Why an off-topic post got locked down Locked

2179 views
92 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • From: Equestria
  • 6,945 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, August 12, 2019 2:21 PM

Euclid
I agree that there should be consistency in moderation, and that rules ban off-topic posts as well as personal attacks.

I don't think that's possible *if* the long-held rumors are true in that there are certain members that the moderators are not allowed to touch.

 The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer or any other railroad, company, or person.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 8,083 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, August 12, 2019 2:26 PM

Euclid
So I assume that when you say I have taken the wrong tone in past threads, you are not referring to personal attacks, but rather mere disagreement in the context of debate.  Debate can seem hard edge, but it does not have to include personal attack.

I was not referring to you, but to me.

Debate doesn't have to be hard-edged, and more to the point it doesn't have to call into question the opponent's argument details or 'fitness to argue' in the way that conventional debate, or even the ridiculous travesty that modern 'academic' tournament debating appears to have devolved into (with overt compliance and actual defense).  What it does involve is rational discourse, intelligent recognition and comment on particular points of argument (or establishment of new ones if the argument is perceived as wrongly framed),  and a common tone of courtesy and recognition that it's a discussion in a voluntary interested community of common interests, not a pissing contest.

I will not argue that we insist in some way that discussions keep a 'tolerant' attitude and relatively dispassionate language -- just that we should not devolve into incivility (as I have done on occasion) when someone 'doesn't get it' or insists on using logical fallacies, etc.  I certainly don't mind when I'm criticized for excessive length, or pedantry, or a perception of condescending tone ... this is a community, not a school for Saint-Simonian technical advancement in as many fields as possible, much as I might like it to be otherwise with the kind of 'passion' Flintlock76 admires if not agrees with.  The key is that if you don't like a technical drink of water, there are 'proper' ways to make that known, and 'improper' ones... and yes, these involve tone rather than strict adherence to the published guidelines Kalmbach provides (although they do, or at least did at one point, say rather clearly in the TOS what's expected of civilized posters)

I am not sure what you mean by "bans' Wibberley-style."

There was a previous moderator whose style, putting it gently, rubbed me in about all the wrong ways that would be possible.  He has since passed on, and I have no desire to criticize the dead as they can no longer respond.  Those who remember will recall.

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 1,640 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Monday, August 12, 2019 2:53 PM

I recall Wimberly and I am sure Euclid does also. I know you did not like his style,  which was admittedly heavy-handed.   I remember things differently.  He did put an end to the annoying practice of some members at that time of posting a string of irrelevant inanities when a certain other member made posts they disagreed with but were unwilling or unable to summon a rational and factual disputatation. Before Wimberly, those threads were quickly locked. 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy