A columnist such as Don Phillips is expected to express his or her personal bias. If enough people swear they won't patronize the publication because of a columnist's point of view, it will result in a net loss of publishing return. If the loss grows large and obvious, the publisher will have to get rid of the columnist. The challenge is to determine whether a controversial aspect of your publication is attracting customers and driving them away. It is often a fine line.
Some people like to hear a biased view because it adds support to their own. Others resent a biased view because they hear it as a tool to convert their support against them.
Bucyrus wrote: The challenge is to determine whether a controversial aspect of your publication is attracting customers and driving them away. It is often a fine line.
The challenge is to determine whether a controversial aspect of your publication is attracting customers and driving them away. It is often a fine line.
Good point.Then why should not this apply to related forums designed for customers use, too? Maybe that is how the mods approach this, to keep it from becomimng a name calling free for all. If theres such a demand to allow total and unbridled frankness, maybe someone should start such a forum where there's no censorship .
Chico
WOW.
I never would have thought that the comment I wrote about Don's attitude regarding European passenger rail would come across as being a rabidly political, propoganda driven, party line diatribe that only a low level minion in partisan politics could repeat.
Some people on here, and maybe it is the moderators, need to develope some thicker skin. What I wrote was not a personal attack, it was a comment on a viewpoint taken by Don in an editorial column. I do not, nor will I ever, assume that what Don says is solid gold truth and should never be questioned. Nor will I offer any apologies whatsoever.
Good grief!!! If an opposing veiwpoint is considered offensive because it is one that may be taken by someone with conservative values then welcome to '1984' in 2007. Who here has taken the role of the Thought Police? Anyone? What's next, the ministry of vice? I also think it hilarious that NO ONE BOTHERED TO BE AN APOLOGIST FOR DON, THEY JUST CENSORED THE THREAD!
Guess I was right then, huh? Must have struck a chord somewhere.
This topic was directly related to trains. It had no mention of politics, no mention of religion, and no one called Donnie any names. So far the only reason I've read for the thread being locked was because it has the 'potential' to go downhill. I then read through this thread to find that some actually think it was a rational and logical decision. Some of you have also made GREAT points about the necessity of debate - and I might also add that I have vehemently disagreed with a few of these folk in the past.
Perhaps the moderators need to list acceptable topics for discussion. These discussion could then be supervised by those of us who feel that they have the ability to decide who's thoughts are the 'correct' thinking and who's thoughts are 'divisive'. Those who are divisive could be banned from the forum. We wouldn't want to risk reducing the 'correct' thinking contributors to tears when they are unable to defend their positions under pressure.
I have a list of topics we could start with, before I am banned for daring to editorialize on an editorial:
The Milwaukee Road (you may only discuss the WW2 period of 1941-1945, or their Hiawatha passenger equipment - all other disucssions are too risky)
The BNSF (no discussions of rate fixing, business practices, or paint schemes other than the current scheme are allowed)
The UP (only if we discuss how bad that railroad is to railfans)
The CNW (only discussions on the UP commemorative unit are allowed)
Trains (only discussions on the basic idea of a train on railroad tracks is permissable. Helper engines, cabooses, DPU locos, one car trains, and any other combinations of unusual train operations are not permissable as not everyone has seen them)
Amtrak (only discussions about how great Amtrak is and how bad anyone who questions the need for certain parts of Amtrak are allowed. No discussions of governmental funding allowed)
This should get the new tear-free version of the forums going, look forward to seeing all of you at Trainfest next year!
edblysard wrote: I mean, there are guys out there who probably sleep with a timetable...
I mean, there are guys out there who probably sleep with a timetable...
My wife gets so jealous when I do that; she thinks it is my way of punishing her for never being on time.
Gabe
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
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?
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?
It depends. It's when a piece lacks any thing that resembles intelligent discourse, and one that keeps trumpeting one line of belief, or "talking point" that any given group/political party wants to get across, even though there is data, or facts to disprove what the given speaker/writer is talking about, and those facts, are ignored, discounted, or flat out denied.
It's kind of like telling someone the sky is blue, and they insist it is green, and when shown the sky is blue, they still insist it is green, because their particular cause/group/party believes it to be green, or needs to get people to believe it's green to advance their cause/issue/belief.
