Living Car Free - Mods are messing with the forum. Do you think this is right?

It looks like the forum administration is starting to move any threads that are "too political" to P & R or Foo. Koffee Brown moved two in the past 24 hours.

One move I can understand. My own thread, "Why America can't win a war" arguably was too political for this thread, and maybe moving it to P & R was a good idea. (Of course, I can also think of several reasons why it should not have been moved, if there had ever been a discussion of the issue.)

But I sure can't see any sense to moving jayhuse's thread, "How much is your car costing you?" to Foo. Koffee said that the thread was in no way "relevant to cycling." That's crazy talk! One of the main reasons for people to ride bikes is the cost of the car! In fact, I believe this is one of Koffee's own reasons for riding a bike. How then is car costs irrelevant to cycling and especially carfree cycling?

I very much enjoy and benefit from "practical" threads that include tips on trailers and panniers. But we can only go so far with this kind of thread. Many, maybe most of us, do have a political or environmentalist reason for being carfree. We hope to convince othes that these reasons are valid and relevant to their own cycling lives. Eliminating discussion of these issues, in my opinion, will make this whole forum irrelevant and barely worth reading.

It looks like the forum administration is starting to move any threads that are "too political" to P & R or Foo. Koffee Brown moved two in the past 24 hours.

One move I can understand. My own thread, "Why America can't win a war" arguably was too political for this thread, and maybe moving it to P & R was a good idea. (Of course, I can also think of several reasons why it should not have been moved, if there had ever been a discussion of the issue.)

But I sure can't see any sense to moving jayhuse's thread, "How much is your car costing you?" to Foo. Koffee said that the thread was in no way "relevant to cycling." That's crazy talk! One of the main reasons for people to ride bikes is the cost of the car! In fact, I believe this is one of Koffee's own reasons for riding a bike. How then is car costs irrelevant to cycling and especially carfree cycling?

I very much enjoy and benefit from "practical" threads that include tips on trailers and panniers. But we can only go so far with this kind of thread. Many, maybe most of us, do have a political or environmentalist reason for being carfree. We hope to convince othes that these reasons are valid and relevant to their own cycling lives. Eliminating discussion of these issues, in my opinion, will make this whole forum irrelevant and barely worth reading.


I'm confused, or perhaps you are. Did you say that the discussions were "eliminated" or simply moved? I believe you are quite wrong to imply censorship when what is really happening is good management.

In short, Yes. I believe it is correct for moderators to moderate.

Oh, so that's where that topic went. I was looking for it...

I'm confused, or perhaps you are. Did you say that the discussions were "eliminated" or simply moved? I believe you are quite wrong to imply censorship when what is really happening is good management.

In short, Yes. I believe it is correct for moderators to moderate.
Moving is a form of censorship if it makes it difficult for people to find your message. I agree that we usually have good (great, really) management on BikeForums. But these moves, particularly the car cost thread, make no sense to me.

i use the 'view new posts' button constantly. i hardly ever notice what forum a thread is in, i just read the titles and if something catches my eye i click it. the whole forum organization with all the sub topics, etc. is largely lost on me.

however, i will say this: as a truely car free person i often found it discouraging to read threads in the car-free forum that were, in fact, about cars, about owning cars, and about driving cars. just as in real life - the car (or in this case, car talk) constantly takes over other people's space.

however, i will say this: as a truely car free person i often found it discouraging to read threads in the car-free forum that were, in fact, about cars, about owning cars, and about driving cars. just as in real life - the car (or in this case, car talk) constantly takes over other people's space.


Yea....why aren't THESE threads moved to "foo"??

however, i will say this: as a truely car free person i often found it discouraging to read threads in the car-free forum that were, in fact, about cars, about owning cars, and about driving cars. just as in real life - the car (or in this case, car talk) constantly takes over other people's space.
This is one of my pet peeves too. But jayhuse's thread wasn't about the virtues of owning a car, it was about how much you can save by not owning one. This is an important issue, because people can't make an informed decision about ditching their car unless they have some idea of the costs involved. It's also something those of us who are already carfree like to brag about!

i agree with that and i see the difference. that thread was really another way of saying "this is how much you could save by not driving".

