# Should spoilers be allowed in thread titles?



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Well?


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

No. I think it should be okay to have spoilers within the thread but not in the title. If a poster wants to put a spoiler in the title they should have it as such:

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!! >>>>>> Zabel!

This way there's a decent chance the entire title will not show up in the forums page and if it does the reader has the opportunity to avert his/her eyes.


----------



## Sojourneyman (Jun 22, 2007)

Yes that they should be allowed - with all the new people Pro Cycling attracts, the contrary would be an unenforceable rule.

But also that it should be a courteous thing to not put them in the title.

And speaking of courtesy, people shouldn't get all pissy about it when someone slips up.

With it as a courtesy, someone can simply drop in, say 'hey, by the way...' rather than 'hey, you broke the rules.'


----------



## portlester (Jan 17, 2006)

*I think it would spoil it if they weren't!*



Sojourneyman said:


> And speaking of courtesy, people shouldn't get all pissy about it when someone slips up.
> 
> With it as a courtesy, someone can simply drop in, say 'hey, by the way...' rather than 'hey, you broke the rules.'


Yep couldn't agree more.

Also if I don't want to know the results before I get to see them replayed on TV or the net later that night, I stay away from the forums and the various cycling related websites.

But more often than not I want to find out the results asap. First stop is the cycling websites to get the summaries and then the forums to get the opinions.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*this topic pops up every year or so*

when somebody not familiar with the long term protocol of this forum gets their panties in a bunch
typically a newer member, which is why maybe the rules should have a post it


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

I think it should be actively discouraged, but what are we gonna do? ban every new guy who posts when they hero wins a race?


----------



## saird (Aug 19, 2008)

They ARE allowed, grasshopper.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Darth Vader is actually Luke's dad.

Spoilers should be allowed everywhere. Burden is on the person who doesn't want to "spoil" himself.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

No spoilers - it's not that hard.

The only alternative for me is to not log on to this site during any race that I want to watch later.

TF


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

If you don't want to know the results, stay off the forum. I think the person who doesn't want to see them needs to take the action to avoid them, not the other way around.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Again, who cares.

If you don't want to learn anything, link directly to The Lounge.


----------



## crumjack (Sep 11, 2005)

Mootsie said:


> If you don't want to know the results, stay off the forum. I think the person who doesn't want to see them needs to take the action to avoid them, not the other way around.


Exactly! 

I recall sitting in a Mexican restaurant during lunchtime while the TdF was going on and glancing up at ESPN just in time for their 5 seconds of cycling coverage. Using some of the logic here, I should have really been upset because there is no way one could expect to see race results at my favorite Mexican place...


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

This is hilarious. Rather than a few people deciding they should exercise some self-restraint and not visit forums dedicated to ROAD CYCLING, let's modify everyone else's behavior. Typical me-first generation thinking. It's like asking a kiosk on the street not to put their newspapers out to sell because you might see the results of American Idol. 

People, it's not that hard. Don't want to see results? Don't visit the site until you see the race.


----------



## gegarrenton (Jul 10, 2009)

FondriestFan said:


> This is hilarious. Rather than a few people deciding they should exercise some self-restraint and not visit forums dedicated to ROAD CYCLING, let's modify everyone else's behavior. Typical me-first generation thinking. It's like asking a kiosk on the street not to put their newspapers out to sell because you might see the results of American Idol.
> 
> People, it's not that hard. Don't want to see results? Don't visit the site until you see the race.


Waaay too easy!


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

+1

Common sense folks. Try some.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

I just think it's inconsiderate to the rest of the forum members to post the spoiler in the title. Be considerate folks.


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

FondriestFan said:


> This is hilarious. Rather than a few people deciding they should exercise some self-restraint and not visit forums dedicated to ROAD CYCLING, let's modify everyone else's behavior. Typical me-first generation thinking. It's like asking a kiosk on the street not to put their newspapers out to sell because you might see the results of American Idol.
> 
> People, it's not that hard. Don't want to see results? Don't visit the site until you see the race.


As always I ask the question: What do you LOSE by NOT posting a spoiler in the title? Answer: Nothing!!
So you think it makes MORE sense to have people stay off the site (the advertisers would love that) so you can do something that satisfies what i dont know, rather than just *not *putting a spoiler in the tilte? This is the tail wagging the dog. Why are you "fighting" for something that has ZERO benefit, but would suggest people stay of the site all day? 
Heres a thought: Maybe I enjoy reading this forum when I have a break at work! How hard is it to keep your mouth shut. I said it once and ill say it again, if its so hard, why do so many have so much success during the Tour keeping the winner out of their title?
WHAT are you fighting for?:mad2:


----------



## gegarrenton (Jul 10, 2009)

JoelS said:


> I just think it's inconsiderate to the rest of the forum members to post the spoiler in the title. Be considerate folks.


