Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   3/15/2007 - Please read before posting in any A&S thread! (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/278098-3-15-2007-please-read-before-posting-any-s-thread.html)

Daily Commute 03-18-07 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian
No, you've missed the point. If you want to debate the pros and cons of VC, there is now a place for that. Or are you suggesting that it's not possible to discuss a subject in A&S without bringing up VC?
. . . .

If your perspective on cycling is based on VC, then your response to a lane positioning, road design, or facilties question will be based on that background. So yes, I am suggesting that it is not possible to discuss many A&S subjects without bringing up VC concepts.

This subforum will work as long as all discussion of VC ideas, pro and con, get moved as well (like praise for bike lanes on 25 mph downtown streets, advocating for regularly filtering forward at red lights, or any position on "Complete Streets"). You really can't move only half of an argument.

As I said before, the real problem was the refusal of a few (mainly anti-VC people) to follow forum guidelines on respect and harassment. I hope you don't give them a heckler's veto.

Edit: my post below illustrates the real problem. If it's OK to make posts like that, please let us know. And if it remains, I guess we'll know it's an acceptable A&S argument technique.

Edited for content, 11:15 a.m., 3/18/07.

Daily Commute 03-18-07 04:27 AM

This is the real problem in A&S:


Quote:

Originally Posted by chipcom
Please grow up. With all due respect, do you know what a post like this reminds me of?

http://student-iat.ubalt.edu/sde/stu...co-cavemen.jpg


chipcom 03-18-07 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daily Commute
This is the real problem in A&S:

IMO this is part of the real world, DC, where real people have real discussions - not some college debate. If one says something like 'I'm going to take my toys and go home', or posts an obvious fib, they should expect to be called on it. I don't feel the guidelines should be a shield for poor behavior or dishonesty.

If a post like that is the problem, every forum in BF has a similar problem and half the membership would be banned.

Daily Commute 03-18-07 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipcom
IMO this is part of the real world, DC, where real people have real discussions - not some college debate. If one says something like 'I'm going to take my toys and go home', or posts an obvious fib, they should expect to be called on it. I don't feel the guidelines should be a shield for poor behavior or dishonesty.

If a post like that is the problem, every forum in BF has a similar problem and half the membership would be banned.

Then that explains why you, bek, and sbhikes so frequently drag threads down to junior-high-level bickering, and why the mods had to create a separate subforum to deal with it.

N_C 03-18-07 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian
Some members seem to exist here solely to stir the pot. I have gotten enough positive PMs, as well as thank you PMs, that I feel this was a good decision. If some members have a hard time getting their head around certain concepts, so be it.

So what is the definition of a VC thread according to the admin./mods?

Brian 03-18-07 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N_C
So what is the definition of a VC thread according to the admin./mods?

First, see post 26 in this thread. That provides most of your answer.

Now, I will kill two birds with one stone. If everyone will notice that the forum guidelines are just that - guidelines, the moderators will have a much easier job. They are not rules set in stone. Therein lies the beauty of the forums. It allows members a certain amount of freedom on their posting, and the moderators a fair bit of lattitude in interpreting the intention of a post. If there are any cavemen on the forums that were offended by the image and text above, I will demand that Chipcom apologize at once.

If the moderators were to take action every time some little comment was made that offended someone, they would be accused of being too heavy handed. As it is, they walk a very fine line, as we cannot please everyone. The purpose of the VC forum is to keep the whole of A&S from turning into a big mess.

Helmet Head 03-18-07 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian
First, see post 26 in this thread. That provides most of your answer.

Now, I will kill two birds with one stone. If everyone will notice that the forum guidelines are just that - guidelines, the moderators will have a much easier job. They are not rules set in stone. Therein lies the beauty of the forums. It allows members a certain amount of freedom on their posting, and the moderators a fair bit of lattitude in interpreting the intention of a post. If there are any cavemen on the forums that were offended by the image and text above, I will demand that Chipcom apologize at once.

