I get profiled every time I snap a railfan picture, yet they hand an entrance visa to a terrorist...

[selector]

Jay, a third rail or a derail?   We all learn by the time we are 18 that in groups of three or more, politics, sex, religion, and choices of automobiles are highly likely to dampen enthusiasm for the 'party', except for those who didn't much want to the party to begin with, and who welcome any diversion to their favourite rant-fodder.

You could make a case that politics and religion are at the root of all human behaviour.  However, they are highly volatile for that very reason, and for that very reason our hosts have prohibited their inclusion in discussions.  Yes, it limits the discussions.  You could characterize them as erstatz, stilted, what have you.  Yet, whenever people take the liberty of sharing their political leanings with the rest of us on this forum, time and time again the result is a boiling over that has to be curtailed by an administrator.

The smart cook removes the source of heat or removes the vessel that is about to boil before he/she makes a mess on the stove top.  She can read the signals, and so can we.

-Crandell

[Anonymous]

While the language of the NO POLITICS rule is plain spoken enough, the definition of politics is completely lacking.  In its most obvious meaning, politics refers to the preference and promotion of a political figure or party.  It may or may not include the positions advocated by that figure or party.  This is the classic embodiment of politics that people argue and even fight over from entrenched, uncompromising positions. 

 

At this level, politics is like religion in that reasoning cannot influence political beliefs and preferences.  Therefore, the only possible outcome of political discussions at this fundamental level is disagreement and acrimony.  I can understand why the forum would want to prohibit that type of discussion.  I have no interest in engaging in that kind of juvenile approach to politics.

 

At another level, however, there are topics of government policies that have large effects on the railroad industry.  Discussions at this level need not even mention the politicians who are for or against such policies.  The policies are merely ideas that become laws regulating how to do things.  Is a discussion about whether these policies are right or wrong considered politics?  When we talk about the border being like a screen door, why is that politics?  It seems to me that it is only about border security.  

 

If someone chooses to be offended because he or she associates the border status with the position of his or her favorite politician, then that is problem of his or her own perception.  An objective forum prohibition on politics cannot be defined merely by the perception of each individual who might or might not see a policy discussion as offensive to their own politics for some reason. 

 

Discussions at this level of policy-only can be entirely analytical and limited to the policies and their effects.  Public spending on High Speed Rail, and how to make locomotives comply with possible new CO2 emissions regulations are examples of such discussions.  Trains magazine freely delves into these types of discussions with no apparent worry about offending the political sensibilities of its readers.

[Erie Lackawanna]

Three quick thoughts --

1) I was just given the entire 1962 year of TRAINS as a gift for XMas, which was great as that happened to be one of the years my dad had not subscribed and I didn't have (but pure luck - the person who gave it to me had no idea). I thumbing through I am sort of amazed at how overtly anti-union the editors were back then. Have to imagine they were making some readers angry with what were some pretty openly political views in the pages of articles.

2) The system that El Al has works,  pure, plain, and simple. If we just follow it we shut down terrorists.

3) As I get older I now try to avoid the conversation altogether. What I mean by this is if I see a guard or cop looking askance at me, I don't even bother waiting for them to come up and ask me why I'm taking train pictures. I just go find another spot. I'm so tired of the conversation itself, I'd rather just find another spot.

[Murphy Siding]

     Bucyrus-  I can see your point.  Given that, in the past, you've shown disagreement in the way I've handled some issues,  I'll ask you the same question as before.     Given what you see on this thread, and given the parameters we try to follow for a railroad forum,  what would you, as a volunteer user/moderator do?  I'm curious.

[zardoz]

Bucyrus

Trains magazine freely delves into these types of discussions with no apparent worry about offending the political sensibilities of its readers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason Kalmbach sponsors these forums is to increase the number of hits on their web site, thus giving them justification for charging X number of $ for advertising?  I find it hard to believe Kalmbach does it out of the goodness of their hearts (which may be partially true, but it is still a business).

And IF I am correct, then by my measuring, these "hot" topic threads generate many more views than the more mundane threads of train videos or paint schemes. And further, IF I am correct, then it would seem to be not in the best interest of Kalmbach to keep the threads tame to the point of banality.