It's pretty inconsiderate to expect others to cater to your whim's because you have an itchy mouse finger.


----------



## The_Boy (Oct 25, 2005)

FondriestFan said:


> This is hilarious. Rather than a few people deciding they should exercise some self-restraint and not visit forums dedicated to ROAD CYCLING, let's modify everyone else's behavior. Typical me-first generation thinking. It's like asking a kiosk on the street not to put their newspapers out to sell because you might see the results of American Idol.
> 
> People, it's not that hard. Don't want to see results? Don't visit the site until you see the race.


Typical me-first generation thinking.... so you want *others* to share *your* view? Gotcha.

If RoadBikeReview had no information other than race reports I would agree that you should just stay away from the site, but there are so many other reasons to visit the site. Seems dumb for me to not research weight weenie products until the World Championships shows on TV in the evening. 

The real solution is to remove the "Last Post" box from the front page for the Pro Cycling sub-forum only. That way nobody sees results they don't want and nobody has to censor their thread titles.

Edit: To clarify, I agree anything goes within the Pro Cycling sub-forum, but it shouldn't be viewable from the main page when you get to RBR.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

TurboTurtle said:


> The only alternative for me is to not log on to this site during any race that I want to watch later.


God forbid.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I typically come to this forum*



FondriestFan said:


> This is hilarious. Rather than a few people deciding they should exercise some self-restraint and not visit forums dedicated to ROAD CYCLING, let's modify everyone else's behavior. Typical me-first generation thinking. It's like asking a kiosk on the street not to put their newspapers out to sell because you might see the results of American Idol.
> 
> People, it's not that hard. Don't want to see results? Don't visit the site until you see the race.


to get this kind of info
and discuss it
sometimes when I have no tele-contact I'd come here and read the play by plays
sometimes the coverage and commentary here is just as good
visiting any cycling site on race day carries that burden
just avoid them on such days if it really bothers you
people want to talk about what happened, or is happening. It is not up to them to delay just because you have it on Tivo.


----------



## coldass (Oct 8, 2007)

It seems a lot of people lack self restraint and need to be mothered. Just like governments need to act to protect the meek and protect people from themselves, so do some seem to need to have the internet protected for them. Hence their cry to have spoilers banned - taking the victims chair....

Seems a bit too obvious that if you don't want to know, don't go online til you do - duh....


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

If anyone involved in running RBR is reading this thread (unlikely but who knows) cyclingnews.com used to have a spoiler free front page. Seriously, go look at their archives and you'll see that they never spoil that days race, and they would even post things like "Interview with stage 8 winner" as opposed to "Interview with Boonen, stage 8 winner" in their news section. They did this because they realize that english speaking cycling fans are scattered across the globe and are watching the race at very different times. 

Some will want to read the news about stage 7 just after stage 8 ended because that might be right when they wake up. Or in the case of many American fans, they'll watch the race in primetime but will be on the internet most during the day while they're bored at work.

That's the main reason I think it would benefit RBR to have no spoilers in thread titles, but what do I know...


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

> WHAT are you fighting for?


Peace, love and understanding. Twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Something a teensy bit less trivial than your TV viewing choices.


----------



## T-shirt (Aug 15, 2004)

*From a die-hard Lounger*



Spunout said:


> ...If you don't want to learn anything, link directly to The Lounge.


*...*heeeeyyy


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

I voted NO but feel it should be more of a request without sanction against transgressors. For me the biggest culprit is the layout of the site.


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

Again, you are fighting for something that has zero benefit to you and is a major problem for others, INSTEAD OF disallowing the spoilers which harms NOBODY, but benefits some. So, it seems im a whiner, but thats better than being a prick just because you can. 
Myself and many others would rather not tune out of this site for the whole frickin month of July (thats also great for business), just because you are incapable of writing "Stage 14 results/discussion (spoilers)". People with some sense already do this and it works great.
Some of us _like_ the forum, whether its just to see who hates Lance today, or who's going to Rock racing, there are other threads we might want to look at. Why? Because we enjoy it. So why should _we _have to "tune out" when all _you_ have to do is do something that takes zero effort and has zero downside. Not posting spoilers harms nobody, get it? Posting them does. Think.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

I just set up a folder in Firefox's bookmarks for direct links to the other subforums I like to read.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Mootsie said:


> If you don't want to know the results, stay off the forum. I think the person who doesn't want to see them needs to take the action to avoid them, not the other way around.