Think about the number of issues that are out their now that have proponents on either side that are strident in their rhetoric, and intelligent, common sense discourse is beyond them, because they are so consumed by what it is they are trying to advance. Those are the people I am talking about, the ones that willingly have blinders on because they believe their cause to be the only one, and the right one, and will not tolerate competing arguments.
Most reasonable people can listen to both sides of an argument, and not lower themselves to attacks on those who oppose their viewpoint. Unfortunately these days, there seem to be people out there who do their best to upset any kind of reasonable and intelligent discussion that might be occurring, because it threatens their position.
Without going too far afield, think about the kind of back and forth we get on this forum discussing Open Access, or the Union Pacific. We don't even need to cross into domestic political discussion for the daggers to come out, just those to subjects alone are enough.
Soo 6604 wrote the following post at 11-25-2007 7:15 PM:
Can't we all just get along and go back to waving at the engineers and conductors???? " border="0" width="15" height="15" />
That might be too controversial. Consider, what if you wave at the conductor and the engineer is offended because he thought you should have been waving at him? What if the conductor or engineer is female and they find it offensive, or vice versa? What if the engineer is new and nervous and thinks you might be trying to stop the train because of emergency conditions ahead?
I think I could go on and on and I'm sure plenty of you could add lots of scenarios to this but it is a screwy world we're living in now.
TimChgo9 wrote: It depends. It's when a piece lacks any thing that resembles intelligent discourse, and one that keeps trumpeting one line of belief, or "talking point" that any given group/political party wants to get across, even though there is data, or facts to disprove what the given speaker/writer is talking about, and those facts, are ignored, discounted, or flat out denied. It's kind of like telling someone the sky is blue, and they insist it is green, and when shown the sky is blue, they still insist it is green, because their particular cause/group/party believes it to be green, or needs to get people to believe it's green to advance their cause/issue/belief.
Unfortunately, you live in a country where the first amendment guarantees that individual to claim the sky is green, pink, yellow, brown, purple, or whatever else they want to think. Nobody, not even concerned contributors to the trains forum, can legally force the person to think otherwise. And given that such a statement is not offensive, vulgar, or hateful, it would not have to be censored.
You guys are going to have to deal with opposing viewpoints, even if they are from a supposed 'conservative' source (the horror!). If you can't, I really feal sorry for you. I really do. How brainwashed are you that you have to put down any opinion that may not be according to what you were taught to think? I have trouble grasping the idiocy of this whole thing already, but are people really saying that if someone has a contradictory view in a TRAIN related thread that he or she should be censored to prevent the possibility of a debate/argument? Let me clarify: If the argument about a train related topic APPEARS to have a idealogical tint to it that is outside the normal and accepted viewpoint (i.e. questioning the wisdom of government funded railroads and passenger service v. Don Phillips) then we are to censor that thread?
Selector? A response?
solzrules wrote: TimChgo9 wrote: It depends. It's when a piece lacks any thing that resembles intelligent discourse, and one that keeps trumpeting one line of belief, or "talking point" that any given group/political party wants to get across, even though there is data, or facts to disprove what the given speaker/writer is talking about, and those facts, are ignored, discounted, or flat out denied. It's kind of like telling someone the sky is blue, and they insist it is green, and when shown the sky is blue, they still insist it is green, because their particular cause/group/party believes it to be green, or needs to get people to believe it's green to advance their cause/issue/belief.Unfortunately, you live in a country where the first amendment guarantees that individual to claim the sky is green, pink, yellow, brown, purple, or whatever else they want to think. Nobody, not even concerned contributors to the trains forum, can legally force the person to think otherwise. And given that such a statement is not offensive, vulgar, or hateful, it would not have to be censored.You guys are going to have to deal with opposing viewpoints, even if they are from a supposed 'conservative' source (the horror!). If you can't, I really feal sorry for you. I really do. How brainwashed are you that you have to put down any opinion that may not be according to what you were taught to think? I have trouble grasping the idiocy of this whole thing already, but are people really saying that if someone has a contradictory view in a TRAIN related thread that he or she should be censored to prevent the possibility of a debate/argument? Let me clarify: If the argument about a train related topic APPEARS to have a idealogical tint to it that is outside the normal and accepted viewpoint (i.e. questioning the wisdom of government funded railroads and passenger service v. Don Phillips) then we are to censor that thread?
This works in theory, Solz. But there is a big difference between those who study an issue, actually form their own thoughts and post them here, and those who frequently dine at special interest websites only to regurgitate those ideas here as their own.
