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)

drroebuck 04-10-07 01:45 PM

Lameness.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcryar
I stopped coming to BF several months ago simply because of all the BS--mostly between 3 or 4 people who constantly dominate every thread with garbage that had very little to do with the original post. I came back today to see if anything was different, and this is the first post I read....

I left BF about a year ago because the mods are way too heavy-handed. This is a good example.

Isn't the beauty of the Internet in its self-governance? If I don't like what someone says, or a thread has been "hijacked," I have three options: argue back, ignore the flamer, go read something else. I much prefer that those options remain mine.

I can understand the need to deal with the most blatant a$$es, etc., but to lock threads because they've veered off topic or become argumentative is condescending and fascist. Dial down the authority and maybe some people won't feel the need to rebel; the remaining jacka$$es you can deal with on a case-by-case basis.

Ah well, back to RBR I go. See ya next year.

joejack951 04-10-07 04:30 PM

drroebuck, Completely off-topic but I love the quote in your sig. I read that in a book on bicycle history and laughed at how applicable it still is today.

Brian 04-10-07 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drroebuck
I left BF about a year ago because the mods are way too heavy-handed. This is a good example.

Isn't the beauty of the Internet in its self-governance? If I don't like what someone says, or a thread has been "hijacked," I have three options: argue back, ignore the flamer, go read something else. I much prefer that those options remain mine.

I can understand the need to deal with the most blatant a$$es, etc., but to lock threads because they've veered off topic or become argumentative is condescending and fascist. Dial down the authority and maybe some people won't feel the need to rebel; the remaining jacka$$es you can deal with on a case-by-case basis.

Ah well, back to RBR I go. See ya next year.

You don't get it. And what are all the $ signs for? They just make you look like a jackass.

donnamb 04-10-07 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drroebuck
I left BF about a year ago because the mods are way too heavy-handed. This is a good example.

Isn't the beauty of the Internet in its self-governance? If I don't like what someone says, or a thread has been "hijacked," I have three options: argue back, ignore the flamer, go read something else. I much prefer that those options remain mine.

I can understand the need to deal with the most blatant a$$es, etc., but to lock threads because they've veered off topic or become argumentative is condescending and fascist. Dial down the authority and maybe some people won't feel the need to rebel; the remaining jacka$$es you can deal with on a case-by-case basis.

Ah well, back to RBR I go. See ya next year.

You know, we've got folks like you who say we're too heavy-handed. We've also got an equal number of folks saying moderation here isn't heavy-handed enough. If neither group of people are satisfied with our moderation, I'd say we're doing something right.

I wish you the best in your pursuit of a self-governing Shangri-la. Take care. :)

drroebuck 04-11-07 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joejack951
drroebuck, Completely off-topic but I love the quote in your sig. I read that in a book on bicycle history and laughed at how applicable it still is today.

Ha! We must have read the same book. Lots of gems in that one.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian
You don't get it. And what are all the $ signs for? They just make you look like a jackass.

Now there's an intelligent response.


Quote:

Originally Posted by donnamb
You know, we've got folks like you who say we're too heavy-handed. We've also got an equal number of folks saying moderation here isn't heavy-handed enough. If neither group of people are satisfied with our moderation, I'd say we're doing something right.

You may have a point. At the end of the day, however, if a lot of people would just grow up (that includes the provocateurs and the easily provoked) you guys would have a lot less moderating to do.


Quote:

Originally Posted by donnamb
I wish you the best in your pursuit of a self-governing Shangri-la. Take care. :)

Why thank you. It does exist. I have seen it.

_

Brian 04-11-07 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drroebuck
Now there's an intelligent response.

Thank you.

LittleBigMan 07-12-07 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drroebuck
I left BF about a year ago because the mods are way too heavy-handed. This is a good example.

Isn't the beauty of the Internet in its self-governance? If I don't like what someone says, or a thread has been "hijacked," I have three options: argue back, ignore the flamer, go read something else. I much prefer that those options remain mine.

I can understand the need to deal with the most blatant a$$es, etc., but to lock threads because they've veered off topic or become argumentative is condescending and fascist. Dial down the authority and maybe some people won't feel the need to rebel; the remaining jacka$$es you can deal with on a case-by-case basis.

Ah well, back to RBR I go. See ya next year.

Good rant.

Hey, the internet is full of options. Nothing stopping you, really, from saying anything you want, if people want to hear it.

Brian 07-12-07 08:59 PM

I'll take note of his complaint. Did I mention that since he left, the site has more than doubled in size? I predict that we have have tripled our membership in roughly 18 months. We should hit 79K before the end of the month, so I kind feel we're doing something right.

Blue Order 07-12-07 09:03 PM

I've seen his shangri-la. It's ugly, vicious, mean-spirited, and abusive. Thankfully, we have moderators here.

nun 02-28-08 12:41 PM

Why is VC separate from A&S
 
As VC is all about operating a bike in a vehicular manner with all the other vehicles on the road I find it a bit ironic that VC has been consigned to is own little sub-forum ghetto. Is this to keep it away from the general A&S threads so that it won't cause too much trouble?

Little Darwin 02-28-08 12:45 PM

Because every thread on every topic was turning into a VC thread.

