How do we improve the quality of debate on this site?

[swee'pea99]

Just a casual glance at some of the subjects on this website reveals something less than ideal in respect of the manners and erudition of contributors. I'm not suggesting free and frank discussion should be quashed......but three word responses and expletives in the title don't really seem in the spirit of the great values of the wider Cycling family.

Does anyone have any idea as to how we might improve the quality of debate on this site?

Definitely a distinct whiff of troll about this. Not least on account of three word responses are extremely rare (other than on the 3 word thread), expletives rarer still, and the quality of debate overall is generally pretty high. (Also a tad suspicious that having lit the blue touch paper, the OP seems to have run good & proper.)

 

[slowmotion]

He is quite a good troll. His wind-ups worked.

Do not feed.

 

[Gentleman Cyclist]

.......at the risk of lighting the blue touch paper of one or two (make that nearer thirty to forty!) of the contributors, I do think that some of the responses have raised some interesting viewpoints. Some of the debate around acceptance of diversity in the type of characters and subjects welcomed onto the forum are I feel worthy of further exploration....and at least some of the respondents share this view.

Cycling has since its inception been a force for democratisation...indeed the fact that the rich man and the pauper were able to share its delights was a force for bringing groups together and I am somewhat dismayed that this forum seems to give the lie to that . Were we to be out on our bikes....cycling along in the open air...meeting up with fellow cycling enthusiasts I am sure that we would deal with each other in a far less confrontational way than we do on here? You may well think I looked a utter fool on my Pashley...that my togs are ludicrous......but if I beat you up that hil....there might be a grudging respect......and even if you beat me I bet we'd be able to share a glass of pop together and find something in common? What is it about the internet that seems to allow the blurting out in text of comments one would never utter in the physical presence of another?

I have apologised elsewhere on this forum for posting some of my blog. I genuinely did not appreciate that such thoughts as I expressed on my blog are felt by many to be better limited to only one narrow sphere of influence and not shared more widely.....Although I still don't really understand that if something is worth discussing why should I not raise it in a variety of different fora?..... The BBC run stories that ITV run and put stuff out on a variety of media.....whats wrong with doing something along the same lines (...oh good gracious...someone will now accuse me of being a meglamaniac and thinking of myself in the same vein as the BBC!...NO...No gentle readers.....please not!).

In anycase I have to say I very much value some of the contributions in this series of posts and have taken some comfort from aspects of the support shown. I think the discussion has at times been illuminating....if whilst at others it might actually have proved my point. In fact it has been such an edifying experience I am spurred to blog on one and the same subject but am now confused as to whether this might be seen as permissable by some of the wilder posters on here.

To the more hostile contributors I say "Please recognise that I have no more links to my blog"...even though Shaun has said it is acceptable to put my blog address at the bottom of my posts the truth is I feel so confused by what the etiquette is on here that I feel it might be best to hide the damn thing away.......in the deepest recess of my virtual saddle bag.

Keep spinning Old Beans....keep spinning!

 

[Ravenbait]

Good grief.

Get a grip man.

It's an internet forum, not a literary critique group.

I have a blog. I don't copy and paste entire entries onto here because that would be rude. In fact, other than the link in my sig you won't find a mention of it. Why? Because an internet forum is like a lounge bar where people gather to have idle chatter. It is not a place for soapboxing and, I'm afraid, what you have been doing is soapboxing. While a long-standing member of a forum might get away with soapboxing about a particular topic that's very important and relevant to the board, what you have done is the equivalent of walking into a bar, standing on a chair, and proclaiming your opinions about things in convoluted, flowery and overly-pretentious speech. The immediate question that comes to mind is: "Why should we care what you think?"

We don't know you. Yet you seem to think it's fine to make judgements about this community. A stranger wouldn't walk into a bar where all the regulars were happily chatting, tell them that they need to conform to formal debating principles and expect to be hailed as the best thing since a Shakesperean soliloquy.

