• I don't actually agree that BC wanting to extend their code of conduct for cycling clubs to LFGSS CC is unreasonable - the code of conduct is a good thing and LFGSS CC is registered as a club with BC.

    So I think you're right and the question is whether LFGSS CC should be BC affiliated.

    Yeah, for me the club is a subset of LFGSS, just one small part.

    It came after the forum, and only covers a very small populace of the forum.

    So the question for me is whether the external policies of BC should cover the superset of the forum.

    What triggered this is talk in the doping thread that makes reference to BC and UKAD, and BC would like some mentions of that to be deleted. I don't agree with some of the opinions given or language used by people (I haven't seen what they want deleted but what they'd asked me to do to date felt like overreach), but the terms and conditions of the forum permit a full discourse.

    So there's a tension here... either I push to have all conversation moderated, or I find a way to isolate the BC affiliated function of the forum (delete it from here and put it elsewhere and just police that), or I consider dropping the BC affiliation.

    The middle option seems pointless as the club part of the forum is relatively tiny and as a separate entity it wouldn't be offering anything more than any of the other cycle clubs in and around London and the UK.

    The point of the LFGSS cycle club is to give people a very low friction way to participate in events without the formality of joining a larger club, and to act as a springboard for them to join another club. So all of this seems disproportionate to what we are doing today.


Avatar for TM @TM started