+ a kagillion.
If you don't want to know, don't come here. Hell, don't go anywhere. During the tour it's not uncommon to overhear some peeps discussing the stage in the lunch line. It's the information age, get used to it. Spoilers should 100% be allowed. It's not my issue that some so-and-so doesn't want to know what happened until 15 hours after the event, it's there responsibility to stay uninformed. Not mine.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

bigmig19 said:


> Again, you are fighting for something that has zero benefit to you and is a major problem for others, INSTEAD OF disallowing the spoilers which harms NOBODY, but benefits some. So, it seems im a whiner, but thats better than being a prick just because you can.
> Myself and many others would rather not tune out of this site for the whole frickin month of July (thats also great for business), just because you are incapable of writing "Stage 14 results/discussion (spoilers)". People with some sense already do this and it works great.
> Some of us _like_ the forum, whether its just to see who hates Lance today, or who's going to Rock racing, there are other threads we might want to look at. Why? Because we enjoy it. So why should _we _have to "tune out" when all _you_ have to do is do something that takes zero effort and has zero downside. Not posting spoilers harms nobody, get it? Posting them does. Think.


Get over yourself! Finding out who won a race that has already happened "harms" people now? That's ricockulous. And what is the appropriate length of time to let pass before we can start revealing these "spoilers"? Should we start putting "spoiler alert" in a title when discussing Armstrong because someone may not know he won the 2002 tour? Where does it end?


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

This is ridiculous. If you DON'T want to see spoilers but you DO want to see your favorite forum (don't include Pro Cycling) then just bookmark your faves and look ONLY at them. Dead simple. Then hope that no-one posted "Cadel WINS!" in the tandem forum. Some of you need to grow up and take charge of your own life.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Some of us work. Cut us some slack. I don't care if spoilers are in the thread, but in the thread title suck especially when it's the top thread and EVERYONE sees it regardless if they're in the pro racing threads.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

bigmig19 said:


> AMaybe I enjoy reading this forum when I have a break at work! How hard is it to keep your mouth shut.\


Goes both ways, chief. If people can't discuss it here and post spoilers, they'll do so elsewhere.

You want other people to shut up just so you can enjoy the forum? LOL. You're not doing your point of view any favors.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Some of us work. Cut us some slack. I don't care if spoilers are in the thread, but in the thread title suck especially when it's the top thread and EVERYONE sees it regardless if they're in the pro racing threads.


*Stay away from the PRO CYCLING forum.* What's hard to understand about that?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Mike T. said:


> *Stay away from the PRO CYCLING forum.* What's hard to understand about that?


You can still see it without clicking on this sub-forum, Einstein.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

spade2you said:


> You can still see it without clicking on this sub-forum, Einstein.


Baloney. I come to RBR via the bookmarked Wheels section. Then I go off in other directions via the drop-down menu. Avoid clicking the "Pro Cycling" link. I don't see no "Cadel wins" spoiler. Problem solved. Einstein.

If you choose to come in here -

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44

- then that's your problem.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Mike T. said:


> Baloney. I come to RBR via the bookmarked Wheels section. Then I go off in other directions via the drop-down menu. Avoid clicking the "Pro Cycling" link. I don't see no "Cadel wins" spoiler. Problem solved. Einstein.
> 
> If you choose to come in here -
> 
> ...


Sorry but I agree with the no spoiler crowd. This site isn't procycling.com but rather devoted to the entire culture of cycling of which pro-cycling is part. I don't see what's so hard about doing a polite thing and screaming the results within the post rather than the title.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Mike T. said:


> Baloney. I come to RBR via the bookmarked Wheels section. Then I go off in other directions via the drop-down menu. Avoid clicking the "Pro Cycling" link. I don't see no "Cadel wins" spoiler. Problem solved. Einstein.
> 
> If you choose to come in here -
> 
> ...


You don't see no thread? Cripes. If you come to RBR, you see the most current thread displayed up top of any forum. 

I don't think mods would prefer that routine users stay away because some buttholes aren't considerate enough to keep the spoilers IN the thread and OUT of the title. Saying it's our fault for coming to RBR is telling people who enjoy cycling to stay away until they get a chance to watch the race.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

spade2you said:


> Saying it's our fault for coming to RBR is telling people who enjoy cycling to stay away until they get a chance to watch the race.


I'll go one step further:
_If you don't want to know the results of a bike race, don't go to a cycling-related web site._

Pretty dang simple, that.


----------



## portlester (Jan 17, 2006)

*We are a happy bunch of coconuts!*



spade2you said:


> I don't think mods would prefer that routine users stay away because some buttholes aren't considerate enough to keep the spoilers IN the thread and OUT of the title. Saying it's our fault for coming to RBR is telling people who enjoy cycling to stay away until they get a chance to watch the race.


