# Examples of non political advocacy topics



## mjr (16 Nov 2017)

Could we have some examples of acceptably non political advocacy topics, please? I expect that replying to almost anything in the advocacy and safety section will get the topic locked and referred to the ghetto, or at least the post deleted for being political.


----------



## Hacienda71 (16 Nov 2017)

Anything cycling related rather than right or left wing point scoring. Examples without thinking too hard: 
Should there be more segregated cycle lanes?
Should helmets be mandatory?
Should cyclists take a test?
Should BS compliant light usage be enforced? 
etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Big Andy (16 Nov 2017)

Absolutely. If it's cycling related it should be fine it is a cycling forum after all. Surely everyone knows that.


----------



## mjr (16 Nov 2017)

All of those seem political. As @User13710 correctly pointed out in yet another now-locked discussion, almost everything in that section seems political. Will political discussion be allowed when it involves cycling?


----------



## User482 (16 Nov 2017)

Hacienda71 said:


> Anything cycling related rather than right or left wing point scoring. Examples without thinking too hard:
> Should there be more segregated cycle lanes?
> Should helmets be mandatory?
> Should cyclists take a test?
> ...


All of those are related to law and government policy. Posts were deleted in the café yesterday for exactly this reason.


----------



## Big Andy (16 Nov 2017)

User13710 said:


> As soon as you ask where funding will come from, that is political and the stasi will arrive.


There are plenty of threads in that section with relevent political comment that are still visible and open so I dont think your point stands up to scrutiny.
Perhaps if everyone just got on with posting what they think is relevent in there and we will see how it goes.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (16 Nov 2017)

Since some people are being deliberately dense about this; political discussion that *directly relates to cycling* _is_ allowed in the Advocacy and Cycling Safety section. That is what the section was set up for and it is intended that it will remain that way.

If I may hazard a comment: throwing about words such as stasi and causing disruption until you get what you want is very impolite and not the way that civilised people deal with a problem. Lets not have any more of that if you please.


----------



## User482 (16 Nov 2017)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> Since some people are being deliberately dense about this; political discussion that *directly relates to cycling* _is_ allowed in the Advocacy and Cycling Safety section. That is what the section was set up for and it is intended that it will remain that way.
> 
> If I may hazard a comment: throwing about words such as stasi and causing disruption until you get what you want is very impolite and not the way that civilised people deal with a problem. Lets not have any more of that if you please.



Civilised people don't call others "deliberately dense". You're completely out of order, and should know better.


----------



## srw (16 Nov 2017)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> Since some people are being deliberately dense about this; political discussion that *directly relates to cycling* _is_ allowed in the Advocacy and Cycling Safety section. That is what the section was set up for and it is intended that it will remain that way.
> 
> If I may hazard a comment: throwing about words such as stasi and causing disruption until you get what you want is very impolite and not the way that civilised people deal with a problem. Lets not have any more of that if you please.


I must be being deliberately dense then. Because here's a thread which is about bikes and is extremely political.
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/bike-sales-in-decline.225512/

The division between political and nonpolitical is utterly arbitrary.


----------



## Big Andy (16 Nov 2017)

But thats an entirely appropriate thread about cycling so isnt a problem.


----------



## mjr (16 Nov 2017)

Rickshaw Phil said:


> Since some people are being deliberately dense about this; political discussion that *directly relates to cycling* _is_ allowed in the Advocacy and Cycling Safety section. That is what the section was set up for and it is intended that it will remain that way.


Since "some people" are being deliberately dense about this: please could we have examples of acceptable advocacy topics?

It's already been made painfully clear to me that I don't understand "political" in the same way as the moderators (as a short educational post about official statistics was deemed political) so it seems quite possible that the moderators' view of "directly relates" isn't the same as mine either.


----------



## User32269 (16 Nov 2017)

The lack of a clear boundary is inevitable. If cycling infrastructure or legislation etc is being discussed, it will include political issues. These will be relevant to the discussion, four pages of how crap the tories are, despite being true (sorry!) is an aside, and belongs in the political forum.
People who made the cc political forum so unwelcoming, and would spend lots of energy stifling the views of others with pages of pedantry and insults, should accept the results of their actions. But, to be honest, carry on for a bit longer coz it's really funny!


----------



## Hacienda71 (16 Nov 2017)

There is a lot of trolling going on.


mjr said:


> Since "some people" are being deliberately dense about this: please could we have examples of acceptable advocacy topics?
> 
> It's already been made painfully clear to me that I don't understand "political" in the same way as the moderators (as a short educational post about official statistics was deemed political) so it seems quite possible that the moderators' view of "directly relates" isn't the same as mine either.


I must be on your ignore list as I mentioned four in the first response to your post........................................................


----------



## User482 (16 Nov 2017)

As it seems to be acceptable for a Moderator to insult other forum members, and have that insult liked by other moderators and the site founder, I guess we also need some guidance on when its permitted. Perhaps there's a list of chosen people.


----------



## mjr (16 Nov 2017)

odav said:


> People who made the cc political forum so unwelcoming, and would spend lots of energy stifling the views of others with pages of pedantry and insults, should accept the results of their actions.


They have. They're on the other site already, back-slapping each other on getting rid of the pesky rules that could get pedantry, insults and worse deleted and them potentially banned for it.

Now, what about the rest of us?


----------



## mjr (16 Nov 2017)

Hacienda71 said:


> There is a lot of trolling going on.
> 
> I must be on your ignore list as I mentioned four in the first response to your post........................................................


Sorry, no. I saw your list and referred to it in my first reply. Thank you. But I'd like to know whether the mods agree with you.


----------



## Moderators (16 Nov 2017)

MJR you've had several answers which clarify what is allowed. This being one.


Big Andy said:


> Absolutely. If it's cycling related it should be fine it is a cycling forum after all. Surely everyone knows that.


It's a cycling forum with a cycling advocacy section. Difficult to discuss cycling advocacy without reference to the politics.

If that's not clear, you can pm the moderators or Shaun and we'll be happy to discuss.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (16 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> ....... please could we have examples of acceptable advocacy topics?
> 
> .......


There is a list of acceptable subjects compiled for you here.

On a more serious note. @odav has summed it up very well. Political discussion that is relevant to the subject at hand is allowed. A rant about how awful (insert political party here) is, or a side-step onto another political topic will get moderated.

Each case will inevitably be different and will be handled as well as the mod team are able to.



User482 said:


> Civilised people don't call others "deliberately dense". You're completely out of order, and should know better.


A comment borne out of frustration from the childish way that some people have conducted themselves recently. (Reporting the site owner for trolling? Seriously? )

I am prepared to accept that I overstepped the mark here. I apologise for that.

Is anyone else willing to step up and apologise for their behaviour?

Edit: Oh drat. One of the other mods has locked it while I was writing that.


----------



## Shaun (16 Nov 2017)

I appreciate my closing of the general political debate sub-forum will lead to a short period of re-adjustment, and accept that there will always be a link between politics and cycling and we should have those discussions on CycleChat - we are a community of cyclists and those ideas, propsals, changes, etc. have the potential to have a big impact on us.

There's no change for the Advocacy and Safety forum, it has always had political aspects to the discussions and can carry on as before; and if a political proposal or issue related to cycling doesn't fit into the advocacy and safety forum, feel free to post about it the General Cycling forum.

But please politely *disucss* issues and allow everyone to post their opinion without turning the threads into party or personal political debates - that's what the new politics site is for.

Many thanks,
Shaun


----------

