Forum menu
one which is representative of the views of the mods and STW.
Careful now.
The only people who can say what’s representative of “the mods'” views is each individual moderator, and the only person who can represent the views of STW is Mark. Well, maybe Chipps or other staff. But sweeping statements like that hold no water.
To be clear that's a direct quote from the email they sent me, 'Signed' by The Moderators, and it was written 'we are aware', 'we are keeping an eye on it'
I'm not saying it, and I think I get your point that the mods don't always agree, but I don't personally think there would be much ambiguity over the views of the mods / STW on this issue. Maybe on how to respond, but not the issue.
If someone write something that I wouldn’t let pass in real life I won’t let it pass here.
I've only lost it very rarely when it's been personal abuse aimed directly at me. Strangely never been banned but posts have been deleted, possibly as I had been provoked? Not sure how it works.
I've been on here 17-18 years now. I've changed, the forum has changed, society has changed. Jokes and comments the younger me may have made would be unacceptable now, and I see that as progress, as a society and personally. Not sure I'm fully "woke" yet, but I'm at least semi-conscious. 🤷♂️
I’ve only lost it very rarely when it’s been personal abuse aimed directly at me. Strangely never been banned but posts have been deleted, possibly as I had been provoked? Not sure how it works
I don't "lose it" but do have a say it like it is policy on life. I guess I have done it enough times to have my cards marked, which is fair enough.
I find cougars contributions funny and passionate ie he feels strongly about things. I respect that but then I generally agree with him
The casual msexism that was tolerated and encouraged on here has largely gone and I guess some folk don't like that. tough.
I used to find the sexism on here very annoying ( hence my sabotage of the leering threads)
When I have been moderated on here I have generally deserved it
Yup, angry, bitter, and intolerant, is a fair comment I reckon,
I'd say there's a world weariness, of "here we go again" rather than bitter and intolerant. I don't think this forum is intolerant, I'd characterise it as pedantic, and there are any faults, it's that too many users are too keen to use other's posts as evidence to attack them rather than to listen to other's views or opinions. Throw into that mix those posters who aren't interested in honest debate, rather are just interested in their own self satisfaction and sanctimony, it's really up to the users how the forum is used.
Stupid shit like racism or sexism shouldn't be tolerated of course though, that should rightly be closed down.
I’d say there’s a world weariness, of “here we go again” rather than bitter and intolerant.
I'd agree with that, I like @Cougar 's contributions. I remember a long running thread about a guy getting upset with the cost of maintaining his bike and frequency of repairs needed - he'd had offers of help, supportive advice etc which were all ignored or shot down and eventually Cougar just told him to stop whining about it. It was that eventual "you know what, we've tried to be nice but bollocks to it" which I think is here too.
People have tried to explain why the comments are inappropriate. It's been ignored, doubled down on so yeah, it's going to get called out!
@Cougar - I think your posts since ceasing to be a moderator have been more a reflection of you not having to wear the twin hats of forum user and STW "representative" so the contrast seems stark.
I've been pulled up for (unintended) mistakes, the temptation is to fight back but a walk away from the keyboard puts things into perspective, it's really only my ego that's being bruised. Generally I'll only post something that I'm prepared to say to someone's face.
The forum being "left wing"? Hmm, might not be if those with alternative views who pop up on here had evidence to support their claims otherwise they just appear as mischievous trolls only to disappear when the spotlight is turned up on them. Come on here with views/claims (from whichever side of the political spectrum) that can be backed up and I'll listen otherwise you are just a timewaster.
Don't think sexual harassment is restricted to the road or workplace, here's a thread about lone females in bothies - https://bearbonesbikepacking.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=19450
I remember a long running thread about a guy getting upset with the cost of maintaining his bike and frequency of repairs needed – he’d had offers of help, supportive advice etc which were all ignored or shot down and eventually Cougar just told him to stop whining about it. It was that eventual “you know what, we’ve tried to be nice but bollocks to it” which I think is here too.