Why is someone a 'butthole' for staying with the guidelines of these forums? The link to this forum states "Note: Race results (spoilers) are always allowed in this forum". We can discuss possibilities of changing this directive, but I'd rather stay out of peoples never regions!


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

portlester said:


> Why is someone a 'butthole' for staying with the guidelines of these forums? The link to this forum states "Note: Race results (spoilers) are always allowed in this forum". We can discuss possibilities of changing this directive, but I'd rather stay out of peoples never regions!


I don't think that "butthole" is appropriate and I've found my own fix to the underlying issue, but it does seem odd to bother specifying that spoilers are allowed in _this_ forum, and then cavalierly allow them to pop up on the page that serves as the front door for entry into the other forums. Does the quoted rule suggest a presumption that they shouldn't appear in the other forums? If so, what's the purpose for that? Is it to facilitate members browsing the other forums even when they prefer to defer learning the result of some race?


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

I like the spoilers, that way I can know who won without reading all the way through a thread. 

Don't want results spoiled for you? Don't go to a road bike racing forum, seems pretty simple to me. Not like anybody is forcing the result on you.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

It is very simple.

The mods have to setup the Pro-Cycling forum in a way the last post doesn't show in the first page.

Tennis Warehouse Forums do it in that way, and there is a rule, spoilers only go on the "Pro-Tour Matches and Results" forum.

But still some morons keep posting spoilers on the normal forums.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Jwiffle said:


> I like the spoilers, that way I can know who won without reading all the way through a thread.
> 
> Don't want results spoiled for you? Don't go to a road bike racing forum, seems pretty simple to me. Not like anybody is forcing the result on you.


I fail to understand why people don't read a thread before posting in it.


----------



## snosaw (May 30, 2006)

I only answered "yes" because there was not a "who cares" choice...
Finding out who wins before I see it on tv will never ruin my day. Warm beer ruins my day.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

snosaw said:


> I only answered "yes" because there was not a "who cares" choice...
> Finding out who wins before I see it on tv will never ruin my day. Warm beer ruins my day.


So just because it doesn't ruin your day means no one else deserves consideration.

Nice.

/sarcasm


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

pretender said:


> Darth Vader is actually Luke's dad.


HEY THANKS A LOT!!! I was _just getting ready_ to watch Star Wars for the first time....


----------



## M-theory (Jul 16, 2009)

I voted 'no'...but mainly because I just don't appreciate seeing the name 'Cadel Evans' in the title of any thread.


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

*Thank you for putting it so simply.*



Mootsie said:


> If you don't want to know the results, stay off the forum. I think the person who doesn't want to see them needs to take the action to avoid them, not the other way around.



If someone was trying to "not know the outcome until later" for another sport/event (read: football, baseball, basketball, hockey and any other sport), would the really go out of their way to watch ESPN, CNN, Headline News, ESPN.com, and any other sports outlet? You can't help but see the headline pretty much summing up how the game went. 

Let's be reasonable.


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

M-theory said:


> I voted 'no'...but mainly because I just don't appreciate seeing the name 'Cadel Evans' in the title of any thread.


What!? 'Cadel Evans' is better than reading 'Cuddles' in the thread title?! :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

jpdigital said:


> If someone was trying to "not know the outcome until later" for another sport/event (read: football, baseball, basketball, hockey and any other sport), would the really go out of their way to watch ESPN, CNN, Headline News, ESPN.com, and any other sports outlet? You can't help but see the headline pretty much summing up how the game went.
> 
> Let's be reasonable.


How is thinking of others not reasonable?


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> How is thinking of others not reasonable?



Well... I have to agree with you there.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Henry Porter said:


> How is thinking of others not reasonable?


Precisely. Someone who has a TdF stage on his Tivo shouldn't demand that others restrict their public discourse simply because of his particular situation.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

pretender said:


> Precisely. Someone who has a TdF stage on his Tivo shouldn't demand that others restrict their public discourse simply because of his particular situation.


With 54 posts to this thread, 1 person has said it's helpful to have them in the title of the thread. Several have said it hampers them. Why exactly is it a problem to help out people who would like to pursue RBR by simply titling the thread something ambiguous? Hell, often it would save you a couple of keystrokes.

It blows my mind that people can be so self-centered when a significant amount of people have requested that it stops. But whatever, I don't have time to worry about results here so I'm out of here since it appears that people want the opportunity to put whatever they want in the title.


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

Personally, I have nothing vested in the argument either way. But I do see both sides of the story. FWIW, life _would_ be a whole lot easier (for RBR forum users, at least), if others had the common courtesy to just refrain from posting the obvious on the thread title. As I stated earlier, "let's be reasonable", and this case, it seems to be the most reasonable course of action.


