This thread may get locked or deleted, but I would hope not because I feel it raises an important point.
Let me say at the outset that I have never even read the Philosophy Friday threads until the most recent one was posted. Having read last Friday’s thread because the title drew me to it, I have no objection to the notion of philosophizing or attempting to foster model railroading discussion through such a technique.
I objected to the recent Philosophy Friday thread but not because of its title. Had it read, “Things I Hate About Layouts” and then enumerated things that bother him like flat layouts, overhead fluorescent bulbs, and brown colors, I would have no problem with that.
What bothered me, like no other thread that I have read in my 5 ½ years on the forum, was the personal nature of the criticism. True, he did not name the owner of the layout, but there was so much specific description of the layout in the initial post that, if it did indeed exist (although he tried to deflect the criticism by suggesting that maybe it was fictional), the owner of the layout and anyone who knows him or has seen his layout had to feel or sense embarrassment or resentment or both. <
I have to admit that John picked a very touchy subject and probably could have handled it better. But in his defence he did go out of his way to NOT name names and asked that anyone who did know also not name it. It could have been anyone’s layout even one of mine. John also applauded the skill shown in the actual modeling even if the composition left him unimpressed.
Sometimes truth hurts but it doesn’t have to be about mrr’s, when was the last time you lied to save someones feelings? It happens and it’s part of life that won’t go away. I admit that I don’t like negative critisisim, noone does, but how it’s delivered makes a huge difference. Just saying that you don’t like something doesn’t help anyone,or being downright demeaning. Elaborating on what you don’t like and offering ideas on how to make it more plaesing is something I preferr and I’m sure most others would too.
That said, I find Philosophy Friday kind of fun and yes it does make one think about different aspects of our hobby. Keep thining John…
I thought it was for exchanging information and giving and getting tips on model railroading , but now with the latest, ‘‘Philosophy Friday’’ , I pretty much gave up on this lame site.
Too many experts and too many guys looking for a pat on the back.
There are a lot of good sites for modelrailroading , and this isn’t one of them anymore. Keep it to trains and only trains and it wouldn’t be so bad. All this other worthless stuff that people put on here belongs elsewhere. BTW I’m sure this post will be deleted too.[(-D]
I’d say that John comes up with some neat cans of worms with these weekly things. It does make one think that is for darn sure
This one though seems to have had its fair share of knocks in that it appears that someone seems to have had their own layout gored in this. I’m not sure who this would be but there did seem to be some protectiveness happening here. I know my layout will not be seen as realistic—especially since I still have HUGE segments of it with just the girders up—but there I go.
I’m not going to defend John as he appears to be quite able to defend himself by the looks of things–I hope he’ll continue doing these weekly----[:D]
John´s statements are, IMHO, certainly provoking, but never ill meant. I must have misread his opening post completely, but I understood his criticism as being one on a fictional layout, not on an actual one.
I agree, that I ´d feel very much embarrassed, should any of my work be commented in such a way in public. It happened to me, when I presented my first attempt at weathering. I knew beforehand, that it was not up the level we can see here, and I did not expect only well-meant compliments on it, but being put down in a rather rude way caught me off-hand. Fortunately, most of our fellow members of this forum are respectful enough to give positive criticism.
I like the philosophical questions and the mostly civilized discussions around them and would hate to see them go.
Well—maybe the “experts” exist because they do? I don’t know about you but I think that I’ll learn from anyone–not just milquetoast people. BTW–sticking with trains and only trains kind of would narrow the focus down to the point wherein you could not even squawk about this even----[:-^]
And that’s part of why I suggested that the questions be more concise and not have as much explanation up front. Much of the discussion was about the description of the layout, not about what bothers people. I would think that a moderator should ask a question and then allow others to answer the question before shaping the discussion with his own opinions (if the moderator should even provide his own opinions at all). But the suggestion to not comment until after the question was posed was considered “insulting”.
PS: I referenced a previous Philosophy Friday question and provided the Shorpy pix because many, including myself, had been discussed about how unrealistic it is for buildings to be wedged into scenes between hills and tracks with no obvious access and how just having tunnel portal popping tracks into a scene was unrealitic. But here was a picture of a rail scene with no obvious road in, no obvious access to loading docks, buildings wedged between a hill and the tracks and a tunnel portal right in the middle. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
I like John’s approach. He raises some thought provoking questions. I think the only people who take umbrage to it are the guys who are stuck in a rut, and who would rather not have their thoughts provoked.
