Originally Posted by chipcom
DC knows, he was a fly on the wall during all of the moderators discussions concerning A&S over the last few months and took copious notes that he will now provide for us, won't you DC? I've worked with lots of spin doctors dude, you ain't even in the top 100.
No, I don't have access to the mod's PM's, but I did read this from the
VC sticky in A&S:
Originally Posted by Daily Commute
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.
Originally Posted by Brian
That's pretty much it. I was accused of calling all VC threads rubbish earlier. You can have a VC discussion in the VC forum, but if a regular A&S thread turns into a completely off-topic VC debate, that's where it's going. . . .
And this from
chipcom's thank you thread:
Originally Posted by Daily Commute
As long as the regular A&S forums stay free of "anti-VC lunacy" there will be no problems.
Seriously, that is the key. If the Anti-VC'ers want the pro- and anti-VC debate to stay out of regular A&S forums, the anti-VC'ers will have to start showing some restraint in regular A&S threads.
If the anti-VC'ers use regular A&S threads to call ideas they disagree with "lunacy," or falsely accuse people of "worshiping" someone whom they have criticized, they can expect a response. If they support anti-VC positions (striped bike lanes on 25 mph downtown streets, the wholesale adoption of "Complete Streets," etc.), they likewise invite a response from a variety of perspectives.
Finally, name one person in this forum who "worships" Forester. I haven't seen anyone who has uncritically supported him. By contrast, a few of you do seem to "worship" white stripes of paint. (And if this kind of back-and-forth is where you want to take this thread, you're on the way.)
Originally Posted by Brian
DC - thank you.
Originally Posted by chipcom
I'll ask the ignored question again....is the Road Racing subforum of the Road Cycling forum considered a slum or doghouse? Perhaps I should go over there and take a poll, see what the members of that subforum feel so we can understand why they are not a bunch of whiners like we seem to have here.
For chris' sake, you'd think people would be happy the vehicular cycling now has a subforum all to itself that is displayed prominently at the very top of the A&S forum, but noooooo...all we hear is WWWWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!! like a bunch of brats being weaned from their nipples. Sometimes I think this should be renamed the sissy forum, for all the crying and complaining I hear..."oh the bad man called me a name and isn't being NICE to me....MOMMY!!!! How do some of you manage to function in the real world?
My take in two simple words: GROW UP!
This would be a problem if any mention of VC were banned from A&S, but that's not what's going on. If the subforum were used the way you and a few others wanted, it would have the effect of banning half the conversation on issues like bike lanes, facilities, lane position, and "Complete Streets." But VC'ers are participating in A&S threads on those topics right now, and the comments remain. The biggest different is that the discussion is not devolving into name calling ("all we hear is WWWWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!! like a bunch of brats being weaned from their nipples").
To my fellow VC'ers, give this a chance to work. Don't be afraid to voice your opinion in main A&S threads. Just be reasonable, avoid personal attacks (even in response to personal attacks), and stick to the thread topic. This change has the potential to make discussion of VC-related topics much more civil and to prevent a few people from using a heckler's veto to try to shout down arguments they don't agree with.
Edit: Quote from chipcom's thank you thread added.