Threads that were closed this SUNDAY

[Pete Serotta]

This is not a test, but I closed some threads that were political (I Think), Wacky and of little interest to most(that is very unscientific), and just a few that are (not here please?)///


Your thoughts and comments are welcome for there is not one good and many bad answers.... I am trying to narrow down the herd of what is "of value" , what is "not of value", and what is "not of value-political"..


THanks


The hard action is not closing threads - the hard decision is what to close and why WHILE AT THE SAME TIME LEAVING TOPICS THAT HELP THE VITALITY OF THE FORUM!! :D :confused:

[Kirk007]

I think it was ok particularly the McCain thread.

Prior to seeing this post, but seeing that the looting of America thread was closed, I was frustrated as I thought the discussion had moved beyond the name calling into some interesting discussion; indeed I think it was touching on points that are central to the debates here and that we need conversations regarding, namely what, if any regulation of capitalism is acceptable/appropriate/required. The NYT article that I linked to was discussing this and 1Centaur's post was very helpful in furthering my understanding/thinking of this issue. Sandy posted as to whether Ray was advocating for a non-capitalist form of government (or something close to that as I recall) and Ray's response was I thought a good clarification of the point he was making. So, I thought that it, like many threads, had taken a positive turn back to usefulness. Maybe it would have continued in an enlightening vein or maybe it would have turned back to Obama this and that - hard to say.

Now having thought about it, maybe it was good to close it due to the earlier political comment. I think in the future, if this is to be the new approach, that closing them as soon as they move into banned content, rather than letting them run, would be preferable. I still think it would be good to clarify, if you can, where the line is.

[Ray]

As I've said many times, its Serotta's sandbox and you can make whatever rules you want to. If there are political threads, I'll keep participating somewhat - more in some than in others. If there aren't I obviously won't. No problem either way.

I was a bit disappointed in the closing of the Looting of America thread for the reasons Kirk007 stated. But like I said, your sandbox, your rules. But why was the thread about deficits left open? It was at least as political as any of the others, with plenty of pissy comments mixed into plenty of reasonable discussion. As with Kirk, just trying to understand where the lines are.

-Ray

[Louis]

Wacky and of little interest to most(that is very unscientific)

Pete,

My only comment regarding this type of thread is that if they are truly of little interest it might be easier to just let nature take its course. Rather than have the mods forced to try to determine what is of sufficient interest and what is not, just let them die on thier own, which should not take very long if indeed very few care to respond.

Louis

[weaponsgrade]

little interest to most

I'm the one who started the iPhone thread which was closed and as best as I can figure out it was decided to be of "little interest to most."

I have to agree with the poster who said that if the thread is of "little interest to most" that it would just quickly die - no intervention needed. I would also disagree that iPhones are of little interest to most. There have been tens of millions of iPhones sold. That certainly doesn't sound like "little interest to most" to me. Just my 2 cents.

[SamIAm]

This is not a test, but I closed some threads that were political (I Think), Wacky and of little interest to most(that is very unscientific), and just a few that are (not here please?)///


Your thoughts and comments are welcome for there is not one good and many bad answers.... I am trying to narrow down the herd of what is "of value" , what is "not of value", and what is "not of value-political"..


THanks


The hard action is not closing threads - the hard decision is what to close and why WHILE AT THE SAME TIME LEAVING TOPICS THAT HELP THE VITALITY OF THE FORUM!! :D :confused:


Thank you, thank you, thank you for this and for introducing me to Kelly Bedford, but more on that later.

[Richard]

With all due respect, now that there is an off topic forum, I think that you should err on the side of leaving threads in.

[csm]

I too was puzzled by the iphone thread getting closed. Iphones and crackberries have been discussed in the past without the threads getting heated.

[johnnymossville]

doesn't really matter, new threads open all the time. :)

[csm]

perhaps Pete is a blackberry fan......

[RPS]

Your thoughts and comments are welcome for there is not one good and many bad answers.... I am trying to narrow down the herd of what is "of value" , what is "not of value", and what is "not of value-political"..

