Dumbed Down, Not Much Of Interest

[bagpuss]

NACA it would of kept Jordan Peterson busy for years.

 

[Arrowfoot]

I am amazed that people go into each sub-forum in turn to see what is happening. I just browse through New posts then Mark forums read. I don't care where the threads actually reside.

But... anybody who particularly wants to limit themselves to a sub-forum or two can do that instead if they prefer to.

I can't see the problem.

I think people actually do what you do. Plus the recent posts tab.

 

[Arrowfoot]

I don't know why you quoted me. It was @jowwy that introduced Korean politics.

Apologies.

 

[bagpuss]

The removal of NACA to a separate forum was probably a sound idea in theory, but it was flawed. I said all along that news, politics and current affairs discussion was never the problem before, most moderate people on both sides (and the middle) of the spectrum could discuss all of that without getting personal. No, the real problem was a very small cohort of just downright unpleasant people, demonstrably here purely for the friction and to see how far they could get away with insulting people from behind a screen. These of course are the sort of people who are as quiet as mice in person, but who get incredibly brave and insulting online when there's no threat of a punch in the face for overstepping the mark. I know moderation isn't up for discussion, but I believe we've probably "cured" an infected leg by cutting off the leg, rather than removing the infectious bacteria.

I think the removal of NACA has has completely shut down discussion of anything substantial, and that's a shame. So we're left with tyres, front mechs, bread recipes and train spotting. Possibly a coincidence and possibly not, but the forum has also lost quite a few prolific posters (on varied subjects) over the last 6 months or so, and it's become very boring indeed recently. I can see more people drifting away.

Well chuff me,I did not know there is a sub forum for train spotting ...reaches for anorak

 

[Rusty Nails]

In the real world almost everyone would call me a tree-hugging leftie type.
On NACA - and indeed on Cyclechat 2 years ago - I stand out like Bernard Manning (when I actually say what I think, anyway).

(I mostly treat NACA like a panto - after a page-or-so most discussions can't be treated seriously, nothing new gets said, it's just the Good Guys having mudfights with The Bad Guys. )

As I said, not always.

I agree with your last sentence in that, no matter whether on NACA or CC, after a number of pages, whether it's about bikes or politics, it is usually just more of the same.

 

[Scoosh]

I can see this stuff being used pretty soon...

View attachment 635733

MOD HAT ON:
Err, why ?

This thread is progressing nicely and is very interesting, with some good comments about the goods and bads ... 'not-so-goods' of how CC is going.

When a Post is Reported to the Mods, one of the Team will take a look and either make an individual judgement if it is obvious - or we consider action and discuss amongst ourselves what should/needs to be done. This often requires reading back from the Reported post to understand the situation, who is involved, what are the issues, what Guidelines/Rulz have been broken (if any – not all Reports result in action) and what we consider is the correct response/penalty. Sometimes we need to go back a page or two, maybe 10-20 posts to get a clear picture. Not surprisingly, this can take a lot of time.
Members should bear in mind that there is sometimes a longish time before a Mod/Mods are online to sort out Reports. In the meantime, a thread can deteriorate into a slanging match... heated discussion, leading to more Reports, more time needed for Mod action ..... etc.

Prior to the termination of NACA and News, Current Affairs and Politics moving to its own site NCAP, we were having easily 20+ Reports from the NACA section alone per day, which was just far too much load for the Moderator team who are, after all, Members of CycleChat, who also like to read about cycling and chat to others about it ... when we have time !

We know we can't please ... etc – but we genuinely do our best and what we believe to be in the best interests of CycleChat....
... including keeping Threads on Topic...


I believe there is an internet forum principle which states something along the lines of :
"Moderators are always too heavy-handed, biased (right/left) politically, never allow 'fair' discussion, have no sense of humour and always pick on me".

HAT OFF.

 

[Fat Lars]

MOD HAT ON:
Err, why ?

This thread is progressing nicely and is very interesting, with some good comments about the goods and bads ... 'not-so-goods' of how CC is going.

When a Post is Reported to the Mods, one of the Team will take a look and either make an individual judgement if it is obvious - or we consider action and discuss amongst ourselves what should/needs to be done. This often requires reading back from the Reported post to understand the situation, who is involved, what are the issues, what Guidelines/Rulz have been broken (if any – not all Reports result in action) and what we consider is the correct response/penalty. Sometimes we need to go back a page or two, maybe 10-20 posts to get a clear picture. Not surprisingly, this can take a lot of time.
Members should bear in mind that there is sometimes a longish time before a Mod/Mods are online to sort out Reports. In the meantime, a thread can deteriorate into a slanging match... heated discussion, leading to more Reports, more time needed for Mod action ..... etc.

Prior to the termination of NACA and News, Current Affairs and Politics moving to its own site NCAP, we were having easily 20+ Reports from the NACA section alone per day, which was just far too much load for the Moderator team who are, after all, Members of CycleChat, who also like to read about cycling and chat to others about it ... when we have time !

We know we can't please ... etc – but we genuinely do our best and what we believe to be in the best interests of CycleChat....
... including keeping Threads on Topic...


I believe there is an internet forum principle which states something along the lines of :
"Moderators are always too heavy-handed, biased (right/left) politically, never allow 'fair' discussion, have no sense of humour and always pick on me".

HAT OFF.

Aren't you the guy who threatened that I wouldn't last very long on this forum because of the nature of my signatures and then deleted your post and my reply recently. I have been banned for criticising the moderation and had my threads locked (temporarily but looks like permanently) whole threads deleted. Many posts deleted. Anything considered controversial but true and backed up to be true is jumped on because it's not mainstream opinion . What's the point? The unofficial forum police. They know who they are. Complain and complain but never get moderated. This place is biased. Face it.

 

[T4tomo]

Aren't you the guy who threatened that I wouldn't last very long on this forum because of the nature of my signatures and then deleted your post and my reply recently. I have been banned for criticising the moderation and had my threads locked (temporarily but looks like permanently) whole threads deleted. Many posts deleted. Anything considered controversial but true and backed up to be true is jumped on because it's not mainstream opinion . What's the point? The unofficial forum police. They know who they are. Complain and complain but never get moderated. This place is biased. Face it.

toddler tantrum alert - clearly not eating regularly doesn't do much for your mood.

PS I don't play the violin.

 

[jowwy]

MOD HAT ON:
Err, why ?

This thread is progressing nicely and is very interesting, with some good comments about the goods and bads ... 'not-so-goods' of how CC is going.

When a Post is Reported to the Mods, one of the Team will take a look and either make an individual judgement if it is obvious - or we consider action and discuss amongst ourselves what should/needs to be done. This often requires reading back from the Reported post to understand the situation, who is involved, what are the issues, what Guidelines/Rulz have been broken (if any – not all Reports result in action) and what we consider is the correct response/penalty. Sometimes we need to go back a page or two, maybe 10-20 posts to get a clear picture. Not surprisingly, this can take a lot of time.
Members should bear in mind that there is sometimes a longish time before a Mod/Mods are online to sort out Reports. In the meantime, a thread can deteriorate into a slanging match... heated discussion, leading to more Reports, more time needed for Mod action ..... etc.

Prior to the termination of NACA and News, Current Affairs and Politics moving to its own site NCAP, we were having easily 20+ Reports from the NACA section alone per day, which was just far too much load for the Moderator team who are, after all, Members of CycleChat, who also like to read about cycling and chat to others about it ... when we have time !

We know we can't please ... etc – but we genuinely do our best and what we believe to be in the best interests of CycleChat....
... including keeping Threads on Topic...


I believe there is an internet forum principle which states something along the lines of :
"Moderators are always too heavy-handed, biased (right/left) politically, never allow 'fair' discussion, have no sense of humour and always pick on me".

HAT OFF.

Do you believe there is unconcious bias at play with some moderation within the forum???

i can provide evidence of it at play if required privately

 

[Rocky]

Goodness me.........I think it's time a few CC members looked at themselves. There are several here who moan about everything and yet contribute nothing. If you don't like the content, then contribute some better material (as @SpokeyDokey has said). If you don't like the way the mod team works, volunteer to help them out.

It's always someone else's fault.

Actually, in my opinion, you've only got to read this thread (and others which also complain about the state of CC) to see who is to blame, if indeed there has been any fall in standards/activity.

 

[jowwy]

Goodness me.........I think it's time a few CC members looked at themselves. There are several here who moan about everything and yet contribute nothing. If you don't like the content, then contribute some better material (as @SpokeyDokey has said). If you don't like the way the mod team works, volunteer to help them out.

It's always someone else's fault.

