Is it just me or am I onto something?

[eolafan]

Thanks to all of you who have responded to my original post, your contributions have been logical and without excessive passion or any malice at all.  Like PZ, I too am sometimes prone to a little (sometimes more than a little) sarcasm.  What I really dislike is any excessive (or what I consider excessive) political correctness or anybody (and that means anybody) becoming intransigent because of a political or professional association of any kind. 

I appreciate the healthy exchanges of ideas, espeicially on the subject of railroading (but not limited to railroading) on this forum and participating in it is one of the things I take virtually daily pleasure in...let's keep it rolling right along.

Again, thanks to all.

[Poppa_Zit]

[

....I've looked at it from a different perspective. Give these type of guys enough rope, and they'll show everyone what fools they really are. I choose to give the readers credit that they're smart enough to learn to avoid these posts. I also allow each member to choose the topics they want to read, rather than deleting or locking to "protect" them.        

Of course, patent obscenity, racism, religion and politics are a no-no, but some people don't understand what consists a political discussion. (There are words used daily on Chicago radio that cannot appear here.)

There are people on this forum that when I see their avatar I just skip to the next post because I know they have their own weird agenda to which I don't subscribe.

If they're going to edit that tightly here, I also believe posts using false information to make a point should be deleted if we're not allowed to challenge them. Which I have done quite often because debates should be fair.

All good points, Poppa Zit, and I don't discount any of them in the slightest.  Yet, in view of my specialty, which I believe you understand, I know that arguments that degenerate into nothing more than t.its for tats and posturing inevitably escalate to the point where any single observer could send me a pm and say, "See?" 

Why would any moderator choose to ignore experience and learning that does a good job predicting an outcome?  As you all have said, you know the various lions by their various signatures.  We don't change much in terms of personality or likes and dislikes as time goes on; in fact, we tend to change less as time goes on.  You say yourselves that you have learned whom to pass by.  Well, my hand is up also....I learn, and when I see the same people going toe-to-toe, what should I conclude, and when?  I chose to let it go a bit, try to offer a repair, and if it is an intractable group, the thread gets gashed...often to reappear in a clone of some sort.

I am loath, let me say, to interfere.  It isn't "my" forum; not by ownership and not hugely by interest.  So, I dislike having to interfere here.  But even a dolt can figure out when things are going south by the terms used.  Eventually, the dolt improves in that capacity, and I hope to do the same.

Next, your suggestion that false or questionnable posts should be deleted.  Well, that can only be apparent after a minimum of discussion.  It is in this process that the shrillness factor begins to impose itself.  Just about the time an interloper like myself can deduce which contributions are fatuous or simply false, the shrill voices have gotten their wind up and there's no stopping them.  Also, I don't like to force discussions one way or the other, as long as what is being offered is sensible, civil, focused, humorous and/or  in good taste, and if it seems to contribute to the resolution of the central differences in the argument.  It is when the contribution attempts to leave the topic behind and try to embarrass or belittle the person(s) opposite that I feel compelled to restore some order.  That is what I understand from my instructions, and from what other mods tell me, chiefly Bergie.

Conciliation is an art.  I wish more people could suppress their egos and feel warmer and more interested in those who frequently disagree with them.  The Great Truth, such as it is, is very rarely comfortable sleeping under one tent very long.  It moves around, so I don't often like to place it.  That is why I try to repair the process and not interfere with the settlement of the points of discussion by stating what I think is correct about it, or who is correct, and then locking it.  I try to get folks talking like civlized humans...the process.  When that fails, so does the thread.

Thanks for taking your time to contribute.  If I may be forgiven for saying it, I take your voice to be that of one of the elders here, and I suspect that people have learned to think about what you say....so, thanks for saying it.

-Crandell

Crandell, I'm sure some here accuse me of being an instigator because I've jumped right into some of these back-and-forths. Some people think challenging a broad statement or asking a poster for documentation of his statements or questioning sources is being obstinate. That's just good debating.

Some posters spout their blather and take it personally and attack if someone's opinion differs.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion -- if well-placed, and as long as it is based on facts and truisms, and if challenged they should be forthcoming. But allowing expression of hit-and-run opinions like "the government stinks and taxes are too high" should be clipped. There are other forums where that is welcome.

I also am guilty of making an occasional sarcastic post. For which I have no remorse.

It's a gift.

