Should we?

[martin]

Ban users who have multiple handles and use them to flame/troll the forums?

You decide...

[allencb]

Ban users who have multiple handles and use them to flame/troll the forums?

You decide...
Yes. That's SOP on just about every forum I've ever been a member of.

Chris

[martin]

Ban users who have multiple handles?

What I mean:

User A - a regular contributor to the site creates a second handle "User B" with different eMail address and sporadically posts - even replies to his/her own posts and threads;

Other users have no idea that User A and User B are the same person; the culprit gets a kick when he sees others going at it to posts he made using his handles;

It's happened before, it's happening now; Admins can easily tell who is who; Generally we let it go, but with the recent slew of SPAM and inflamatory posts we need to make something happen and take MORE control of our forums.

It's OK to be anonymous, but the above is plain and simple a bunch of BS...

You decide...

[drewdane]

Ban users who have multiple handles and use them to flame/troll the forums?

You decide...
We have some? I guess I'm just not that sharp about these things...

[Mr. Cogswell]

Ban users who have multiple handles and use them to flame/troll the forums?

You decide...
I vote yes to ban those who are flaming/trolling as long as that is really what they are doing. Posting things that some on this board do not understand like an inside joke is NOT flaming/trolling. Some of us have alter egos we use to escape being spied on by non-MORE members who lurk in the shadows.

IMO, sensorship should be used sparingly, wisely, and as a last resort.

[drewdane]

We have some? I guess I'm just not that sharp about these things...
I'm not allowed to edit in this thread for some reason. Anyway, I just stumbled across "The President", so I guess there are!

[hophead]

I think we should ban avitars of weird one eyed creatures, cartoon images, and stuffed animals.

[bacalhau]

I vote YES.
This website is not about confrontation, neither is the MTb " philosophy". If you don't have the guts to face the consequences of your actions and words, then you might as well remain quiet and motionless :)

[hophead]

I'm not allowed to edit in this thread for some reason. Anyway, I just stumbled across "The President", so I guess there are!
I don't get it. What was so offensive about "The President?" I thought it was pretty damn funny. I thought it was even funnier how many people thought I was "The President." Lighten up folks!

Oh, and add dancing cats to banned avitars.

[drewdane]

I don't get it. What was so offensive about "The President?" I thought it was pretty damn funny. I thought it was even funnier how many people thought I was "The President." Lighten up folks!

Oh, and add dancing cats to banned avitars.
I didn't find th' prez offensive - that's just who I stumbled across right after posting up that I wasn't aware of a problem with this.

Also, ban avatars attesting to the poster's alcoholism. Sets a bad example for th' kiddies, don'tchaknow...

[blacknell]

Socks can occasionally be funny. The President was sorta funny. Unless there's some flame war going on, or someone is otherwise disrupting the conversation with a sock, I'd leave it alone.

[werace424]

I liked "The Prez". If done in humor I think it is cool. If trolling and being just plain nasty, then yes. But I do believe that it should not be done with a first offense or just for sensorship. Repeate offenders, YES.

Can ones like "The Prez" be deleted after the joke is over and the thread has "passed on"? I am sure user accounts use a fair amount of web space.

Should user accounts dormant for a certain amount of time, (2 years?) be deleted as well?

Thanks,
Paul

[hophead]

I didn't find th' prez offensive - that's just who I stumbled across right after posting up that I wasn't aware of a problem with this.

Also, ban avatars attesting to the poster's alcoholism. Sets a bad example for th' kiddies, don'tchaknow...
Guinness is an energy drink! :D

[bacalhau]

I don't get it. What was so offensive about "The President?" I thought it was pretty damn funny. I thought it was even funnier how many people thought I was "The President." Lighten up folks!

Oh, and add dancing cats to banned avitars.


