In more modern times, too.
So… does this thread have a point? Ever notice how some of these posters seem to only ever participate in threads where they can whine about the forum (or just state their personal political leanings, or criticize railroaders)?
Who knows - maybe it’s just me.
Predictable. If you have no interest in the thread, why can’t you just ignore it as all of us do with other threads? Is there a posting in this thread that personally insults you or anyone else? And in fact I just posted my strong agreement with you on a serious issue.
I didn’t go to the moderator. I just asked - esp. after the big issue here with forum size awhile back. I just wonder if all this virtual back and forth and kum-bye-ya crap (which as nothing to do with RR discussion) is worthy of knocking another topic to page two? Besides, it’;s hard to ignore a thread that keeps popping to the top. I read most anything on this page. It’s like if I tell you to not think about bananas. What are you thinking of?
PS. No such thing as a stupid question.
PPS Besides schlimm, at least you post to other topics…
Its a thread on rationalization.
.
I contacted both moderators and asked why last Sunday’s thread was locked before I said anything about it on the forum. I was told that the thread was locked because someone complained that we were making errors in our discussion of Illinois grade crossing law. Other than that, I was given no specific reason for the locking.
But to the point of rude comments: Rude comments are against the rules. Publicly asking a moderator why a thread was locked is not against the rules, so why should it even be considered to be a problem? It can be characterized as being rude by referring to is as “calling a moderator out,” but that is just using inflammatory rhetoric in an attempt to elevate it to the level of an offense.
A thread is in th
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
But to the point of rude comments: Rude comments are against the rules. Publicly asking a moderator why a thread was locked is not against the rules, so why should it even be considered to be a problem? It can be characterized as being rude by referring to is as “calling a moderator out,” but that is just using inflammatory rhetoric in an attempt to elevate it to the level of an offense.
A thread is in the public domain. When a moderator locks one, he does so on the thread, in public. Often when he does so, he announces the reason publicly. Sometimes moderators personally and publicly scold a forum member whom they believe is causing a problem. Sometimes they harshly chastise a group of thread participants collectively, painting them with a broad brush, leaving the impression publicly that they have all violated a rule when all have not. If moderators can do this in public, why should be considered wrong to question them publicly?
Just think - if this was another popular forum (not naming names, but it rhymes with grainorders) this thread would be deleted, we’d all be banned, and the fan club would cheer the moderators for keeping the site “civil”.
Sometimes we forget how good we have it here. And I’m being serious.
Absolutely correct Zug.
Look gentlemen…can’t we all be friends here?
Murray,
I tried to make the point here in the fairest and most understandable way possible. I don’t recall blaming you for getting a thread locked. But if I did so inadvertently, I do apologize for that. I have no indication that you have ever caused a thread to get locked.
Thank you Sir.
I hope we have finally cleared the air on this matter.
Well, sure Murray we can all be more friendly and civil.
The “public” domain question. Yes, the forum is owned and moderated by Kalmbach, but for the public to use, not just internal. So sure, the moderators have the right to do whatever they want, but is that wise? Especially when the thread that got locked did not have anything more offensive to it than “going around in circles,” was that really necessary? Murphy said he was tired of removing offensive posts; I guess so, but he sure must have been watching it continuously, as i didn’t notice any posts removed.
If we don’t like the rules and/or practices, we have a few options: 1. Accept, 2. Leave, or 3. See if it could be modified. And that goes for a thread we don’t personally like as well.
Fellas, I think Zug was very close to expressing how I feel about some of the threads that end up being locked or that have any number of posts deleted.
In some ways having moderators detracts from a public forum because their internal biases and the ones imposed on them by the rules combine to stilt conversation and free-flowing expression. But Zug has all but stated in so many words that the moderators would not be necessary if the ‘adults’ either participating or merely looking-on would do a better job of stewardship, either in threads they have initiated or in which they find some vicarious interest or pleasure.
That sounds great as written, but it may only be two people who share the same views on what is transpiring when tempers get the better of us. We like to get our shrift, and none of us likes it when he is either ignored, ridiculed, or insulted. It escalates to the point where someone says something so outrageous that the mods see it and act, or an observer/participant complains. However, the complaint may or may not go discretely either in a PM to the “perp” or to the mods via an RA…it is just as often posted with its ar.se flap open for everyone to see.
Just about the time all this happens, often by page two or three, the entire circus act ends up being a peeing contest between two or three or four people…the same ones, time and again. It gets a little irritating from this human’s points of view. And obviously so from the points of view of those who may or may not complain.
Quite apparent to me is the fact that there are marked differences in opinion and in experience when these longer crusades get into full setup…to use an analogy related to RR. [swg]. This is often expressed in ways that are intolerable to the people opposite, and then ‘we get into it’. If it were germane, and not merely seeing who was creating the longest steamy arc, who would really mind? Yet, as long as th
Selector,
Thanks for your comments, but I am not sure I follow you on this part. Could you please elaborate on this?
What I meant was that if everyone who enjoys coming here would take a hand in impressing on each other the benefit of more civil discourse, a lot of the heavy-handed moderation would probably…probably…go away.
Crandell
.
I deleted a handful of posts from this thread. With each deletion, I sent the poster this message:
I’m doing some housecleaning on the Dangerous Ideas thread. In essence, I’m removing all those posts that are there simply to get a rise out of someone, those that are replies to them, and those who quote them. Your post fell somewhere in the mix. I figured, maybe if we could get away from the “so’s your mother!!” attitude on this thread, some meaningful thoughts could be civily discussed.
For those that require a reason for why their post was deleted, consider it as moderator’s prerogative.
-Norris
Let’s see if we can discuss things without resorting to the name-calling and quasi-trolling type posts.
-Norris / beleaguered moderator
Oh sure, I think we have all been saying that. I was just wondering why you were linking it with Zugmann in particular.
I may have missed it in anything you said, Bucyrus, in which case please accept my apology. However, it was only in Zugman’s post back a page now that I felt someone understood the nature of moderation here.
Crandell
I reply with the following not to inflame, but simply because I feel the message needs to be communicated.
I don’t see where I accused you of anything beyond what you actually did, when i concurred with schimm’s comment about why you felt the need to instruct the moderators to euthanize a thread, (playing forum police, in other words) when you yourself were "violating " forum rules. …So just what have I falsely accused you of?