Roody

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.

webist

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.

jeff-o

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

Roody

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.

timmhaan

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.

TuckertonRR

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

Roody

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!

timmhaan

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".

LandLuger

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.

powers2b

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

Loooty

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.

Pampusik

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...

gwd

I'd remove the Alarming SUV stats thread.

crtreedude 

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.

Loooty

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.

Guest

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

Brad M

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."

Guest

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

patc

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.

Guest

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: https://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?fa...ral_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

Loooty

Koffee,

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

Will you please clarify?

Thanks

patc

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.


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.

ken cummings

"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.

nick95673

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.

ken cummings

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".