LOL...
...uhhhh... how much did Guiness paid you doing advertising for them ?
...but I do agree, Guiness is an energy drink :D

[hophead]

LOL...
...uhhhh... how much did Guiness paid you doing advertising for them ?
...but I do agree, Guiness is an energy drink :D
You'll always find plenty of Guinness and little chocolate donuts on my training table.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/26266/john_belushi_donuts_of_champions/

[yueq]

I vote "no". I so far haven't seen anything really disruptive to the forum (other than the spams).

[Brizn]

I vote 'no' as well.. unless posts border on harassment.. in which case: different story. Edit: for example, i tend to like HelmetOptional's posts.

[Squirrel Girl]

I'd deal with the problem on a troll by troll basis. We don't have too many trolls, I don't think.

Mr. President? A troll? Surely not........

[martin]

I don't get it. What was so offensive about "The President?" I thought it was pretty damn funny. I thought it was even funnier how many people thought I was "The President." Lighten up folks!

Oh, and add dancing cats to banned avitars.

You've got it all wrong; It's got nothing to do with The President. What was fond offensive is users who register and post under different handles pretending to be someone else; There are already plenty of anonymous users on this board - which is all fine and dandy - but when the anonymnous users have three different handles...

I can, but won't, name several users on this board who have done this; There have been several users who have even gone so far as to start threads and then replied to them as if there where different users involved in a converstaion.

After getting several reports - and phone calls about the "political" nature of the "President" thread I made a decision - unpopular it seems - but a decision nonethelss. Someone has to...

99% of the time things go uninterrupted because I and the other admins/mods, like everyone else, want our opininon respected. But, I'll say this again: This site is about Mountain Biking in the Mid-Atlantic Region. I (and surley you) don't want to log in looking for advice on breaks, or where the next ride will be and find myself reading someone's tirade about the war, or abortion or any other discussion point that has nothing to do with MTBing. There are lots of other places on the web for that...

I don't think twice about deleting SPAM, offensive posts OR merging the multiple handles of one user; I always contact the user in question and ask him/her to choose. I could do otherise and simply merge everything into the "newest" handle...

This poll, thread is to give us an idea where other users in the board stand on the subject and will hlpe me (and other admins/mods) make judgement calls when they need to be made.

Oh, and BTW, nothing offensive with the dancing cat.

[Squirrel Girl]

Interesting, Martin. Now you've prompted me, and I figured out at least two people who have multiple personalities.

Full disclosure: I created an alter-ego the other day, but that was to figure out if others could see my signature when I couldn't (they could!). It's for testing purposes and I didn't post with the other acct.

On the caving forum, there's one woman who keeps taking on alter-egos, and pretending she's someone else. I don't understand it. But she was serial, not parallel.

Anyway, one time she picked a male, non-US person who faked that English was a second language for her/him/I mean.... Several of us ganged up and outted her. It's one thing to decide to be anonymous, but it's another to pretend to be someone and something you're not. Now she's an American female with an alternate name, but she didn't do a very thorough job hiding her identity and I think most of the regulars know who she is.

Anyway, I don't think I'd recommended banning these people. But I think outting them can be a good idea, at least sometimes. If they're nasty troll, then they deserve what all trolls get.

[jabberwocky]

In most every forum I frequent, having multiple handles is expressly forbidden (and on some forums will get both handles insta-banned).

Now that you bring it up, I cannot for the life of me find our forum rules. :o

I vote 'no' as well.. unless posts border on harassment.. in which case: different story. Edit: for example, i tend to like HelmetOptional's posts.HelmetOptional has settled down somewhat. He has posted a few things in the past that would have earned himself a temp ban had I been a moderator at the time (insulting other users on the forum, etc.).

I still get the impression that someone is playing a joke on all of us though.

[hophead]

This site is about Mountain Biking in the Mid-Atlantic Region. I (and surley you) don't want to log in looking for advice on breaks, or where the next ride will be and find myself reading someone's tirade about the war, or abortion or any other discussion point that has nothing to do with MTBing. There are lots of other places on the web for that...

