say plainly why; if you advocate extending the rights of trans people, say so plainly, and why.

FWIW, I personally think that there are things to be discussed around this subject, but that they need to be discussed openly, honestly, in a spirit of enquiry, not as SussexCyclist was attempting to do: use every propagandist’s influencing trick in the book to enlist people to a cause without stating honestly and openly what that cause was/is. Those are the techniques that lead “good people” to wake up in the morning and realise that yesterday they participated in a pogrom or a lynching.

(I can’t nail my manifesto to the church door, because I didn’t have one; there are parts of this subject where I’ve barely framed the questions, let alone answered them in my own head)

Kevin

[Labrat]

Rules have to evolve to support their intention and they're sometimes unspoken

“All persons more than a mile high to leave the court.”

[Labrat]

Labrat

Why don’t you do what SussexCyclist was so squirmingly resistant to doing, and which nobody here who took his bait has so far done, by opening a thread where you clearly state your propositions, and expose them to open debate?

Nail your manifesto to the church door, in short.

Where have I professed to having any form of ‘manifesto’? all I did was call Vorpal out for hypocrisy over calling other people bigoted (while herself displaying the dictionary definition of bigotry). Vorpal then made a number of statements of ‘fact’ in support of moderation decisions that were simply unsupported by the published evidence base - it seems that challenging those false claims with a rational and evidence-based response was somehow a radical act of dissent that needs to be censored from public view. “Off with their heads…”

[roubaixtuesday]

.

Where do you think you are, East Germany?

A sense of proportion might help you make your point more effectively.

[Nearholmer]

Labrat,

I come away from reading your several posts on the topic with the strong impression that:

(a) you have some things that you want to say about it all; and,

(b) that you believe you are being prevented from saying them.

If I’ve understood correctly, then why don’t you just start a thread, and say whatever it is you want to say in plain English? If it’s legal, decent, honest and truthful, and within the incredibly generous scope of the forum rules, I doubt there’ll be a problem.

I think we all get by now that you didn’t like one of Vorpal’s moderation decisions.

Kevin

[Carlton green]

snip...despite those posts being entirely reasonable, polite and respectful, in no way breaching forum rules...snip

Rules have to evolve to support their intention and they're sometimes unspoken
Whether we like it or not we're on CUK's bicycle and if they want to develop it, it's theirs. I'm very sure that a lot of thought, conversation and moderator time goes into decisions, whether we agree with them or not

It is what it is. There has been a recent shift from pretty much free speech here to something else. I don’t know why that is the case but believe that CUK might be concerned that controversial views expressed on this forum could be deemed their own and then result in adverse consequences. I valued and learnt from broad ranging debate of a nature that, under new management, will no longer be allowed here. That’s life, enjoy what you can of the forum let the rest sort itself out over time.

As for use of the forum as a wider influencing tool to promote non cycling issues I’m not in favour of such activities.

[Bonefishblues]

It is what it is. There has been a recent shift from pretty much free speech here to something else. I don’t know why that is the case but believe that CUK might be concerned that controversial views expressed on this forum could be deemed their own and then result in adverse consequences. I valued and learnt from broad ranging debate of a nature that, under new management, will no longer be allowed here. That’s life, enjoy what you can of the forum let the rest sort itself out over time.

As for use of the forum as a wider influencing tool to promote non cycling issues I’m not in favour of such activities.

Do you have a specific reason for believing that is the case?