Don't be so exclusive on this forum; many auto-owning cyclists are fascinated by the concept of being carfree and often drop by. I'll never be totally carfree as long as I'm married. Getting my wife to go carfree would be about as likely as winning the "war on terror." (uh-oh, politics, everyone cover your eyes and whistle)

Carfree is a journey for most; let's not be so rigid as to exclude them.



i use the 'view new posts' button constantly. i hardly ever notice what forum a thread is in, i just read the titles and if something catches my eye i click it. the whole forum organization with all the sub topics, etc. is largely lost on me.

however, i will say this: as a truely car free person i often found it discouraging to read threads in the car-free forum that were, in fact, about cars, about owning cars, and about driving cars. just as in real life - the car (or in this case, car talk) constantly takes over other people's space.

I am going to write a strongly worded email to the moderators that suggest this thread be moved to FOO.

I very much enjoy and benefit from "practical" threads that include tips on trailers and panniers. But we can only go so far with this kind of thread. Many, maybe most of us, do have a political or environmentalist reason for being carfree. We hope to convince othes that these reasons are valid and relevant to their own cycling lives. Eliminating discussion of these issues, in my opinion, will make this whole forum irrelevant and barely worth reading.

I agree with Roody in the case of the "How much is your car costing you" thread. This (sub)forum is named car free because living without a car is an alternative lifestyle, which, like any alternative lifestyle is defined in reference to the predominate way of living. So living with a car is an implied part of almost every thread here.

Also, as was pointed out upthread, this isn't a private club for those of us that are already car free. People need to be able to discuss their relationship with their car before being able to imagine any change. Just as in the commuting forum the idea often comes up of using a car to aid in bike commuting until one can ride the entire distance or week themselves. And like commuting, much of the preparation for going car free is metal. Examining what a car costs and rethinking its worth is a huge piece of the decision for many.

Lastly, I can think of at least one different (sub)forum in which something close to 10% of the threads should immediately be tossed into foo because they don't even have the strength of an implied connection of cycling.

So to answer the question: While I appreciate the efforts of the mods to keep this place running, in this case I don't think it's right.

I find it intellectually stultifying that so called "political" threads are struck down and moved elsewhere. If you don't have an opinion about anything, I don't want to have anything to do with you. If moderators don't want us to share opinions about anything, I'm gone...

I'd remove the Alarming SUV stats thread.

Just my dos colones - being a moderator is one of the worst jobs in the world in my opinion. This is why. If the moderator DOESN'T move something - well, people complain and say - WHY DIDN'T YOU MOVE IT?! And then if they do - WHY DID YOU MOVE IT?

These are judgment calls - and sometimes not terribly easy. Moderators burn out because of the constant gripping by those who don't know the job. I have been a moderator (still am in some groups, and own forums too) - it isn't fun.

These are not evil people trying to somehow ruin your day - or censor you. Nope, they are just trying to apply some sense to a forum and keep things in the right place. If you want to rant and rave - those who just want to know about how to achieve a car free existance might not want to read it - besides, why just talk to people who agree?

Moving the post elsewhere isn't a big thing - in fact, when you do a listing, you will see it show up - as moved. Then someone can go follow it if they choose.

I'd remove the Alarming SUV stats thread.

Also, these threads have just as much, or as little, to do with cycling as the "How much..." thread:

NPR segment: Shared ticket to ride

cardboard house

Hummer Overfloweth

Drive-Through Voting Booths OMG!

EVIL hires a mid-range advertising agency

All on the front page of Living Car Free.

It is a judgement call. I don't feel that thread was just about saving money riding a bike instead of driving. It may have started out that way, but it didn't look as though that was the intent. Therefore, I moved it to Foo. That's where it's going to stay, and if you're confused as to where it is, always know that when a thread is moved, the thread title remains with a "Moved" symbol next to it. Click on the thread, and it will take you to the appropriate forum.

The little that does get moved in here makes me think the original poster is overreacting. Moderators make judgement calls. We give lots of threads the benefit of the doubt. If I had to make a strict interpretation about every thread in here, about half of them would be gone. So what's two threads? Not very much when you put it all in perspective.

Regardless, it's just a moved thread. It's still on the forums. You can still read it. It hasn't gone into the trash. There are certainly a lot more things to be worried about in this world than two threads that affect no one's life in an adverse manner.

Koffee Brown

Forum Moderator

The problem with moving things to P&R is that there are too many whackjobs lurking there who are eager to torpedo a perfectly good lefty discussion on our inept western society. Once threads go there, IMO, they have "gone into the trash."