----------



## snosaw (May 30, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> So just because it doesn't ruin your day means no one else deserves consideration.
> 
> Nice.
> 
> /sarcasm


I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my 1st comment...I don't watch tv. Only being sarcastic.

I still dislike warm beer though!


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

*Huh!?*



snosaw said:


> I still dislike warm beer though!


I don't think I've ever had an "ice-cold" Guiness!


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

the mind boggles that people come onto a cycling forum and expect to NOT see race results posted?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

alexb618 said:


> the mind boggles that people come onto a cycling forum and expect to NOT see race results posted?


It must really boggle, you're apparently in the minority.


----------



## portlester (Jan 17, 2006)

*If you really want to play with statistics ...*



SilasCL said:


> It must really boggle, you're apparently in the minority.



Out of the 965 who have bothered to read this post only 114 (which is only just over 10%) have a strong enough opinion to bother voting.

or

Out of 109732 registered members (and I'm guessing alot more than that visitors) only 114 people (which is only 0.1% of members) really feel strongly enough one way or the other to even read the post.

So I would say neither side has a majority based on this very small sample size.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

portlester said:


> Out of the 965 who have bothered to read this post only 114 (which is only just over 10%) have a strong enough opinion to bother voting.
> 
> or
> 
> ...


I've visited the thread a few times, as have you, and those all count as thread views.

Each member can only vote once.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Henry Porter said:


> _t appears that people want the opportunity to put whatever they want in the title._


_Aha, now you're starting to get it.

It's less about having a burning desire to post spoiler thread titles, and more about not wanting to restrict content for the sake of people with no sense._


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

Better yet, should Spoilers be allowed on bikes?


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

FondriestFan said:


> People, it's not that hard. Don't want to see results? Don't visit the site until you see the race.


Yep. It's logicl Jim


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

I used to think spoilers in thread titles was fine (AJL v1.0). Now I use the 'new posts' feature allot - and found out that Cadel Evans won the worlds b/4 I finished watching the race on my DVR. Now it's a NO.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

AJL said:


> I used to think spoilers in thread titles was fine (AJL v1.0). Now I use the 'new posts' feature allot - and found out that Cadel Evans won the worlds b/4 I finished watching the race on my DVR. Now it's a NO.


So instead of changing your own behavior to prevent this from happening in the future, you'd prefer instead that other people change their behavior.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

pretender said:


> So instead of changing your own behavior to prevent this from happening in the future, you'd prefer instead that other people change their behavior.


Not to speak for the poster to whom you were responding, but keeping spoilers out of titles just gives effect to the existing rule (or maybe it's a presumption) of keeping spoilers inside the appropriate forum, Pro Cycling. Is the primary goal is to make the rest of the forum more accessible and enjoyable to people who are deferring watching a race? If so, I bet there's a fix that wouldn't require keeping spoilers out of titles (e.g., such as moving Pro Cycling's spot on the front page down to the bottom, or not displaying the most recent thread within the Pro Cycling forum on the front page). Of course, maybe people on one side wouldn't think that goes far enough, and maybe the other side would still be opposed to it.


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

Henry Porter said:


> I fail to understand why people don't read a thread before posting in it.


didn't feel like it, ok? It was a simple poll, I voted and gave my opinion. Don't really see the need to read through everyone's reply.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

If keeping spoilers out of the title is such a big deal, perhaps I need to find a new forum.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

spade2you said:


> If keeping spoilers out of the title is such a big deal, perhaps I need to find a new forum.


Even if there were a rule against spoilers, you'd be smart to stay away from the forum if it really mattered that much to you.

P.S. Is it OK to talk about Tour de France yet?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

pretender said:


> Even if there were a rule against spoilers, you'd be smart to stay away from the forum if it really mattered that much to you.
> 
> P.S. Is it OK to talk about Tour de France yet?


Is it your personal goal to be an e-turd? I rarely see anything other than e-tough and HTFU comments from you on a consistent basis.


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

How is "just dont go to Pro cycling ever agin" a reasonable response. Are you dense? Thats called throwing the baby out with the bathwater! The whole idea is that we DO want to go to procycling because....wait for it...we like pro cycling!!!! Duhhhhh. How about we use our minds instead of just telling everyone to get the hell out if you dont like spoilers. Again, thats an advertisers dream. There are *other *threads than just race results, maybe i like to read those you moron. Why should i have to completely give up something so you can be rude. There has to be an answer, maybe a race results only section or something, im sure it aint rocket science. Just telling everyone "eff you" that works during the day is the prick way out.
BTW, "no" is making a charge on the poll. Come on "no"!!!