You may be that big. You may be that clever. I doubt it. I think you're a troll. But even if you are genuine, and I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt for a few nanoseconds, you haven't given us a chance to get to know you and so you are coming over as, I'm afraid to say, a bit of a self-important tit. Why should you not raise it in a variety of different fora? Because you are acting on the presumption that your judgement about what is and what is not important is correct and that your opinion is the one everyone wants to read.

Hubris. U're doin it kwite well akshually.

Also, notwithstanding my comment above, what's with the random ellipses?

Sam

 

[threebikesmcginty]

I'm one of

 

[threebikesmcginty]

the three word

 

[threebikesmcginty]

posters, haven't got

 

[threebikesmcginty]

time to p#ss

 

[threebikesmcginty]

about all day.

 

[Renard]

Good grief.

Get a grip man.

It's an internet forum, not a literary critique group.

I have a blog. I don't copy and paste entire entries onto here because that would be rude. In fact, other than the link in my sig you won't find a mention of it. Why? Because an internet forum is like a lounge bar where people gather to have idle chatter. It is not a place for soapboxing and, I'm afraid, what you have been doing is soapboxing. While a long-standing member of a forum might get away with soapboxing about a particular topic that's very important and relevant to the board, what you have done is the equivalent of walking into a bar, standing on a chair, and proclaiming your opinions about things in convoluted, flowery and overly-pretentious speech. The immediate question that comes to mind is: "Why should we care what you think?"

We don't know you. Yet you seem to think it's fine to make judgements about this community. A stranger wouldn't walk into a bar where all the regulars were happily chatting, tell them that they need to conform to formal debating principles and expect to be hailed as the best thing since a Shakesperean soliloquy.

You may be that big. You may be that clever. I doubt it. I think you're a troll. But even if you are genuine, and I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt for a few nanoseconds, you haven't given us a chance to get to know you and so you are coming over as, I'm afraid to say, a bit of a self-important tit. Why should you not raise it in a variety of different fora? Because you are acting on the presumption that your judgement about what is and what is not important is correct and that your opinion is the one everyone wants to read.

Hubris. U're doin it kwite well akshually.

Also, notwithstanding my comment above, what's with the random ellipses?

Sam

And here we have an answer which sums it all up. Good reply Sam

 

[Gentleman Cyclist]

I rest my case.

Adieu.

 

[Dan B]

I rest my case.

Adieu.

My money is on an increasingly tedious series of flounces and unflounces in order to say "and one more thing....!"

 

[661-Pete]

Is GC leaving the field? I rather doubt it! GC - the opprobrium you have received has very little to do with having a blog. It's down to your persistent rudeness and contempt for just about everyone else on this forum - and your habit of ignoring everything that's been said on here, which is not an overt attack on your good self. How about reading other sections of CycleChat, just for a change? Not just cherry-picking those comments which you think fuel your own prejudices.

Dammit, Ravenbait has summed it up very well in her post (yep, RB's a 'she' as well, in case you were wondering ). I don't say I agree with her on every single topic here, but I accept her input and I like to think she accepts mine - even when we differ. That's what a forum is!

You know, folks, I sense a faint nuance here, a faint odour... of cheese. Shall I go further and suggest - Emmenthal or Gruyère possibly? Old-timers may wish to ponder this - I may be totally wrong and "Coast"ing up the wrong path here, of course!

 

[Dave Davenport]

'What is it about the internet that seems to allow the blurting out in text of comments one would never utter in the physical presence of another?'

Just for the record; I never say anything on here that I wouldn't be prepared to say to someone face to face.

I'll happily concede that, were I to meet you in person I could well change my opinion of you. But going on you're posts alone, my personal impression is that you're a conceited git.

If that's to much for a Gentleman's honour to withstand, you're welcome to demand satisfaction

 

[dellzeqq]

collectively we may have our shortcomings, but bike snobbery just isn't one of them.

I'll say this, GC. You've missed the point. It's not about aesthetics (although a bit of style goes a long way). It's about mutual support, and affirmation of what, for very many of us, is one of life's greatest joys. That's why, when you come in here all hoity-toity you get such short shrift. Whatever our differences, the great majority of CCers look out for each other. Think on when someone stops to give you a hand with a puncture......