Should we discuss politics on this forum?

[Bicycler]

Perhaps the need for consistency, a clear national cycling policy and decent, mandatory design standards for facilities

[bovlomov]

Perhaps the need for consistency, a clear national cycling policy and decent, mandatory design standards for facilities

Yes. That's a more positive moral, isn't it!

[al_yrpal]

Cycle paths are often glass and gravel strewn things with tree roots heaving the surface into horrid little humps. I tend to avoid them unless I know they have been maintained.

Al

[Freddie]

Start a thread round here saying UKIP or Tories may have a point and see how long it lasts. You even have mods say "I knew it would get out of hand and should have deleted it right away". So, politics can be discussed, but only the right (actually left) kind. The wrong kind and you invite people who want to mark undue personal remarks and wilfully disrupt it and then the mods delete it, rather than deal with the offenders. This is a easy way to stifle certain politics and elevate others on the part of these disruptive posters.

I did *not* say I should have deleted it. I said I considered it. Please don't misquote me. As for dealing with the offenders, it may not be obvious, but moderators often warn users, and occasionally ban them.

Usually, after a few warnings, users will either stop insulting people or get tired of being told off about it, and leave the forum. The next step in escalation is a temporary ban. Most of the users who don't modify their posting habits after a few warnings do so after a temporary ban. Permanent bans are seldon necessary, except for the spammers whose posts you never see.

I apologise if I misquoted you, but your position (that you considered deleting the thread) does seem to show you recognise that certain legitimate topics will bring out people who want to cause trouble, because they are ideologically opposed to them and do not want them on the board. I imagine it is the same relatively small group of people every time that resort to personal remarks or attacks in an attempt to get a thread deleted.

My main point is, why are threads deleted? I have asked this several times, but I haven't yet had an answer. Maybe I am getting beyond myself in asking, but please let me know, even if just to say you won't be answering. I understand it is difficult to moderate so many people with so few moderators, but the forum will inevitably become rather lopsided if almost all the right leaning threads are deleted, because of people determined to quash conversation about viewpoints they dislike. I did propose a new class of lower moderators, maybe with less privileges than the current mods, to try and keep things civil in your absence. I suggested this so that you wouldn't be so stretched in having to keep up with every thread; hopefully this would stop thread deletions. What do you think of this idea?

It is not necessarily that I care more for the politics of one side than the other, but I do care for the right of everyone to discuss things here civilly. When the views of one side get repeatedly disrupted by others that want them shut down, then the forum is not a place that is accepting of minority view points. Hopefully I am not alone in being concerned by the implications of this. I'd be surprised if the CTC doesn't have some kind of guidance regarding acceptance of minority groups.

I like to think that doesn't happen here. We're pretty tolerant. The kipper-fans on here should remember that!

Interesting post. We are tolerant and don't you forget it! Sounds a little like an injunction to pipe down.

It is likely you haven't seen the half of it, because that half has often been deleted. I am all for having slights and insults remain and threads be locked, but this is a family friendly forum, so they cannot remain, apparently. I think if they did remain, these people would be forced to behave better, but they often know their comments are due for deletion, so it doesn't really impact their standing here. If their behaviour remained for everyone to see, that may well make them think twice.

[beardy]

The problem with deleted threads is that those of us who didnt see them have no idea what was posted by whom and how much of it there was, so we dont really know if some sort of unfair discrimination is happening or not.

However I was once (or more times) involved in a thread that had some sections removed and even though I thought it wasnt justified to remove my posts, I acquiesced to the action as it is really the moderators call and the forum is quite an exceptionally good one under their control.

[Vorpal]

Threads are not often deleted. And when they are, it is sometimes at the request of the OP.

We will never get 100% agreement with moderator actions. From the disappearing threads thread...

I think I would give more latitude than is given here by moderators. Just my opinion. I think(hope!)those who become excited and start attacking one another here will(eventually)censor themselves. I think it's a bit prim here,or can be.