Some people think that a discussion can sometimes be enlightening without considering the implications as related to vehicular cycling, others don't. ;)

Bekologist 02-28-08 12:48 PM

because VC is bicycling advocacy's ******* stepchild- and the vehemence of some of the 'vc' was ruining A&S topics so bad the moderators decided to make a little sandpit for mudslinging that includes prejudice.

Script 02-28-08 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 6248667)
because VC is bicycling advocacy's ******* stepchild- and the vehemence of some of the 'vc' was ruining A&S topics so bad the moderators decided to make a little sandpit for mudslinging that includes prejudice.

And here I thought it was so we would all be on the same page when we started singing 'Kumbaya'

:D

KrisPistofferson 02-28-08 01:26 PM

VC needed it's own bike lane. Now HH torments us in P&R about Ron Paul, Ayn Rand and Richard Dawkins all day. You should have to pay us for taking him off your hands.

Blue Order 02-28-08 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Darwin (Post 6248652)
Because every thread on every topic was turning into a VC thread.

Some people think that a discussion can sometimes be enlightening without considering the implications as related to vehicular cycling, others don't. ;)

By way of example, somebody whom I shall refer to here as "I Drank the Kool-Aid" replied to a question about which lights would be good for use as daytime flashers with yet another "I drank the Kool-Aid" lecture on lane positioning.

It was happening to every thread:

OP: Can somebody please explain bike fit to me?
I Drank the Kool-Aid: Let me tell you about lane positioning...

OP: So which candidate would be good for cycling?
I Drank the Kool-Aid: Let me tell you about lane positioning...

OP: Can somebody recommend some good rain gear?
I Drank the Kool-Aid: Let me tell you about lane positioning...



...so a VC subforum was created.

derath 02-28-08 03:43 PM

Because A&S is the place where everyone can chat and feel like they are actually doing something. the VC forum is the place where everyone can circle jerk around over and over. It is like Foo without the fun.

-D

JRA 02-28-08 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nun (Post 6248618)
As VC is all about operating a bike in a vehicular manner...

You must be new here. :D

The premise is wrong. That's not what VC is all about (if only it were! if only it were!).

VC-ism is so much more (unfortunately). Back in the days when I used to think that VC was all about operating a bike in a vehicular manner, I used to think VC was a good thing. I have a very different view now.

If you want to start an argument among bicyclists, bring up John Forester and his cult-like following. Read the VC forum and you will see thread after thread degenerate into the same tired old fight over whether JF is a god or a demon. It isn't pretty.

Personally, I think the split was a wonderful thing for A&S.

Helmet Head 02-28-08 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRA (Post 6250103)
Read the VC forum and you will see thread after thread degenerate into the same tired old fight over whether JF is a god or a demon. It isn't pretty.

That's an absurd and totally unsubstantiated claim.

Whatever VC is, it's definitely not a cult of personality.

-=(8)=- 02-28-08 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRA (Post 6250103)
You must be new here. :D

The premise is wrong. That's not what VC is all about (if only it were! if only it were!).

VC-ism is so much more (unfortunately). Back in the days when I used to think that VC was all about operating a bike in a vehicular manner, I used to think VC was a good thing. I have a very different view now.

If you want to start an argument among bicyclists, bring up John Forester and his cult-like following. Read the VC forum and you will see thread after thread degenerate into the same tired old fight over whether JF is a god or a demon. It isn't pretty.

Personally, I think the split was a wonderful thing for A&S.

+1
I hate to see useful stuff get fouled by the 4 horseman of VC

Blue Order 02-28-08 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRA (Post 6250103)
If you want to start an argument among bicyclists, bring up John Forester and his cult-like following.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmet Head (Post 6250231)
That's an absurd and totally unsubstantiated claim.

Whatever VC is, it's definitely not a cult of personality.

Is that there what they call "Q.E.D."?

:D

Helmet Head 02-28-08 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Order (Post 6250446)
Is that there what they call "Q.E.D."?

:D

:p

But seriously, just because there is controversy about what the ramifications of VC are does not mean it is "much more" than being "all about operating a bike in a vehicular manner...".

In fact, it is because VC is "all about operating a bike in a vehicular manner...", and bike lanes are not, that that part of the controversy exists.

Allister 02-28-08 06:05 PM

I vote this thread gets moved to the VC forum.

Blue Order 02-28-08 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmet Head (Post 6250668)
:p

:lol:

:beer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmet Head (Post 6250668)
But seriously, just because there is controversy about what the ramifications of VC are does not mean it is "much more" than being "all about operating a bike in a vehicular manner...".

In fact, it is because VC is "all about operating a bike in a vehicular manner...", and bike lanes are not, that that part of the controversy exists.

I question that premise. Look at any highway in California. The left lane is almost always an HOV lane. With some exceptions for ZEV and ULEV vehicles, single-occupancy vehicles are not permitted to operate in those lanes. And yet nobody would claim that vehicles excluded from the HOV lanes are not "vehicles," or are not being operated "vehicularly."

JRA 02-28-08 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allister (Post 6250713)
I vote this thread gets moved to the VC forum.

LOL

Seconded

donnamb 02-28-08 07:04 PM

I merged it with Brian's original thread on the topic. The decision stands, as does the reasons behind it.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:15 PM.