I often wonder if some of the forum software needs updating so that 'what do others think' is autoreplaced by 'please tell me you agree with me'
At least we are in agreement that woman on bicycles should not have to have their bottoms pinched (even by well known soap actors - which is what happened to me), should not have male taxi drivers getting out of their cars and shouting sexist abuse (ending in the word LOVE), with male passengers all laughing, after he'd cut me up (I'd screamed), should not have to have drivers picking on the lone woman at the back of a long line of male mtbikers slightly holding up their car, because the driver was too scared to pick on any of the burly riders ahead. The list goes on.
And if you think it's bad being a female on a bike, then try riding a horse. The sexual nature of abuse while out hacking was unbelievable.
My only complaint about how things are moderated here is that dog whistle racism, sexism, and homophobia is allowed to stand. I think people who hold these views have perfected the art of expressing these views in such a way that they have plausible deniability.
I have the view that once or twice can be a mistake or oversight. When you see that almost every one of their posts has some 'joke' or borderline remark then you can safely assume they are bigoted arseholes.
When you tell them exactly what you think of them you will get a warning and most likely a ban.
Like I always say, the mtb community is actually quite small and there's always a chance you'll run into folk from here in real life. I think the dog whistlers should bear that in mind.
I would agree Bruce but its challenged and less prevalent than it was. when I first came on this forum there were regular threads to leer at young womens bodies. No more. thats progress
Thank you all for your candour. It's genuinely appreciated and I'll give it some thought.
On moderation and censorship: we've got half the contributors here complaining about people being censored and the forum becoming an echo chamber, and the other half complaining about disagreeable views being allowed to go unchallenged. To my mind these states are mutually exclusive so I'd perhaps ask: what would you have the moderation team do differently? We can't have it both ways, we cannot simultaneously cry for more moderation and less moderation, that's a nonsense.
I can’t remember exactly what I said, but it was along the lines of, um, it was intended as just a bit of jokey bantz and a compliment to boot, so was hardly sexual harassment, and I’ve had worse myself and not been bothered.
A good test is would you say it, out loud, to your mum / Grandma (or daughter, but most people with daughters have realised just how horrible it is). If you wouldn't say it to your mum, don't say it to anyone you don't know.
Others have put it more eloquently than I ever could but, have whatever opinions you want, just don’t expect others to share them. That goes for everything on any subject matter. If you’re opinion is extreme, out of step with the majority or from a place of ignorance then expect to have it challenged, sometimes robustly. If you don’t like it, tough shit.
Cougar, I honestly love your contributions to the forum and you’re bound to let off steam after having to temper your responses in the past due to your position. That being said I’ve noticed a bit of an entrenched viewpoint from you in a couple of threads recently. A bit of a ‘This is how you should see it’ approach. Historically you seemed more flexible. Ha! You can’t ban me so I might as well go for broke. Something, something, Vegans and bacon
I once got a months ban on here for quoting Ronnie Pickering
I once got a ban for telling the most offensive joke I know. Trouble is I actually learnt the joke on here.
Something, something, Vegans and bacon
Bastard. (-:
Some things I think are immutable. Like, if someone is being racist then I reject absolutely "well, for balance maybe we should hear what the racist has to say..." If we're discussing real people who are affected day-to-day from other people's casual cruelty then I'm going to throw a stake in the ground. This is a hill I will choose to die on. Sometimes people have unpopular opinions, sometimes they're just plain wrong.
If you're referring to something else then I'm not sure what that is, but I'll try to be a little more self-aware. Thank you.
I once got a months ban on here for quoting Ronnie Pickering
In isolation? No you didn't.
Wait, no. "I find that highly unlikely."
Is that better? I think I've grown as a person.
The whole "cancel culture" thing can just do one.
