Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

akanefive t1_iuow24m wrote

Reply to comment by Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee in Open Request for Ideas on Cambridgema Can Be Made a Better Community by taylorhayward_boston

I’m happy to summarize: this sub, which has 17,000 members, only has one moderator. That moderator made a new rule based on an interaction he had outside of the sub (according to his own explanation), and has removed posts and outright banned people based on that rule. People are upset about it.

8

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iupbx9w wrote

Yeah, a single mod, or even a sub with one dominant mod, isn't ideal. That said, maybe there's a good argument to be made that the great bicycle wars need a ceasefire? This is clearly a really serious topic to some, but to others it seems like a bizarre over-the-top caricature of activism.

−11

defenestron t1_iupn8to wrote

I’d suggest you read the room (and the clear distribution of karma). This is an important issue to the majority of active users.

If you believe that most of the active users are an “over the top caricature of activism” then perhaps you should make your own subreddit where you can ban your neighbors and live in a happy safe space with no stated rules and a singular and totally arbitrary moderator who only shows up to moderate when they are angry about something.

10

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iuqqcx6 wrote

This seems like the toxic kind of response that's at issue. I agree with your observation that the room seems to want to engage in this toxicity, which is kind of a better argument against your point than for it. We're talking about bicycles here folks. Maybe a little perspective is in order.

−5

No_Dance1739 t1_iusidzi wrote

All this talk of toxicity and you don’t realize you’re a part of it. Yikes

5

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iuss1c3 wrote

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand the intensity of the conflict. Is that toxic? If telling some people that they might be losing their bearings in an argument is toxic, I don't know really how to apply a reality check. The trouble is that I haven't heard any actual argument of substance about this stuff. It's just some kind of bicycle identity group with whom some of us don't feel kinship. Maybe if you could help us understand why this is such a motivating aspect of your identity, we'd get it. I use a bicycle to commute for part of the year. The bike lanes are dramatically better now than 10 years ago, when none of them existed at all. Seems good?

1

akanefive t1_iut4zmx wrote

The conflict is not actually about cycling, it's about how the sub is moderated. Banning people for voicing dissent to a rule that was arbitrarily added, deleting posts about it, deleting and shutting down the comment section, is not a good way to run a discussion forum. People are rightfully upset about that. Once the sub is properly managed I'd be happy to talk to you about infrastructure and traffic safety issues.

3

No_Dance1739 t1_iutmaiy wrote

If those were your intentions, then your strategy is flawed. Jumping in an calling folks toxic is indeed not “just trying to understand the intensity of the conflict,” nor is it an effective strategy for discovering the nuance of a situation.

2

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iuv2wc5 wrote

Wait a sec, now calling out toxicity is toxic? Come on. I think you just don't want to hear any dissent. If there's nuance here somewhere, I'm not hearing it. The toxicity I replied to was a bunch of sarcasm and snide for no purpose. People genuinely don't understand why there is so much bicycle anger. I myself am deeply upset about climate issues, but I know who my enemy is on that. They're not for the most part my fellow Cantabrigians.

0

No_Dance1739 t1_iuvub43 wrote

If those were your intentions, then your strategy is flawed.

0