Personally I can say my interest in the forum has diminished considerably as of late – and that’s not a bad thing since maybe I’ll ride more or spend time working on bike and other projects instead. I don’t know if it’s because of format changes or because I’ve already seen/heard/learned most things being shared already and it is therefore becoming boring. Maybe it's natural to move on after a while. Having said that, I think that if you (or Serotta as a company) take this approach of closing some political threads and leaving others open you will make things much worse. Without a doubt it will be seen as unfair, unjust, and heavy handed by many if not most. Participants on the winning side will be upset that the thread was closed as they were making progress, and those on the losing side will be upset because they didn’t get a chance to reply and set the record straight.

Not only do most adults not like being treated like kids even when they misbehave, there is also the issue of perceived moderators’ involvement in political threads being biased. Mature adults won’t put up with the perceived nonsense and in my opinion will stop or reduce posting, which will reduce the "quality" of information and hence the forum.

Like others have said, it’s your forum and therefore up to you. I only recommend you decide one or the other and not try to find a middle ground that isn’t achievable.

[znfdl]

Pete:

Close what you think, that is why moderators get paid the big bucks. ;)

[Tobias]

"Beating a dead horse" comes to mind. :rolleyes:

[Ray]

Participants on the winning side will be upset that the thread was closed as they were making progress, and those on the losing side will be upset because they didn’t get a chance to reply and set the record straight.

Have we ever had "winning" or "losing" sides in these threads? If so, I missed those!

I always saw it as an exchange of ideas that I'd sometimes learn something useful from, or change my perception of something, but I never thought anybody won or lost. I mean, I'm sure we all think we've won in the sense that we think we're closer to right than people who disagree with us. But understanding that everyone probably feels that way, I've never seen a thread where I'd declare a winner or loser. If we're lucky, they end on a note of agreement to disagree, having fleshed out the issues as well as we could.

But I agree with the underlying point about how to moderate political threads. Either allow them or don't. If you do, only close them due to a rash of uncivilized behavior (as you've done in the past and I think have done pretty damn well). But if you just decide to close some and not close some based on your own criteria of what is "relevant" (to what, bikes?), you'll eventually piss everyone off.

-Ray

[Tobias]

I mean, I'm sure we all think we've won in the sense that we think we're closer to right than people who disagree with us.
You think? :rolleyes:

Honestly, has anyone really changed their minds about political anything? I think I'd die if a Democrat suddenly said Obama was an idiot or a Republican said Bush was evil. :no:

[rugbysecondrow]

Sure, I have changed my mind on things. Frankly, if I thought I was 100% right and no amount of discussing would change that, then why bother listening to Ray and others? That is why I read Slate, The Atlantic and other magazines. I probably read more about things I disagree with than with which I agree. I haven't listened to Rush in years, can't listen to Hannity, and O'Reily has gotton old.

I am also intelectually honest enough to say that Clinton was a more conservative President that GW Bush.

What does this all mean? Nothing since it is not my opinion but the moderators.

I think they do a great job 95% of the time, and are flat 5%, which makes them about like the rest of us, human.

[RPS]

Have we ever had "winning" or "losing" sides in these threads? If so, I missed those!

I always saw it as an exchange of ideas that I'd sometimes learn something useful from, or change my perception of something, but I never thought anybody won or lost. I mean, I'm sure we all think we've won in the sense that we think we're closer to right than people who disagree with us. But understanding that everyone probably feels that way, I've never seen a thread where I'd declare a winner or loser. If we're lucky, they end on a note of agreement to disagree, having fleshed out the issues as well as we could.

Ray, more precisely what I meant was not winning and losing in terms of a forum thread discussion but rather winning and losing in real life as it relates to what the subject matter represents. That’s really what makes people get hot and react in ways that leads to aggression in my humble opinion. It’s much more personal than simply disagreeing.

For instance, if we disagree on what is the very best way to gear our bikes, it is unlikely we will get angry over the subject because we can each go do our own thing and it doesn’t affect the “loser”, right? You can continue to use a compact double and I can continue to use a close-ratio triple and each of our choices won’t affect the other person directly. We can each walk away thinking we were right.

On the other hand, if you propose to raise taxes on the “rich” so that the “poor” pay even less, then the implication takes on a completely different tone. If one person’s taxes go up at all so that someone else’s who is already paying a lot less doesn’t even pay that then your “ideology” does affect people in real life terms. It is PERSONAL. He can’t just ignore you and do his on thing without feeling angry that you disagree with him.