You can see from my statistics that I have been contributing to these forums for a while now.  And in all the years of reading the forum, the only thing that ever offended me was the overuse of censorship.

[Anonymous]

Murphy Siding

     Bucyrus-  I can see your point.  Given that, in the past, you've shown disagreement in the way I've handled some issues,  I'll ask you the same question as before.     Given what you see on this thread, and given the parameters we try to follow for a railroad forum,  what would you, as a volunteer user/moderator do?  I'm curious.

 

I think the original poster raised a fair point lamenting that while railfans with cameras are security profiled, we let red flagged terrorists right into the country because we don’t want to be seen as profiling.  If I were a moderator, so far, I would do nothing with this thread.  I do concede that the latest terrorist attack and its related security failure is a hot topic and it has a definite political dimension to it.     

 

Above, I have mentioned the two possible levels of what might be considered to be politics.  One would be the base level involving preference or criticism of political figures and how they stand on policies.  I would consider that to be politics, and if the thread went there, I would give a warning, and if it continued, I would lock the thread pursuant to the forum rules.  

 

The second level of what might be considered to be politics by some would be the discussion of government related policies only on their merits or faults.  In lieu of any explanation of exactly what the NO POLITICS forum rule means, I would not consider this second level to be politics.   

 

If passions got so hot that people started to insult each other, I would give a warning, and if it continued, I would lock the thread pursuant to the forum rules. 

 

I would never lock a thread merely because I believed that it was heading for a rules violation.  I understand the logic of preventing a boil-over on the stove, but locking a thread seems like throwing out the soup to prevent it from boiling over a little.       

[blownout cylinder]

Murphy Siding

blownout cylinder

Since it comes across as only slightly train related I'm going to ask about just where that line is drawn---I know that I'd be a little free wheeling with that but others may want to stick only to the mechanical details of a 244 vs a 645 for example---

And since this already was something that had a 'polly tick' being played out then----

Issuing issues---OY

  I understand your first thought,  but I'm not sure I get the other two.  Can you explain?

Disclaimer of sorts:  I'm not trying to start any battle here,  I'm just trying to get a feel of how you guys view some of the things we deal with.  So please- don't read anything into it, that isn't there.

My thinking here was influenced by a certain professor up here when I was taking Poli Sci who used to argue that the personal was political. In that a decision that involves what a person can say, or do, does have social consequences---and that involves you as a member of a set here as well. We used to get into these class sized rows over his statements but I do see where this came from. In this case someone who enjoys a simple process of taking photos of trains finds that nowadays he has to justify to an authority figure this thing that he does. I remember going to a local yard--still do this in fact--and getting a waiver to sign and having a permit to take photos from and in that very yard. I did not get questioned about why I was there--I just was. But now--b/c of certain people whose lives seem to be so negative as to blow things and people up there is now this cautious--say suspicious attitude that implies the average citizen is suspect---I do think this does put into play a politics. Because we do not want--nor do we really seem to like--any kind of profiling all of us are now potentially placed under a kind of suspicion.

In sociological circles a theory came into being that explains an escalation in a scenario wherein tensions get higher and higher as each side plays out what they think the other side is going to do-----it is now called "Conspiracy Theory". It was always assumed that it was engaged in only by those deemed to be in the underclass. Now we are seeing what happens when others in more powerful classes engage in this themselves.

Hence the phrase I threw in there-----"Issuing Issues"   b/c we now have issues where we did not have any--

[Murphy Siding]

Bucyrus

Above, I have mentioned the two possible levels of what might be considered to be politics.  One would be the base level involving preference or criticism of political figures and how they stand on policies.  I would consider that to be politics, and if the thread went there, I would give a warning, and if it continued, I would lock the thread pursuant to the forum rules.  

     Thanks for the response.  Do you feel that, in order to be considered *too much*, the political figures would have to be named by name?  Is the mere use of derogatory names for a group of people that a poster dislikes, in a political context, considered to be over the line?  (Think of the forums in your local newspaper, where posters hurl wellknown names to describe folks of a certain political mindset, and  to belittle the oposition's opinions.)

     What would you write in your warning?