Then the best things you can do are:

1. Report when things go downhill so moderators can investigate

2. Post the best responses you can so we end up with higher quality posting in there

3. Don't start threads that are politically related ;)

Koffee

It looks like the forum administration is starting to move any threads that are "too political" to P & R or Foo. Koffee Brown moved two in the past 24 hours.

Well, the "How much is your car costing you" should certainly not have been moved. Regardless of where the thread may have been going, its initial posts belong here... and have been removed from the LCF forum.

Honestly, BF.net needs to seriously work on its policies. I concluded that long ago when I failed to practise self-control and got away with things I shouldn't have. Of course, there do not seem to be policies as such here. Where is the FAQ? Mission statement? Guidelines for each forum and sub-forum? Moderation seems to happen on a "when we get around to it" basis, and be based entirely on judgement calls and not on policies or guidelines. (To be fair, the response seems excellent when a user complains about a specific post).

I'm ok with a free-for-all, each-man-for-himself place (a.k.a. usenet). I'm also fine with a strictly moderated forum, particularly for technical forums. You have to pick one or the other, though, the on-again/off-again thing doesn't work. And there is more to moderation than moving or deleting threads!


BF.net may well become a victim of its own success. Just like the poor lil' server is having a hard time dealing with the traffic, so to has the site outgrown the casual moderation style that is sufficient for smaller sites. This is still a great resource, though not as great as it could be. For my part (and I may be alone in this) I have little interest in being an active contributor here both because of what some users are allowed to get away with, and because of the on-again, off-again moderation. Why should I bother posting if my thread may be moved to a forum I have no interest in contributing to?

Then again I come at all this from a background as a peer group facilitator, so my expectations are different. I've also been online since I was in diapers, so I'm a bit jaded. :o

Honestly, BF.net needs to seriously work on its policies. I concluded that long ago when I failed to practise self-control and got away with things I shouldn't have. Of course, there do not seem to be policies as such here. Where is the FAQ? Mission statement? Guidelines for each forum and sub-forum? Moderation seems to happen on a "when we get around to it" basis, and be based entirely on judgement calls and not on policies or guidelines. (To be fair, the response seems excellent when a user complains about a specific post).

I'm ok with a free-for-all, each-man-for-himself place (a.k.a. usenet). I'm also fine with a strictly moderated forum, particularly for technical forums. You have to pick one or the other, though, the on-again/off-again thing doesn't work. And there is more to moderation than moving or deleting threads!




There ARE policies here. Every person who joins must read them, agree to them, and then they are given their username and access to the forums. It just doesn't even surprise me anymore that people don't bother to read, then they get upset when they're told they're in violation.

Just in case you need the refresher, here it is: http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=forum_guidelines#faq_general_principles

Honestly, we have THOUSANDS of threads that get posted every day. If you really feel that this thread keeps you from contributing to the forums, I really feel bad- for you. You're the one losing out on the great benefits of being a donating member. But it's all good- there will always be members who feel this forum is a great resource and have tremendous respect for Joe and all he's provided for us. They feel that for the amount they participate, they want to give back. That's all good.

Koffee

Mod

Koffee,

I'm not sure what you mean about paying members in the context of this conversation.

Will you please clarify?

Thanks

There ARE policies here. Every person who joins must read them, agree to them, and then they are given their username and access to the forums. It just doesn't even surprise me anymore that people don't bother to read, then they get upset when they're told they're in violation.

Just in case you need the refresher, here it is: http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=forum_guidelines#faq_general_principles

Yes, there are "General Principles" and "Basic Guidelines". Pretty good, actually. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well, it's been a long day. I'm sorry if I was not clear.

First, the policy statements you point to are great, but there are no "nuts and bolts" definitions there. How many warnings does a user get before being banned? If a user disagrees with a mod, what are the options he/she has for appeal? Etc., etc.

Secondly, let's look specifically at the LCF forum as an example. I just opened it in a new window. I see a sticky called "How Simply Do You Live?" and one called "New Forum - Living Car Free". How about a mission statement for this forum, stating exactly what is on-topic? (often called "Read This Before Posting" on other sites). How about an easy to find link for those policies you so kindly pointed me to?