I agree that this site is about mtn. biking and that is why MORE exists. However, mtn. biking is not all that we do. Some of us wish is was--ahhhhhhhhh in a perfect world. :) Mountain biking is a common thread that we all share, but I don't believe that mtn. biking topics are all that we should be discussing here. Isn't that why there's a chit chat forum? Yeah, there are plenty of other places on the web to discuss anything from politics to butter vs. margerine, but those discussions are primarily with strangers who share nothing. Why bother?

What's wrong with politics anyway? Ummmmmm, let me rephrase that: What's wrong with political discussion? As long as things remain civil, I don't see a problem. Political discussion is good. Arguing is good. It keeps you sharp and if you have an open mind, sometimes you even learn something.

Dirt Rag had an issue with politics infiltrating various threads and they solved it by creating a "politics" forum. I don't think there is enough political discussion to warrant one here, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Brizn]

I agree that this site is about mtn. biking and that is why MORE exists. However, mtn. biking is not all that we do. Some of us wish is was--ahhhhhhhhh in a perfect world. :) Mountain biking is a common thread that we all share, but I don't believe that mtn. biking topics are all that we should be discussing here. Isn't that why there's a chit chat forum? Yeah, there are plenty of other places on the web to discuss anything from politics to butter vs. margerine, but those discussions are primarily with strangers who share nothing. Why bother?

What's wrong with politics anyway? Ummmmmm, let me rephrase that: What's wrong with political discussion? As long as things remain civil, I don't see a problem. Political discussion is good. Arguing is good. It keeps you sharp and if you have an open mind, sometimes you even learn something.

Dirt Rag had an issue with politics infiltrating various threads and they solved it by creating a "politics" forum. I don't think there is enough political discussion to warrant one here, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.Great post. Margarine.

[crashmore]

I dunno I'm kinda with Martin on this one. I'd rather not see it on this board. I ride to relax and escape that kinda garbage. I'd prefer not have to deal with the political rants on here....

As far as sock puppets go.. I'm not a fan. I too have noticed the recent increase and as an admin I know who is who. It actually just leaves me scratching my head as to why anyone would bother...

I'm personally in favor of banning these dupe accounts. If nothing else it litters the user database with a bunch of needless junk.



What's wrong with politics anyway? Ummmmmm, let me rephrase that: What's wrong with political discussion? As long as things remain civil, I don't see a problem. Political discussion is good. Arguing is good. It keeps you sharp and if you have an open mind, sometimes you even learn something.

Dirt Rag had an issue with politics infiltrating various threads and they solved it by creating a "politics" forum. I don't think there is enough political discussion to warrant one here, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.

[jabberwocky]

As far as sock puppets go.. I'm not a fan. I too have noticed the recent increase and as an admin I know who is who. It actually just leaves me scratching my head as to why anyone would bother...

I'm personally in favor of banning these dupe accounts. If nothing else it litters the user database with a bunch of needless junk.I'm in favor of banning the dupe account too. Its just bad form to do that. If the dupe account was used to stir shit up in the forum, I'm in favor of banning both accounts. Let them start over.

[martin]

Hop,

you have a valid point and part of the reason we created the Chit Chat Forum was to take non- mtb related topics out of the pit an other areas of the site;

I am neither censoring or telling you what you can or cannot post - I generally act after other users have contacted me with concerns; or, if a certain post is vehemently offensive.

If you want to talk politics in the chit chat forum knock yourself out, but, the minute it becomes confrontational or disruptive I will not hesitiate to close, delete or prune the posts and threads - regardless of weather or not other users contact me about it.

Managin this forum is already a time consuming endeavor, and I honestly don't want to have to invest more time to police and moderate political rants between users. I'd rather be out on the trail, enjoing a ride with another member.

Martin

[DKEG]

Just let everyone where I am coming from before I get started. I am The President. I created the ID as a joke. Not to troll or flame, If you follow the thread Markie and I began a playfull discussion. I thought (and still think) it would be funny to have the President to join in the discussion and bust Markie's chops. As if the President would really post up on MORE. I should have put my real ID under the avatar. And then I would have only been accused of being distasteful. I did not think or intend the thread to devolve into a full blown political discussion. I think I have learned that my sense of humor does not translate well from real life into cyber space. I think alternate ID's can be fun. If done right.