Basically its a load of people with formerly acceptable views that now find themselves on the wrong side of social progress. Just because I choose to disagree with whatever outdated shit you come out with doesn't me you are being "cancelled". If everyone else disagree with it as well, then that's because you espouse shitty out dated views that are now being challenged.
You have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to acquiescence, agreement or indeed an audience.
And honestly people on social media who claim they are being "censored" while on ****ing social media need to fired into the Sun.
we’ve got half the contributors here complaining about people being censored and the forum becoming an echo chamber
I don't think it's censorship that's the primary reason for the echo chamber effect, I think it's a general hostile and intolerant attitude by those who post on political and social issue threads towards those who don't share a stance which fits in nicely with Guardian editorials.
As I have said previously there is nothing imo inherently wrong with wanting to spend time with like-minded people. Although for me personally it's the fact that I am not necessarily with like-minded people which I find reasonably interesting.
And if you doubt that stw has been politically cleansed just take a look at the Starmer thread, over 4 hours ago I posted a post attacking Thatcher's economic and social policies, so far not one single person has come to her defence.
A few years back that would have got an immediate reaction, quite possibly within seconds, as the Tory fan club rushed to defend her.
I don't think the fact that stw has been politically sterilised is in doubt the only question imo is how has this come about.
Of course none of this has anything to do with the fact that a random stranger harassing, for their own entertainment, someone cycling, is completely unacceptable.
For a man cycling the attitude of a small minority of drivers can be both a pain in the arse and intimidating. We all feel vulnerable sometimes on our minimalist form of transport. I have always worked on the assumption that every driver is a potential psychopath who doesn't care if he/she kills me. I can see the advantages of being a white male though.
I think it’s a general hostile and intolerant attitude by those who post on political and social issue threads towards those who don’t share a stance which fits in nicely with Guardian editorials.
Some of those who post
There are plenty who are perfectly prepared to debate in an appropriate way and listen and learn as well as try to convince.....but like everywhere the loudest and most abusive are the ones that stand out.
@cougar FWIW I don't think you're angry so much as just sick of dickheads. You come across as a good guy albeit one that's not going to suffer idiots with a smile because you have to, and why should you? . You do you, just don't let them get a rise from you.
I don’t think it’s censorship that’s the primary reason for the echo chamber effect, I think it’s a general hostile and intolerant attitude by those who post on political and social issue threads towards those who don’t share a stance which fits in nicely with Guardian editorials.
So what's your solution, STW pays for some advertising in the Daily Express? Maybe drag in some fresh young blood from a EDL march? The general complaint here as far as I can see is "there isn't enough unpleasant people on this forum any more."
over 4 hours ago I posted a post attacking Thatcher’s economic and social policies, so far not one single person has come to her defence.
To be fair, it is half 10 at night.
But is this not a weird argument in itself? Have I misunderstood something? In your previous paragraph you were stating that STW isn't generally aligned with your beliefs, "it’s the fact that I am not necessarily with like-minded people which I find reasonably interesting", and in the next you're complaining that you -aren't- being challenged? These are surely at odds unless you're trolling for a reaction or to try and prove a point (or I've catastrophically misread). Which is it?
I don’t think the fact that stw has been politically sterilised
This is not a fact at all, it is merely your opinion and presenting it as a fact is a strawman. Your accusation implies some sort of wilful intent or master plan and I've already explained this once on (I think?) this very thread.
The moderators operate largely autonomously, the only mandate I ever received from the site owners during my entire tenure was "please don't publicly slag off the business." We were categorically never given any political steer, the flavour of the forum is 99.999% on the userbase. There is no agenda, such a thing doesn't exist however much some might like to believe it does, as a moderator I was winging it and basically making it up for ten years and the others still are.
No forum user was ever censored for their political opinions unless they broke the law or were being outrageously offensive. If it were established STW practice to quell such opinion then a) I'd have banned a shitload more people, likely yourself included (and probably me as well) yet here you are complaining about moderator bias and with no recognition of irony that you have free rein to do so, and b) this then wouldn't be a forum I'd want to be any part of any more because look up 'forum' in a dictionary, it doesn't say "a big room where everyone agrees with each other and heretics are thrown to the lions".
