aS A NEUTRAL NON-PARTICIPANT IN SUBJECT THREAD, I'd just like to say that in my opinion the new mods over reacted in locking that thread. Mr Phillips makes his living provoking readers to think, and it's clear to me that he has succeeded.
Seems a shame that the magazine has grown so overly sensitive as to feel the need to shield themselves from reader feedback. I don't think that the criticisms in question were either personal, nor excessive. The magazine should be pleased, in fact, that their works are followed by the readers, and can inspire customer interest the way Mr Phillips invariably does
The Moderators have punished the readers here, for daring to have a passionate opinion about magazine content
Hero or not. I have to agree that locking the thread was over moderating. Don Phillips is a by lined public figure in the reportage of rail topics and as an editorial style of author his very aim is to provoke thinking and conversation, both pro & con, to the ideas he presents. There was nothing in the locked thread that was anything other than thoughtful comments, pro & con, concerning the situation.
If Trains doesn't want Mr. Phillips articles and positions commented on in this forum I would suggest that Mr. Phillips articles are no longer need to be published in Trains. Since Mr. Phillips history includes employment with the Washington Post I am sure the comments of this forum pale to any that Mr. Phillips has suffered throughout his journalism career.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Maybe there were some comments that lead the conversation in the wrong direction and they got deleted and then the thread was locked to keep it from being started again.
??
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Precisely. Observations are fine, but when the thread begins to meander too far afield, such as adopting a mean-spirited tone, as was evinced in at least one response, it is an indication that it is a train wreck waiting to happen. It seemed very sarcastic, to say the least, and seemed to be inviting inordinate polarity.
FWIW, I shared my observation with the other mods in case I was being unreasonable. Not one of them expressed any reservations about my...um...reservations, so I felt safe to act as I did once I felt the need to.
It's over now. Maybe a new thread with more direction and more to the point might not be so bad?
I see nothing in the rules that prohibits criticizing an individual. Here is the rule that comes closest:
- No personal attacks or name-calling. Please keep conversations cordial. We understand that there will be differences of opinion. Please don't let those differences turn ugly. Accept that others might not have your same point of view, don't sink to personal attacks. Nothing is gained by doing so.
Criticism can occur without being a personal attack. And even personal attack in its most vicious form has been allowed to pile up page after page on this forum. Maybe the problem was criticizing Europe.
Bucyrus wrote: I see nothing in the rules that prohibits criticizing an individual. Here is the rule that comes closest: - No personal attacks or name-calling. Please keep conversations cordial. We understand that there will be differences of opinion. Please don't let those differences turn ugly. Accept that others might not have your same point of view, don't sink to personal attacks. Nothing is gained by doing so.Criticism can occur without being a personal attack. And even personal attack in its most vicious form has been allowed to pile up page after page on this forum. Maybe the problem was criticizing Europe.
The thread in question was not about trains. As I read it, it was a couple of conservative posters that apparently felt a need to air their general distrust of "liberals" and "europhiles", people who in the mind of some arch-conservative Americans is just one step removed from communists and similar Evil Bogeymen (tm).
There doesn't seem to be any imminent shortage of other forums other places where people can express political partisanship by claiming that people whose politics you disagree with are biased liars, or whatever was the intended implication of the comments about Don Philips was.
So, I'd say that Selector made a good call in locking that other thread. And he probably will have to lock (or delete) this thread soon too, the way this thread is headed.
steinjr wrote: Bucyrus wrote: I see nothing in the rules that prohibits criticizing an individual. Here is the rule that comes closest: - No personal attacks or name-calling. Please keep conversations cordial. We understand that there will be differences of opinion. Please don't let those differences turn ugly. Accept that others might not have your same point of view, don't sink to personal attacks. Nothing is gained by doing so.Criticism can occur without being a personal attack. And even personal attack in its most vicious form has been allowed to pile up page after page on this forum. Maybe the problem was criticizing Europe. The thread in question was not about trains. As I read it, it was a couple of conservative posters that apparently felt a need to air their general distrust of "liberals" and "europhiles", people who in the mind of some arch-conservative Americans is just one step removed from communists and similar Evil Bogeymen (tm). There doesn't seem to be any imminent shortage of other forums other places where people can express political partisanship by claiming that people whose politics you disagree with are biased liars, or whatever was the intended implication of the comments about Don Philips was. So, I'd say that Selector made a good call in locking that other thread. And he probably will have to lock (or delete) this thread soon too, the way this thread is headed.
Good Lord,
The most name calling I have recently seen was expressed in your above-copied post.