A discussion forum is an odd place to be if you don’t want to discuss anything.
It was the first time I’d read one of these threads, and it went on way beyond my interest so I didn’t read everything.
I do think that “hating” someones’ layout is way too strong. Perhaps you’re not impressed with the layout, don’t wish to do the same, but to “hate” something that someone else created and obviously gets pleasure in? Seems to be way over the top to me.
Like many, I’ve seen my share of less than impressive layouts, but it sure doesn’t trigger a hate feeling in me.
If its modeling you are looking for then sign up on the Atlas forum…There’s tons of good modeling information there put forth by knowledgeable modelers…Of course wading though some BS and personal opinions is required.
Actually if one opens his mind those Philosophy Friday topics is rather interesting and thought provoking subjects.I hope John continues these topics.
BTW…Talking about modeling can lead to flame wars because of the many different modeling philosophies and personal modeling standards.
Dave,A moderator should be able to join in on a discussion and give his personal views,opinions and share his knowledge.
As a moderator on 3 different forums I seen nothing wrong with John’s approach other then poor wording but,who I am to say? After all I can choose the wrong words at times as well as does everybody.
My best advice is if one doesn’t like the topic to remember there is NO rules stating he/she must join in or air their grievances because he/she may not like the topic…Many of us likes the Philosophy Friday discussions.
BTW…As a moderator I saw nothing “insulting” in that topic and apparently neither did the forum moderators…I also understand why it was locked…I would have done the same since it was turning ugly…
A model railroad forum is an odd place to discuss philosophy. Or other worthless threads like, Elliots trackside diner or Beer Barn. I could care less about what any of you do when you are not on here. If you want to discuss your daily life thats what Twitter is for.
I look on Philosophy Phriday as more of a “classroom discussion,” with the topic being guided by “Professor John.” It’s a different way of “managing” a thread, rather than just letting it take its own course. It’s kind of like the difference between going to class vs. taking an online course. Each has its place, but it’s nice to have these once in a while.
As for the discussions, they’ve generally been pretty civil, and once in a while we all need a kick to get us out of our comfort zones. We used to suffer from nasty criticism on some threads, mostly from a few malcontents and trolls, but the price of peace there has been a return to the sedate “I’m OK, you’re OK” idea. Actually having a semi-moderated thread where the idea is to speak out a bit more is an interesting option.
The sub-topic of last week’s thread was “How to give constructive criticism without having it taken the wrong way.” I think that was a particularly valid and important thing to bring up here, and I’m grateful for it. If nothing else, it’s gotten us all thinking, which I suppose is the ultimate goal of Philosophy, right?
There is without doubt a fine art to crafting a forum thread title designed to attract tons of hits and “I Hate Your Layout” sure seems to have hit the bulls eye. No doubt the target of the “I Hate Your Layout” rant feels the sting. On the other hand, I bet there are dozens and dozens of guys who are convinced the rant was aimed specifically at them and at their layout …
I see a difference in the function of “moderator”. I see a “forum moderator” more as a town constable type, while the type of moderator I am thinking of in terms of Philosopy Friday is more of a panel discussion moderator, a different function.
A “panel discussion moderator” should guide and direct the discussion. For example, the good moderators on the Sunday morning press shows guide the discussions through questions and presentation of counterpoints, not necessarily through participation and presentation of opinions in the discussion itself.
I would think that a regular “philosophy” discussion should be moderated more towards a panel discussion, this is not to say that we have to adhere to rigid rules of engagement. Just that it might be more effective if it was guided more towards the model of a panel discussion than whatever the model is for what we have been doing (blog?).
Of course that bears the risk that the posters will be offended by having their positions questioned, even if it is soley to explore the meaning of their previous input. Many people resent any questioning of their position and consider it a threat, a challenge or a rebuff, rather than a way of stimulating discussion. Sometimes the questions don’t come across well because text is less expressive than verbal communication.
OK–then why bother with this thread then? Now you’re kvetching about about other people’s stuff? Boy, are you becoming an old troll[|(]
Now try to imagine that some of us like to discuss matters like the above. Oh, and sorry for the Diner threads----if you don’t like 'em don’t read them!!
What appears to be worthless to you, has a lot of value to others. If you don´t like this forum, why do you then participate in it? Would it not be better to just stay out of it and don´t bother at all?And maybe not bother us with your views?
For me, this forum is a platform to share experience and views on model railroading issues, but also a place to exchange with friends, of which I have found many here.