Wow I do not know what to think!

[SNC1923]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to jump in here and offer a few thoughts. Please take them for what they are worth to you. I'm one guy with one opinion.

Threads are not taken down because someone doesn't like the topic or disagrees with the opinion or the person expressing it. Threads are taken down when they are distruptive to the general forum and are in clear violation of the well-defined guidelines of the forum.

Users get banned after repeated warnings and much heartfelt discussion that takes place among the mods. It is not done capriciously or without great care and consideration. Believe it nor don't, that's a fact.

I read earlier (in a thread that has been closed) that someone wrote something to the effect of "I'd be afraid to go to an MOA rally. If I brought up politics, I mightt get thrown out."

Nothing could be further from the truth. If you approached someone's campfire and joined a friendly political discussion, you'd likely be welcomed, even if you held an alternative point of view, as long as you expressed it in an appropriate way.

HOWEVER

If you ran from campfire to campfire, loudly espousing your extreme view (be it left, right, or middle) after a while, you'd likely be asked to cool it, and I suspect by the members themselves. If that failed, you might be approached by the organizers or even security and politely asked to leave. Same with loud pipes. Same with loud partying near the Quiet Area. You've paid to get in and agreed to abide by the rules.

There's a profound difference between expressing an opinion and purposeful disruption for the sake of.

Most people recognize that the discussion of sex, religion, and politics is fraught with danger. They avoid it. Not everyone, mind you, but the vast majority of people who want to get along do. That common social behavior has been codified in this forum's rules. If you don't like it, you can either go elsewhere or you can work within the organization to change the rules. Either is acceptable. You can remain a member here and exercise your right to discuss politics in a forum where that is welcome--again, a totally reasonable alternative. But this guerilla warfare--where a few just do what they want regardless of the agreed-upon rules--that's where the problem comes in.

I don't come here to be provoked or teased or bothered. I come here to enjoy the camaradarie of fellow BMW Riders. I know the rules and find them easy to abide by. If I didn't, I'd be a memory. I simply do not understand what is so difficult about that. I suspect it's a combination of passive-aggression, asynchronous communication, the need to be heard, a deeply ingrained sense of the contrary, and other factors. I know one thing: it's a great deal more difficult to behave this way in a face to face group than it is on a message board. There it's easy.





There. I feel better. Thanks for reading.

 

[Rapid_Roy]

Quite right it is, but it doesn't have to permeate every part of your life. One of the reasons I'll just get up and go for a ride, to get away from it for a while, or as you say while at a campfire just leave and go somewhere else if things take a turn for the worst or you just are not interested in listening for whatever reason. but that is still somewhat differant than on a forum, you can't help but at minimum see the thread titles, or in the case of DGT just knowing its there seemed upset a number of folks. And saddly its also true that some simply can't resist "peeking" and then get upset. In the end though much of it had to do with things going sour, innuendos and heightened emotions coming into play that shut things down on DGT and other places here. It seems to work better in other forum groups, as to why I can't say, but it just didn't seem to come off well here for whatever reasons.

Obviously we all have our own views on this and sometimes keeping the "big" picture in prospective is a difficult task, hopefully we will learn from this experience, only time will tell.

RM

Rocket man, you rock!

FWIW, I am a moderator on a highly political forum, and I had to ban 1 person in the couple years I have been there. He was French, and some of the Americans made many disparaging remarks about the French, until he had a meltdown. He was a smart guy, but took things way too seriously. He asked why anybody didn't speak out, and my reply was that we considered the source and we all recognized it for what it was. If he had wanted to attack that person verbally, that would have brought him down to that level, but we would have understood. The problem was he attacked every American, not just the person who insulted him, and I started getting complaints. It's not so much politics, as the people who are talking about it, and how seriously they take it.

 

[Rapid_Roy]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to jump in here and offer a few thoughts. Please take them for what they are worth to you. I'm one guy with one opinion.

Threads are not taken down because someone doesn't like the topic or disagrees with the opinion or the person expressing it. Threads are taken down when they are disruptive to the general forum and are in clear violation of the well-defined guidelines of the forum.

I understand, and I am not trying to make trouble, but what guideline did this break, exactly? Was it deemed disruptive? It seemed to me that he was asking for clarification, and Ian linked to the rules then closed the thread. If he was asking, then maybe the guidelines are not so clear to everyone.http://forums.bmwmoa.org/showthread.php?t=23871
Saying it is up to the mods is not really clear, and they do a good job.
That is all I am saying.

 

[petepeterson]

Rocket man, you rock!

FWIW, I am a moderator on a highly political forum, and I had to ban 1 person in the couple years I have been there. He was French, and some of the Americans made many disparaging remarks about the French, until he had a meltdown. He was a smart guy, but took things way too seriously. He asked why anybody didn't speak out, and my reply was that we considered the source and we all recognized it for what it was. If he had wanted to attack that person verbally, that would have brought him down to that level, but we would have understood. The problem was he attacked every American, not just the person who insulted him, and I started getting complaints. It's not so much politics, as the people who are talking about it, and how seriously they take it.

