High speed rail and it’s cost is currently a big topic. This has to include discussion of the role of government and financing yet some complain because of pc or other reasons. Seems kind of ludicrous to even try without being able to discuss the biggest player, financier and impediment.
Discussing a topic of any kind is ok…bringing politics into it is inevitable if only because of the many interpretatons of governtment. However, if the facts and the substance of the discussion is all that is discussed, it should be ok. But when character assasination, name calling, and accusations of integrety, et al are thrown in, facts and substance are gone and the discussion disintegrates to childish jabber with not focus on the subject.
Methinks it depends entirely on your approach. Facts aren’t usually a problem, and opinions that bear directly on the topic being discussed aren’t usually an issue, either.
What usually gets threads like that in trouble is when people start attacking other people. If you (that’s the editorial “you”, not you specifically) want to tell me that my stand on a given topic is wrong, and offer reasons for your conclusions, in a civil tone, things won’t go all that badly.
It’s when you question my parentage and/or my intelligence, rather than discussing the issue at hand that things tend to get messy. The same goes for attacking “the other party,” whichever that happens to be.
Citing facts and figures (with links), or qualifying your statement as opinion or a rumor heard also go a long way toward continuing civil discourse.
Keeping the thread on topic is always a good thing. Thread creep is almost always a problem, as people get away from discussing such-and-such transportation project and get into the politics involved instead.
Right on, Larry.
I think a couple of things to keep in mind:
-
We are on this forum because of our common hobby, not common politics.
-
We are here to discuss that hobby, not convince someone of a political point of view.
It’s one thing to say, “This election or that bill will have such-and-such effect on project X or Y or Z.”. Where it goes south is when we start using adjectives and hyperbole-“This crook or that gang will wreck/ruin/destroy something important.”
We’ve learned how to co-exist over questions of steam vs. diesel, heavyweight vs. streamlined, freight vs. passenger and a myriad of other things. Can we apply that experience to the larger picture beyond out common obsession?
I agree, we could all use some guidelines. I thought, when we went through all this nausea exactly one year ago, that our friends in the staff at Trains Magazine would offer some up before long because both moderators and those complaining of locked threads needed, and wanted, something more definitive than the blanket proscription that appears in the rules. At the time, the staff acknowledged the outcry in our Reports forum for administrators, and I understood that they would post something in due course.
A year ago. (…finger taps on the table top…)
Full circle.
Crandell
With all due respect to Kalmbach and everyone else…Railroads and politics have been intertwined since day 2 in the life of the B&O Railroad and in every day since. The Politics haven’t necessarily been along party lines as we have come to know them, but there has been political conflict over the aims of the railroads every time they try to do something other than what they are currently doing…growing, contracting, improving existing property, reclaiming redundent property…politics are everywhere in everything the railroads do.
Understood. The problem is, when the conversation veers off into the us verses them name calling and snide remarks that become a hissing match. Once it gets away from a topic discussing the political aspects and influence, it seems to head right into an “Oh yeah? Well so’s your mother!!” type thread.[sigh]
I can’t disagree. It was the first week in January, that we asked the powers that be for some direction in how they would like us to moderate their forums. Despite several replies that information was coming very soon, so far all we’ve received are non-answers. Since then, we’ve been just flying by the seat of our pants. [sigh]
-Norris
I am on one music forum that sometimes will get into these flame sessions and such–one such was on Analogue Warmth and how to achieve a balanced recording of such and it ended up into areas of IQ testing, the whole question of the role intelligence plays in hearing and all manner of stuff. One way some people reacted to all the huffle buffle was to start posting cat pictures from sites like “icanhazcheeseburger.com” or “lolcats”–it just goes to show that we all have some degree of ADD I guess[:-^]
Non-answers…the object lesson of Politics 101 - keep mouth moving and say nothing of substance.
Knocking on wood as I write this. I actually think the most recent discussions…say in the last month or two…have been fairly civil despite the election campaigns. There have been few if any personal attacks, moniker mountings, and character assasinations in general. Ok, maybe I’ve made some broad disparaging remarks in general, but I’ve not dismantled or labled any individual nor they me. So, lets just keep this train rolling as is. And I’ll keep knocking on wood.
This type of attack (known as “ad hominem,” or “at the man”) is usually the resort of someone who feels that his reasoning is not accepted because the other person is deficient in some way, and the attacker, not wanting to even attempt to see any value in the other view, feels that he must then declare his opponent deficient in some way.
I suspect that much of the concern stems from Kalmbach’s worry that a paying advertiser might become offended from points of view expressed here, and not continue to pay the piper. Not knowing which way a particular advertiser might lean, the only safe bet is to prohibit any and all potentially provocative material, unless of course Fred Frailey or the Potomac Pundit guy write it themselves.
Generally, the person having the least defensible outlook on any particular subject, is the most likely to whine “foul” to a moderator as a tool to get contrarian ideology removed from their presence.
Based on both of the above comments, I might conclude that perhaps Kalmback doesn’t really care all that much about what goes on in here (within reason, of course). I mean, come on–if they cannot respond with anything substantial in all that time…
And without firm guidlines provided, you moderators are left with the unenviable tasks of trying to enforce what you think Kalmbach wants, while at the same time trying to keep your own personal opinions from influencing your decisions as moderators.
Management 101 - get what you want DONE…without creating simple declarative policy, that way they can’t blame you for making the policy when it goes wrong.
Things have been moving pretty smoothly for a while with no real name calling and character assasinations…I hope this tread doesn’t stir the pot.
Nothing going on here but there is some true pot-stirring on another thread: “Florida HSR Dubious.”
Do we really need to ask for guidelines on how to behave? Let’s just pratice a little old-fashioned courtesy.
Unfortunately, there are times that we do…