Finally, keep in mind that many people may land in the middle of a thread, having Googled here (that's how I found these forums). I am currently typing this reply on a page devoid of policy statements or FAQ links.

There are a lot of ways to handle this, from "yikes that's a lot of fine print" to the KISS principle. I have a preference for letting forum contributors establish guidelines and mission statements for each forum/sub-forum, but that's only one way to go. Certainly, since moderators are the ones with the hard job of enforcing the rules and guidelines, another approach is to have the mods write up all guidelines/rules/mission statements/bibles/whatever.

Right now, however, we have nothing forum-specific. We do have mods deciding, without any guidelines, what is or is not on-topic. As a user I have a problem with that, and honestly I wouldn't want the mod's job under those conditions. It would be like grading a set of term papers knowing neither the subject matter or grading scheme.



Honestly, we have THOUSANDS of threads that get posted every day. If you really feel that this thread keeps you from contributing to the forums, I really feel bad- for you. You're the one losing out on the great benefits of being a donating member. But it's all good- there will always be members who feel this forum is a great resource and have tremendous respect for Joe and all he's provided for us. They feel that for the amount they participate, they want to give back. That's all good.

I have no clue where you are coming from here. One the one hand you imply that I don't have respect for the work that went into building these forums, while on the other you seem to imply that only donating members should have a voice or are happy. You also seem under the mistaken impression that this one thread is the entirety of my complaint, rather than an example of the problem.

I'm sorry if you took my response personally, but stop and think for a minute why. Perhaps this system could be improved so that you did not have to justify judgement calls without a firm backing of rules and guidelines. Constructive criticism is meant as just that - to be constructive. If I didn't have respect for these forums at all I would not have offered my comments.

You are correct that I am not a financial contributor to this site, and perhaps that is the only way you see people as "giving back". I think that being an active participant in a forum - that is contributing - is also a way of giving back. For me to contribute, however, I need to feel that I am respected as a user. Respect does go two way, you know.

Sorry, but I don't have the cash to contribute, in fact I'm not in a financial position to buy friends a cup of coffee these days. I donated thousands of dollars of my time, services, and intellectual property last year, however, so I really hope you don't think money is the only way to contribute to something.

In closing, I find it telling that you did not reply (but did quote) what may have been the most important part of my last post, "[T]here is more to moderation than moving or deleting threads!" I hope you now have a better understanding of what I tried to say. I apologize if I misread your post in any way.

I find it intellectually stultifying that so called "political" threads are struck down and moved elsewhere. If you don't have an opinion about anything, I don't want to have anything to do with you. If moderators don't want us to share opinions about anything, I'm gone...

"Ther is a time and place for all things in this world." And the time and place for political threads is in the political forum.

It is hardly censorship. Censoring speach is burning books or removing them. Moving a thread is closer to putting something in place. Think of it as taking intel design out of biology class and teaching it in a social studies class. Same lesson plan but different frame. It is not censorship. Do not over use words like censorship or it will turn in to the boy who cried wolf.

The problem with moving things to P&R is that there are too many whackjobs lurking there who are eager to torpedo a perfectly good lefty discussion on our inept western society. Once threads go there, IMO, they have "gone into the trash."

I get enough perfectly good righty discussions trashing lefty activists who are trashing "Theocon" and "neocon' and "Reagancon" talk show hosts my wife ODs on when we drive together. Having lived for years at a time in other cultures/countries I question the term "inept western society".

Can we just say all societies are inept and leave it at that? :)

This includes forums too - patc, it appears on the one hand that you say people can just land in a thread (or forum) and on the other hand, we need to have very clearly defined rules, etc, etc.

Pick one please - I think it is good to have the basics spelled out - and then moderators to interprete them. And, since it is an interpretation (because if you tried to really discribe everything - no one would read it - too much time) we have to leave it to the wisdom, or lack there of, of a moderator. If a moderator shows poor judgment too often, usually the owner of the forum will intercede, educate or replace them.

So far all I am seeing is that you are saying you don't like the judgment. That is fine, it is your right, but I for one thought the ones moved were appropriate. Which is my judgment, and my right. Besides, as Koffee said, there are thousands of threads - and to be blunt, many of repetitions of others. This is normal.

The best forums have strong moderators in my opinion. It keeps things civil. Otherwise, you have trolls who destroy it.

"Ther is a time and place for all things in this world." And the time and place for political threads is in the political forum.