I'll never understand the whys but to me you should have band the complainers,, that way all you would of had left were people who were willing to engage...... That and a little time they would work things out..... This board is the worst I have ever seen as to not maintaining standards for locking threads or doghousing people..... The Sandy Cohen thread last year was a prime example of letting things run because too many moderators were busy in the arguement ..........Pete

 

[kbasa]

I understand, and I am not trying to make trouble, but what guideline did this break, exactly? Was it deemed disruptive? It seemed to me that he was asking for clarification, and Ian linked to the rules then closed the thread. If he was asking, then maybe the guidelines are not so clear to everyone.http://forums.bmwmoa.org/showthread.php?t=23871
Saying it is up to the mods is not really clear, and they do a good job.
That is all I am saying.

It was an artless troll. No two ways about it.

 

[From MARS]

It was an artless troll. No two ways about it.

An assumption on your part.

Tom

 

[SNC1923]

I understand, and I am not trying to make trouble, but what guideline did this break, exactly? Was it deemed disruptive? It seemed to me that he was asking for clarification, and Ian linked to the rules then closed the thread. If he was asking, then maybe the guidelines are not so clear to everyone.http://forums.bmwmoa.org/showthread.php?t=23871
Saying it is up to the mods is not really clear, and they do a good job.
That is all I am saying.

An assumption on your part.

Tom

Sigh.

What "political" means is blindingly, mind-numbingly clear. To ask for a definition of this word is to split-hairs, parse meaning, and dredge up the very topic that anyone on this forum has agreed not to bring up by virtue of her or his membership here. I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm not saying that you don't have a right to express those views. I'm saying this club has established a rule that says, "not in here." Why is necessary to push this envelope? Do it elsewhere or join the board and work for change.

I'm not going to second-guess Ian. I trust his judgement and defer to his experience and authority. The "request for clarification" contained a pointed accusation that a member had been banned under the "guise" of expressing a personal belief that was inappropriately or inaccurately deemed political.

It may be the case that the member doesn't know the history here, or it may be the case that he's fishing for an argument, but there is no textual basis to foster the argument that this is a genuine request for clarification. It is--intentionally or not--an invitation to debate politics (verbotten) as well as an action taken on a member (both verbotten and inappropriate).

Members don't get banned for expressing heart-felt opinions. Such an accusation is disengenous to the point of being absurd. Members get banned after repeated warnings and suspensions, for flagrantly breaking rules and attempting to disrupt this community.

Considering the sheer volume of posts on this board, the mods take very little action. It's rare that someone even needs to be spoken to let alone sanctioned. If we send out a flurry of posts questioning the mods motives or rights to do these every time it happens, we're not spending our time here in the way it is intended to be spent. We don't come here to argue, debate, or get in each other's faces.

Tom and Roy: I respect you both and I'm glad you are here.

 

[Rapid_Roy]

Sigh.

What "political" means is blindingly, mind-numbingly clear. To ask for a definition of this word is to split-hairs, parse meaning, and dredge up the very topic that anyone on this forum has agreed not to bring up by virtue of her or his membership here. I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm not saying that you don't have a right to express those views. I'm saying this club has established a rule that says, "not in here." Why is necessary to push this envelope? Do it elsewhere or join the board and work for change.

I'm not going to second-guess Ian. I trust his judgement and defer to his experience and authority. The "request for clarification" contained a pointed accusation that a member had been banned under the "guise" of expressing a personal belief that was inappropriately or inaccurately deemed political.

It may be the case that the member doesn't know the history here, or it may be the case that he's fishing for an argument, but there is no textual basis to foster the argument that this is a genuine request for clarification. It is--intentionally or not--an invitation to debate politics (verbotten) as well as an action taken on a member (both verbotten and inappropriate).

Members don't get banned for expressing heart-felt opinions. Such an accusation is disengenous to the point of being absurd. Members get banned after repeated warnings and suspensions, for flagrantly breaking rules and attempting to disrupt this community.

Considering the sheer volume of posts on this board, the mods take very little action. It's rare that someone even needs to be spoken to let alone sanctioned. If we send out a flurry of posts questioning the mods motives or rights to do these every time it happens, we're not spending our time here in the way it is intended to be spent. We don't come here to argue, debate, or get in each other's faces.

Tom and Roy: I respect you both and I'm glad you are here.

I realize we don't have the same opinion on this, and I respect yours also.
Stick a fork in me 'cuz I'm done.

Same goes for me Tom(s), I am glad you are here.

 

[From MARS]

Not at all clear

Sigh.