-Norris

   

[Murphy Siding]

zardoz

Bucyrus

Trains magazine freely delves into these types of discussions with no apparent worry about offending the political sensibilities of its readers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason Kalmbach sponsors these forums is to increase the number of hits on their web site, thus giving them justification for charging X number of $ for advertising?  I find it hard to believe Kalmbach does it out of the goodness of their hearts (which may be partially true, but it is still a business).

And IF I am correct, then by my measuring, these "hot" topic threads generate many more views than the more mundane threads of train videos or paint schemes. And further, IF I am correct, then it would seem to be not in the best interest of Kalmbach to keep the threads tame to the point of banality.

You can see from my statistics that I have been contributing to these forums for a while now.  And in all the years of reading the forum, the only thing that ever offended me was the overuse of censorship.

  I don't know Z.  I used to frequent a car racing forum that used that same theory to promote a no-holds-barred atmosphere.  It's now pretty much an x-rated pinup  site, populated by folks who make Beavis and Butthead look like intellectuals.  Our local newspaper's forum works on the same theory, sans photos.  That one is is a political *so's your mother* site.  I don't go there anymore either.

[Phoebe Vet]

Murphy Siding

Our local newspaper's forum works on the same theory, sans photos.  That one is is a political *so's your mother* site.  I don't go there anymore either.

The two local newspapers I read on line are the same way.

[Murphy Siding]

      NEWS FLASH!

    I just got my February Trains Magazine.  Fred W. Frailey has a column entitled Seven ways to become a better railfan.  #3 Shut up.  " I realy don't care about your political opinions......internet message boards.....so's your mama......poisoning the well........Zip up".  

   He explains it 100 times better than I ever will.  I urge everybody who has the opportunity to read this article.  It's almost as if he's been on our forum before.

[blownout cylinder]

Murphy Siding

      NEWS FLASH!

    I just got my February Trains Magazine.  Fred W. Frailey has a column entitled Seven ways to become a better railfan.  #3 Shut up.  " I realy don't care about your political opinions......internet message boards.....so's your mama......poisoning the well........Zip up".  

   He explains it 100 times better than I ever will.  I urge everybody who has the opportunity to read this article.  It's almost as if he's been on our forum before.

If one may---if you mean "No Politics" then let us stick only with engine details of a 645 in turboed and non turboed versions

[Anonymous]

Murphy Siding

      NEWS FLASH!

    I just got my February Trains Magazine.  Fred W. Frailey has a column entitled Seven ways to become a better railfan.  #3 Shut up.  " I realy don't care about your political opinions......internet message boards.....so's your mama......poisoning the well........Zip up".  

   He explains it 100 times better than I ever will.  I urge everybody who has the opportunity to read this article.  It's almost as if he's been on our forum before.

That sounds interesting.  I might have to buy that issue.  But I am still a little steamed about buying the magazine after reading Jim Wrinn’s snarky political comments in his December editorial.  I wonder if Mr. Wrinn would consider those comments to be political.  I’ll bet he doesn’t. 

[blownout cylinder]

Bucyrus

But I am still a little steamed about buying the magazine after reading Jim Wrinn’s snarky political comments in his December editorial.  I wonder if Mr. Wrinn would consider those comments to be political.  I’ll bet he doesn’t. 

One of those issues that occurs when the interpretation of what constitutes "political" becomes somewhat one sided. An editor can "Editorialize" but the forumite is not allowed to speak in those terms. If one is to say that one cannot go into any political arena on a forum then that ENTIRE topic is not to be allowed space on that forum. Otherwise one would get this kind of thing happening.

An example may be HSR---this topic has been turned into a political issue because there are some of us who are not so sure it should be funded directly out of governent revenues. Other people were able to talk about how it was nice that we were engaged in HSR---no problem regarding funding. When someone piped up and asked whether this was needed---suddenly it becomes political?  If everyone agrees then it is not political---but if one disagrees then it is political

[selector]

blownout cylinder

...In sociological circles a theory came into being that explains an escalation in a scenario wherein tensions get higher and higher as each side plays out what they think the other side is going to do-----it is now called "Conspiracy Theory". It was always assumed that it was engaged in only by those deemed to be in the underclass. Now we are seeing what happens when others in more powerful classes engage in this themselves...

One of the early sociologists who formalized the study of escalation in cases of protracted conflict was Morton Deutch.  His Crude Law of Social Interaction dealt with the need to "one-up" the opposition, ostensibly with a view to stemming the onset of any further escalation, except that the other side used the same strategy.

