Agreed.

Ok then. I'm sure someone has forwarded this PM to you already, but here goes:

Joe, and then IB have been more than generous in allowing members to design and sell their own bf.net branded clothing. But that design is not promoting the forums, and it is being sold by someone that has not purchased advertising either. We don't allow non-advertisers to sell their wares in other forums, so why should we allow it in SoCal?

There are answers to both of those questions. Would it be helpful to answer publicly?

One thing to look at when the subforum started was the active encouragement of members to get other socal forum members to pay for their membership on bikeforums.net.

Look at the number of red stars from regular posters and go into other subforums and I can say that this forum has a higher percentage of paying members. This should be taken into account.

I wholeheartedly agree, I think.

Ok, you know what? That's a logical explanation. So much of what's gone on today could have been avoided, I think, had that explanation been posted earlier for all to see. But that didn't happen, and we've been left with a lot of BF members scratching their heads in confusion or frustration at the seemingly random and nonsensical removal of threads related to that topic.

It's the same argument all the time. There are people who don't like to be moderated, or disagree with the degree of moderation.

Fine.

Set up your own forum. But, don't badmouth BikeForums when you do. There are boards out there where badmouthing and poaching members are things which would get members banned from those boards. Hasn't happened here.

You can make a choice. Either try and make THIS forum and THIS community better by your presence, or make a better community somewhere else.


East Hill

3 red stars in a row

???? I don't get it...

....but no one is profiting from the sale of these jerseys, except the jersey manufacturer.

Are you saying that these jersey manufacturers must be paid sponsors?

There was, in fact, a HUGE drive in the SoCal forum to get red stars. Luckily, I had mine already when the forum was created.

You're dealing with a corporation now, my friend. Who actually profits doesn't matter; what does matter is that BF is not profiting from them. At least with BF branded jerseys they get advertisement which may bring more users who may purchase a red star.

Sorry but allowing people to spend their own money to advertise your brand cannot be categorized as "generous".

The jersey deal is no different than the many, many group buys that are allowed across many forums. No one is "selling their wares".

I was planning on buying in home in Santa Barbara with my jersey profits..

no one profits from this other than the same company who would have produced the bikeforums branded jerseys. so tell me how this works again?

As I said above, BF branded jerseys are advertisements which could bring in more users who might buy red stars. Generic SoCal jerseys do not have that little "perk."

Then how should these jerseys be designed and sold?

Remember, I'm just hypothesizing in an effort to better understand what's going on here. I'm not part of BF administration, I just have a red star.

But I would say... slap BikeForums.net on there somewhere visible.

*shrug*

Actually, that was the work of a single member who no longer posts. Back then, donations allowed Joe to enjoy things that many folks here take for granted, like lunch. Over the years, I'm sure he was out of pocket quite a bit, and had to put that money towards hosting.

Right. Because someone started a thread to complain and use profanity, rather than just ask. And that started the cycle. Threads like this attract a mob mentality, and never have a happy ending. They also accomplish nothing.

As I stated in my previous post, the stars are not as critical as they once were. But getting the name out there is important. At Interbike, I was surprised at the number of marketing guys that had not heard of the site. Even if they have no intention of advertising, this site can certainly be a resource for anyone in the industry, not just end-users.

Nope. Nor is it desirable. That would mean a "Stepford Wives" type of community, marching in lockstep.

The conflicts we see here are perfectly natural in a non-homogeneous community. The only way to prevent them would be to ratchet up the moderators' duties to monitor every post in real-time, and delete potentially troublesome posts on the spot.

It might be surprising, but in some contexts, that heavy-handed approach actually works quite well. It keeps the content focused on the topic, and the discourse civil. (For an example, check out chowhound.com). I don't know that that is the right approach here, though.

The other extreme is the Wild West, no holds barred one. Individuals are left to work out their differences, while the mods duck behind the saloon bar. But I'm sure that isn't appropriate here, given structure of the business model, as I vaguely understand it (paid corporate advertisers, i.e.).

The middle ground is to have moderators acting as they do here, and setting the tone based on their best efforts to divide right from wrong. Being humans, with biases and fears and insecurities like the rest of us, their individual points-of-view will skew the content here. Pleasing everyone isn't an option, and trying to do so will only create more confusion. I'd rather see a consistent moderation policy that annoys me but has some internal logic, than a muddled one whose logic perplexes me.

What I keep wondering, though, is: what exactly is it about conflict that people find so offensive? I mean, I've been called many unflattering things here, and I've not felt harassed or stalked. I just consider the response, consider its source, and evaluate whether it has merit or not. Sometimes the criticisms are quite valid, even if harshly worded, and I change my way of thinking.

Care Bears and CandyLand, the internet ain't.

Hi everyone!!

The following is my heartfelt response to this thread. This is coming from me as Siu, not me as a mod right now.

Just sayin'...in regards to this https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...9&postcount=26 The way I see it, Brian was saying IF SoCal gets closed, then the threads would remain open for those to see because it will answer the questions as to why it would be closed.

I think that would be fair, right? I mean. To just shut it down and make it disappear would leave a lot of people with a questions pending.

SoCal has proven to be a wonderful place for those to organize rides, meet and form really cool friendships. And it sucks when there is friction between people and all the negativity comes into it. People get torn, feelings are hurt and it's just not a very nice place to visit. I know that not everyone can get along but when it gets really bad to where the regular members choose to leave, then a lot of people get to wondering why.

Sometimes a bit of a break from it all could prove good for the well being of everyone. I'm not saying this is going to be shut down - I honestly don't know that. But the people here are what makes this forum along with the moderation staff. And I believe that everyone here wants to keep it open. And keep it friendly and fun, don't you agree?

You guys know that I hardly come here. But there are a few of you who I know and chat with a bit. And those people that know me a bit are really fun and I enjoy talking to you. I just hate it when there is friction.

We have to remember that not all of us will agree or get along because of our differing views on things. And if we allow each other that, then harmony will never cease.

That's a very typical, but poor, viewpoint for an administrator/moderator to take -- "I shouldn't have to explain, the users should just ask nicely when I flex my administrative muscle." It's also not good for customer service. In my 20 year career, I've taken that stance several times and that is what makes things not have a happy ending.

Do you think the thread you referenced would have started in the first place had you made a post to the tune of what you posted above? "Sorry, guys, I removed that thread because we don't allow blah blah blah..." It's all about communication to your customer base; not doing so is what starts the mob mentality. "The mods deleted my thread for NO REASON!" "Yeah, they did! Stupid mods!" "No doubt, what's up with that!?" And so on and so forth.

There's no reason to conceal or not explain your moderative actions. You've already got a thread that explains the reasoning behind each user ban that you have to enact. It would be a simple task to make another one for thread deletions/censors/whatever, and I tell you true it would make a WORLD of difference.