What "political" means is blindingly, mind-numbingly clear. To ask for a definition of this word is to split-hairs, parse meaning, and dredge up the very topic that anyone on this forum has agreed not to bring up by virtue of her or his membership here. I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm not saying that you don't have a right to express those views. I'm saying this club has established a rule that says, "not in here." Why is necessary to push this envelope? Do it elsewhere or join the board and work for change.

I'm not going to second-guess Ian. I trust his judgement and defer to his experience and authority. The "request for clarification" contained a pointed accusation that a member had been banned under the "guise" of expressing a personal belief that was inappropriately or inaccurately deemed political.

It may be the case that the member doesn't know the history here, or it may be the case that he's fishing for an argument, but there is no textual basis to foster the argument that this is a genuine request for clarification. It is--intentionally or not--an invitation to debate politics (verbotten) as well as an action taken on a member (both verbotten and inappropriate).

Members don't get banned for expressing heart-felt opinions. Such an accusation is disengenous to the point of being absurd. Members get banned after repeated warnings and suspensions, for flagrantly breaking rules and attempting to disrupt this community.

Considering the sheer volume of posts on this board, the mods take very little action. It's rare that someone even needs to be spoken to let alone sanctioned. If we send out a flurry of posts questioning the mods motives or rights to do these every time it happens, we're not spending our time here in the way it is intended to be spent. We don't come here to argue, debate, or get in each other's faces.

Tom and Roy: I respect you both and I'm glad you are here.

Tom,

I went back and read Randy's post down in the Doghouse. I still don't see how it fits the definition. While I was down there, I read another learned individuals post, a lawyer in fact, that didn't see it as political either.

While it may have been "artless", my question was not trolling regardless of that assessment by others. I posted the definition of "political", as stated in my dictionary, as a starting point for logical, sensible discussion of what is and what is not political discussion and, as such, would be banned.

I admire what you have done with the photography thread, but that is not my interest, so I don't post there. In fact, with dial-up, it is pretty much pointless for me to even lurk over there. I don't have a problem ignoring it when scrolling down the list of threads. I know, and accept, that some do enjoy reading about photography and in looking at the pictures others have taken. All I want is the same courtesy.

If there are some that don't even want to see what the thread titles are in an open dialog section, let's build a fence around it, but don't impose a hardship on the members that do like open dialogs with other members.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then aren't a thousand words worth a picture? We painted portraits of ourselves by our post. I have a much better idea of who the people *are* that I used to converse with in the old DGT.

I thank you for your respect, and please know, you have mine.

Tom

PS: Back at ya, Roy.

 

[SNC1923]

Well, at the risk of turning this whole thing into a love-fest, Tom, I very much appreciate the intelligent consruction, eloquence, and tenor of your reply. You argue politely and well, and thus add credence to your position.

And I think we can all agree that we like Roy.

 

[Rapid_Roy]

Thank you, but it is on the internet. Wait until you meet me in real time.
People say when I have no expression on my face, I look mean.
I may have cultivated that so I am left alone, but it wasn't intentional.

 

[From MARS]

Thank you, but it is on the internet. Wait until you meet me in real time.
People say when I have no expression on my face, I look mean.
I may have cultivated that so I am left alone, but it wasn't intentional.

That's pretty much the "picture" I have of you.

Had a German Shepherd, once, that was like that. Looked like one bada--ed dog, but Sam was really a pussy cat.

But, I can't imagine you having no expression, unless of course, you are thinking about nothing.

Tom

 

[gregfeeler]

Thanks, Steve.

I think the basic point I'm trying to make is that this is a motorcycle club. There are better places to talk politics on the internet, but none better to discuss BMW motorcycles, BMW people and BMW rallies and events.

While it might be enticing to run a political forum, the inherent divisiveness, particularly in today's highly charged climate, that comes from such discussions is at odds with what we're trying to achieve as a club. Remember that I was an advocate of DGT until it was taken over by a vocal few and started consuming more and more of the moderators' time and resources.

I don't think it's realistic to expect this forum to be all things to all people, particularly with regard to politics.

I will extend that and say the only way an organization like the BMW MOA has ever survived and grown is because we focus very narrowly and intentionally on those things which unite us: BMW motorcycles. We are not a debating society, or a political organization, or a group with a social agenda, and we are not a resource to supply all the non-motorcycle missing parts of a person's personal life. We do one thing, and hopefully do that pretty well: bring people together who like this brand of bikes and talk about that, and the non-divisive things that are derivative of that passion.

More importantly, though, I'm concerned that the attitudes and behaviors shown on this forum have had an effect on this club's ability to attract leadership. At least four people declined nomination after viewing the forum over the last couple of months. The question we need to ask is at what point does behavior on the forum by a small and vocal few affect the larger membership's ability to have an effectively lead organization?