Big difference.
This forum used to be pretty special and I would check in several times a day. The conversations about the economic factors affecting the industry and individual railroads and others, such as Milwaukee, BNSF, Montana farmers, captive shippers, et. al. were very interesting and spirited converations.
Unfortunately they are now gone, as is the ability for the average Joe, or Ed, or Gabe, to not only share information, but learn about the fascinating and vital industry. Guess I am going to have to remove my wall map of the US railroads and toss my Moody's Transportation Manuals, as there isnt much need to check the facts anymore. Never thought I would say it, but I sure miss Futuremodal. Has Michael been banned too?
Golly what is your favorite paint scheme?!?
ed
MP173 wrote: This forum used to be pretty special and I would check in several times a day. The conversations about the economic factors affecting the industry and individual railroads and others, such as Milwaukee, BNSF, Montana farmers, captive shippers, et. al. were very interesting and spirited converations.Unfortunately they are now gone, as is the ability for the average Joe, or Ed, or Gabe, to not only share information, but learn about the fascinating and vital industry. Guess I am going to have to remove my wall map of the US railroads and toss my Moody's Transportation Manuals, as there isnt much need to check the facts anymore. Never thought I would say it, but I sure miss Futuremodal. Has Michael been banned too?Golly what is your favorite paint scheme?!?ed
I had a great time reading those debates. I haven't seen either one of those two post here recently. FM had a few outstanding comments that defied belief, but at least he was interesting to read. Now if someone strays a little too far out on the edge of the branch there is a collective gasp of disbelief from the sheep here and then people wonder why there is so much hatred and obstinance in the world (followed by calls for removal).
As for my favorite paint scheme - it has been and always will be pre-Hiawatha Milwaukee Road orange on black - with a ton of Montana dust thrown over the top.
solzrules wrote: MP173 wrote: This forum used to be pretty special and I would check in several times a day. The conversations about the economic factors affecting the industry and individual railroads and others, such as Milwaukee, BNSF, Montana farmers, captive shippers, et. al. were very interesting and spirited converations.Unfortunately they are now gone, as is the ability for the average Joe, or Ed, or Gabe, to not only share information, but learn about the fascinating and vital industry. Guess I am going to have to remove my wall map of the US railroads and toss my Moody's Transportation Manuals, as there isnt much need to check the facts anymore. Never thought I would say it, but I sure miss Futuremodal. Has Michael been banned too?Golly what is your favorite paint scheme?!?edI had a great time reading those debates. I haven't seen either one of those two post here recently. FM had a few outstanding comments that defied belief, but at least he was interesting to read. Now if someone strays a little too far out on the edge of the branch there is a collective gasp of disbelief from the sheep here and then people wonder why there is so much hatred and obstinance in the world (followed by calls for removal).As for my favorite paint scheme - it has been and always will be pre-Hiawatha Milwaukee Road orange on black - with a ton of Montana dust thrown over the top.
I used to love the FM vs Everyone else type debates. I learned alot reading those, not that I always understood everything they talked about (especially when MichaelSol chimed in) but, for the most part, the debates were spirited, intelligent, and informative. I would check in alot when there was a "hot" thread going on because most of the time, I learned something.
Sometimes, FM would say something outlandish, but, then the responses countering his argument were always worth reading, because there were/are quite a few members that went to great lengths to research their opinions, and put the facts on the table, giving the rest of us links to follow to read for ourselves, and draw our own conclusions....
MP173 wrote:Never thought I would say it, but I sure miss Futuremodal. Has Michael been banned too?
Never thought I would say it, but I sure miss Futuremodal. Has Michael been banned too?
Dave sure stirred up some serious debates - I disagreed with a lot of what he wrote, but he wrote about was thought provoking.
I sure hope Michael hasn't been banned - he has blown me away with how little I knew about the Milwaukee Road, quoting reports from his archives, anecdotes, etc. He made a good case (not necessarily an airtight one) as to why the PCE shouldn't have been abandoned. The stories surrounding Cadotte's Pass were also quite interesting and did much to explain why the Milwaukee was in Great Falls. While he does have his foibles, IMHO, he has contributed more to the forum than detracted from it.