This is something I've argued vociferously about, we have to be impartial. And we are. And you know what, Internet squabbles and my own demons aside I'm proud of that, we worked very hard for it and I think we got somewhere. I mean, we had to, right? The suggestion that "the STW forum has something something censorship something left wing right wing Guardian echo chamber" is somewhere between a hopefully innocent misunderstanding and an outright lie for propaganda / point-scoring purposes, and I'm almost offended. STW's moderation team has fought hard to make this humble little corner of the web a better place.
Beyond a few excised bad eggs that I can count on the fingers of one hand, any perceived "sterilisation" has been self-policed as people have realised that unpopular opinions are unpopular. To them I say, the sea is that way ➡ and say hi to PH on your way past.
not going to suffer idiots with a smile
Y'know, that's probably the problem.
I do suffer idiots with a smile, my downfall perhaps is that I often forget to include the smile. I assume people realise this when they don't.
don’t let them get a rise from you.
Members like Ernie, I'm happy to drop the gloves and for them to do likewise with me because we've been around the block with each other, we're old sparring partners and both understand the terms of engagement. Uh, I hope?! For all the public pseudo-arguments I'd happily go for a pint with them, I'd relish it in fact.
I think however that I need to recognise that other people exist who aren't like Ernie and lack that history.
Personal opinion:
I make no secret of the fact that I hate tories.
But I'm happy to discuss anything with anyone, provided it's actually a discussion and points raised are accepted and addressed on both sides.
I remember the 'old days' on here when an opposing opinion would lead to intimations of violence.
In fact, I think my second or third ever post made Ernie react in that manner. 🙂
I've never been banned, or threatened with a ban, although I have had posts removed (And rightly so. I suggested the world would be a better place if all tories were hanged from lamp posts. Sorry about that).
We've all moved on, for the better I hope.
I kinda think that about 'people' sometimes. Too much time and not enough ****ing lamp-posts.
The older I get, the less tolerant of bullshit I get.
But I'm also less likely to argue about it on here.
And, despite everything, I do miss some of the more robust characters we used to have - I know there are lots of very legitimate reasons why he was banned, but Fred was always fun to discuss things with. He responded to points raised and engaged well, even on the most contentious of subjects.
On the other hand, the last lot of right wing frothers (the one named after his yacht and his little friend) just shat in the pool and retreated to a safe distance.
No fun at all.
Have no idea why you are misrepresenting what I have said Cougar, perhaps it's because you haven't read my post properly.
Firstly I have made it clear that my remarks are an observation, I am not complaining. I couldn't give a monkeys if stw is an echo-chamber of like-minded opinions or not. I don't know why you think making an observation must mean complaining, especially when I've made it clear, more than once, that it's not a problem for me. Why would it be?
Secondly I have said that I don't think the reason for the echo-chamber effect is censorship. I talked instead about a hostile and intolerant attitude, theotherjonv got that why didn't you?
Finally I am not "complaining" that I wasn't challenged concerning my Thatcher remarks, seriously did you think I was? I was observing that I hadn't been challenged over my criticism of her.
For me it's a clear fact that the political makeup of the forum has changed, even if you want to dismiss it as merely my opinion.
For me as someone who had a fairly long absence the difference is stark, you don't appear to have even noticed.
And for my last 'finally', I don't wish to dissect your comments but this one:
The general complaint here as far as I can see is “there isn’t enough unpleasant people on this forum any more.”
Is that really how you see it? Anyone who has a significantly different opinion to yours must by definition be an unpleasant person? Anyone who supports brexit, or Boris Johnson, or the Tory Party, must by definition be an unpleasant person? That is really sad, especially as they make up a significant proportion of the population - although obviously not on stw.