There is a time and place for everything, and it's called "college." :)

This includes forums too - patc, it appears on the one hand that you say people can just land in a thread (or forum) and on the other hand, we need to have very clearly defined rules, etc, etc.

Pick one please

I'm not sure what you see as a mutually exclusive situation.

My point: clear rules and guideline, both for the site as a whole and for each forum/sub-forum individually, would be helpful.

My observation: such rules need to be accessible and obvious in several places, since we can not assume that a person enters this site though its main index page. (Of course all users go to the same page at least one before posting - the registration page).

Pat - most people won't bother reading the rules. It is a vain hope. Since people can just land on threads - they won't necessary read the rules. In fact, if you want an interesting test - make a poll

How many people have even read the rules?

I haven't. I just assume that I have to behave myself. If I get out of line, I expect a moderator to smack me (gently) and say "now, now, behave..." but most rules of pretty self explainatory - and I am going to forget them after reading them anyway.

In one forum I was a moderator - we emailed to EVERY member EVERY month ALL the rules (which there were very few)

didn't help a bit.

I am not sure why a thread should be moved from the carfree forum for being too political. There are really only too reasons to be car free,

1) You can't afford a car or can't afford a car and everything else you need to be able to afford.

2) You are making a political statement (or if you prefer an environmental statement). This implies that you are anti car.

I don't see how you can have a carfree forum that isn't at least somewhat political. That to me is the difference between the car free and the commuting forums.

I also don't understand why discussion of cars should be forbidden in a car free forum. Isn't discussing the problems of cars and car ownership necessary to illustrate the advantages of car free living. Its like discussing good and evil, they sort of go together.

I think the moderator should not have moved the thread "How much is your car costing you?" to the P&R forum. That forum is a general forum about politics and religion (e.g. the war thread) not a forum about the politics of bike vs car. Perhaps we need a "Transportation Politics" forum (though I think car free is adequate in this regard). Ultimately though, it is up to the moderatora where to move threads.

Rules, rules, rules...

You want rules about rules and then more rules on how to apply the rules.

Here's a better idea: have some guidelines, then use Mods to apply them using their brains and good judgement (Koffe got brain). They will make some errors, but nothing that will ruin lives. You (we) will make mistakes also, but more not than often.

And the censorship complaint is just ignorant and silly. Part of accepting free-speech is the knowledge that someone might delete it, move it, or shout louder with an opposing view. Just because you write something, it doesn't mean the owner of this forum HAS to publish it. It's Joe's site and for all intents and purposes, he is a publisher and has the right to control what's on Bike Forums; which includes giving The Mod Squad guidelines over sorting and arranging the content.

The little that does get moved in here makes me think the original poster is overreacting.

Yeah, come visit the fixed/ss forum sometime :D. Sending a note to a mod asking for restoration of a thread with a rationale has worked for us rather than humping their legs in forums. That's been tried too.

Pat - most people won't bother reading the rules. It is a vain hope. Since people can just land on threads - they won't necessary read the rules. In fact, if you want an interesting test - make a poll

Let's not get too bogged down in the term "rules", I was not exclusively speaking of rules but also things such as a forum mission statement. How does a user decide what is on or off topic? A moderator?

You are right, most people never read rules, or fine print, or much of anything else. However guidelines are not only for users, they are also for moderators. It is far easier to say, "I am taking this action because, by the mission statement, your post is not appropriate to this forum" than to say, essentially, "Because I say so." It's still a judgement call, but in one case the mod is given some support for his/her judgement.

I find it worrisome that so much is being made of rules in this discussion. Active moderation involves a great deal more then rule/guideline enforcement. The best forums I have been on have had mods who also acted as facilitators - people with an active interest in the topic and who contributed to it, helped nudge discussion when they got off-track, stimulated discussion when things got slow, and generally acted proactively before things got out of hand.

Conversely, the worst forums I have been on had the site owner as sole moderator. A screen-full of rules was posted on the screen when you posted a message. The only moderation was to delete the entire thread when a single message was problematic. The site is popular enough to continue, but user turnover is very high.

I get enough perfectly good righty discussions trashing lefty activists who are trashing "Theocon" and "neocon' and "Reagancon" talk show hosts my wife ODs on when we drive together. Having lived for years at a time in other cultures/countries I question the term "inept western society".
Ken, this post, quoted here in its entirety, is purely political and totally unrelated to cycling. Therefore, by your own standards (see below), it should be relegated to P & R, where no sane person will ever read it.