On a more general not with respect to moderation - my first exposure to on-line communities was through CompuServe, the Trainnet forum was a fun place to visit, moderation kept things civil and having to pay for access time kept the trolls away. I've also hung around Usenet which makes the worst fighting on this forum seem tame and civilized by comparison. Another approach to moderation is what is found on Slashdot and I've seen people get mod'ed down for not following the /. groupthink (which parallels some of the comments on this thread).
What makes this forum interesting is the diversity in thoughts and viewpoints - which reminds me a good slogan, "There are no correct choices, there are only tradeoffs." The debates on this forum are a good way of gaining insight as to what trade-offs are made when making a choice.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Don Phillips is a great writer, and I've read his Trains columns for years...since I was a kid in the 70s. His columns are always well written and thought provoking...I hope to read his columns for years to come.
As for Trains moderating threads...agree or disagree with it...the fact remains that Trains is a privately owned entity, and as such it has the right to edit as it sees fit.
I also remember Don Phillips from years ago in Trains. He was always a voice of reason when John Kneiling got too far out of reason. Don was not really pro labor but he was not as slanted as Kneiling against labor.
Bucyrus wrote: .Some people like to hear a biased view because it adds support to their own. Others resent a biased view because they hear it as a tool to convert their support against them.
.
Of course what that boils down to is, that many people like being told what they want to believe anyway, and abhor being confronted with conflicting information..they like being told they are doing the right thing, in other words. keep their facts simple, and their perspective narrowly focused upon their own set of priorities
solzrules wrote: . Some of you have also made GREAT points about the necessity of debate - and I might also add that I have vehemently disagreed with a few of these folk in the past.
. Some of you have also made GREAT points about the necessity of debate - and I might also add that I have vehemently disagreed with a few of these folk in the past.
What I would hope is (and I'll admit that I am only thinking out loud here, not making any accusations) that we are not bumping heads with favoritism between member moderators and their peer friends.
In other forums I have used, member moderators eventually lost their objectivity, and tended to side with their friends at the expense of everyone else. In such an instance where perhaps their own friends stepped out of line, the moderator would lock the thread claiming general malaise instead of risking damage to the friendship by doing the right thing and setting their ol buddy straight. The "politics of friendship" such as the case may be.
I have followed this thread in an attempt to get a better handle on your reactions to my decision. I don't get to this forum often, and I don't subscribe to trains magazine...I am a model railroader. I do look in, though.
Never-the-less, it was my sense that the thread in question was singling out a member for criticism. I now see that I was mistaken; it was about an article, its author, and his series of opinion pieces. It appeared to me that there was a strong swell towards politicizing the discussion, and I thought the last was a major step in that direction.
My error, and I regret having interceded when I laboured under a misapprehension. It is my hope that I will make no further errors of this kind. Yours, too, I'm sure.
I offer my apologies to the originator of the thread that I locked, as well as to the various contributors. Sorry.
BTW, I like the tenor of this thread more, and I would encourage you all to keep it going.
selector wrote: I have followed this thread in an attempt to get a better handle on your reactions to my decision. I don't get to this forum often, and I don't subscribe to trains magazine...I am a model railroader. I do look in, though.Never-the-less, it was my sense that the thread in question was singling out a member for criticism. I now see that I was mistaken; it was about an article, its author, and his series of opinion pieces. It appeared to me that there was a strong swell towards politicizing the discussion, and I thought the last was a major step in that direction. My error, and I regret having interceded when I laboured under a misapprehension. It is my hope that I will make no further errors of this kind. Yours, too, I'm sure.I offer my apologies to the originator of the thread that I locked, as well as to the various contributors. Sorry.BTW, I like the tenor of this thread more, and I would encourage you all to keep it going.
This post is a refreshing and mature addition to an otherwise bafalling last few months.
Lacking any trolls for the moment, methinks we've reached a point of saturation - we've discussed many items ad nauseum and tend to get testy when a newcomer brings one up. I don't post as much as I did since I often don't see much that interests me or about which I can offer an intelligent response.
I suspect that we're in a lull. Stick around, add your two cents from time to time. I'm sure things will liven up.
A local forum I'm on just went through a major shake-up. The lead moderator was really out of hand (never had a good thing to say about anybody, friend or no), attracted some media attention, and was gone. I suspect he's back with a new handle, but he's behaving himself now.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Well written, and well received. Apology accepted, and for me this issue is now dead.
Glad to see that you are willing to keep an open mind, and it will only serve you that much better as a moderator.