I am certainly not attempting to champion a conservative cause in saying this, but like it or not, Don Phillips--at the very least--is widely preceived to favor certain political views and champion them in his collumns. The whole point of his threads is to spawn thinking about such things. If people disagree, even strongly, that is inherent to the proceess. And, to be absolutely clear, I REALLY like reading Don Phillips columns--I never miss them. I also suspect Mr. Phillips is an outstanding individual.
I will probably regret saying this in the morning, but some of the decisions about locking threads--and other moderator decisions--have really left me scratching my head recently. I generally have a very high opinion of the magazine and the moderators that are involved with this forum--I have been reading the magazine since I was four. Moreover, I know it is Kalmbach's forum, and it can do what it wants with it.
But, there is a qualitative diminshment of the forum's value when moderation goes form kicking off people who are simply there to cause problems and hard feelings as opposed to stunting discussions that people are passionate about. I also find it very telling, that nearly every complaint about people expressing political decision by forum contributors is one complaining about liberal or conservative views and not both. In other words, you can express a political opinion, just one that doesn't interfere with my views.
The dynamic between conservative and political ideology is joined at the hip with railroading. Do we really think we are going to completely avoid such topics and have meaningful discussions?
Three years ago, this forum was simply awesome. I have talked to at least 10 regular contributors who think the forum is now less than half as good as it once was. I think there are several reasons for that. But, interestingly, there was VERY little moderation 3 years ago.
Gabe
steinjr wrote: Bucyrus wrote: I see nothing in the rules that prohibits criticizing an individual. Here is the rule that comes closest: - No personal attacks or name-calling. Please keep conversations cordial. We understand that there will be differences of opinion. Please don't let those differences turn ugly. Accept that others might not have your same point of view, don't sink to personal attacks. Nothing is gained by doing so.Criticism can occur without being a personal attack. And even personal attack in its most vicious form has been allowed to pile up page after page on this forum. Maybe the problem was criticizing Europe. The thread in question was not about trains. As I read it, it was a couple of conservative posters that apparently felt a need to air their general distrust of "liberals" and "europhiles", people who in the mind of some arch-conservative Americans is just one step removed from communists and similar Evil Bogeymen (tm).
I must have missed all that. The reason Selector gave for locking the thread was:
"This topic is not within the rules in that it appears to single out an invidivual for criticism."
There was no mention of it being off-topic or political.
In reading the original threads beginning post, and not being able to see the deleted replies...I can only address the original post, which seems to indicate the poster is of the opinion that Mr. Phillips affection for European passenger trains is far above his like or dislike of American passenger service.
Now, from my point of view, and in agreement with BaltADC,
Mr. Phillips writes an editorial column, expressing his personal opinions and points of view, which Kalmbach sees fits to pay him for and publish.
Mr. Phillips chooses subjects and material which is often controversial, thought provoking, and political in nature.
By publishing Mr. Phillips work, Kalmbach is in a manner inviting discussion of said work.
Whether you agree with Mr. Phillips or not, it is his work and words we should argue, instead of offering personal positions on our like or dislike of Mr. Phillips himself.
In that vein, I would like to point out he has indeed written several columns full of his remembrances of American passenger train rides...his offers anecdotal humor, often at his own expense.
I have found that in almost ever column he writes about European passenger service, he also points out the political nature of that particular service, correctly showing that European citizens and their governments are willing to fund their trains at a rate Americans refuse to.
He explained in one piece that passenger and freight trains often have separate ROWs in Europe, while American railroads insisted for the most part in mixing both on the same track.
He makes it quite clear that he is discussing two radically different systems, offering obviously different levels of passenger service, because they operate in completely different political systems, serving populations with different wants and needs.
I have noticed he frequently points out the major disparity between American passenger service and European passenger service is political in nature, which forces them to be operationally different, simply because both populations expect vast differences from their particular service.
Europeans designed, built and developed their rail system around passenger service, with heavily subsidized companies operating their system under contract, with freight almost always being a secondary consideration...whereas American railroads always operated under the "for profit" concept, often refusing passenger subsidies because of a perceived invitation to the government to interfere with their freight operation.
So, if you must debate the contents of Mr. Phillips columns, then begin here, debating what he writes, instead of what you perceive as his personal bias.
Argue the contents of his work.
To the moderators...no discussion of European trains can occur without the discussion of the political nature they operate under....nor can one discuss American passenger service without taking into consideration the political constraints they also function under.
With that in mind, I would hope that the folks who participate keep this thread on a level that invites debate, instead of insult.
If you're careful, and can restrain from name calling, or using inflammatory catch phrases, the "knee jerk liberal" type of comments, we could have a very interesting column going here.