"Ther is a time and place for all things in this world." And the time and place for political threads is in the political forum.

Carfree living is intrinsically a political issue, since politics is about how we allocate resources and about planning social planning for the future.

I'm not saying that every thread here should be political, as there are also social and economic aspects to carfree philosophy, and above all the valuable practical tips that people will come here to read.

this thread got way more play than I thought it would. I can't imagine getting fired up about how somebody else runs their forum.

Honestly, we have THOUSANDS of threads that get posted every day. If you really feel that this thread keeps you from contributing to the forums, I really feel bad- for you. You're the one losing out on the great benefits of being a donating member. But it's all good- there will always be members who feel this forum is a great resource and have tremendous respect for Joe and all he's provided for us. They feel that for the amount they participate, they want to give back. That's all good.

I'm not sure what's being said here. Do you mean that only the opinions of donating members will be respected? That's what it sounds like, but I feel I know koffee too well to think this is what she really means. Koffee's a good mod and a good poster. Joe is a great guy, I respect him a lot, and I'm very grateful to him for providing this venue. But the only reason anybody comes to any internet forum is to read the messages and little essays that are "donated" by the members. I'm sure that koffee was including our posts as well as our financial gifts when she spoke of "donations."

Living Car-Free, Advcocay and Safety, and sometimes even commuting are going to get political sometimes by their very nature, As someone who does post in the P&R forum, it gets a little old to be treated like a tobacco smoker just because I'm willing to tackle complex issues I care about, and make my posts in what is essentially a trash can for the other, "safer" forums. Add that to the fact that most everybody's day-to-day lives are political, whether they know it or not, and you get to the conclusion that a lot of people are just "Nervous-Nellies" about this sort of thing. I think it's lame when people never have opinions on any controversial topics in "real life," Why should it be any different on the internet?

Also, who's delicate eyes are the mods trying to protect here? I mean, I'm fairly certain everyone who posts here is at least a teenager. I thought grown folks were allowed to discuss such things.

this thread got way more play than I thought it would. I can't imagine getting fired up about how somebody else runs their forum.

Perhaps you should try running an internet forum. Then you won't have to imagine.

Of all the different forums I've ever visited, which I admit is not alot but certainly more than a few, BF is by far the most active. Forum moderation here seems like an impossible task, I don't know how they do it.

I for one am tired of all the political crap in the car-free forum. I also found the "America can't win a war" thread distasteful, disrespectful to the fact that many people have been killed, and am glad it was moved.

Mods just keep on moddin'!

I for one am tired of all the political crap in the car-free forum. I'm also glad the "America can't win a war" thread distasteful, disrespectful to the fact that many people have been killed, and am glad it was moved.

Mods just keep on moddin'!

I don't think anyone is arguing about that thread being moved. It was moving the "How much is your car costing you" thread that people have questioned.

I don't see how you can have a "car-free forum" without a certain amount of "political crap". Much of the "political crap" in question is unlikely to be friendly to the present administration or the oil industry. Most car free people are of a more liberal persuasion. I doubt too many Conservative Republicans are riding around on bicycles (Probably not too many Democrats are either though).

Much of the "political crap" in question is unlikely to be friendly to the present administration or the oil industry. Most car free people are of a more liberal persuasion. I doubt too many Conservative Republicans are riding around on bicycles (Probably not too many Democrats are either though).


It's not a question of conservative or liberal. Politics is politics, and it belongs in the politics forum.

It's not a question of conservative or liberal. Politics is politics, and it belongs in the politics forum.

I disagree. The political forum is for general political topics. It is not specific to the politics of transportation (specifically bikes vs motor vehicles). The Advocacy & Safety forum is fairly political and the car free forum is very political. Unless you are poor or live in Manhattan, if you are car free, you are making a political statement.

I disagree. The political forum is for general political topics. It is not specific to the politics of transportation (specifically bikes vs motor vehicles). The Advocacy & Safety forum is fairly political and the car free forum is very political. Unless you are poor or live in Manhattan, if you are car free, you are making a political statement.
Amen.