[selector]

[

....I've looked at it from a different perspective. Give these type of guys enough rope, and they'll show everyone what fools they really are. I choose to give the readers credit that they're smart enough to learn to avoid these posts. I also allow each member to choose the topics they want to read, rather than deleting or locking to "protect" them.        

Of course, patent obscenity, racism, religion and politics are a no-no, but some people don't understand what consists a political discussion. (There are words used daily on Chicago radio that cannot appear here.)

There are people on this forum that when I see their avatar I just skip to the next post because I know they have their own weird agenda to which I don't subscribe.

If they're going to edit that tightly here, I also believe posts using false information to make a point should be deleted if we're not allowed to challenge them. Which I have done quite often because debates should be fair.

All good points, Poppa Zit, and I don't discount any of them in the slightest.  Yet, in view of my specialty, which I believe you understand, I know that arguments that degenerate into nothing more than t.its for tats and posturing inevitably escalate to the point where any single observer could send me a pm and say, "See?" 

Why would any moderator choose to ignore experience and learning that does a good job predicting an outcome?  As you all have said, you know the various lions by their various signatures.  We don't change much in terms of personality or likes and dislikes as time goes on; in fact, we tend to change less as time goes on.  You say yourselves that you have learned whom to pass by.  Well, my hand is up also....I learn, and when I see the same people going toe-to-toe, what should I conclude, and when?  I choose to let it go a bit, try to offer a repair, and if it is an intractable group, the thread gets gashed...often to reappear in a clone of some sort.

I am loath, let me say, to interfere.  It isn't "my" forum; not by ownership and not hugely by interest.  So, I dislike having to interfere here.  But even a dolt can figure out when things are going south by the terms used.  Eventually, the dolt improves in that capacity, and I hope to do the same.

Next, your suggestion that false or questionnable posts should be deleted.  Well, that can only be apparent after a minimum of discussion.  It is in this process that the shrillness factor begins to impose itself.  Just about the time an interloper like myself can deduce which contributions are fatuous or simply false, the shrill voices have gotten their wind up and there's no stopping them.  Also, I don't like to force discussions one way or the other, as long as what is being offered is sensible, civil, focused, humorous and/or  in good taste, and if it seems to contribute to the resolution of the central differences in the argument.  It is when the contribution attempts to leave the topic behind and try to embarrass or belittle the person(s) opposite that I feel compelled to restore some order.  That is what I understand from my instructions, and from what other mods tell me, chiefly Bergie.

Conciliation is an art.  I wish more people could suppress their egos and feel warmer and more interested in those who frequently disagree with them.  The Great Truth, such as it is, is very rarely comfortable sleeping under one tent very long.  It moves around, so I don't often like to place it.  That is why I try to repair the process and not interfere with the settlement of the points of discussion by stating what I think is correct about it, or who is correct, and then locking it.  I try to get folks talking like civlized humans...the process.  When that fails, so does the thread.

Thanks for taking your time to contribute.  If I may be forgiven for saying it, I take your voice to be that of one of the elders here, and I suspect that people have learned to think about what you say....so, thanks for saying it.

-Crandell

[Poppa_Zit]

... but some (thankfully a very few) seem to never "give up the ghost" and insist on hanging onto their positions until there is no choice but to lock the thread.

Anybody care to give his or her take on this issue/subject?

Is that why the thread you are referring to was locked?  Do threads get locked because someone refuses to give up their position in a debate?  I did not think that was against forum rules.  Maybe somebody could explain why the thread was locked.  It would help everybody know where the line that is not to be crossed is located.

I agree. These threads were previously moderated by Bergie and Bob and a few other Kalmbach stalwarts and most of us got used to where the line was. We now have a couple of "user-moderators" and while their standards for what is "acceptable" may be similar, they cannot be identical because their decisions -- while trying to remain objective -- require personal judgment and are therefore subjective.

In other words, the plug is being pulled quicker because there are more eyes policing the forums.

So like Bucyrus, I too would like to see locked threads ended with a full explanation from the "locker". I don't think that's asking too much.

However, a handful of people complaining about a thread should mean nothing. Maybe that would call for an evaluation, but nothing more. There are over 46,500 members here and I would hope a few complaints would not be sufficient to cause a thread to be locked. A measly one percent of members is 465 complaints, hardly a representative group.

If "conserving" bandwidth is a goal and reason to lock, why not delete some of the achived posts deemed to be useless or no longer salient? Plenty of room there. 