Hope that’s clearer. It’s not about disagreeing itself – we do that all the time without conflict. It’s the personal nature of politics that makes it so volatile. But I would agree with you, Tobias, and a few others that believe there is little middle ground. Unless “moderation” rules can be very simple to follow and enforce I don’t see it working.

[Pete Serotta]

Moderation is not simple...I have really looked at ways to clarify it... but I have been unable to. Politics are part of living but RPS has captured it very well on quantifying where it gets messy. (thanks).


OT was other topic - so which topics are ok?? Sports, Family, Finance, World Events, Personal Tragedy? See what I mean....

Plain Cycling Related-does that include drugs, illnesses, equipment including camping, photography, destinations....?


No it is not as easy as putting a rule in writing. A rule must be interpreted and monitored. The interpretation can be view in many different ways.

RPS has hit it dead center.

And even this has an interpretation to it by some

Right vs Left, CNN vs FOX, Howard Stern vs ??, Bush verses Obama.... :confused: :confused: :confused:

I do not have an answer - except to hope SPRING comes VERY VERY SOON!!!

[Ray]

Ray, more precisely what I meant was not winning and losing in terms of a forum thread discussion but rather winning and losing in real life as it relates to what the subject matter represents. That’s really what makes people get hot and react in ways that leads to aggression in my humble opinion. It’s much more personal than simply disagreeing.

For instance, if we disagree on what is the very best way to gear our bikes, it is unlikely we will get angry over the subject because we can each go do our own thing and it doesn’t affect the “loser”, right? You can continue to use a compact double and I can continue to use a close-ratio triple and each of our choices won’t affect the other person directly. We can each walk away thinking we were right.

On the other hand, if you propose to raise taxes on the “rich” so that the “poor” pay even less, then the implication takes on a completely different tone. If one person’s taxes go up at all so that someone else’s who is already paying a lot less doesn’t even pay that then your “ideology” does affect people in real life terms. It is PERSONAL. He can’t just ignore you and do his on thing without feeling angry that you disagree with him.

Hope that’s clearer. It’s not about disagreeing itself – we do that all the time without conflict. It’s the personal nature of politics that makes it so volatile. But I would agree with you, Tobias, and a few others that believe there is little middle ground. Unless “moderation” rules can be very simple to follow and enforce I don’t see it working.
Got it, thanks for the clarification. So when Scott Brown or Obama wins an election or when health care passes, one side wins and one side loses. But most of the time, while we're between these rather momentous events, there are no clear winners or losers and we just muddle along.

-Ray

[Blue Jays]

That's certainly the true beauty of the Off-Topic subfolder.
Anything not about bicycles and bicycling easily goes there and compartmentalizes it.
Any unbecoming behavior observed as spillover from the more volatile threads is very easy to manage.

[rwsaunders]

Pete, Bruce, BBDave, Ben, et al....as long as you're asking, the closings appear to be inconsistent. The "writers thread" didn't seem to be of low interest (380+ views) and it looked to be tame. Decent advice was given to a gent that was sharing his family situation with a group that he seems to value the opinions of....all in the OT thread section, as directed. People took the time to respond and their comments were cut off at the knees so to speak. Respectfully, that is how it appears to me.

Other OT threads that meet your definition of being divisive were closed at the same time. If you're not going to be consistent with your screenings, or it's taking too much time to police, just eliminate OT's altogether as others have suggested and let it be. Most likely traffic will be down and you will free up server space.

Imho, forums that practice a heavy hand, censoring in a subjective manner, limit participation and the sharing of opinions. You will start to develop a group that is subliminally encouraged to agree with each other, for concern that individuals will either be censored or ostracized, in order to participate on the forum. Topics will begin to repeat themselves and the classified section will be the highlight of the forum. Some will leave, most will probably reduce their participation.

I don't get involved with the political threads any more, as they aren't my cup of tea. I do notice however, that they generate a lot of participation by folks who contribute a great deal to the cycling threads. I would think that's not a bad thing.

[Pete Serotta]

rwsaunders, thanks..... for taking the time to add the input.


I am sure not trying to be heavy handed or censor,,,what I try to do is bring things back to a middle ground... The writers thread was not nasty in anyway but then the IPHONE thread was not either (nor was the toshiba thread or tax question thread)

It really gets down to an interpretation of the purpose of the forum and getting folks to "mostly" focus there. Sometimes I also look at the contributions over time of the original poster and also try to assign "value add" to all. (which is very subjective).