If the moderators were to take action every time some little comment was made that offended someone, they would be accused of being too heavy handed. As it is, they walk a very fine line, as we cannot please everyone. The purpose of the VC forum is to keep the whole of A&S from turning into a big mess.

I think it's important for everyone to distinguish between general comments that someone may find offensive and comments directed at a particular member that show disrespect for that member.

chipcom 03-18-07 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daily Commute
Then that explains why you, bek, and sbhikes so frequently drag threads down to junior-high-level bickering, and why the mods had to create a separate subforum to deal with it.

Ahh, so that's what the problem is. Seems like a subforum is overkill as a solution to deal with a handful of alleged out-of-control members who could simply be banned, especially since creation of a subforum is something that I, Darth Vader himself, have been suggesting for quite some time, so I'm feeling really punished now...those mean mods gave me what I wanted! :lol:

Come on, DC, let's be realistic here. Vehicular cycling has a political component that inflames passions in the same manner as other political and religious subjects and the problem isn't limited to a handful of people. IMO this is a much better solution than moving vc threads to P&R or shutting down A&S altogether. Now A&S can be limited to non-controversial advocacy and safety topics, including technical aspects of vehicular cycling, while the heated debates over the political aspects of vc can be limited to this subforum. You should be happy, because I imagine once a few of the current threads run their course, most of those who you consider enemies of vc will have no reason to participate in the subforum, much like a Catholic feels no need to debate religion in a Baptist church, but will debate if the Baptists begin preaching in public places in an attempt to influence public policy in a way that is detrimental to Catholics.

brokenrobot 03-18-07 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian
You guys are never going to get along, and the VC arguments will always be just that - arguments. So until ALL of you can figure out how to get along, we'll separate the wheat from the chaff.

Does the VC forum need a disclaimer like P&R? Does everyone need to be told not to enter, unless they have thick skin?

Yes, please! And it would be terrific if users who didn't join that subforum could hide new posts in it from the general "Show New Posts" search, just the way P&R works now...

Daily Commute 03-18-07 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian
First, see post 26 in this thread. That provides most of your answer.

Now, I will kill two birds with one stone. If everyone will notice that the forum guidelines are just that - guidelines, the moderators will have a much easier job. They are not rules set in stone. Therein lies the beauty of the forums. It allows members a certain amount of freedom on their posting, and the moderators a fair bit of lattitude in interpreting the intention of a post. If there are any cavemen on the forums that were offended by the image and text above, I will demand that Chipcom apologize at once.

If the moderators were to take action every time some little comment was made that offended someone, they would be accused of being too heavy handed. As it is, they walk a very fine line, as we cannot please everyone. The purpose of the VC forum is to keep the whole of A&S from turning into a big mess.

And despite the thank you's, this is probably why the experiment won't work. The problem is a lack of civility in discussion from a few people who take a strong anti-VC poisition, not substance. They turn any mention of responsible cycling into a junior high level food fight. If you attack substance, you are missing the problem. And, respectfully, your post above will only encourage people to continue to take threads down to a junior high level (and yes, I get the humor).

Edited for content, 11:42am, 3/18/07.

chipcom 03-18-07 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian
If there are any cavemen on the forums that were offended by the image and text above, I will demand that Chipcom apologize at once.

I apologize to any caveman members who may have been offended by the use of their image as an example of behavioral traits displayed in a TV commercial. :D

brokenrobot 03-18-07 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I think it's important for everyone to distinguish between general comments that someone may find offensive and comments directed at a particular member that show disrespect for that member.

I think it's important for everyone to differentiate between discussion and never-ending one-sided monologues designed to stifle discussion and "win" every argument by attrition.

Daily Commute 03-18-07 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipcom
. . . Come on, DC, let's be realistic here. Vehicular cycling has a political component that inflames passions in the same manner as other political and religious subjects and the problem isn't limited to a handful of people. IMO this is a much better solution than moving vc threads to P&R or shutting down A&S altogether. Now A&S can be limited to non-controversial advocacy and safety topics, including technical aspects of vehicular cycling, while the heated debates over the political aspects of vc can be limited to this subforum. . . .