There always have to be some rules. As a moderator on another train forum, I've always felt if you rein too tightly you risk stifling expression. While it has been recently stated here that standoffs will be locked at a certain point, I've looked at it from a different perspective. Give these type of guys enough rope, and they'll show everyone what fools they really are. I choose to give the readers credit that they're smart enough to learn to avoid these posts. I also allow each member to choose the topics they want to read, rather than deleting or locking to "protect" them.        

Of course, libel, defamation, patent obscenity, racism, religion and politics are a no-no, but some people don't understand what consists a political discussion. (Re: obscenity, there are words used daily on Chicago radio that cannot appear here.)

There are people on this forum that when I see their avatar I just skip to the next post because I know they have their own weird agenda to which I don't subscribe. But I don't advocate their censorship -- Baskin-Robbins offers 33 flavors because everyone doesn't like Rocky Road. 

If they're going to edit that tightly here, I also believe posts using false information to make a point should be deleted if we're not allowed to challenge them. Which I have done quite often because debates should be fair.

[n012944]

Jim, you are on to something.

 

[DennisHeld]

I'm on several other forums with vastly different emphasis. The same is true on each. There exists people who post stuff that's 'out there' repeatedly. This forum is, actually, quite tame.
If you want repeated, hate filled, angry responses on shaky ground, sign up on a sports team forum. Yikes!! I'm even in a science type forum where posters post a political point of view on a science topic without wavering and without listening.
In face to face discussions, these people would be shunned. But on an anonymous forum they can dominate.

[tree68]

The 'axe to grind' folks are certainly present hereabouts.  No matter what the discussion, they often try to bring it around to their favored argument, and once it's there expound ad infinitum.  Of course, that attracts the other camp, and once they exhaust genuine debate they begin another round of ad hominum posts (as detailed above).

Eventually some of them apparently reach a point where "you people are just stupid" because folks aren't buying into their position and then they just go away.

As CopCar points out, there are threads I just don't bother with, unless I'm really bored and want to see what's garnered so much attention. 

[CopCarSS]

Jim,

I think it's just a natural part of forum dynamics just as any any grouping of people will have its cast of characters. As an example, back when I lived your way I looked into joining a model railroad club but decided the club politics were far too great of a headache to justify any enjoyment that would be derived from such an enterprise.

While the forum isn't exactly the same, there still is a very large group of people present here, so it's fair to reason that a great number of personality types will be present and that inevitably some disagreements will arise because of difference of opinion. I think it's also fair to reason that some individuals will go to greater lengths than others to defend their positions.

I will say this, though: Some cases of disagreement are far more productive than others. I didn't comment (apart from posting a link to a humorous bit of litigation) because I simply could not have added anything productive to the discussion. However, I did read it and enjoyed the thread, particularly because there were a lot of facts presented in that thread. What a refreshing change from the constant outbreaks of unfounded CSX bashing and such.

I think most, if not all of the established members here behave in a fairly predictable manner. I know that I've formed opinions about a great number of the forum dwellers here. And I also know that there are threads that I will not follow very closely because of the individual(s) who are posting in such threads. If that style of thread irks you, I would probably just avoid it. As for me, I'm delighted when individuals who are a lot smarter than I am choose to participate in good discussions and back up their positions with good data and I think that if the lock button is going to be pushed in such threads that it should also be pushed on some other quite pointless threads.

Just my on the matter.

[selector]

Tatans' advice is useful, I think.  Most of us learn early to pick our battles, while others won't miss the slightest suggestion of a difference of opinion, even when the one is substantiable.

A thread where two opposing, highly polarized, and unyielding positions are being championed by two sets of arguers is going nowhere.  It becomes a macabre draw for curious onlookers to see who is going to say what in an attempt to score the next point.  If it were a game or a boxing match, it would make some sense, but when it is mere verbiage, and when none of it is supportable with credible information, it is just two sets of opinions that get reblended in the grinder and fed out as another lump of the same pap.

Opinion is just fine, and most welcome....once.  If it is countered with another opinion, which one is to prevail as it morphs into The Great Truth?  Who is to say?  Is to be the one on Side A, or the one on Side B?  Will it be determined by reorganizing the same words, or by substituting a couple of synonyms, and then offering it instead of one's first attempt at clarity?  Or should it be a supporting follow-on where something tangible and verifiable lends credence to the opinion?  Should the logic be, "Well, once again, this is what I think, so I am right."  We call that solipsism in logic.

