C.O., I didn’t “instruct” a Moderator to do anything.
I don’t have that type of power or authority.
The moderators acted within their own power and authority.
Oh I think that members have to power to lock threads. They may not have the technical equipment to lock a thread, but they vote with the button. We have been told many times that a thread was locked because people complained. There does not even need to be a rules violation for members to get a thread locked. They complain simply because they don’t agree with the ideas being expressed in a thread. They either complain with the button or they complain with a post in the thread.
Yes, that is how it pretty much works on any internet forum. Do we expect trains.com to be any different…?
I don’t see any need to rehash the exchange between Murray and myself. We settled it and as far as I’m concerned that’s it. However… I sincerely wish someone could enlighten me on how exactly the back and forth on the “This is bad” thread or on the “Question” thread, however boring or irritating it might be to some b/c it “goes nowhere”, is so offensive as to warrant locking? I mean, there are a lot of other threads that to me “go nowhere” or are “about nothing.” If I 'm not interested in them, I generally never open them, and I don’t complain about them to anyone, be it moderators or openly. I simply exercise my free choice and move on.
No. But that was not my point. My point was in response to Murray’s contention that he does not have the power or authority to lock a thread.
I still must fail to see your point. I don’t think any one member without moderator status has the power or authority. Now he can be part of a collective opinion, but even then, the actual lock has to come from someone with the power.
Murray can not lock a thread. But he can influence those that do. Just like repeating the same arguments and peeing matches over and over can influence the moderators. But sheesh… give the moderators a little credit. They allow a lot more leeway than the most other forums I ever visited.
Murray didn’t influence anyone.
Murray didn’t order/demand/direct/persuade/ask a moderator to do anything.
The moderators did what the moderators did.
Like the Judge on "Perry Mason says: “Asked and answered…Move on Counselor.”
Well anyway, the dangerous idea that I was referring to was not about what gets threads locked. The dangerous idea is that there is some small wiggle room in the belief (the orthodoxy) that every grade crossing crash is 100% the fault of the driver. Nothing challenges this orthodoxy more than a grade crossing signal failure-to-activate incident.
Last April, we had signal maintainers test a grade crossing signal because they had reason to believe it might not work. Their test was to observe the passage of a 79mph Amtrak train. The signals failed the test, and a woman was killed as the signal maintainers watched.
Yet, if you read the comments attached to the news coverage of that incident, you will find people defending the orthodoxy, making pretzels out of lo
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
Well anyway, the dangerous idea that I was referring to was not about what gets threads locked. The dangerous idea is that there is some small wiggle room in the belief (the orthodoxy) that every grade crossing crash is 100% the fault of the driver. Nothing challenges this orthodoxy more than a grade crossing signal failure-to-activate incident.
Last April, we had signal maintainers test a grade crossing signal because they had reason to believe it might not work. Their test was to observe the passage of a 79mph Amtrak train. The signals failed the test, and a woman was killed as the signal maintainers watched.
Yet, if you read the comments attached to the news coverage of that incident, you will find people defending the orthodoxy, making pretzels out of logic in an attempt to bla
“instruct” …“calling out for”…(?) Same bit. Your lack of authority doesn’t change your intent (to have the thread closed) , and that’s all I called you out for. So again, what Have I falsely accused you of?
If you are offended that I saw a conflict between your actions and your behavior, then i’m sorry you are so easily offended, but i didn’t accuse you of anything that you we not guilty of.
And we wonder why threads get locked…?
[banghead]
NOTE: it is not my intention for this thread to be locked, but c’mon, would it surprise ANY of us?
OK, why in the world would this thread be locked? Is it offending anyone, other than in matters of aesthetics? You continue make posts that appear to complain about the lack of progress. I get it, but why should that be a legitimate criterion for locking?
It seems to me like certain people here have just discovered how internet forums, and Trains.com in particular, work. Things like this have happened all the time, and we have had many discussions on why it happens. How people can be mystified at why a thread was locked/the reasoning behind it is beyond me.
The thread had very little to do with the forum topic. Once again, it has descended into a peeing contest.
We’ve hit 4 pages and it has come back full circle. There is no breaking the cycle - our opinions are set in stone. Even our argument has been rehashed once before, Mr. Schlimm. But at least I have gotten good out of this thread. Check out my new signature: it is a direct result of this thread.
Have a great day.
“Full circle” “no breaking the cycle” “rehashing” Again, all I hear are descriptions of what is. Never an answer as to what is so personally offensive about that? Why can’t that be tolerated? If it offends your aesthetics so much, why not let it be and participate on threads that “go somewhere?” The pages of all forums are now expanded to 40 threads, so there is surely room. And if no one likes it, then it will fade away. No, IMO, there is something else going on that some folks just cannot tolerate.
Gentlemen…Lets just let it go.
Everyone’s point is well taken.
Get get back to trains and railroading.
I believe that a train stopped on a signalized crossing where the signals have either failed to activate or have been taken out of service is far more likely to get run into than a train stopped on a non-signalized crossing, all other things being equal.
The reason being that many of the drivers would be familiar with the crossing, and would be less cautious when approaching a crossing that they believe is protected by automatic signals.
The fact that the railroad company requires crews to flag crossings with signals that have been taken out of service is a sure indication that they realize that such a crossing cannot be treated like just any other non-signalized crossing. So the flagging rule is an acknowledgement that drivers will lower their guard and rely on the signals at signalized crossings.
Nothing personally offensive about it, sir. But I believe it is not in the best interest of the forum to rehash the same circular cyclic arguments again and again (I used to work for the department of redundancy department). Someone points out a thread is going nowhere, and then you get all worked up about the person that says the thread is going nowhere. If you don’t believe my contributions to the thread are needed - then why do you respond? Just ignore them if they bug you so…
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
I believe that a train stopped on a signalized crossing where the signals have either failed to activate or have been taken out of service is far more likely to get run into than a train stopped on a non-signalized crossing, all other things being equal.
The reason being that many of the drivers would be familiar with the crossing, and would be less cautious when approaching a crossing that they believe is protected by automatic signals.
The fact that the railroad company requires crews to flag crossings with signals that have been taken out of service is a sure indication that they realize that such a crossing cannot be treated like just any other non-signalized crossing. So the flagging rule is an acknowledgement that drivers will lower their guard and rely on the signals at signalized crossings.
But that doesn’t that set up a dangerous precedent? From afar, you can not tell whether a crossing is signalized or not. So if someone flags a crossing that has the crossing protection disabled, then won’t people start expecting every crossing to be flagged (esp. passive ones)?
For me, this isn’t a question of whether the crossing protection should have been working or not - but it is a question of drivers having control of their vehicle.