For my two cents worth, I feel that Americans, often in the most unlikely places, are slowly re awaking to the efficiencies of moving people by rail...and the mind set of having to drive yourself to work is, while not radically changing, is changing none the less.
After all, who would think a commuter passenger train in Utah would make money?
23 17 46 11
gabe wrote: I also find it very telling, that nearly every complaint about people expressing political decision by forum contributors is one complaining about liberal or conservative views and not both. In other words, you can express a political opinion, just one that doesn't interfere with my views.Gabe
I also find it very telling, that nearly every complaint about people expressing political decision by forum contributors is one complaining about liberal or conservative views and not both. In other words, you can express a political opinion, just one that doesn't interfere with my views.
Excellent point.
...I would suggest that Mr. Phillips articles are no longer need to be published in Trains.
This would be the best thing to happen to Trains since its inception...
Alaska Railfanning / My ARR Photos on Flickr
edblysard wrote:Why?
His editorials are too negative. They usually come across as whining, IMO. For instance, if he's not talking about how great European passenger service is, he's talking about the "good ole days" and how railfanning/railroading isn't what it used to be. While that may or may not be true, what good is it to live in the past? In my experience, things from the past tend to look better when viewed from the present, even if they were perceived as terrible when you were going through them back then. Time tends to mask the negative. Hindsight's 20/20, as they say.
I just don't enjoy his columns and think Trains would be better served by someone who doesn't have such a negative outlook on so many things...
Lear35A wrote: edblysard wrote:Why?His editorials are too negative. They usually come across as whining, IMO. For instance, if he's not talking about how great European passenger service is, he's talking about the "good ole days" and how railfanning/railroading isn't what it used to be. While that may or may not be true, what good is it to live in the past? In my experience, things from the past tend to look better when viewed from the present, even if they were perceived as terrible when you were going through them back then. Time tends to mask the negative. Hindsight's 20/20, as they say.I just don't enjoy his columns and think Trains would be better served by someone who doesn't have such a negative outlook on so many things...
I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. I often disagree with the position taken by Mr. Phillips, but he writes articles that make you take a position.
Booting Mr. Phillips from Trains because he is controversial and you disagree with him makes about as much sense as locking forums discussing and disagreeing with Mr. Phillips' articles . . .
BaltACD wrote:If Trains doesn't want Mr. Phillips articles and positions commented on in this forum I would suggest that Mr. Phillips articles are no longer need to be published in Trains.
If Trains doesn't want Mr. Phillips articles and positions commented on in this forum I would suggest that Mr. Phillips articles are no longer need to be published in Trains.
Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't always enjoy the columns, but I think that it is a classic part of TRAINS, and should be kept. I have noticed that most of them are "complaining" about Amtrak and such, but maybe some governmant person will read it and realize he's right!
csmith9474 wrote:Somebody tryin' to be a hero.
Don't make rash assumptions, you know what they say about people assuming things without exploring the facts.
I could care less about endearing myself to anyone here, let alone those who wrote in that thread.
My intent was just as I wrote, no more no less. You give some guys some power, the first thing you know they gotta flex their muscles, and I feel it is EXACTLY THAT which has come into play here.
Please don't try to play "connect the dots" so much that you misconstrue original intent, and embark on pure fiction (as you have in this case)
You are EXACTLY correct. Yet I suspect that the mods are going to cover each other's backs, and stand behind the initial ruling...what else can we expect?
If I were in Don Phillip's shoes and my columns appeared to be overly "euro-favorite", I'd want to know that so I could address it in one of my future columns
Years ago, TRAINS had a columnist that could get me tuned up on a regular basis, how many of you have been around long enough to have read John Kneiling, "The Professional Iconoclast"? Today, when I go back and re-read what few columns I have access to, I understand exactly what he was trying to say.
I can only imagine the debates, outrage, and yes, topic lock-ups that his column would have produced, were it today.
Semper Vaporo wrote: Maybe there were some comments that lead the conversation in the wrong direction and they got deleted and then the thread was locked to keep it from being started again.??
Then the Mods have the option of deleting the offending material, reprimanding the offending party, and NOT punishing the forum as a whole (locking the entire thread) for the actions of the few.
I fully realize that there are some members here who cannot co-exist with anything other than "rah-rah-rah uncle sam" over the top patriotism. SO perhaps someone writing about how other nations are truthfully exceeding our levels of accomplishment MIGHT rub them the wrong way...and obviously it has done exactly that here, tough toe nails.