Let's hope that works out. But as I said in the thank you thread about this subform, for this to work, the anti-VC'ers will have to show significantly more restaint in the main A&S forum than they have in the past. If the anti-VC'ers can stick to "non-controversial advocacy and safety topics" in the main A&S, that would be great. But that means no mentions of striped bike lanes, no advocacy for "Complete Streets," and very limited discussion about cycling in traffic.

Brian 03-18-07 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I think it's important for everyone to distinguish between general comments that someone may find offensive and comments directed at a particular member that show disrespect for that member.

Agreed. But I look at someone like Chipcom (the big doofus ;)) and see that his comments are pretty much always tongue in cheek, and never made with any malicious intent. If someone does make a personal attack, that should be addressed. But I let the moderators handle that. And I think a lot of the time, they view it as something that is just par for the course when discussing such a touchy subject. When we see the words "lunacy" and "zealot", that's someone reacting to your unrelenting stance on VC. You have conviction, and you stand firm. Expect your opinions to be challenged. But that does not mean it's open season for people to abuse you. We're back to that fine line.

N_C 03-18-07 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian
First, see post 26 in this thread. That provides most of your answer.

Now, I will kill two birds with one stone. If everyone will notice that the forum guidelines are just that - guidelines, the moderators will have a much easier job. They are not rules set in stone. Therein lies the beauty of the forums. It allows members a certain amount of freedom on their posting, and the moderators a fair bit of lattitude in interpreting the intention of a post. If there are any cavemen on the forums that were offended by the image and text above, I will demand that Chipcom apologize at once.

If the moderators were to take action every time some little comment was made that offended someone, they would be accused of being too heavy handed. As it is, they walk a very fine line, as we cannot please everyone. The purpose of the VC forum is to keep the whole of A&S from turning into a big mess.

Ok, so the way I read post 26 in this thread I interprite it to mean as long as one does not use the initials VC or the words Vehicular Cycling they pretty much post what ever A&S subject here that they want to. No problem, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.

chipcom 03-18-07 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daily Commute
Let's hope that works out. But as I said above, for this to work, the anti-VC'ers will have to show significantly more restaint in the main A&S forum than they have in the past. If the anti-VC'ers can stick to "non-controversial advocacy and safety topics" in the main A&S, that would be great. But that means no mentions of striped bike lanes, no advocacy for "Complete Streets," and very limited discussion about cycling in traffic.

Why do you feel compelled to join in on every conversation regarding striped bike lanes or 'Complete Streets'? If such things are being advocated for an area where they do not already exist and from a vc point of view you feel the need to debate the issue, great, if it becomes a debate centered on vc vs everyone else, it will probably get moved. But if it's regarding something that already exists (in the context of the thread), why would you feel the need for such a debate...just because you oppose such things doesn't mean you need to blast away at those who wish to discuss what already exists. Live and let live, eh? There is no reason to inject politics into every single discussion.

Brian 03-18-07 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daily Commute
The problem is a lack of civility in discussion from a few people who take a strong anti-VC poisition, not substance.

Then don't engage them. There is an ignore feature as well.

Brian 03-18-07 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N_C
Ok, so the way I read post 26 in this thread I interprite it to mean as long as one does not use the initials VC or the words Vehicular Cycling they pretty much post what ever A&S subject here that they want to. No problem, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.

See the first line of post 50.

Daily Commute 03-18-07 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipcom
Why do you feel compelled to join in on every conversation regarding striped bike lanes or 'Complete Streets'? If such things are being advocated for an area where they do not already exist and from a vc point of view you feel the need to debate the issue, great, if it becomes a debate centered on vc vs everyone else, it will probably get moved. But if it's regarding something that already exists (in the context of the thread), why would you feel the need for such a debate...just because you oppose such things doesn't mean you need to blast away at those who wish to discuss what already exists. Live and let live, eh? There is no reason to inject politics into every single discussion.

