What's the "political" line that must not be crossed?

[William]

Adapted from BBDave's thread: Rant: Bike Fees in National Parks

So, since the proverbial hammer has come down on talking "politics", what is the criteria or line that cannot be crossed? BBDaves Park Fee Rant brings up the first problem. Many of the things that we discuss cross over into the political realm. Helmet laws anyone? I don't have a problem discussing topics that impact us personally cycling wise, or humanitarian wise. It's when it degrades into party vs. party or your guy sucks type of comments that it starts getting out of hand.
BBDaves thread is a good example. Other then, "I think paying fees sucks", and "I don't mind paying a fee", there not a whole lot more in depth we can get with that topic without the fear of getting booted off the forum for getting to "political". The gag is on. I respectfully submit:
*You don't like "OT" threads? Don't read them.
*A thread is too "political" (and what's the criteria anyway?) for you, don't read or respond to it.
*If a thread degenerates into name calling and general nastiness, lock it up and ban the parties involved in the fracas.

Other then that, let the forum run as it has.

William

So, are clincher better then tubulars?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[keno]

The only source of actual guidance for answering your question, William, is the permanent post of Serotta Alyson which sets out the "rules" of the forum under The Forum User Agreement.

While under the heading "The Forum is", the following are relevant:

"For viewing and browsing or for posting civil discussions by Serotta owners and non-owners alike."

"For fun!"

Under the heading "Rules", the following are relevant:

"You warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

"Respect toward fellow members is expected. You agree not to harass, flame, insult, taunt, or otherwise disrespect any member of this forum. In other words, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

The long and the short of it is that there is presently no prohibition against political discussions according to the stated rules of the forum provided by Serotta. Moreover, the OT convention that has come into use, in my view, is as a convenience and showing of respect to readers who would rather be forewarned that a topic is not bike-related. It has been misinterpreted by some to be quite broader, but, in actuality, it appears to me that those who selectively rail against its use are merely expressing personal preferences with regard to posts they disagree with.

In any event, I think that compliance with the guidelines, however broad, set forth by Serotta should be sufficient. We happen to be in a period of particularly great controversy and emotion evoked by Katrina, which will pass. It is somewhat of an aberration and should not be the source of significant change in this forum. For what it is worth, in the law the expression is "hard cases make bad law".

keno

[DreaminJohn]

...by my post count, I generally don't have a lot to say around here although I read just about everything.

I think some common sense and respect for our host should rule the day. BBDave's thread related to cycling (and was even more appropriate if said bike was a Serotta). So are threads about helmet laws. Even the majority of the "OT" threads are awesome, imho.

But your statement:

It's when it degrades into party vs. party or your guy sucks type of comments that it starts getting out of hand.

is the most telling of your post. It is my contention that at this point in our country that any political discussion degrades to that point. Therefore, they should be off limits here.

Just my humble opinion.

[93legendti]

The only source of actual guidance for answering your question, William, is the permanent post of Serotta Alyson which sets out the "rules" of the forum under The Forum User Agreement.

While under the heading "The Forum is", the following are relevant:

"For viewing and browsing or for posting civil discussions by Serotta owners and non-owners alike."

"For fun!"

Under the heading "Rules", the following are relevant:

"You warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

"Respect toward fellow members is expected. You agree not to harass, flame, insult, taunt, or otherwise disrespect any member of this forum. In other words, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

The long and the short of it is that there is presently no prohibition against political discussions according to the stated rules of the forum provided by Serotta. Moreover, the OT convention that has come into use, in my view, is as a convenience and showing of respect to readers who would rather be forewarned that a topic is not bike-related. It has been misinterpreted by some to be quite broader, but, in actuality, it appears to me that those who selectively rail against its use are merely expressing personal preferences with regard to posts they disagree with.

In any event, I think that compliance with the guidelines, however broad, set forth by Serotta should be sufficient. We happen to be in a period of particularly great controversy and emotion evoked by Katrina, which will pass. It is somewhat of an aberration and should not be the source of significant change in this forum. For what it is worth, in the law the expression is "bad cases make bad law".

keno


Under the Forum guidelines, I think you missed some parts that are instructive re: discussion topics:

"This Forum is:

...To discuss Serotta products and anything relating to Serotta products, history, lore, events, etc.
A place for potential Serotta owners to pose questions relating to Serotta products and to gain information from current Serotta owners about their Serotta(s).
For discussion of cycling-related topics
For discussion of bicycle fit-related topics
A marketplace for the sale of cycling products by forum members (not by retailers and manufacturers) ..."


If a thread/post isn't about one of these items (i.e. politics) it would seem to be prohibited, per James' latest thread.

While you say : "...The long and the short of it is that there is presently no prohibition against political discussions according to the stated rules of the forum provided by Serotta...." I think the above section I quoted provides that there is nothing in in the stated rules that allows political discussions. James' thread hammers home this point. Can we please now talk about how I can get a Ottrott DKS?! :)

[keno]

I certainly understand what you are saying.

Unfortunately, under your reading most of all humor, and clearly non-Serotta or bicycle matters (e.g. Sheryl Crow's looks or muscial ability?), as well as many other topics that hardly fit the word or spirit of the language you quote yet seemed to be enjoyed, in general, and not the subject of controversy, would have to go. I don't know if that is your personal preference; it certainly is not my own. I think that your very strict interpretation goes much farther than necessary in order to keep the forum the interesting, spirited, friendly website it has been, with occasional lapses, for the time I have been participating on it

If Serotta decides that there is a list which states what are the only acceptable forum topics, it should be clearly given so we can follow the "rules". (Incidentally, is there something beyond Serotta James's post banning political matters that I have missed?) Otherwise, the occasional policing Serotta James, or whoever holds his unenviable position regarding the forum, might do should be sufficient so as not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

With over 3,300 registered members on the forum, it is contrary to human experience that all would similarly infer what is acceptable under the Serotta mission statement as to the forum.

keno

keno