Recognizing that some other countries might have a better plan IS NOT anti-patriotism in my book, it's just objectivity....which is (imo) refreshing
gabe wrote: But, there is a qualitative diminshment of the forum's value when moderation goes form kicking off people who are simply there to cause problems and hard feelings as opposed to stunting discussions that people are passionate about. I also find it very telling, that nearly every complaint about people expressing political decision by forum contributors is one complaining about liberal or conservative views and not both. In other words, you can express a political opinion, just one that doesn't interfere with my views.Three years ago, this forum was simply awesome. I have talked to at least 10 regular contributors who think the forum is now less than half as good as it once was. I think there are several reasons for that. But, interestingly, there was VERY little moderation 3 years ago.Gabe
Lear35A wrote: ...I would suggest that Mr. Phillips articles are no longer need to be published in Trains.This would be the best thing to happen to Trains since its inception...
Don's work is some of the best reading in the whole magazine...
ValleyX wrote: Years ago, TRAINS had a columnist that could get me tuned up on a regular basis, how many of you have been around long enough to have read John Kneiling, "The Professional Iconoclast"? Today, when I go back and re-read what few columns I have access to, I understand exactly what he was trying to say. I can only imagine the debates, outrage, and yes, topic lock-ups that his column would have produced, were it today.
Yes the thought of Kneiling did occur to me as I saw this controversy unfold. He made a science of upsetting apple carts, grinding axes, goring oxen, and stepping on toes. He was a professional iconoclast after all. Our society seems to be gradually accepting the premise that merely having a strong opinion is offensive.
But you just described to contents of "Classic Trains" so...
I don't think the column you described was negative...more along the lines of challenging...he was pointing out how much we have allowed the hobby to change...in fact, degrade, from the time he was a young man.
Besides, would you not argue that diversity in opinions keeps bringing new ideas into the industry and the hobby?
(And maybe this forum too?)
I think fans need to know there was a time when you could walk up into a tower, introduce yourself to the operator, ask a few questions, and not get arrested.
And, I also think fans need to know that if you trespass on today's railroads, you most likely will be prosecuted...and they need to know why the difference in attitudes.
Like Gabe, I don't always agree with Mr. Phillips...but then again, I don't always agree with a lot of the posters here on the forum...that doesn't mean I want them to go away or quit posting, quite the opposite, in fact.
With out diverse opinions, ideas and tastes, this hobby, and this forum would become dull and stagnant quite quickly.
I would put forth the idea that even if I disagree with a column Mr. Phillips writes, I would still want to read it, if for no other reason that it will offer me a chance to pit my viewpoint and opinions against someone paid to write his.
I don't like listening to the evening news about the war in Iraq, but I do so anyway, because what I see and hear often strengthens my position on that issue...but sometime it weakens or changes it altogether.
Same with trains and railfanning...I don't always like what I read in the forums, or in the magazine, but I read them none the less, because it is information I am after, and limiting my sources just because I don't agree with a persons position is silly.
Take locomotives...now, if offered a choice between comparative models, I would pick the EMD every chance...but if I have no choice in the matter which locomotive I have to work with, then I don't get my shorts all twisted and let that bother me...simply because I look upon locomotives as tools, whereas rail fans often view them as artifacts.
Now, should I belittle the thousands of fans who literally drool over a particular locomotive?
I mean, there are guys out there who buy tee shirts with a Dash 9 on the front, and probably sleep with a timetable...
Should I attempt to drive them away because they don't look at locomotives or the industry in the same light I do?
Or should I read what they post, and try and find out why a Dash 9, or a SD70 elicits such passionate efforts?
If I refused to read what they write, I will never find the answer, and if the moderators shut down a thread because of someone's opinion differing from theirs, then that much more information is lost to the rest of the forum.
Mr. Phillips is paid to make you think...he is not paid to make you agree with, like or want something from the magazine...his sole purpose if to force you to consider issues you may not have though about in a while, maybe never knew existed, or rethink an current issue which pushes all your buttons.
Editorials are by nature designed to be biased and slanted, and by nature force you to form an opinion, be it in agreement or a polar opposite is moot...you have to think about what is written there, which is the whole point.
And, like Gabe, I think the moderators should let things run on a while...if they keep up at the pace they are going now, the forums will become a homogeneous mass, nothing but a study in monochrome....
I appreciate your opinion, and I thank you for presenting it without making it a proxy for some other agenda and for the respect you show for others.
Columnists need a focused belief system or there wouldn't be any point to their existence. Columns are designed to promulgate a point of view that is controversial as a means of stimulating discussion, analysis, and new ideas. A columnist can beat the drum too loudly, i.e., become unrealistic or too strident -- Mr. Kneiling comes to mind by about Year 10 of his column -- and sometimes the argument isn't fresh anymore.