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

bigmig19 said:


> How is "just dont go to Pro cycling ever agin" a reasonable response. Are you dense? Thats called throwing the baby out with the bathwater! The whole idea is that we DO want to go to procycling because....wait for it...we like pro cycling!!!! Duhhhhh. How about we use our minds instead of just telling everyone to get the hell out if you dont like spoilers. Again, thats an advertisers dream. There are *other *threads than just race results, maybe i like to read those you moron. Why should i have to completely give up something so you can be rude. There has to be an answer, maybe a race results only section or something, im sure it aint rocket science. Just telling everyone "eff you" that works during the day is the prick way out.
> BTW, "no" is making a charge on the poll. Come on "no"!!!


It's very simple. If you don't want to know the result of a bike race that has already occurred, don't go to a cycling web site. When you have watched the race on DVR or whatever, then you can visit the site without fear of having the result spoiled for you.

Even if all sorts of convoluted rules were enacted against "spoiling" races (by discussing them), no doubt there would be threads that got through the cracks, simply by mistake. So if it _really_ mattered to you not to know the result of a race you have on DVR, you should take responsibility for your own happiness, and avoid cycling websites.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

pretender said:


> So instead of changing your own behavior to prevent this from happening in the future, you'd prefer instead that other people change their behavior.


Duh, the new posts feature is a really useful feature. It's a fast way to see if there are new threads that I want to read or weigh in on. Otherwise I'd have to go through at least a 1/2 dozen forums each day to find threads of interest. So yes, I rather have you change your behaviour than me having to; especially since you'd be taking a smaller hit than I.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

pretender said:


> It's very simple. If you don't want to know the result of a bike race that has already occurred, don't go to a cycling web site. When you have watched the race on DVR or whatever, then you can visit the site without fear of having the result spoiled for you.
> 
> Even if all sorts of convoluted rules were enacted against "spoiling" races (by discussing them), no doubt there would be threads that got through the cracks, simply by mistake. So if it _really_ mattered to you not to know the result of a race you have on DVR, you should take responsibility for your own happiness, and avoid cycling websites.


We are not talking about 'any' cycling websites; we are talking about this one. Many active users like to stay in touch with what's going on in the forum, even if they only have 20 minutes to do it, which isn't enough time to watch a 2 hour watch a race broadcast (d'oh!).


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

AJL said:


> We are not talking about 'any' cycling websites; we are talking about this one. Many active users like to stay in touch with what's going on in the forum, even if they only have 20 minutes to do it, which isn't enough time to watch a 2 hour watch a race broadcast (d'oh!).


But how would keeping spoilers off the front page, or moving them to the bottom of the front page, impact that?


----------



## Becky (Jun 15, 2004)

AJL said:


> Duh, the new posts feature is a really useful feature. It's a fast way to see if there are new threads that I want to read or weigh in on. Otherwise I'd have to go through at least a 1/2 dozen forums each day to find threads of interest.


Without getting sucked into this drama-pit of a thread.... Yes, I agree with this post and with the notion that spoilers don't belong in thread titles. I use the "New Posts" feature to quickly scan for updated threads on topics that interest me. With so many sub-forms available, I simply don't have time to peruse each one at a time.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

spade2you said:


> If keeping spoilers out of the title is such a big deal, perhaps I need to find a new forum.


really it is not a big deal, many other sports forums like this tennis one do it.

it is a feature of vBulletin


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Becky said:


> Without getting sucked into this drama-pit of a thread...


No. There's no way that that's gonna happen eh?


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Undecided said:


> But how would keeping spoilers off the front page, or moving them to the bottom of the front page, impact that?


It wouldn't - my post was related to an earlier post about how using the 'New Posts' feature saves allot of time when it comes to keeping up with threads of interest.


----------



## Maximus_XXIV (Nov 10, 2008)

I think I should be allowed to ruin the possibility of someone watching a delayed race without knowing who won. In fact, it is a right!!! My rights trump all others. I am the most important person on the planet and I should NEVER need to modify my behavior out of respect for others. In fact, you all are just worthless peons in this world and not even worth my time. Later...


----------



## coldass (Oct 8, 2007)

This is a forum, not a cycling news site and all manner of things I don't want to read get given to me at all manner of times. 

I don't think we all need to wait for a time before posting spoilers - given a far amount of members would want to post their comments about a race as it is in process or as it is just won.

In the thread title or not is rather irrelevant after the fact.

Spoilers outside of the 'pro cycling' forum is a bit unkind, and it is reasonable for people to use their discretion as to if they post spoilers in titles or not and when. 

But to ban spoilers in the 'pro cycling' forum out-right seems a bit harsh and frankly having a tread title that says 'Cadel wins' is no big deal given it could just as easily be in any post I read.