It's not a question of conservative or liberal. Politics is politics, and it belongs in the politics forum.
There is almost nothing in human life that is not political. Carfree living happens to touch on a lot of current hot-button issues: the environment, global warming, transit policy, taxes and spending, gas prices, simple living, the war, to name a few. Also, as others have pointed out, a lot of people don't want to own a car precisely because of their political and social beliefs. Many carfree people do seem to have progressive beliefs, but luckily there are enough conservatives around to keep things interesting.

I think we have a nice option here. You can tell from the thread titles if the discussion will be political. If you don't care for that sort of discussion, avoid it. That seems pretty simple, and fairer than just trying to ban all political content. If you don't like politics, there are still plenty of great threads about trailers, panniers, gear, bikes, and much more. It seems like there really is something for everybody here. :)

I disagree. The political forum is for general political topics. It is not specific to the politics of transportation (specifically bikes vs motor vehicles). The Advocacy & Safety forum is fairly political and the car free forum is very political. Unless you are poor or live in Manhattan, if you are car free, you are making a political statement.

+1

I posted a rather innocous comment in another forum, and someone responded using profanity for no apparent reason (they hyphenated the F word to get around the filters). I went looking for somewhere at the top or bottom of BF to report what is probably an infringement (if its not, why do they have the filters?), and was suprised that there doesn't seem to be any formal mechanism for reaching moderators.

I disagree. The political forum is for general political topics. It is not specific to the politics of transportation (specifically bikes vs motor vehicles). The Advocacy & Safety forum is fairly political and the car free forum is very political. Unless you are poor or live in Manhattan, if you are car free, you are making a political statement.

No, I'm not. I don't know about you, but I don't see my travelling to work everyday, or travelling to the grocery store or anywhere else I need to go to be a political act aimed at promoting a "cause". I don't see how utilising the most practical transportational option for those trips is a political act either. My decision not to own a car is based on practicality, and the fact that I don't want to worry about the rego fees, the parking, the fuel costs and all the other associated hassles that go with owning a car.

You see, I went through my "I want to change the world" phase some years ago. I came out the other side largely because I realised that the things I do in my everyday life have virtually zero effect on how the world operates. If politcal factors were my motivation for being car free, I would have given up and bought a car years ago. It's this sort of politicising of the simple act of riding a bicycle that drives so many people away from cycling advocacy and indeed cycling generally.

I posted a rather innocous comment in another forum, and someone responded using profanity for no apparent reason (they hyphenated the F word to get around the filters). I went looking for somewhere at the top or bottom of BF to report what is probably an infringement (if its not, why do they have the filters?), and was suprised that there doesn't seem to be any formal mechanism for reaching moderators.

The mechanism you're looking for is the "spam" button at the bottom of the post.

For everyone else in this thread who thinks they've found threads or posts that should be moved to the political forum, I suggest using that to draw a moderators' attention to the matter. Contrary to apparently popular belief, the mods here aren't being paid wads of cash to sit up 24 hours a day and read every single post made on the forum. It's quite conceivable that the threads you're worried about simply haven't been seen.

As far as moving threads is concerned, I really don't see a problem here. As someone else mentioned, you're pretty much damned if you do and damned if you don't as a moderator. Anyone viewing this forum can see the re-direct link which will take you straight to the thread that has been moved, so it's not as if they're impossible to find. This is not censorship in any form. It only becomes censorship when you are totally prevented from participating in the discussions in question. This is not what is happening by any stretch.

No, I'm not. I don't know about you, but I don't see my travelling to work everyday, or travelling to the grocery store or anywhere else I need to go to be a political act aimed at promoting a "cause". I don't see how utilising the most practical transportational option for those trips is a political act either. My decision not to own a car is based on practicality, and the fact that I don't want to worry about the rego fees, the parking, the fuel costs and all the other associated hassles that go with owning a car.


I am not actually car free and neither I nor my wife cycle to work (she takes public transport, I drive our one car). I don't plan to replace the car I have when I get rid of it though.

I see you live in Australia. Things are probably different there, but here in the U.S., non recreational cycling is interpreted by many non-cyclists as a political statement even if not intended. During the Republican convention, many cyclists were arrested just for cycling in Manhattan (including at least one delivery guy).

It seems impractical to divide the car free forum in two for political and practical discussions. It seems easier just to skip over the threads that are uninteresting. If others choose to post to them, I don't see the problem.