If you want to ban me then go ahead. I have been warned and the point was taken. I would go into it more but I have to go to work.

[liznotter]

I'll be upfront too, I have an altar ego, created just for fun and to see if it could be done.

In support of Mr. President (wow, never thought I'd say that....), he was clever, funny and completely harmless. What's wrong with leaving the altar-egos alone as long as they don't bother anyone?

A couple of points:

1. It's not fair to retroactively apply new community standards. If you merge all multiple identities, it will affect old posts.

2. Standards need to be applied fairly... Crashmasta gets spanked for a couple of very clever posts, while Helmet trolls thru on a regular basis and nothing happens. Hard to understand.

3. While we're at it, why not ban:
sexual innuendo;
stereotyping of hunters, people who serve in the military, and women whose children play organized sports;
ethnic insensitivity; and
people who edit other user's posts for grammar.
All of which has appeared on the forum in various forms and which some users find offensive.

4. As for littering the forum with useless junk... there are registered users who haven't been online since 2004...I doubt that a couple more is going to make any difference. (I won't even go into the nonsensical, yet oddly amusing, posts in the Chit Chat forum.....)

Liz

[Squirrel Girl]

What????? Crashmasta is Mr. President??? Geez, and I used to like him! Gad! That changes everything!

OK, I guess you all know what I just typed was tongue in cheek. There were a couple people who "reported" Mr. Prez's posts. But I thought it was clear what crash described; he was bantering with markie. Didn't seem like such a bad thing.

I personally don't think we should have politics here on MORE as much as I do love to debate it (I mean real arguing as opposed to Mr Prez mtbing which has little to do with politics, but rather just humor--could have been Clinton as easily as Bush had Clinton ridden a bike). There's a reason why they have that expression about politics and religion in good company. I've seen it consume these kinds of fora. And people take it much more emotionally on an ongoing basis than the other things that Liz mentioned. That's my experience, anyway. It's hard to explain logically, but it's my experience.

What's wrong with leaving the altar-egos alone as long as they don't bother anyone? That's more or less why I suggested originally that folks be dealt with on a troll by troll basis, rather than banning all alter-egos. I don't think they're all bad, and I thought Mr. Prez was funny until I found out I have to hate David now. ;) But that still doesn't solve what to do when one person starts a thread, then answers themselves as somebody else. Then, not so much that it hurts anything, but makes me shake my head in wonderment, alter-egos green dot themselves.

[extrafunky]

I don't have an alter ego but it will look like it if you search for users with the same IP as this post. I'm behind a firewall and there are probably 2-3 other MORE users here. Does vbulletin logs internal IPs?

[jabberwocky]

Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about the "Mr. President" stuff that went down recently (I wasn't even aware of it, but now that I found out what it was and that it was David, I'm not surprised :) ). It was pretty obviously a joke. The problem with dupe accounts is when people hide behind them to attempt to make it look like a debate is happening when its really one person, use the second account to be inflammatory to the board in general, or other similar things. I honestly can't think of a good reason someone would need a duplicate account on this board (other than to amuse us by pretending to be George W.).

What's wrong with leaving the altar-egos alone as long as they don't bother anyone?You could make the same argument (it doesn't hurt anyone) about things like spam. The problem is that it lowers the quality of the board, and we should be attempting to maintain a high quality board here.

We don't seem to have an actual rule forbidding it, so it would be silly to create a rule and punish people retroactively, but it is worth keeping in mind that the board seems to be growing in popularity and usage, so these things will probably become a problem in the future.

Standards need to be applied fairly... Crashmasta gets spanked for a couple of very clever posts, while Helmet trolls thru on a regular basis and nothing happens. Hard to understand.Helmet has been disciplined before for insulting other forum users. In the most recent thread, however, the only insulting comments were coming from other board members who really should know better.