Please see my previous posts. You have been here for a long time and that is why your input is so valuable - so please do not take this thread post as a negative.

None of the moderators have extra time and for many of us the last thing we want to do is heavy hand moderate.

I have looked for additional moderators and the folks I have asked do not have additional time and/or do not want to be in the cross hair of second guessing.

Any additional volunteers are welcome. Just send me a note at pete@serotta.com.

THANKS

[SEABREEZE]

Pete, Bruce, BBDave, Ben, et al....as long as you're asking, the closings appear to be inconsistent. The "writers thread" didn't seem to be of low interest (380+ views) and it looked to be tame. Decent advice was given to a gent that was sharing his family situation with a group that he seems to value the opinions of....all in the OT thread section, as directed. People took the time to respond and their comments were cut off at the knees so to speak. Respectfully, that is how it appears to me.

Other OT threads that meet your definition of being divisive were closed at the same time. If you're not going to be consistent with your screenings, or it's taking too much time to police, just eliminate OT's altogether as others have suggested and let it be. Most likely traffic will be down and you will free up server space.

Imho, forums that practice a heavy hand, censoring in a subjective manner, limit participation and the sharing of opinions. You will start to develop a group that is subliminally encouraged to agree with each other, for concern that individuals will either be censored or ostracized, in order to participate on the forum. Topics will begin to repeat themselves and the classified section will be the highlight of the forum. Some will leave, most will probably reduce their participation.

I don't get involved with the political threads any more, as they aren't my cup of tea. I do notice however, that they generate a lot of participation by folks who contribute a great deal to the cycling threads. I would think that's not a bad thing.

I liked the way you put it RW, " People took the time to respond and their comments were cut off at the knees so to speak. Respectfully, that is how it appears to me"

I could not agree more with you, thats exactally what happened to me, and I never indulged in any political threads, nor do I plan to.

[Pete Serotta]

Help me understand...folks could still read it. (after 380 views, please help me with understanding how folks were cut off at the knees.) If it is that important to you all, I will be glad to unclose it. THANKS

I liked the way you put it RW, " People took the time to respond and their comments were cut off at the knees so to speak. Respectfully, that is how it appears to me"

I could not agree more with you, thats exactally what happened to me, and I never indulged in any political threads, nor do I plan to.

[SEABREEZE]

Pete, in my case it had nothing to do with a poltical thread whatsover,or the Sunday closing of threads, but the couple of OT threads you did shut down were unrealed to politics, with plenty of informative dialogue going on in the thread from all members.

I remember one post from a member, he answered my question, but prefixed it by saying, I better not go any further, as of fear the thread may be closed.

I answered him via pm as not to continue the conversation with him in the thread.. and he answered back in a pm. Thats where the forum is at this point. In this case once again unrelated to politics. Its just not comfortable.

[Chad Engle]

Locking threads in the OT forum. :crap:

Some of which were simple discussions, like the one regarding boots, divisive? Hardly.

I don't get it. What's the point of the OT forum? :confused:

Don't they simply go away on their own if no one is interested?

[Kirk007]

Chad's point is I think a valid one. If we are going back to everything in General Discussion then I can see why greater moderation would be required. It was in that context that I thought Pete was asking for feedback.

If an OT section continues then I think a bit more freedom (actually a lot more freedom - I would not ban content rather would curtail inappropriate conduct) is appropriate.

[MarcusPless]

I concur with the posters who question the rationale for closing OT threads in the OT forum that aren't inflammatory...

While (I think) it's safe to say that threads about politics and/or religion are likely to have a low flash point I don't understand closing threads concerning footwear and favorite tools (as recent examples). If you don't want *any* OT posts (for whatever reason, disk space, bandwidth, company policy, bad for business) don't have an OT forum. Rule the General Forum with an iron fist (regarding OT posts) and people will eventually stop making OT posts. I think it will suck a lot of the life out of this forum, but eventually the OT posts will stop. :crap:

--Marcus (who's done a bit of moderating in his day)


Edit: the above is likely irrelevant as I just saw the "preliminary view" thread after posting the above. I've been out of town for a few days...