The late Edward Azar was also at the forefront of this social theory.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protracted_social_conflict

For the purposes of our discussion and this thread's topic, the three no-no's of polite group discussion are consistently and persistently problematic and provide fodder for bias and emotions that are rarely effectively contained.

-Crandell

[blownout cylinder]

Bucyrus

That sounds interesting.  I might have to buy that issue.  But I am still a little steamed about buying the magazine after reading Jim Wrinn’s snarky political comments in his December editorial.  I wonder if Mr. Wrinn would consider those comments to be political.  I’ll bet he doesn’t. 

In other words he can use his column to "Editorialize" about a topic----we as forumites however are not in a position such that we can do the same-

[Anonymous]

Murphy Siding

Bucyrus

Above, I have mentioned the two possible levels of what might be considered to be politics.  One would be the base level involving preference or criticism of political figures and how they stand on policies.  I would consider that to be politics, and if the thread went there, I would give a warning, and if it continued, I would lock the thread pursuant to the forum rules.  

     Thanks for the response.  Do you feel that, in order to be considered *too much*, the political figures would have to be named by name?  Is the mere use of derogatory names for a group of people that a poster dislikes, in a political context, considered to be over the line?  (Think of the forums in your local newspaper, where posters hurl wellknown names to describe folks of a certain political mindset, and  to belittle the oposition's opinions.)

     What would you write in your warning?

-Norris

   

Well, linking policy positions to political figures would seem to be political all right.  Certain facts may be presented as political positions of named politicians as just matter of fact with no judgment as to the rightness or wrongness of the policy.  That would not seem to rise to the level of a politically debatable point. 

The use of derogatory names directed at politicians would be flaming, but the rules are not clear whether or not flaming is prohibited from being directed to anyone or just to other forum members in the thread.  There has been some mighty big flaming directed at people who run through activated grade crossings, even to the point of attracting chastisement from friends or relatives of grade crossing victims.  I would consider flaming to be prohibited, no matter whom it was directed at. 

 

I am not sure how derogatory names directed at political parties should be regarded in terms of the rules.  It seems like it should be considered political, and maybe even flaming, even though it is not directed at an individual.  But in any case, I think that name calling in a political argument is worthless.  I know the kind of forums you mention where people just throw barbs at each other.  It’s no wonder that some people consider politics so offensive when it is manifested at that name-calling, intransigent level. 

 

For warnings, I would just cite the rules.  But, as I have indicated, I think the rules could use some tighter definition.

 

 

[garr]

Murphy Siding

garr

Norris,

A large number of threads with high post counts seems to be the Trains forum version of the whisper game--the one where the first person in line whispers a sentence, such as "Tidy Joe wants to see the cats go" and the last person in line states what they heard, which ends up as "The cat plays a banjo".

What starts out being discussed usually gets sidetracked by someones recollections of memory brought forward in the original posters discussion, then the thread gets another life of its own.

This is one of the things that makes the forum interesting. 

As far as politics, they have been involved with railroading since the first charter of the B&O. It is mentioned freely in the magazine, often with differing opinions than my own. Yet, more times than not, it seems to be the third-rail of discussions in this forum.

 

Jay

     I agree with you on both points, but a lot of times, politics becomes the thread, rather than being part of the discussion as the thread pertains to railroading.  That's where things go astray, and that's why the forum policies are written as they are.

    I'm just trying to get some input from other forum members as to how they would handle a thread such as this, for example, if they were volunteer user/moderators.  How would you handle this?

-Norris

 

Norris,

As far as this thread is concerned, I do not see where any comments have come close to even consider the death sentence of locking.

If a forum is moderated on the basis of where a discussion might go, it will eventually get to the point of all but the most benign threads being locked.

What are your powers as a moderator? Can you eliminate offending portions of a post or the whole post? This option would punish the offender while the more civil posters can continue the discussion.

I correlate this to an incident that happened to me and my classmates way back in 6th grade(1973). A small amount of money went missing from one students book bag. The culprit did not come forward so the teacher decided to rap every student on the knuckles with a wooden ruler. Punishment for the culprit was dished out but in a very unfair method for the innocent.