[rockhead]

OK, so what are we banning - multiples or trolls? I was looking to cast a vote for "Lighten up, Francis", but after reading the thread I'm just confused. The survey references only multiples, not trolling. There are far more savvy posters than I participating here that are wise to the deep sociological impacts that posting under pseudonyms can have (look at the damage caused by that no-good Samuel Clemens, after all), but not having a firm grasp of the subtleness of this danger myself, I'd have to suggest we simply police the writings and not the writers.

Multiples: OK.
Trolls: Not OK.
Dancing Cats: Definitely OK.

[jabberwocky]

There are far more savvy posters than I participating here that are wise to the deep sociological impacts that posting under pseudonyms can have (look at the damage caused by that no-good Samuel Clemens, after all), but not having a firm grasp of the subtleness of this danger myself, I'd have to suggest we simply police the writings and not the writers.Then the issue is that the admins need to police who has multiple accounts and make sure noone is using one in a counter-productive way. I doubt the admins want that additional responsibility on their back (I know I wouldn't).

I just don't see any reason for someone on this board to have multiple handles. Whats the argument for it?

Its almost industry standard for large forums to forbid multiple accounts. We may have the luxury of it not being a big problem (or for harmless reasons) now, but that will not be the case as the forum grows. If was an admin (which I'm not), and had to police it, I would set a hard rule that one person=one account. It just makes life much easier. Punishment can vary based on how the second account was used/abused though.

Trolling is trolling. Here is the rule from another forum I frequent:

No trolling. Don't make posts that are inflammatory just to get people riled up. Substance is a key to not being labeled a troll, but substance alone cannot prevent you from being considered a troll. Substance with a dash of personal attacks will get you labeled as a troll.

Ad hominem and personal attacks are not permitted. Criticize the ideas, not the people. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy describing the attempt to discredit an argument by merely attacking the credibility of the arguer. Excessive flaming will not be tolerated. Users who verbally assault the character or person of other posters on a regular basis will be banned. Moderator's judgment applies here. "You are wrong" is not a personal attack; "You wrong because you are an idiot" probably. Persistent name-calling in the absence of content will likely be assessed as a violation of this rule.

Seems pretty clear to me, but there is some interpretation on the moderators part. We have a very civil forum overall, so it isn't something that gets called into play very often.

[darren]

I view MORE as a biking site for bikers who bike. In that Vein, when I lead a ride I had to figure out who was who from their handles. I am on another Social Site that is about doing events in person. They have no handles, you can make up a fake name, but everyone is on there with their first name. I like it cause I know who I am talking to, but it's all good once I know who is who with the MORE folk.

-

[drewdane]

I'll be upfront too, I have an altar ego, created just for fun and to see if it could be done.

Well, since we're in confessional mode, I have to admit: I've got an alter ego as well.


Drewdane is....










































































































































































Squirrelgirl!

[bikerRob]

...(edited)...I personally don't think we should have politics here on MORE as much as I do love to debate it (I mean real arguing as opposed to Mr Prez mtbing which has little to do with politics, but rather just humor--could have been Clinton as easily as Bush had Clinton ridden a bike). There's a reason why they have that expression about politics and religion in good company. I've seen it consume these kinds of fora. And people take it much more emotionally on an ongoing basis than the other things that Liz mentioned. That's my experience, anyway. It's hard to explain logically, but it's my experience.

12/09/06 >> I agree with SG. Take any good natured subject you wish, inject politics into the mix and what you end up with ends up leaving a bitter taste in almost everyone's mouth. Case in point...(hypothetical example)...Everyone loves music. You are crazy for the music of a singer/songwriter named Mr. Z. You've listened to Mr.Z for years and you own a large collection of Mr. Z CD's. For You, Mr. Z rocks. Suddenly one day you find out Mr. Z is against a polictical leader that you support. So, okay you think, everyone to their opinion. You still like Z. Then you find out Mr. Z has turned his concerts into a Political rally forum and is spending his own money ( and he has million$ ) to oust this candidate. Now you're pissed. Okay to have an opinion but to turn the money that you ( and others like you ) spent on entertainment into some kind of political mission-from-God, a mission you want nothing to do with, well it just sticks in your crawl and ruins what used to be just good music. (end of hypothetical ) Sorry if my hypothetical stepped into the real world a bit but I'm trying to make a point. Allowing political commentary into the forums will sour and disrupt the "Lets all work together" ethic of trail building. Let's not be like the Rockstars, Actors and Actresses and **** where we eat, which IMO is not good karma. :(