I think Mr. Phillips has already won his first point. Consider when he started writing his column for Trains (August 1977): Amtrak had just been invented as a transitional mechanism for unions, railroads, rail buffs, and romantics that was to the great annoyance of Washington not quietly going away as planned 2-3 years after everyone got passenger trains out of their system. Significant commuter rail and transit had shriveled to five cities (New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco) with a sixth system under construction (Washington) that was then regarded as a giant pork project. Thirty years later commuter rail has expanded to 50-odd cities, and medium-distance corridor rail is rapidly expanding on the coasts. I think we "got it."
As for wishing for the old days, that's self-indulgent.
Mr. Phillips is an articulate, intelligent, experienced reviewer of the railroad sector. I don't think it's unreasonable for you to ask him to tackle new topics.
RWM
selector wrote: Precisely. Observations are fine, but when the thread begins to meander too far afield, such as adopting a mean-spirited tone, as was evinced in at least one response,
Precisely. Observations are fine, but when the thread begins to meander too far afield, such as adopting a mean-spirited tone, as was evinced in at least one response,
Then moderate the offending response, don't punish the entire forum for the actions of a few.
It might have been interesting to see hom many (or how few) other members were of the same opinion...but giving the entire thread the kiss of death only serves to squawsh exchange of ideas, so clearly now we may never know. Some of the more timid members here were likely made to feel the subject is verboten, subsequent to your heavy handed intervention.
Bucyrus wrote: gabe wrote: I also find it very telling, that nearly every complaint about people expressing political decision by forum contributors is one complaining about liberal or conservative views and not both. In other words, you can express a political opinion, just one that doesn't interfere with my views.GabeExcellent point.
One can only hope that the people who stand to benefit the most from that observation, take it to heart. Probably wishful thinking, but then I guess I am an optimist
I have read some of Mr. Phllips work. And, like any columnist, I agree sometimes, and disagree other times. But, that is what a columnist is supposed to do, right??
One thing I don't like (and I am accusing Mr. Phillips or anyone here, it's just a general observation) is those that write columns, post in forums, or talk on the radio who are mere mouthpieces for either political (i.e. Liberal, or Conservative) movement. I dislike a person who writes or speaks about what he is told to write or speak about, regardless of whatever facts that are out there that clearly contradict their position, and in some cases, proves that what they are going on about is clearly wrong. Mr. Phllips at least provokes thought and discussion, and frankly, I never hung a political label on him, because he never struck me as either side of the line, as it were. I did note a certain bias towards European passenger operations, but I figured he had a reason for liking it, which made little sense to me. Because, after all, that is Europe, this is America, and there are two different cultures, as well as landmasses to deal with, not to mention political systems as well. In my opinion it's apples and oranges. So, Europe runs a better rail passenger system and we don't, and adopting their methods won't necessarily work over here, and there in lies the debate. Knee jerk reactions, based on a "My side is always right" assumption prove nothing, and serve to do nothing more than reduce a thread to name calling.
I have strong opinions on the "Conservative vs. Liberal" conflict as it were, but you won't find them here in the Trains forum, only because there is no point to bringing a thread to that topic, because it winds up going nowhere, and results in insults, and flaming posts.
Overmoderation? I don't know, I moderate a photo site, and I guess in some ways, one could say the Admin Team that I am part of might over moderate, and yet there are others who say we don't moderate enough. So, it's six one way, half dozen the other, with the mods caught in the middle.
TimChgo9 wrote: One thing I don't like is those that write columns, post in forums, or talk on the radio who are mere mouthpieces for either political (i.e. Liberal, or Conservative) movement. I dislike a person who writes or speaks about what he is told to write or speak about,...
One thing I don't like is those that write columns, post in forums, or talk on the radio who are mere mouthpieces for either political (i.e. Liberal, or Conservative) movement. I dislike a person who writes or speaks about what he is told to write or speak about,...
How can you tell whether they have merely been told to speak a certain viewpoint, or whether they really believe it and are speaking from the heart?
Bucyrus wrote: TimChgo9 wrote: One thing I don't like is those that write columns, post in forums, or talk on the radio who are mere mouthpieces for either political (i.e. Liberal, or Conservative) movement. I dislike a person who writes or speaks about what he is told to write or speak about,... How can you tell whether they have merely been told to speak a certain viewpoint, or whether they really believe it and are speaking from the heart?
Or, that they cynically adopt whatever viewpoint will generate for them the most money, status, and power?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.