Actually, in my opinion, you've only got to read this thread (and others which also complain about the state of CC) to see who is to blame, if indeed there has been any fall in standards/activity.

Unfortunately rocky a moderator has already agreed (a few posts above yours) that this thread has very plausable arguments of both the good and bad points of CC currently and has replied with his mod hat on……….

 

[Brandane]

There are two options; use that as a reason not to join in, or, join in and improve the balance.

I'll go with the first option.
Anything else is too energy sapping, and ultimately - completely pointless.

 

[oldwheels]

agree with @swee'pea99

the many multi forums are pointless. i tend to view the forum as a whole on "recent posts" so don't really care where the thread is sat.

you need to have some moderation oither wise it becomes anarchy, but telling people off for going off topic etc is just bizarre.

its a chat , chats meander....



" Yes you did, you invaded Poland...."

I have had posts deleted as being off topic. Since I cannot remember what I wrote anyway I have no idea if it was justified.
I do admit I tend to wander off on the verges of a topic so probably was off topic.

 

[Rocky]

Unfortunately rocky a moderator has already agreed (a few posts above yours) that this thread has very plausable arguments of both the good and bad points of CC currently and has replied with his mod hat on……….

So I'm not allowed an opinion........instead of criticising me, why not look at yourself. Is there anything you could do to make things better? Is there anything you could stop doing?

 

[Pat "5mph"]

A couple of points from me, Mod's hat on:

you only have to look at the recent closure of a thread in the cafe to see what's happening, i mean i talk about my grandad with family members and he's been dead 20yrs.......he cant reply to me, but i shouldn't be stopped talking about him

Ok, well, let's start a thread about you, but you can't answer.
Maybe you lost your log in, maybe your keyboard is broken, maybe you made a wow never to post on CC again.
The rest of us, though, we start a thread about you, making fun of you, in general commenting on your internet persona.
How would you like this? Remember, ex members can still read CC, they are just unable to post after they get deregistered.
The forum's owner, Shaun, thinks it's not nice (I agree) and he asks his mods team to discourage such postings.

A thread was shut down because rules say you cant talk about ex members, its only polite not to do so, .. why, we talk about people on the telly who are not on cyclechat ,@jowwy said , i regularly talk about family members who are no longer with us, and hes right . pretty soon there will be a small list of things allowed to be discussed.

As my answer above.
You are a member of CC, how would you like to be talked about without being able to answer.
In addition, that thread got shut down because it developed into an argument about disrespecting the Ukrainian plight, with lots of politics thrown in.

We talk about people who are not even members of this forum. Is it impolite to talk about them? How does that logic fly?

It depends: public figures scrutiny is acceptable on CC, slander and insults are not.
That is what Shaun, the forum owner, wants.

but that's the issue, if it was against the rules, it should have been closed straight away.......it wasn't, it was closed after 10 pages, stating against the rules.....now i can't find that rule, maybe it's hidden somewhere

We left it running because after a few posts it seemed to have changed to another topic, but then it changed back to discussing the ex member.
You are correct about the rule: I was searching too, couldn't find it either.
I found it eventually in the set of instructions Shaun gave to the mods team, here it is:

Close thread and then post this template:
{member name} is no longer an active member of CC and is therefore unable to reply.
Whilst positive and fun threads reflecting on previous members are allowed, threads questioning and/or assassinating the character of ex-members don't reflect well on our community, and on that basis this thread is now closed.

Oh, and from the little I have seen & heard, the moderation needs a review too. It has now, so I hear, erased probably the liveliest thread of recent times. If you wanted to kill a site by degrees, that sort of behaviour is surely the way to go about it.

I guess by lively you mean that you enjoy a good argument? Well, that is what the NACA site is for, it is completely unmoderated.

I think the removal of NACA has has completely shut down discussion of anything substantial, and that's a shame. So we're left with tyres, front mechs, bread recipes and train spotting

Shaun, the forum's owner, said:

The number one goal of CycleChat is to discuss cycling.
The rules and decisions are made to protect this goal over all else, first and foremost in the Bikes and Cycling forums. Following closely are forum discussions about other aspects of cycling and for giving help to fellow users.

I know moderation isn't up for discussion, but I believe we've probably "cured" an infected leg by cutting off the leg, rather than removing the infectious bacteria.

We had spend a lot of time and effort in developing a vaccine.
Alas, new variations of the virus kept emerging, so we had to lockdown and put contagions in quarantine.