[Brizn]

Case in point...(hypothetical example)...This analogy works. Kinda like why I hate Ted Nugent, right? But yea, if I started judging music based on the lunatics creating it, i'd never listen to my Thriller album again- and that would be a shame. :D

[drewdane]

Okay to have an opinion but to turn the money that you ( and others like you ) spent on entertainment into some kind of political mission-from-God(
Once you hand over your money, it's no longer yours. Do you tell the grocery clerk how to spend her paycheck?

[Cowboy]

Ok, but let's say "hypothetically" someone in a band got in front of a camera on foriegn soil, and bashed the president, wouldn't it make you feel better :confused: ...to :rolleyes: ...say :cool: , put the CD(s) they made, that you paid good money for, in the microwave for 15 seconds? or run over it with your MTB?
(have to keep the thread bike related, right :eek: )

:D

[jabberwocky]

Ok, but let's say "hypothetically" someone in a band got in front of a camera on foriegn soil, and bashed the president, wouldn't it make you feel better :confused: ...to :rolleyes: ...say :cool: , put the CD(s) they made, that you paid good money for, in the microwave for 15 seconds? or run over it with your MTB?
(have to keep the thread bike related, right :eek: )

:DC'mon, I can separate the artist from the art. To be honest, in my opinion most musicians range from despicable human beings to complete wackjobs. But I can enjoy the music regardless.

Besides, if an artist is critical of our current president, they are just going along with the opinion of about 90% of the worlds population. Wow, what rebels they are! :rolleyes:

[ODG]

As a former admin of a very large message board I can tell you that there is no way to actually ban these users. You're probably thinking by IP but that doesn't work. There are numerous easy ways to get around that. You can delete their user accounts but they will just come back and sign up as other users if they are really hell bent on causing trouble. Taking that form of action usually causes some form of retaliation from the user anyway. From my past experience I can say that the most effective course of action is to simply email the people and ask them to stop. Most of the time that works, since they usually think they are being clever and that no one knows they are using an alter-ego. If that doesn't work, just out them and let the user community handle it.

[martin]

1. It's not fair to retroactively apply new community standards. If you merge all multiple identities, it will affect old posts.


Yes it will;


2. Standards need to be applied fairly... Crashmasta gets spanked for a couple of very clever posts, while Helmet trolls thru on a regular basis and nothing happens. Hard to understand.


They are, just happens that the president thread is the one that brought this to light; Trust me; Helmet has been contacted, many of his posts deleted and his "many" accounts merged; He's under the impression that I have singled him out as you are that I singled out the prez...

There are others as well, but I won't get into that; Trust me when I say that I DO NOT single out anyone; I generally leave alters be, until someone either points out a thread, at which point i check to see if it's a user with multiple accounts; I never act before warning and ALWAYS give the user ample time to get back to me and respond before I do anything to their accounts.


3. While we're at it, why not ban:
sexual innuendo;
stereotyping of hunters, people who serve in the military, and women whose children play organized sports;
ethnic insensitivity; and
people who edit other user's posts for grammar.
All of which has appeared on the forum in various forms and which some users find offensive.


If I find something offensive chances are I will remove it or warn the user; If you find something offensive you are welcome to report the post and it will be addressed by me or one of the other mods; Actually PM me and I'll make you a mod...


4. As for littering the forum with useless junk... there are registered users who haven't been online since 2004...I doubt that a couple more is going to make any difference. (I won't even go into the nonsensical, yet oddly amusing, posts in the Chit Chat forum.....)