This situation troubles me deeply. If we have leadership that feel that their considerable volunteer commitments seem to include being publicly drawn and quartered at every opportunity, how successful will we be in bringing in visionaries and their ideas?

I can't emphasize too much the significance of those statements. There are some very good people who should be stepping up to help run the 'MOA who want no part of this. It's already a serious problem and will do far more harm to the organization in the long run than any good the divisiveness of a small group on this forum will ever hope to achieve. I was one of the early supporters of this forum, but honestly, a lot of what is happening here is doing the organization no good.

I hear the argument that some of this is a culture clash - new folks have different expectations than the "old timers". Certainly, there are a number of new folks who don't know what to expect here other than what they have seen other places. We are not necessarily those other places and that is on purpose. There are others who are new here who's only apparent purpose is to stir up trouble because that's how they get their kicks. They can extend the good times (for them) by disguising themselves and their motives - hiding behind whatever cover seems to legitimize their disruptions.

We need to remember that people join new groups for many of the same reasons they move from one region to another - to leave certain things behind. Those few who come because of the difference and then argue to make it be like what they left are disingenuous, at best.

If you've got ideas, I'm not hard to find. Send me a note. Send one of the committee chairs a note. Send someone on the board a note. Call them. All the contact information that any member needs to reach out to just about anyone involved in the operation and governance of the club is listed in the front of ON or on this site.

I think that goes for all the Board members - certainly for me.

And lets face it. How many of us propose great ideas by tying them to a brick and chucking them through the bosses window and expect to be taken seriously?

Best,

dave

I am one of the ones listening in on the DGT discussions on Yahoo. Not because I support their cause, or because I want to derail it, but only because they are at least trying to come up with a reasoned proposal for something they support and I can occasionally answer questions. That's a refreshing change from a lot of what I know many of you have seen on this forum. It's unfortunate that there is still brick throwing going on over here.

 

[rocketman]

Thank you, but it is on the internet. Wait until you meet me in real time.
People say when I have no expression on my face, I look mean.
I may have cultivated that so I am left alone, but it wasn't intentional.

Remind me then to approch you with my eyes closed if/when we meet!


RM

 

[mika]

I have a growing concern in the lack of identifying what people are for in these discussions. We quickly identify what we are against. We quickly identify places to send people. But I do not sense we are quick to identify what we are for.

We are not for discussion of certain topics and we send people off to another site. We welcome a new member with a Roadster and send them off to R1150R.net, or a member with a new F 800 gets referred to F800riders.org and so on. What are we for? Are we only a location to loose your internet training wheels? With a growing online base diversity will be the norm rather than a homogeneous mass.

 

[Rapid_Roy]

Remind me then to approch you with my eyes closed if/when we meet!


RM

I am mostly harmless. That approach is how I do everything in life, except riding.

 

[rocketman]

I am mostly harmless. That approach is how I do everything in life, except riding.

Hmmmm..... that "mostly" worries me some! (but mostly not)

RM

 

[oldhway]

I have a growing concern in the lack of identifying what people are for in these discussions. We quickly identify what we are against. We quickly identify places to send people. But I do not sense we are quick to identify what we are for.

We are not for discussion of certain topics and we send people off to another site. We welcome a new member with a Roadster and send them off to R1150R.net, or a member with a new F 800 gets referred to F800riders.org and so on. What are we for? Are we only a location to loose your internet training wheels? With a growing online base diversity will be the norm rather than a homogeneous mass.

Mika, it's interesting that in todays internet intensive society, only 1 in 10 members of the MOA is a registered user here on the forum. Shelve the DGT type stuff for a moment and look at the bigger picture. I'll bet more than 1 in 10 of our membership are on the internet regularly. What is it that the MOA site can offer them that they are not finding now. I think the Photography forum as it relates to riding is a great addition. Good ride photos are very inspiring to me. I think the rides section is also a great inspiration to go out and see new stuff and meet new people. What else do people want?

 

[belquar]

Mika, it's interesting that in todays internet intensive society, only 1 in 10 members of the MOA is a registered user here on the forum. Shelve the DGT type stuff for a moment and look at the bigger picture. I'll bet more than 1 in 10 of our membership are on the internet regularly. What is it that the MOA site can offer them that they are not finding now. I think the Photography forum as it relates to riding is a great addition. Good ride photos are very inspiring to me. I think the rides section is also a great inspiration to go out and see new stuff and meet new people. What else do people want?

I think the regional section on ADV is very nice. They have a much more active membership than we do. We have Chartered Clubs and Local Events, but not a whole lot is happening there because many of the regulars are spread here and yon. I know those of us in the Northeast have a annual get together now but not much else seems to get put together. At least not on the level that it does at ADV. But again, that is a numbers game.

 

[oldhway]

Well, with all the referalls ADV gets, it's no wonder .