And, while we are on the topic of logic, there are what are known as informal fallacies in discourse that are designed to create an advantage in the argument.  One of them is the ad hominem fallacy where the person who wishes to prevail creates a diversion by drawing attention to some characteristic of the other person opposite, and thereby ignoring the specifics of the arguement.  It is designed to appeal to unsuspecting onlookers. 

Ad hominem means "to the person/man", or "taking it to the man." It is a tried and true technique, but it is nevertheless a fallacy.  Who uses it is in "foul" territory.  It is in foul territory because such a technique is an error in relevance.  Whether a person is Jewish, Danish, male or female, unemployed or working, physically disadvantaged or fully capable, happy or sad, ugly or pretty, degreed in the subject or a dropout, has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or wrongness of what that person is saying.  You must address what is said, not by whom, not how (unless the words are cross, boorish, rude, and so on), not when, not even where or why.  What is important in an argument is the what.  If the what is incorrect, and you can prove it, do so by all means. 

If you attempt to counter the assertion with anecdotal or experiential information, I don't see that as a problem.  Just don't repeat it.  Let it stand as an example, either supporting or non-supporting.

If you merely endlessly repeat and chip away at the other person with new words and old opinions, you serve no one any purpose here, except to see your own words posted.  When you attempt to use fallacies of relevance, I and others who know better, and who can recognize them, will not be happy.  When you direct our comments in a churlish, nasty, gotcha kind of manner, you can expect others to report you if what you have said offends their sensibilities.  That becomes my summons.  Once I am aware of a problem thread, I tend to work it to see if it can be repaired.  When my efforts fall short, and the objectionable prose and logic/illogic continue, the thread is a waste of bandwidth.  In that case, the thread gets locked.

I hope this post explains how I think.  I am obliged to act in my best judgment when I see things getting no better that are already of no discernible value, or getting worse.

[tatans]

You can be well assured, regardless of the topic, you will receive a response the opposite of your view, there does seem to be an element in these posts that lurk around seeking any subject they may comment on in a negative manner, they never seem to offer any positve critique and feel they are like a vigilante that has the right to demean every topic, some of them do get caught up in their own web and it backfires on them.(and that's kind of fun too) It's best to completely ignore these responses and get on with the subject, One comment I have is the amount of readers(a lot) to a post and the very, very few comments on the subject, so I guess many have nothing to say and let it go at that. I must agree with eolafan that it seems you should not offer your opinion on any subject as you will surely be criticised for your slant on the subject. I never respond to these meaningless spiteful posts. keep on trainin'

 

[Anonymous]

There was a situation like this on another forum I am a member of (the username and forum will remain nameless) where one member was trying to convince everyone he had decalled a model locomotive, where it was quite obviously a photoshop. This poster kept denying it was a photoshop, eventually getting mad and saying he would kill himself, and on and on...

Next time I went on, the post was deleted and the user was banned. I don't think this is a particularly rare case, but I know for a fact this person wasn't a lawyer. 

[Anonymous]

... but some (thankfully a very few) seem to never "give up the ghost" and insist on hanging onto their positions until there is no choice but to lock the thread.

Anybody care to give his or her take on this issue/subject?

Is that why the thread you are referring to was locked?  Do threads get locked because someone refuses to give up their position in a debate?  I did not think that was against forum rules.  Maybe somebody could explain why the thread was locked.  It would help everybody know where the line that is not to be crossed is located.

[eolafan]

It sometimes seems to me that some select folks who participate in these forums (some on a regular basis and others sporadically) seem to have a particular axe to grind?  One very recent (and now locked) thread was dominated (at least in the verbose length of his postings) by one person who (to me at least) sounds like someone who may be either a lawyer or perhaps may have some sort of vested interests in the success and pursuits of lawyers.  While I am sure none of us "regular" posters have any problem at all with the frequent and strong expressions of passion some show in their posts, I have a problem with posters who will not bend at all on any subject whatsoever.

I personally could be described as a "regular kind of guy" who is professionally aligned with the sales of building products through wholesalers to contractors and builders so I have no axe to grind on virtually any subject but I DO have my opinions.  There have been numerous times where my personal take or slant on a subject have been proven wrong and I (normally) admit to my mistake and we move on (as do the majority of my fellow posters), but some (thankfully a very few) seem to never "give up the ghost" and insist on hanging onto their positions until there is no choice but to lock the thread.

Anybody care to give his or her take on this issue/subject?