Liz

Purpose of the CHit CHat forum - for all of the misc. stuff that at one point made it into The Pit - unfortunately, and because of the nature of our online community, we're always going t get a post that offends one user and seems harmless to the rest, when I make a decision regarding something here it is not arbitrary, it is generally after I receive input from other users or after talking it over with someone else - unless of course, the post in quesiton is blatant spam or offensive in nature...

[Brizn]

Actually PM me and I'll make you a mod...What is UP with e'rybody and their dog being a moderator these days? Hey, make me a moderator... i wanna see who leaves me dots and be able to fool with other ppl's avatars, too! :rolleyes:

:D

[blacknell]

FWIW (I'm not much of a presence here, but I do appreciate you guys):

1) Martin - you should do what you're comfortable with doing. Like some of the others here, I've admin'd boards with thousands of users - you'll never make everyone happy, and there are damn few people who will step up and take on the load. Call it a benevolent dictatorship. And we'll all understand if it's occasionally malevolent.

2) Unless someone is going out of their way to either 1) troll or 2) deceive the board by making it appear as if there is an actual conversation/debate going on when it's only one user, I'd just leave it all alone. The President was funny, and I can imagine an iteration of Helmet that was trying to stoke honest debate. (Helmet's asshole factor (and that inspired by him) clearly disquals the actuality, in that case.). Anything more than that, and you're really carving out much more work for yourself than necessary, I think.

3) as has been pointed out before, if someone is truly dedicated to trolling and making a mess, there's almost nothing you can do, short of closing down a community. Over the years, I've encountered a few of these people - much like Beetlejuice, you'll never ever hear me utter their names, for fear of invoking them. That's just the 'net.

4) Dixie Chicks rock (and I never would have even given them a listen, but for that stupid controversy. This (http://blacknell.net/dynamic/2006/11/10/without-comment/) has become one of my favorite songs), and Ted Nugent's a fucking lunatic, even without the politics.

[hophead]

4) Dixie Chicks rock (and I never would have even given them a listen, but for that stupid controversy. This (http://blacknell.net/dynamic/2006/11/10/without-comment/) has become one of my favorite songs), and Ted Nugent's a fucking lunatic, even without the politics.
Damn, is there no love for Ted on this board? The man's a rock star, an avid outdoorsman (who I bet has never come close to accidentally shooting a mtn biker) and has never done drugs. He doesn't drink either, but we'll let that one slide. :)
His TV show's pretty hilarious too.

[bikerRob]

Damn, is there no love for Ted on this board? The man's a rock star, an avid outdoorsman (who I bet has never come close to accidentally shooting a mtn biker) and has never done drugs. He doesn't drink either, but we'll let that one slide. :)
His TV show's pretty hilarious too.

12/09/06 >> I used to listen to Ted N. back in the day. I do know that he is strange but that doesn't bother me. I don't know what political opinions he has and I don't what to know. ;) If I did know, It might or might not effect my view of his music. Regardless, if I owned his music I would probably still listen to it. The thing I absolutely hate is when famous entertainers not only go public with their political opinions but go a step beyond and use their celebrity/artistic gifts to become self-made pied pipers. (*Note exception if said celebrity is known for their previous commentary concerning social issues and has openly incorporated it into their gig from the start. ) It's one thing for an everyday person to take up political activism. It's another when a celebrity turns activist because they draw lots of public attention. They do this using the money they made from the general public at whole. When they do this in my book they are no longer artist but are now political lobbyist. I don't buy music, videos, or movies from political Lobbyist, regardless of what opinions they have because I find the concept obnoxious. I if want to give my money to political causes I'll give it to the politicians directly who state their views before they take my money. Ya' know I forgot about all that Dixie Chicks stuff. Talk about crapping where you eat!

[helmet optional]

I have been accused of being a troll. According to your posted definition I think the accusation if unwarranted. If trolling meant not sharing the majority opinion than tag me a troll because it does seem that my opinion vary widely from the majority opinion in this forum. However, a forum should gladly accept minority opinions as topics for debate. This forum does not judge the credibility of an opinion by the thought or evidence that supports it but by whether or not its popular. And if it is you get a bunch of green dots.