Personally I have found a lot of the political threads related to the election a mix of informative and highly constructive debate. However IMHO they have all degenerated into either insults to the person, insults to people's political views, insults to political parties/representatives and generally a bunch of people with strong opposing views arguing about how they are right and everyone opposing their views are wrong. How is this a worthy addition to a forum like this?

I agree with the mod who deleted the thread. I wish they would delete all election related threads already created and any new ones that come up. They all degenerate into partisan rubbish that progresses nothing. Perhaps you could say there is not much difference between a political thread and a helmet thread except that the helmet thread is cycling related.

I do my best to strike a balance, and so do the other moderators.

[661-Pete]

I beg the forum's indulgence for a 'bump' here - exactly a year after I started it - prompted by circumstances.

The 'circumstance', as is perfectly obvious, now runs to a thread of 36 pages in The Tea Shop, and shows no sign of abating, with a bit of ad hominem stuff flung in for extra spiciness. Do forummers enjoy this sort of thing? I have to confess to having contributed in part, to those 36 pages, though my posts have been more on the light-hearted side, I think, touching on the vagaries of National Anthems and the like.

Anyway, I have to confess I've stopped looking at it, I find it a bit tedious. But that's only my opinion, granted. Please note, I'm not asking for the Mods here. Let others judge.

[Psamathe]

...
The 'circumstance', as is perfectly obvious, now runs to a thread of 36 pages in The Tea Shop, and shows no sign of abating, with a bit of ad hominem stuff flung in for extra spiciness. Do forummers enjoy this sort of thing? ... to those 36 pages ...

Must confess that normally such a thread running for such length on such a subject would have long ago deteriorated into personal abuse. (Maybe it has and the mods are working 24/7 and have not come up for air and the "Play nicely" post). Ok, a little lighter hearted "digs" but nothing like (or in the same spirit) as we have occasionally/rarely seen on other threads (even ones about cycling!!). I take it as a good sign that people can post disagreements without resorting to abuse to defend their opinions.

It might be deviating a little from the original subject but after that many pages and that it stayed mostly on-topic for so many posts is in some respects an achievement in itself.

Ian

[horizon]

These very long threads are either very technical/anecdotal or are political/philosphical. The latter type often rely on one person holding out with new or repeated arguments. TonyR seems to be making the running on the thread in question. While I disagree with his views (and took perhaps more offence than necessary at one of his abbreviations) I really appreciate the fact that he takes the time to put forward well-reasoned arguments and counter-arguments. If people don't do this, we cannot have a debate and tease out the issues. The election of JC cuts across the forum so it seems as good a place as any to discuss this fascinating event. I haven't contributed much but I do follow it. I'm happy if it continues to run.

[al_yrpal]

Nothing wrong with civilised political discussions here. Its interesting to hear different points of view. Those whose form of debate is to fling unwarranted daft personal insults at people with a different points of view should refrain from joining in though, its the lowest form of debate.

Al

[JohnW]

On political matters - I do miss Anne Widdecombe.

[TerryJones]

In response to the original question :- NO.
Religion and politics are two subjects that will divide people who would otherwise get on. I certainly don't want to fall out with anyone I share a hobby such as cycling with.

[JohnW]

Yeah - but do you miss Anne Widdecombe?

[TonyR]

I beg the forum's indulgence for a 'bump' here - exactly a year after I started it - prompted by circumstances.

The 'circumstance', as is perfectly obvious, now runs to a thread of 36 pages in The Tea Shop, and shows no sign of abating, with a bit of ad hominem stuff flung in for extra spiciness. Do forummers enjoy this sort of thing? I have to confess to having contributed in part, to those 36 pages, though my posts have been more on the light-hearted side, I think, touching on the vagaries of National Anthems and the like.

Anyway, I have to confess I've stopped looking at it, I find it a bit tedious. But that's only my opinion, granted. Please note, I'm not asking for the Mods here. Let others judge.

Is it any better or worse for a bit of light entertainment than the "Its time we had more fun" thread which has gone on for ten times as long, shows no sign of abating and has contributed nothing to the knowledge of the forum? And yes I do miss Miss Widdecombe in that sore thumb sort of way.

[TonyR]

On political matters - I do miss Anne Widdecombe.

Help is at hand