Why are Threads Being Deleted because Someone Complains

[Angela M.]

Hey all! It's your neighborhood moderator here. Most members here are adults and should know how to debate constructively. There is going to be a difference of opinion, which is healthy, but some find it extremely difficult to refrain from name-calling, passive-aggressive, and insulting comments. EBR lives by etiquette contained here, the main idea is to be kind and ignore if you cannot. When members get out of hand, they are either messaged and/or given a warning and if it continues then they are banned from the forum. Almost every decision that a moderator makes to either edit or remove posts, close a thread, or remove a thread is the wrong decision in somebody's eyes. We do not play favorites, but look at the information given and make the best decision. As iabob mentioned, if a thread requires hours of cleanup just to get it to a healthy standpoint, it would likely be closed. What would even be left after the cleanup? This forum is different than most others out there and some may feel we edit too much and censoring what's been said. That may be possible if those members are not following EBR's golden rule: be kind. We value transparency given about a member's experience with a brand if it's done constructively. The same goes for members having a difference of opinion. Lately, because of current events, there's been a lot of political discussion being brought up in one way or another. We allow political discussion if it's related to e-biking. However, there is a fine line and even the slightest bit of discussion creates other political opinions to arise and the thread ends up being closed because it got out of hand. EBR has a small staff and although others can and do moderate at times, I am it. I do my best to moderate how I see fit and I apologize in advance if I have or will upset you based on my actions.

 

[john peck]

While this part is being treated as an instruction, is doing good even possible?

Not if you have to ask.

 

[Handlebars]

Not if you have to ask.

I think you misapprehended what I said. Asking if doing good while "holding humanity in contempt" is even possible doesn't disqualify anything.
It's called "asking a rhetorical question", john peck
I know and I think you know, that it's very popular with many, to hold humanity in contempt.
May I ask; do you hold humanity in contempt?

 

[Alaskan]

Hey all! It's your neighborhood moderator here. Most members here are adults and should know how to debate constructively. There is going to be a difference of opinion, which is healthy, but some find it extremely difficult to refrain from name-calling, passive-aggressive, and insulting comments. EBR lives by etiquette contained here, the main idea is to be kind and ignore if you cannot. When members get out of hand, they are either messaged and/or given a warning and if it continues then they are banned from the forum. Almost every decision that a moderator makes to either edit or remove posts, close a thread, or remove a thread is the wrong decision in somebody's eyes. We do not play favorites, but look at the information given and make the best decision. As iabob mentioned, if a thread requires hours of cleanup just to get it to a healthy standpoint, it would likely be closed. What would even be left after the cleanup? This forum is different than most others out there and some may feel we edit too much and censoring what's been said. That may be possible if those members are not following EBR's golden rule: be kind. We value transparency given about a member's experience with a brand if it's done constructively. The same goes for members having a difference of opinion. Lately, because of current events, there's been a lot of political discussion being brought up in one way or another. We allow political discussion if it's related to e-biking. However, there is a fine line and even the slightest bit of discussion creates other political opinions to arise and the thread ends up being closed because it got out of hand. EBR has a small staff and although others can and do moderate at times, I am it. I do my best to moderate how I see fit and I apologize in advance if I have or will upset you based on my actions.

I support you in your effort to be fair but also keep the discussion related to why we all participate here. I encourage you to be rigorous in deleting any threads that are outside these clearly understood guard rails. Don't bother trying to micromanage a chaotic off topic thread, teetering at the edge of incivility. Just save yourself and all of us the aggravation...delete it....please

 

[john peck]

So you admit you're wrong ? LOL You said the last 4 years were bad for you . Why ?

NO, & i´m not taking the bait.

 

[Handlebars]

I support you in your effort to be fair but also keep the discussion related to why we all participate here. I encourage you to be rigorous in deleting any threads that are outside these clearly understood guard rails. Don't bother trying to micromanage a chaotic off topic thread, teetering at the edge of incivility. Just save yourself and all of us the aggravation...delete it....please

This leaves you and some others as the effective moderator, simply by offering insulting commentary to start flames, as seen in this thread.
I only show one because it is so handy

Arguing with someone who can make the statement "What is fact, is always opinion." is an exercise in futility. A statement like that is prima face evidence of a weak, undisciplined mind

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Hey all! It's your neighborhood moderator here. Most members here are adults and should know how to debate constructively. There is going to be a difference of opinion, which is healthy, but some find it extremely difficult to refrain from name-calling, passive-aggressive, and insulting comments. EBR lives by etiquette contained here, the main idea is to be kind and ignore if you cannot. When members get out of hand, they are either messaged and/or given a warning and if it continues then they are banned from the forum. Almost every decision that a moderator makes to either edit or remove posts, close a thread, or remove a thread is the wrong decision in somebody's eyes. We do not play favorites, but look at the information given and make the best decision. As iabob mentioned, if a thread requires hours of cleanup just to get it to a healthy standpoint, it would likely be closed. What would even be left after the cleanup? This forum is different than most others out there and some may feel we edit too much and censoring what's been said. That may be possible if those members are not following EBR's golden rule: be kind. We value transparency given about a member's experience with a brand if it's done constructively. The same goes for members having a difference of opinion. Lately, because of current events, there's been a lot of political discussion being brought up in one way or another. We allow political discussion if it's related to e-biking. However, there is a fine line and even the slightest bit of discussion creates other political opinions to arise and the thread ends up being closed because it got out of hand. EBR has a small staff and although others can and do moderate at times, I am it. I do my best to moderate how I see fit and I apologize in advance if I have or will upset you based on my actions.