Deciding whether a government should enact a policy about street design is inherently political. I'm not "injecting" politics into it. But I agree, I should not "blast away at those who wish to discuss what already exists," but I can be critical of their ideas, and suggest that there may be unintenteded negative consequences of their proposals.

If the mods want to move every such discussion to the VC forum, that's fine with me, but I suspect they will only do that if a thread degenerates into a standard set of bickering. Maybe the threat of having a thread moved will keep both sides more civil. If that happens, then the VC subforum will be serving a good purpose.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Daily Commute
The problem is a lack of civility in discussion from a few people who take a strong anti-VC poisition, not substance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian
Then don't engage them. There is an ignore feature as well.

I do have one on ignore, and I don't participate a lot. I'm down to just under three posts a day. I plan to keep it there. The ignore feature works for the anti-VC'ers as well.

chipcom 03-18-07 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daily Commute
Deciding whether a government should enact a policy about street design is inherently political. I'm not "injecting" politics into it. But I agree, I should not "blast away at those who wish to discuss what already exists," but I can be critical of their ideas, and suggest that there may be unintenteded negative consequences of their proposals.

Again, if the discussion revolves around a bike lane, for example, that already exists...what is the point of jumping in to debate the wisdom of bike lanes? It's not a proposal or an idea, it's a reality that cannot be wished away by political debate and deserves to be discussed without being hijacked in that direction.

Daily Commute 03-18-07 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipcom
Again, if the discussion revolves around a bike lane, for example, that already exists...what is the point of jumping in to debate the wisdom of bike lanes? It's not a proposal or an idea, it's a reality that cannot be wished away by political debate and deserves to be discussed without being hijacked in that direction.

Then why have any discussion pro or con? If you don't think something is worth talking about because it already exists, don't talk about it. (Edit: To show the other side, if I posted something about my city's decision not to put a striped lane on a given street, do you think bike lane supporters should be banned from saying that a striped lane would have made sense in that situation?)

If you chose to talk about about a topic, don't be surprised when people with different perspectives join the conversation.

chipcom 03-18-07 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daily Commute
Then why have any discussion pro or con?

Pro and con isn't really relevant to something that already exists...it's already there, being against it isn't going to change that, unless the subject is about a proposal to remove it, in which case pros and cons are obviously relevant. By the same token if nothing exists and one is discussing potential solutions, then again, discussion of the pros and cons is obviously relevant.

So if the discussion revolves around some problem posed by a bike lane that already exists, the pros and cons of its existence are pretty much a moot point, don't you think?

Daily Commute 03-18-07 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipcom
Pro and con isn't really relevant to something that already exists...it's already there, being against it isn't going to change that, unless the subject is about a proposal to remove it, in which case pros and cons are obviously relevant. By the same token if nothing exists and one is discussing potential solutions, then again, discussion of the pros and cons is obviously relevant.

So if the discussion revolves around some problem posed by a bike lane that already exists, the pros and cons of its existence are pretty much a moot point, don't you think?

If it's existence is a moot point, why discuss it at all?

People who think a bike-lane-free street should be changed are just as free as people who think a street with a bike lane should be changed to advocate their opinion. People who think a certain street without a striped lane poses a problem are just as free to say so as people who think a certain street with a striped lane poses a problem.

randya 03-18-07 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalliergo
This suggests to me that another, perhaps competing, cycling discussion site may be called for -- one where proponents of vehicular cycling, together with their ideas, will not be treated as "rubbish."

You've already got ProBicycle / Chainguard.com for this.

randya 03-18-07 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daily Commute
Let's hope that works out. But as I said in the thank you thread about this subform, for this to work, the anti-VC'ers will have to show significantly more restaint in the main A&S forum than they have in the past. If the anti-VC'ers can stick to "non-controversial advocacy and safety topics" in the main A&S, that would be great. But that means no mentions of striped bike lanes, no advocacy for "Complete Streets," and very limited discussion about cycling in traffic.

It sounds like you would be happier at ProBicycle / Chainguard.com also, since it seems like your main goal is to censor any 'anti-VC' sentiment here at BF.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:17 PM.