For me it’s a clear fact that the political makeup of the forum has changed, even if you want to dismiss it as merely my opinion.
How do you think it has it changed?
Anyone who supports brexit, or Boris Johnson, or the Tory Party, must by definition be an unpleasant person?
Personally, I think anyone who votes or supports Boris Johnson or the tories is an unpleasant person, yes.
Brexit? Not so much.
A long, long time ago..
DezB said
The only good thing about this is that the “me too” generation, for want of a better description now have to confidence to confront the sexist morons AND report it. That has to be a change for the good I reckon.
I agree with this.
I remember the ‘old days’ on here when an opposing opinion would lead to intimations of violence.
In fact, I think my second or third ever post made Ernie react in that manner
Sorry Rusty I have read that several times and can't make any sense of it at all, I have even looked up "intimations" in case I was confused about its meaning.
I have no idea what you are talking about. You appear to be suggesting that I threatened violence (apologies if I misunderstood)
There is zero possiblity of that. Apart from the fact that it's not my style I simply can't get worked up by the opinions of a random stranger that I have never met. I know some people are offended by other people's opinions, I tend not to be. Tbh I tend not to be offended full stop.
Edit : I almost felt offended a couple of weeks ago when I thought I hadn't been invited on a bike ride (it turned out that I had) I didn't feel the need to fight anyone though.
It was about hunting Ernie.
You threatened to treat anyone who disagreed with you in the same manner that hunters treat their prey. With violence.
There is zero possiblity of that. Apart from the fact that it’s not my style I simply can’t get worked up by the opinions of a random stranger that I have never met. I know some people are offended by other people’s opinions, I tend not to be. Tbh I tend not to be offended full stop.
Your memory is wrong.
Care to answer the question?
How has the political makeup of the forum changed?
Have no idea why you are misrepresenting what I have said Cougar, perhaps it’s because you haven’t read my post properly.
Entirely possible, it's not intentional if I have.
I am not complaining
OK, that's fair. You appear to me to be presenting two self-contradictory views. Is that a more accurate somethingion?
it’s a clear fact that the political makeup of the forum has changed, even if you want to dismiss it as merely my opinion.
Prove it. It's not a clear fact, it's your opinion.
Regardless, fact or opinion, my inference from your posts was that you were saying that the shift you allege is by design. It that wasn't what you were suggesting then I apologise. If it is then you're wrong.
Anyone who supports brexit, or Boris Johnson, or the Tory Party, must by definition be an unpleasant person?
Well.
You've dragged in non sequitur arguments from other threads in order to point score and potentially derail the discussion so well done there but, is that statement wrong?
Ruling out "ignorance" as a motivation, can you show me a pleasant brexiter? A pleasant Boris supporter? A pleasant tory? I've spoken with a lot of them over the last five years and, generously, pleasant ones are thin on the ground.
"By definition" of course not, that would be a ludicrous rash generalisation and I'm not going to fall into such a lazy trap, but the odds are indubitably in my favour.
I know there are lots of very legitimate reasons why he was banned, but Fred was always fun to discuss things with
In public perhaps.
It was about hunting Ernie.
You threatened to treat anyone who disagreed with you in the same manner that hunters treat their prey. With violence.
No I didn't because there is no possibility that I would ever threaten violence to some stranger on the internet who's opinions I didn't agree with.
You mentioning hunting has got me wondering what I might have said though. It's definitely a topic which I would feel strongly about, so you might be onto something.
Maybe I made a comment along the lines of how would you like to be hunted down? Although that in itself doesn't sound like the sort of comment I would make. It's difficult to know the context without seeing the post.
Do you hunt then Rusty? Did you report my post? The threat of violence would have definitely got me a ban. I can safely say that none of the bans which I received over the years have been for threatening violence.
Edit : I think all my bans have been for being sweary. Which was fair, often forgot where I was
(For the record:
For all that I may sometimes have an assertive debating style, I do not ever intentionally misrepresent people or their posts.