Jay

 

[garr]

selector

Jay, a third rail or a derail?   We all learn by the time we are 18 that in groups of three or more, politics, sex, religion, and choices of automobiles are highly likely to dampen enthusiasm for the 'party', except for those who didn't much want to the party to begin with, and who welcome any diversion to their favourite rant-fodder.

You could make a case that politics and religion are at the root of all human behaviour.  However, they are highly volatile for that very reason, and for that very reason our hosts have prohibited their inclusion in discussions.  Yes, it limits the discussions.  You could characterize them as erstatz, stilted, what have you.  Yet, whenever people take the liberty of sharing their political leanings with the rest of us on this forum, time and time again the result is a boiling over that has to be curtailed by an administrator.

The smart cook removes the source of heat or removes the vessel that is about to boil before he/she makes a mess on the stove top.  She can read the signals, and so can we.

-Crandell

 

Crandell,

You are correct about the political discussions causing harm. There are movies I will not pay watch simply because of the political leanings of the actor(s) starring in it. Yet every time I hear one being a political pundit, my first thought is "What makes them a political expert?" considering that they make their living parroting the words that others have written. It seems to me the smart actors would never let their politics be known.

At the same time, how are the hot topic issues of railroading going to be discussed on this forum? Environmental, merger, capacity improvements, passenger rail, re-regulation, labor, management, expansion, chemical routes, grade crossings, creosote, equipment manufacturing locations, ports,--you get the idea-- all have political aspects that can not be ignored in the full discussion of railroading.

It would be like discussing the weather without being able to mention the temperature.

Maybe as I suggested above in my post to Norris, remove or edit the post(s) that cross the line.

There have been posts that were locked too early in my opinion however I believe the moderators used good judgment in my thread (Obtuse doubled?) about Jim Wrinn's December editorial. His comments were not to my and others liking yet the discussion was allowed to continue even though it mostly revolved around economic politics of HSR.

Jay

[Tharmeni]

Whatever you do, don't take a pix of anything at Amtrak's Beech Grove yards.  I found out in October that the Beech Grove police are bored and like to question anyone with a camera.

 By the way, I am back on the forum after nearly two years recovering from a medical situation. 

[tree68]

Tharmeni - Welcome Back!

I think policies can be discussed - as long as the policy is discussed, and on its merits and shortcomings.  Even if it is a blatantly political issue, we can still assess what we like and don't like, and leave the politics out of it. 

On the other hand, referring to "that idiot Senator Shmoe's lame attempt at whatever" does nothing to further the discussion.  Instead it incites those who support the good senator (or his policy) to slam back and all hope for sane discussion is lost.

On another forum (which I do assist moderating), there is no such thing as "off topic."  We even had a thread for a while called "Firebox for Flamers" where no punches were pulled.   The reason I mention that, though, is because some people will get so excited/worked up about something thattheyllleaveoutspacesandpunctuationandsyntaxandeverythingelse - apparently because they're in such a hurry to get their thought out there.  We usually tell them to relax - and more than anything else, read their post over before hitting "Send." 

I've cancelled out a number of posts in different forums before actually posting - because I went back and read them and realized how stupid they were.  A good indicator that I should do so is usually steam rising from my collar...

 

 

[PNWRMNM]

Murphy/Norris,

If I were enforcing the letter of the "No politics" policy this would have been zapped, not locked, the moment it appeared.  The OP is clearly political as were most of the responses until you diverted the thread to as I read it "What would you do with this if you were in my shoes"

I do not see that this topic got personal, perhaps because most readers probably agree with the general sense of the OP.  I strongly believe the "No politics" policy is incompatible with a railroad industry forum.  If you enforced the policy there would be almost nothing here.  The problem is the policy, not the moderators.

Mac McCulloch

[blownout cylinder]

tree68

I've cancelled out a number of posts in different forums before actually posting - because I went back and read them and realized how stupid they were.  A good indicator that I should do so is usually steam rising from my collar...

What! You have gills in your neck?---

My steam usually eminates from what are called ears. Although in my case my better half calls them my "safety valves". The other version we go by is when "my wattles doth verily become inflated, I grow an intense shade of purple, have steam coming out'n both ears and nose------then wife says---now Barry! Remember your apoplexy!"