We have a whole list of rules to follow on this forum. So when a thread that is complying with the rules generates enough interest to run to 16 pages, 237 posts, and almost 3000 views, and is locked with no explanation of why; I have to assume that it is because the ideas being expressed are offensive to either the moderators or forum members who cannot tolerate such ideas.
It is obvious that the problem with that thread is that it was running against the grade crossing orthodoxy. It is perfectly fine to have a thread run on endlessly, dancing on the grave of some grade crossing victim. This is the industry template, and most railfans embrace it. But when the signals fail, it amounts to a fly in the ointment of this orthodoxy. And that leads into dangerous ideas that challenge the orthodoxy.
If you want to see an example of this orthodoxy, look at the three pages of comment
The comments ran the gamut of opinion, same as here, but with a lot less detailed discussion of facts and legalities, plus a whole lot of rudeness and name-calling/flaming. But the Trib let it be. The question (as I attempted to ask on the Question thread) is why did the accident thread on the Trains General forum need to be locked? And why? And aside from a few of us, does anybody even care?
I looked at the subject thread once early on and have avoided it since becuase I had no interest in it.
After looking at the last two pages, I have no idea why the thread was locked. If someone is uninterested they can simply not follow the thread.
I am of the opinion that “politically incorrect” statements and threads that generate politically incorrect statements are more likely to be locked than other threads. I once had a few discussions with some of the moderators and made specific suggestions to Kalmbach for changes to the “political” rule. No changes were made, but the moderators seemed to be more tollerant for a while.
Somebody got upset about something in the locked thread, but who, and over what are not clear to me.
Good point, Mac. I was following the thread and occasionally commented, but I failed to see what was “not politically correct,” personally offensive or what. The only thing was, as Bucyrus noted, that it tried to examine/challenge the orthodoxy or conventional wisdom on this forum about rail crossing accidents. But that should not cause a lock down, even if some member doesn’t like it as long as it is not an ad hominem attack and within the bounds of average taste and non-offensive language.
I think the whole point of the thread was not the grade corssing orthodoxy that Bucyrus talks about - but mroe of a question of whether the absence of operating automatic protection relieves a driver of exercising due care and diligence while operating a motor vehicle.
Just because some have this idea that a grade crossing is a sacred cow - does not make it true.
I was unhappy about the locking because I had just set up a thought process pertaining to the rights to discovery that I was about to harvest, but …that’s the breaks. [B)]
On the suface, it probably appeared to the moderators that the thread had no potential to “go” anywhere, with both sides entrenched for the duration, so (from their perspective) their action probably seemed as euthanasia.
Never know though, juries have to be made up from somewhere, and perhaps Kalmbach was worried that some potential juror might disqualify himself after reading what was about to become my master stroke…[swg]
Just start another thread…sometimes threads are locked…it is helpful to remember that the forum is privately owned, and the owners or their representative may thus lock threads at their sole descretion. It shouldn’t be a big deal…
I am one of the moderators of an aviation forum. I’m loathe to lock a thread, but there are times it wanders so far off topic and gets into a pi$$ing match i/we are forced to do that. We refer to is as ‘beating a dead horse to death’, and when we close a thread we explain that to the users. I don’t think the moderators use a different standard.
There are trial lawyers who will argue that. But in reality, it is the driver that has the burden of following the law, no matter how obscure it may be. What people were injecting into the conversaton was speculaton, to which I don’t buy into. Those who wish to invent things such as ‘Orthodoxy’ and other meaninless ideas, are just as guilty as the public (and a certain FD official), who only see the prima facie case.
I only read the comments section of news paper atricles for comedic value, most of it is very uninformed. However I don’t think the absance of automatic protection or flairs relives the drives of excersising care around railroads.
In thinking more about this, I conclude that threads about complex ideas don’t work well. Forum communication is fundamentally too impaired for the discussion of complex subjects. The problem is not just that complex threads are difficult to participate in. There is a larger problem in that complex threads stir up resentment among non-participating spectators, so they complain to the moderator to make it stop.
Because they don’t make the effort to understand what is being said in a thread, they complain that the thread is circular or going nowhere. They say it is beating a dead horse. But is it really? Or does it just seem that way to those who simply resent a complex discussion by others? Everything appears to be going nowhere if you refuse to make the effort to understand it.
IMO, the question of any thread "beating a dead horse: and “going around in circles” offending members enough to get it locked is a smokescreen for the real, unspoken reason: the subject matter touches some raw nerves and that just isn’t allowed.
I think threads get locked when people start ‘voicing’ comments that would, if they were in a crowd, be spoken “under their breath” after nudging a friend that they knew were of a like mind.
If we were invited to attend a gathering and someone was speaking to everyone and said something we dissagreed with, we might nudge a friend standing next to us and make a quiet comment ‘under our breath’ to them about what was said or maybe about the speaker. Most of us would never consider embarrassing the host of the gathering by shouting an insulting comment. Most would see that as being rude and insensitive, both to the speaker and the host.
On computer forums like this one it seems we tend to forget that we are invited guests and there are no “quiet little comments” that are not broadcast to everyone reading the thread.
I am not saying that you should never dissagree with statements being made, but to rebut a comment with an insult is being rude and insensitive. And to just make an insulting comment is what is not allowed.
In thinking more about this, I conclude that threads about complex ideas don’t work well. Forum communication is fundamentally too impaired for the discussion of complex subjects. The problem is not just that complex threads are difficult to participate in. There is a larger problem in that complex threads stir up resentment among non-participating spectators, so they complain to the moderator to make it stop.
Because they don’t make the effort to understand what is being said in a thread, they complain that the thread is circular or going nowhere. They say it is beating a dead horse. But is it really? Or does it just seem that way to those who simply resent a complex discussion by others?