Hi @Angela M.

Thanks for your thankless work here as a moderator.

We live, unfortunately, in a unique and profoundly difficult time. I do not believe that the old rules necessarily apply and there needs to be a rethink on netiquette in general (*). This board is, obviously, not the appropriate venue to evolve a new netiquette. So we kind of have to make do as best we can. A constructive suggestion, at this point, would be at add language to the policy like so:

These are contentious and difficult times. In order to promote harmony and peace we are temporarily prohibiting controversial topics. Examples of controversial topics will include (but not be limited to) : (1) anything with respect to covid-19, or (2) anything with respect to the 2020 US Elections. Any such posts or threads will be immediately deleted.

(*) When I mentioned "rethinking" netiquette what I specifically meant is that while tolerance and respecting the points of view of others are both very good things, there are reasonable limits. When somebody's "point of view" is dangerous misinformation that can potentially harm others tolerating it is actually giving that person permission to endanger the health and safety of other community members. Obviously that is not okay and such individuals should be metaphorically skinned with a very dull knife.

 

[Handlebars]

Hi @Angela M.

Thanks for your thankless work here as a moderator.

We live, unfortunately, in a unique and profoundly difficult time. I do not believe that the old rules necessarily apply and there needs to be a rethink on netiquette in general (*). This board is, obviously, not the appropriate venue to evolve a new netiquette. So we kind of have to make do as best we can. A constructive suggestion, at this point, would be at add language to the policy like so:

These are contentious and difficult times. In order to promote harmony and peace we are temporarily prohibiting controversial topics. Examples of controversial topics will include (but not be limited to) : (1) anything with respect to covid-19, or (2) anything with respect to the 2020 US Elections. Any such posts or threads will be immediately deleted.

(*) When I mentioned "rethinking" netiquette what I specifically meant is that while tolerance and respecting the points of view of others are both very good things, there are reasonable limits. When somebody's "point of view" is dangerous misinformation that can potentially harm others tolerating it is actually giving that person permission to endanger the health and safety of other community members. Obviously that is not okay and such individuals should be metaphorically skinned with a very dull knife.

So it's about information that can potentially result in harm to others, eh? That is a covering a very VERY wide swath of things said here on ebike commentary.

I do not believe that the old rules necessarily apply and there needs to be a rethink

A mini Great Reset, is that it? Common thread throughout the purge.

 

[DaveMatthews]

I support you in your effort to be fair but also keep the discussion related to why we all participate here. I encourage you to be rigorous in deleting any threads that are outside these clearly understood guard rails. Don't bother trying to micromanage a chaotic off topic thread, teetering at the edge of incivility. Just save yourself and all of us the aggravation...delete it....please

Sign me up.

 

[BigNerd]

Debaters gonna debate.

 

[iabob]

Who was it that said, “Better to remain silent and let others think of you as a fool than speak and remove all doubt”?

 

[Handlebars]

Fixing my statement is completely unnecessary for everyone on the planet except for you.

But you do know that it is not a fact, because you tried weasel out by saying I know what you meant, which means you know there is a problem in your statement. Your appeal to crowd is based on logical fallacy.
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".
You could always TRY to fix it with a couple of words, but you already know you cannot, so you appeal with fallacious reasoning, instead.

 

[Tars Tarkas]

Who was it that said, “Better to remain silent and let others think of you as a fool than speak and remove all doubt”?

And the one about arguing with pigs: You're going to get muddy and the pigs like it.

TT

 

[Handlebars]

Funny how the ones clamoring for decency and truth, are so busy offering insults.

 

[Handlebars]

It's almost like taking a dump in the pool and then yelling for the pool to be closed for sanitation reasons. That's the ticket.

 

[Handlebars]

Debate isn't really possible between people who can't agree on what the facts are.

That is where you find out what facts you can agree on, and proceed from that basis. Let's say you agree on mathematical or statistical principles first. Then everything moves forward.

 

[Handlebars]

I have a fun belief check. Do you believe it is legitimate to state something as fact, when your own calculation shows you it's got only 38% likelihood of being correct? That means, in English, "more unlikely than likely"
Yes or no. Thanks.

 

[Akrotiri]

People who think facts are just opinions are people who can not accept facts.

An example of a fact is: the earth revolves around the sun.

There are very little facts in politics; if any. It’s the very nature of politics which consists of the arts of inclusion & compromise. No group of persons, or tech company employing “fact checkers” or political entity has or should have a monopoly on facts. We’re supposed to disagree and come to a compromise while including all sides and political persuasions. Not censoring those who we deem to be liars or rejecting “facts”. There are no facts in politics.

 

[PDoz]

An example of a fact is: the earth revolves around the sun.

There are very little facts in politics; if any. It’s the very nature of politics which consists of the arts of inclusion & compromise. No group of persons, or tech company employing “fact checkers” or political entity has or should have a monopoly on facts. We’re supposed to disagree and come to a compromise while including all sides and political persuasions. Not censoring those who we deem to be liars or rejecting “facts”. There are no facts in politics.

Thanks, I needed that chuckle. Think a bit harder about your initial " fact" and all the gravitational forces acting on the earth during each circuit.

 

[Akrotiri]

Thanks, I needed that chuckle. Think a bit harder about your initial " fact" and all the gravitational forces acting on the earth during each circuit.

I’m sorry but your statement made zero sense.