We need the Fight Club back

[utabintarbo]

You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. Thus, not everyone will be happy with ever decision, and that's just a reality that adults have to face. On this board, via email, and face to face, the majority of people I've spoken to supported the elimination of the political forum, and the majority support the IMBA direction. Gave you give me ONE, just ONE good reason to go against my personal opinion AND the viewpoint that the majority of MMBA members have expressed to me on these issues? What reason would there be for me to go against my opinion, and the seemingly majority viewpoint on these issues? Because of a vocal minority? What sort of sense does that make?

How about because it is right. Censoring a vocal minority is wrong even if the majority prefer it. It is wrong even if YOU or I prefer it. This shouldn't need any explanation (in this country, anyway).

(The IMBA issue and the Politics forum issue are apples and oranges in this context. The IMBA issue is outside of the scope of this thread.)

[pfox90]

I think what uta is looking for is statistical analysis that backs up the claims of it discouraging other users from using the forum/posting/becoming members that lead to the removal of the section. Traffic flow from posts and visits from before and after the removal of the political forum.

And obviously there is no way to quantify "quality" posts.

[utabintarbo]

I think what uta is looking for is statistical analysis that backs up the claims of it discouraging other users from using the forum/posting/becoming members. Traffic flow from posts and visits from before and after the removal of the political forum.

And obviously there is no way to quantify "quality" posts.

TBH, I have abandoned that tack due to the fact that I will never get that data. We are therefore left with perceptions of traffic on which we each are seen to have a vested interest such that we will never agree.

[pfox90]

I don't really even care about the Political forum I just think it's kind of silly that it gets removed yet the general section has 26 pages of the MMBA hierarchy bashing it's own counsel; along with many other posts that end up going 8 pages (like this)... yet it is the political section that is deterring people away from the board....................

Even with the post about the Warrior 100 [comment has been edited by mod; knock off the politics]

[dirt]

(The IMBA issue and the Politics forum issue are apples and oranges in this context. The IMBA issue is outside of the scope of this thread.)

I was responding to someone to brought it up, so it was on topic.

[utabintarbo]

(The IMBA issue and the Politics forum issue are apples and oranges in this context. The IMBA issue is outside of the scope of this thread.)

I was responding to someone to brought it up, so it was on topic.

I know you were responding to Larry's post, but the standards that apply are different in the two cases, and I wanted to inoculate against having this discussion go off on a tangent. That's all. That's why I put that in parentheses.

[FrankenFuel95]

(The IMBA issue and the Politics forum issue are apples and oranges in this context. The IMBA issue is outside of the scope of this thread.)

I was responding to someone to brought it up, so it was on topic.

I know you were responding to Larry's post, but the standards that apply are different in the two cases, and I wanted to inoculate against having this discussion go off on a tangent. That's all. That's why I put that in parentheses.

I wasn't trying to drag this off topic, just trying to point out that the illuminati don't speak for everyone and that just because people aren't objecting like you are it doesn't mean they won't be taking the only action they have at their disposal, voting with their wallets. Both of these issues should have been open to membership vote.

I get to "vote" this month since I didn't have the opportunity to stand up and be counted.

[nate.phelps]

I've been emailing with a few people in regards to this.
And finally got around to reading this posting.

One upfront disclaimer. The MMBA absolutely does not endorse political candidates. Doing so is a serious no-no in our 501c3 status. We will support or oppose legislation and as a volunteer advocacy organization we are within guidelines. There is no give or gray area in this.

I've been involved with the state board for about four years. During that time there have been many discussions at board meeting regarding forum use. At the top of each forum there is a set of rules and general guidelines for forum use that evolved from these discussions. One of the bigger issues has been the on-going moderator vs. poster clashes and a few of those turned ugly. There is or was a pattern of escalation that was turning overly personal. One incident in particular changed the outlook of the board on forum use and in particular the political forum. The point here is there was not an overnight decision to quit the political forum, but over a period of years, after trying to preserve a freedom of speech environment we do not have to provide, the political forum was discontinued. Not following the rules and guidelines of forum use is not creating a diversity experience.

The board decided that the primary use of the forums is to promote mountainbiking and mountain bike trail advocacy. And if a political forum not pertaining to mountainbiking is the only reason to have a forum, perhaps we need to more closely examine why we have forums in the first place?

[utabintarbo]

I've been involved with the state board for about four years. During that time there have been many discussions at board meeting regarding forum use. At the top of each forum there is a set of rules and general guidelines for forum use that evolved from these discussions. One of the bigger issues has been the on-going moderator vs. poster clashes and a few of those turned ugly. There is or was a pattern of escalation that was turning overly personal. One incident in particular changed the outlook of the board on forum use and in particular the political forum. The point here is there was not an overnight decision to quit the political forum, but over a period of years, after trying to preserve a freedom of speech environment we do not have to provide, the political forum was discontinued. Not following the rules and guidelines of forum use is not creating a diversity experience.

All this sounds like an issue of Moderation. It seems pretty simple: if someone breaks the rules, there are escalating levels of board discipline up to and including a general ban. Did the Mods just not wish to be bothered with such things? (FWIW, I do not see this as being the case, as there appears to be an even greater level of moderation, and more bans, since the removal than before it.)

Essentially punishing everybody for the actions of a few idiots is tantamount to treating all your users as idiots. I am not an idiot, and don't deserve to be punished for others' idiot behavior.

The board decided that the primary use of the forums is to promote mountainbiking and mountain bike trail advocacy. And if a political forum not pertaining to mountainbiking is the only reason to have a forum, perhaps we need to more closely examine why we have forums in the first place?

It's not the ONLY reason, but an integral part of the sense of community which was fostered here. Please pay attention to the posts of whitey and Stumpy above - two guys from diametrically opposite ends of the political spectrum who often happily bike with others they disagree with politically. We've come together through our interaction on this board (largely), and have found greater understanding of each other and our positions through our interactions on this board (pre-removal).

How does this promote mountain biking? Well, in the case of whitey and I, we have each helped out friends and acquaintances of the other to get out on the trails. It's a small thing, but when magnified by the number of people on the board, the numbers get more significant.

I guess it starts to come down to how you define the promotion of "mountain biking and mountain bike trail advocacy". To me, it is the promotion of a community of people with different ideas, but a common goal. A diversity of ideas promotes a certain dynamism which tends to promote even more new ideas. New ideas are never a bad thing in a healthy community, but they are anathema to ossified bureaucracies.

[mr_opjones]

At some point you look at the situation and ask yourself is it worth it? A volunteer online mtb forum, and you're arguing to discuss politics. You've made your point, you have little support, move on with your life.

[utabintarbo]

It's the principle, and I have no life.

[mr_opjones]

It's the principle, and I have no life.

There is a site dedicated to moving on, moveon.ohhhhhh wait a minute, I can't post that, you understand

[i69whitey]

It's the principle, and I have no life.

There is a site dedicated to moving on, moveon.ohhhhhh wait a minute, I can't post that, you understand

yeah, they will just love ya there big fella
tell 'em whitey sent ya

[utabintarbo]

<crickets>

Is ignoring paying members of the MMBA the only tactic you have left? What does that say about the strength of your argument?

Or perhaps that's irrelevant....

[cramer]

<crickets>

Is ignoring paying members of the MMBA the only tactic you have left? What does that say about the strength of your argument?

Or perhaps that's irrelevant....

That's funny, only you can consider 8 pages of arguing to be "ignoring" you.