And after all if I am at work, or waiting to watch a delayed telecast, or my Tivo recording, common sense says to stay away from cycling sites, forums, news sites or media in general until I get my pleasure.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

coldass said:


> This is a forum, not a cycling news site and all manner of things I don't want to read get given to me at all manner of times.
> 
> I don't think we all need to wait for a time before posting spoilers - given a far amount of members would want to post their comments about a race as it is in process or as it is just won.
> 
> ...


No one is claiming to ban spoilers just asking for a some kindness of not posting it in the title of the thread.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

I like the smell of my own farts.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

jlandry said:


> I like the smell of my own farts.


I've been known to cup one, now and again.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

FondriestFan said:


> People, it's not that hard. Don't want to see results? Don't visit the site until you see the race.


The flip side of that ... People, it's not hard. Don't put spoilers in the thread titles.

Between RBR and Facebook, I think half the Tour's stages last year were spoiled for me. And I never clicked in Pro Cycling until after I watched the day's stage.

If someone can explain to me the benefit of having to put the actual victor's/team's name in a thread title, and/or why it's so difficult not to, then I'm all ears.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

DrRoebuck said:


> The flip side of that ... People, it's not hard. Don't put spoilers in the thread titles.


Sheesh, you, SilasCL, il sogno; newer members getting their panties in a bunch . . . .


----------



## Samhain (Jun 14, 2008)

I am sort of torn on this subject. On one hand I see the point of not ruining the experience, but on the other hand (and this is just my opinion), you shouldn't come to a forum about cycling and especially a section about Pro cycling if you are waiting to watch a race to see the results. Go watch the race instead!


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

Samhain said:


> I am sort of torn on this subject. On one hand I see the point of not ruining the experience, but on the other hand (and this is just my opinion), you shouldn't come to a forum about cycling and especially a section about Pro cycling if you are waiting to watch a race to see the results. Go watch the race instead!


This pretty much sums up how I feel on the matter.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

jpdigital said:


> This pretty much sums up how I feel on the matter.


OK, but to repeat a point made many times above, the thread titles appear outside of the Pro Cycling forum, on the main page, which is why the poll was about spoilers in thread titles.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Undecided said:


> OK, but to repeat a point made many times above, the thread titles appear outside of the Pro Cycling forum, on the main page, which is why the poll was about spoilers in thread titles.


Yeah, it seems this is written over and over but people just ignore it because it doesn't support their argument.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Henry Porter said:


> Yeah, it seems this is written over and over but people just ignore it because it doesn't support their argument.


We don't ignore it, we just assumed people knew about bookmarks.

Gotta love the whininess: "Between RBR and Facebook, I think half the Tour's stages last year were spoiled for me." Hm, if it really ruins your life that much, maybe take a break from RBR and Facebook in July? Exercise some self-control? Actually do some _work_ on the computer, for a change?

It's not about courtesy, it's about coddling people with no common sense.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

P.S. Kristin shot J.R.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

pretender said:


> We don't ignore it, we just assumed people knew about bookmarks.
> 
> Gotta love the whininess: "Between RBR and Facebook, I think half the Tour's stages last year were spoiled for me." Hm, if it really ruins your life that much, maybe take a break from RBR and Facebook in July? Exercise some self-control? Actually do some _work_ on the computer, for a change?
> 
> It's not about courtesy, it's about coddling people with no common sense.


Doesn't bother *me *at all, I'm just sticking up for others not having experiences ruined for them.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

pretender said:


> It's not about courtesy, it's about coddling people with no common sense.


With the poll as evenly split as it is, why do you think your view represents common sense? It doesn't seem there's widespread agreement on the topic.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

FondriestFan said:


> This is hilarious. Rather than a few people deciding they should exercise some self-restraint and not visit forums dedicated to ROAD CYCLING, let's modify everyone else's behavior. Typical me-first generation thinking. It's like asking a kiosk on the street not to put their newspapers out to sell because you might see the results of American Idol.
> 
> People, it's not that hard. Don't want to see results? Don't visit the site until you see the race.


And to you it say its "typical me first generation thinking" for the loser who has no life and no job and can sit home and watch daytime coverage and then RUN RUN RUN to his PC and blurt out the spoilers in a thread title so that he gets some kind of pathetic self-satisfaction that he "posted it first."


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

Henry Porter said:


> There is always that guy. I'm a lurker occasionally on a Iowa Hawkeye messageboard and some guy posted last week that he was at a wedding where the bride and groom announced that they didn't want people to talk about the result of the Penn State game to not ruin it. Promptly some ******* yelled back the score at that point and then once the game was over yelled it just to piss off the people that wanted to watch it on tape delay. At a wedding!