ValleyX wrote:I don't know about others but it seems curious to me that someone who doesn't even subscribe to TRAINS would be a moderator. But perhaps its just me.
It is a reasonable question.
Some of the forums that Kalmbach Publishing hosts are more active than others, which necessarily means that the diversity of exchanges, in intent, experience, opinion, tone, language usage, and information is going to be broader in some than in others. In terms of shear volume, the Model Railroader General Discussion forum towers over the rest of them, including this one. Not unexpectedly, there is occasionally the requirement for intervention in order to keep peace in that forum, and the same is true in all of them at some time or other, not the least here.
It became overwhelming earlier in the summer, and into the fall, with vituperative comments. The tone began to deteriorate noticeably to the point where threads were being initiated asking to get our hosts to improve the tenor of the forum. Letting rage and rancor acquire and retain a grip on the atmosphere of so many threads across the forums, which seemed to be impending at one point, was not good stewardship. Something had to be done.
The decision to trial user moderators (UM) was taken at some point, and two were brought aboard in early September, to the best of my knowledge. I am newer, but not really a stranger to the various forums. We are all volunteers. We saw the need, and made overtures to Kalmbach to consider appointing us as user moderators (UM). In due course they agreed and the rest is as it is.
We are all linked by our mutual interest and passion in trains, whether full-sized or models. While occasional errors, of the type that this one was (misapprehension of the subject and direction), are possible, they are also easily corrected.
This forum has had its share of acrimony over the time that I have surfed it, nearly three years now. It is not immune to strong differences of opinion that incite inflammatory comments and invective. So, if the Company is to attempt to solve a problem in one or two fora using volunteers UM's, why not ask those UM's to have a look into other places where members report abuse? Further, the three that are from my neck of the woods are spread widely in time zones, so we cover the fora quite thoroughly. It is therefore a matter of efficiency, and frees Bergie from having to spend so much time reacting to wild fires. Keep in mind that many of the wild fires take place on weekends when the offenders "drop-in" expecting the vigilance to be minimal.
You can be sure that all of the moderators are gentlemen with good skills and who are very much desirous of contributing meaningfully to your pleasure and use here....we offer a service, even when our best intentions are missteps. We also have undertaken, on Kalmbach's behalf, to attempt to keep things clean and moving in confines that are limited only to the extent that those posting maintain some relevance to trains and railroading, and that their use of language is civil.
So, we have a dual loyalty. Or first agreement, our prime, must be with our hosts, since it is they who have asked us to act on their behalf, and because these fora belong to them. A very close second, in terms of loyalty, is to you and all participants who, I would think, would like a clean and vibrant environment where we treat each other as equals and as human beings. In that respect, it matters little that we frequent one forum more than another. If we do make mistakes in other sub-cultures, and they should be few, they are generally easily righted.
I hope that helps to address your observation, ValleyX.
gabe wrote: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
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.
I'd hate to see anyone draw a correlation between the recent addition of external moderators and the perceived drop-off in quality of the content in this forum. If anything, I'd like to think that if we had this many moderators all along, some of those "good ol' posters" may have stuck around instead of leaving because of some actions of immature members.
By the way, you may have noticed that I just unlocked the other thread. Keep it rail-related and we'll be fine with it.
Bergie
Bergie wrote: gabe wrote: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.GabeI'd hate to see anyone draw a correlation between the recent addition of external moderators and the perceived drop-off in quality of the content in this forum. If anything, I'd like to think that if we had this many moderators all along, some of those "good ol' posters" may have stuck around instead of leaving because of some actions of immature members.By the way, you may have noticed that I just unlocked the other thread. Keep it rail-related and we'll be fine with it.Bergie
I did notice, and it is greatly appreciated.
Also, as suggested by my post, I think there are other explanations for my preceived drop in quality. I do, however, believe that some of the most informative threads on here were the product of disagreement.
I am certainly not claiming that it is easy to moderate, as I would be the first one to admit that there have been some posters in the past that really make things unpleasant and I do not envy your job. But, I do think some forum members have been a little too zealous in attempting to excommunicate some of their detractors, and it has stiffled some of the more interesting threads than we once saw.
I am still grateful that Trains provides this forum. I just think that locking that thread inhibits some of the best change of information that the forum provides, and such threads seem to have diminished over time.
Dan
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.