I am however fallible and I promise that I will endeavour to hold my hand up if I've screwed up, and I welcome people's steers here. I want to be better.)
The threat of violence would have definitely got me a ban. I can safely say that none of the bans which I received over the years have been for threatening violence.
An _actual_ threat of violence would've certainly got you a ban. Potentially a life ban depending on context. A throwaway comment that could be interpreted that way if you tried hard enough would not. The mods are real people, not a Gatso camera. They aren't silly.
Hand on heart I can say that during my tenure we made mistakes but the vast, vast majority of warnings and bans were fair and justified because we peer-reviewed each other and overturned any questionable calls. As recently as today I read "I was banned for a month because of some minor infraction..." no, no you weren't. That just wouldn't happen because if it did the rest of the mod team would kick it to the kerb. Banning people only happens either as a result of a major problems we can't ignore like racism, or persistent cockery after ignoring repeated warnings to desist. It's a last resort option. No-one ever got "banned for a month just because of..." anything ever, it's a distortion of the truth, unless you're talking about pre-hack days in which case a) it's before my time and b) that's well over a decade ago so get over it. Tuition fees, Iraq war.
Anyway. What specific interaction either of you two are referring to, I have no idea.
can you show me a pleasant brexiter? A pleasant Boris supporter? A pleasant tory?
Yeah I've met many pleasant people with political views which are very different to mine. Including, you will be shocked to hear, Daily Mail readers.
It's a funny ol'world, innit?
I know nothing of what went on behind the scenes and thus have no opinion on the matter.
My comment was not in any way judgemental.
No I didn’t because there is no possibility that I would ever threaten violence to some stranger on the internet who’s opinions I didn’t agree with.
You mentioning hunting has got me wondering what I might have said though. It’s definitely a topic which I would feel strongly about, so you might be onto something.
Maybe I made a comment along the lines of how would you like to be hunted down? Although that in itself doesn’t sound like the sort of comment I would make. It’s difficult to know the context without seeing the post.
Do you hunt then Rusty? Did you report my post? The threat of violence would have definitely got me a ban. I can safely say that none of the bans which I received over the years have been for threatening violence.
Do I hunt? No. But I fish and used to shoot.
No, I didn't report your post. With hindsight, I should have.
You threatened me with violence.
Some stranger from the internet who’s opinions you didn’t agree with.
I remember it very well as it was one of my first posts on the first internet forum I joined.
can you show me a pleasant brexiter?
Yeah I’ve met many
*looks around*
So "no," then?
I've met many unicorns.
Ernie, I'm happy to accept your explanation.
Perceptions differ over time.
Now, are you going to answer the question or not?
As recently as today I read “I was banned for a month because of some minor infraction…” no, no you weren’t. That just wouldn’t happen because if it did the rest of the mod team would kick it to the kerb.
As I've said before, I was banned in the time it took to post a comment, re-read it, realise a big swear had been missed by the filter then hit the edit button. I appealed by email, apologising profusely for my error and got nothing in reply.
Then the next time I got another long ban for challenging Mark over the sales board. Perhaps wasn't the best challenge but definitely not worthy of a blanket ban for everyone else that got caught in that mess.
Maybe that's how you saw and did things but clearly not all the mods did or do.
Anyway, this is even further off topic than the other thread that got closed without reason or warning, partly to blame so sorry.
10
A long, long time ago..
Leave me the **** out of this circle-jerk bullshit, ta very much!
Interesting how a thread that started because someone commented on someone's arse is now entirely composed of some people commenting that some other people are arses.
can you show me a pleasant brexiter? A pleasant Boris supporter? A pleasant tory?
I know a couple of people who voted for Brexit based on the £350m for the NHS "promise". They're not inherently racist, they're generally pleasant and polite people - you could maybe accuse them of being a bit thick or not doing due diligence or not thinking things through properly but they're not frothing gammons waving union jacks and banging on about immigration.