It’s interesting to note that in this thread on trolling and personal attacks that blacknell tosses a jab at me “asshole factor” and no intervention from the moderator was forthcoming. While I may have tossed a few jabs at people in the past in this forum, the majority, by far, were reactions rather than instigations. The record should show this clearly. I’m embarrassed that I let the dark side get the better of me at times. I apologize.

I came to forum for shared experiences, info on local riding, and to discuss issues that are unresolved. I have posted only to a few threads and this too is another reason I am accused of being a troll. It just happens that I find most of the threads of no interest to me.

The threads that I have posted to have include the helmet issue, uphill/downhill right-of-way, and wet/dry conditions. With respect to the helmet issue, I posted 2 links that support my contention that the chance of death or serious head injury is minute to the point, for me, of being inconsequential. Its interesting to note that the chance of death by automobile is far greater than by cycling yet most of you still drive cars. Additionally, even though most of you promote helmet wearing as an absolute mandate you also boast of drinking lots of alcohol. What’s the point? Its good to protect your brain from the outside but you can pollute it internally? Good luck with that.

With respect to the uphill/downhill right-of-way I agree that the IMBA rule makes the most sense as no one can predict all of the scenarios possible so the alternative is to have to right-of-way. However, the rule, as it was posted here is weak. The first line states no one has the right-of-way and then the balance of the rule does not support that statement. Even though it’s the IMBA rule and MORE is associated with IMBA you still have members posting uphill right-of-way. Whats the deal with that? I’m guessing its part of the arrogance that members know all and no contrary opinions are required. Point in fact, the member slandering non-members for riding in questionable conditions Patasko. When it become clear that it was a member of MORE riding in those condition no apology came forth to us non-members.

As to whether or not conditions are dry or wet was another thread to which I posted. The question is still unresolved and even the MORE membership is divided on this question therefore, it seems, there can be absolutely no discussion on that topic.

I came to this forum to share experience and thoughts about local riding but this forum is not open to that. Its very much a one-sided dictation by a small group of members who are beyond reproach. Again, good luck with that.

Its unfortunate because of the good work that MORE , at large, does with gaining and keeping trail access. However, in the long run, if you are unable to incorporate new ideas you are destined to extinction.

No longer posting,

Paul

[martin]

...No longer posting,

Thank you. Hopefully you are a man of your word...

[Brizn]

because it does seem that my opinion vary widely from the majority opinion in this forum. ...This forum does not judge the credibility of an opinion by the thought or evidence that supports it but by whether or not its popular. ..

Its very much a one-sided dictation by a small group of members who are beyond reproach.

... if you are unable to incorporate new ideas you are destined to extinction.I'm hesitant to reply for fear of perpetuating this drama but i just wanna share a lil. i happen to agree with much of what you say and what you've said. i think you're right: popularity of the opinion is a big factor- and if ppl don't believe that, they're fooling themselves. it's unfortunate. I know that there are opinions i withhold for the same reason-- a shame... but i'm playing my cards. Maybe that's why politics are off limits? Again: many ppl can't seem to have a reasonable discussion about things they believe so strongly to be 'rule'. Ppl are too rigid sometimes. For the record, I often do not wear a helmet when i ride around town.

It has more to do with reputation (personal credibility, not dots), than popularity of the idea, though. Ie: the board, as a whole, tagged you as a troll due to some of your earlier inflammatory posts.. after that, you were unable to redeem yourself-- then it was downhill. If you had established a better rapport with the board in the beginning, and if you were sensitive with your words on a consistent basis, i believe your unpopular views (at least a few of which i share) would've been better received.

Not to be melodramatic here, but it brings to mind the quote that "all tyranny needs to survive is for good men to remain silent."

[drewdane]

"all tyranny needs to survive is for good men to remain silent."
Dag Brizn, yer so melodramatic!