It's always the sign of a stand-up person that he won't abide by someone's wishes at their own wedding.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

pretender said:


> It's very simple. If you don't want to know the result of a bike race that has already occurred, don't go to a cycling web site. When you have watched the race on DVR or whatever, then you can visit the site without fear of having the result spoiled for you.
> 
> Even if all sorts of convoluted rules were enacted against "spoiling" races (by discussing them), no doubt there would be threads that got through the cracks, simply by mistake. So if it _really_ mattered to you not to know the result of a race you have on DVR, you should take responsibility for your own happiness, and avoid cycling websites.


As a courtesy, please keep the actual results out of the thread TITLE is a "convoluted rule"???!!!????

Nobody is saying dont have spoilers....just keep them out of the ****ing thread TITLE.

Is it really that hard to put "such and such race/stage results. SPOILERS INSIDE" as your thread title? 

And the whole idead of "staying out of the forum" is bollocks, as well. We ALL know that this forums has A LOT of other discussions besides the results of the day. Maybe even though Id like to avoid the race results, I would like to discuss the myriad of OTHER pro cycking stuff discussed in this forum on a daily while Im stuck at work?

Wow...heres an idea....how bout a sub forum with ONLY race results?


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

FondriestFan said:


> This is hilarious. Rather than a few people deciding they should exercise some self-restraint and simply not name the race winner in the _thread title_, let's modify everyone else's behavior. Typical me-first generation thinking.
> 
> People, it's not that hard. Want to post results? Post them in the body of your post.


Fixed.

And you make a great point!


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

gegarrenton said:


> Waaay too easy!


Oh boy... we agree. What might that say about you?


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

bigmig19 said:


> As always I ask the question: What do you LOSE by NOT posting a spoiler in the title? Answer: Nothing!!
> So you think it makes MORE sense to have people stay off the site (the advertisers would love that) so you can do something that satisfies what i dont know, rather than just *not *putting a spoiler in the tilte? This is the tail wagging the dog. Why are you "fighting" for something that has ZERO benefit, but would suggest people stay of the site all day?
> Heres a thought: Maybe I enjoy reading this forum when I have a break at work! How hard is it to keep your mouth shut. I said it once and ill say it again, if its so hard, why do so many have so much success during the Tour keeping the winner out of their title?
> WHAT are you fighting for?:mad2:



Maybe you should step outside of yourself to realize most other who've frequented this place for several years (some going all the way back to the beginning) might enjoy what happens inside of RBR and the Pro Cycling forum differently than you do. Perhaps most of us here find RBR Pro Cycling more enjoyable if it's a place where we can talk about major events happening in pro cycling with completely expressed excitement and enthusiasm. Your concerns involving your TV viewing habits have ZERO benefit to anyone else here but you. Indeed, putting your needs that go along with your TV viewing habits before others who wish to enthusiastically discuss pro cycling in Pro Cycling as it's intended would be the tail wagging the dog.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

The_Boy said:


> Typical me-first generation thinking.... so you want *others* to share *your* view? Gotcha.
> 
> If RoadBikeReview had no information other than race reports I would agree that you should just stay away from the site, but there are so many other reasons to visit the site. Seems dumb for me to not research weight weenie products until the World Championships shows on TV in the evening.
> 
> ...



Then you should directly make sure that the people who run this site know what you think and see what they can or will do about it. BTW, I think that's a very good idea but I have no idea if they can do it that way technically.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

rocco said:


> Then you should directly make sure that the people who run this site know what you think and see what they can or will do about it. BTW, I think that's a very good idea but I have no idea if they can do it that way technically.


It seems a pretty dumb idea to allow spoilers in the title as all it does is drive down clicks within the forum and the site as a whole.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Alternately:

Use A BOOKMARK and FORUM JUMP! MORANS


----------



## fontarin (Mar 28, 2009)

Here's what I learned (at least according to what posters on this thread say)
1. People who want topics to not contain spoilers are selfish jerks.
2. People who can't slightly alter a post title to not contain spoilers are selfish jerks.

thus.. humans are selfish jerks.

Good summary of 5 pages of posts, no? 

Summary of this post: Font is a ***hole!


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

fontarin said:


> Here's what I learned (at least according to what posters on this thread say)
> 1. People who want topics to not contain spoilers are selfish jerks.
> 2. People who can't slightly alter a post title to not contain spoilers are selfish jerks.
> 
> ...


Truer words have never been spoken.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

pretender said:


> Alternately:
> 
> Use A BOOKMARK and FORUM JUMP! MORANS


The FORUM contains OTHER topcis OUTSIDE of RESULTS people would like to discuss! MORANS


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators note.*

Seeing most of the new posts are basically or explicitly calling the other side morons, time to put this horse out to pasture.


----------

