Threading with the Mods

[NorthWest]

Or simply a software glitch? Is that what the old software looked like, before this one? I never saw it, so I don't know.

[Overmod]

Just out of curiosity (before the thread is locked Monday) what is the procedure for adding the red "Report Abuse" link next to the yellow triangle?  Is there some sort of automated keyword or grammar/rhetoric analysis going on?  (Consider the post just before this one, which has innocuous content but might 'scan' under some algorithm's criteria as if it were contentious in tone...)  Or are there people in the moderating group who actively trigger the option when they read particular posts, or are following one of 'those' threads...

[schlimm]

Convicted One

edblysard

I don’t know, maybe it was just the way I read the original post, but I think what Steve was looking for was ways to add to and or  modify the physical mechanics and featuresof the forum to improve its usability, not a “who do you want to ban” thread.

He also specified a cut-off time. I don't think that it's that uncommon for a thread that has run it's course to start drifting once contextual contributions have dried up. I was very interested in this thread, the questions posed, and the answers we got.  Along the way I witnessed a fair share of mud slinging. Rather than hitting the "report" button, I tried to volunteer some useful feedback that I thought might hit home with those sources.

Of course, that hope is probably folly on my part, since It appears that the biggest offenders don't think there is anything wrong with  their  "contributions"

 

Steve Sweeney:  "Recent flame-outs and shouting matches push people away and lower the overall appeal of forums to existing posters and potential ones.

For the next few days, post your questions, concerns, and complaints on here about the forums and Ang and I will do our best to answer them and find ways to make things better for everyone. Please, keep it civil, but we will answer every question posed to us through 3 p.m. Central Time on Sept. 19."

Seems pretty clear it wasn't limited to buttons, physical mechanics and features.

[Convicted One]

edblysard

I don’t know, maybe it was just the way I read the original post, but I think what Steve was looking for was ways to add to and or  modify the physical mechanics and featuresof the forum to improve its usability, not a “who do you want to ban” thread.

He also specified a cut-off time. I don't think that it's that uncommon for a thread that has run it's course to start drifting once contextual contributions have dried up. I was very interested in this thread, the questions posed, and the answers we got.  Along the way I witnessed a fair share of mud slinging. Rather than hitting the "report" button, I tried to volunteer some useful feedback that I thought might hit home with those sources.

Of course, that hope is probably folly on my part, since It appears that the biggest offenders don't think there is anything wrong with  their  "contributions"

[edblysard]

I don’t know, maybe it was just the way I read the original post, but I think what Steve was looking for was ways to add to and or  modify the physical mechanics and featuresof the forum to improve its usability, not a “who do you want to ban” thread.

[gardendance]

cx500

As a rule I just skip over anything by one or two specific posters as not worth my time reading.  I don't need an ignore button.

Does this mean you never read my posts?

[dakotafred]

Convicted One

Judgement is frequently subject to emotion, and emotion varies drastically from individual to individual,  for reasons that are too many to count. That is  a flaw that we all share. 

"We do no end of feeling and call it thought." -- Mark Twain

[BaltACD]

Paul of Covington

   I wouldn't be surprised if by now Steve feels like a schoolyard monitor trying to calm down a bunch of squabbling kids.

Mommy/Daddy type moderation generates what it seeks to end.

[Convicted One]

The important thing to keep in mind is, that while a person may possess an immense collection of factual (and important) information, that is still no guarantee that their judgement be immaculate. 

Judgement is frequently subject to emotion, and emotion varies drastically from individual to individual,  for reasons that are too many to count. That is  a flaw that we all share. 

[BaltACD]

...

[Euclid]

Convicted One

From a neutral corner:

Reading this thread through, the one new thing to have occurred to me is how the more (*ahem*) "strident" personalities seem to be the staunchest defenders of using the report abuse feature.

This might suggest that control issues could be a driving factor. Just something to ponder.

As far as the mocking "yes but" scenario, Let me point out that such mocking is clearly fueled by a degree of contempt. And have to ask why  someone would feel justified  acting in a hostile manner towards another simply because they are (in the opinion of the mocker) "wrong"?

Perhaps the person being mocked has a different set of priorities than the person intent upon harassing them? Not every person is going to see every scenario with the same personal preferences and value sets. And it seems (to me) that this last point must be way over the heads of the so called "authorities" who allow themselves to become so angered when they bump heads with someone failing to  embrace their POV.

To put it in a neutral context, have you ever had a friend who was in an abusive relationship that they just plain needed to get out of,  yet reused to because they were in love with their tormenter? No matter how much you reason with them, no matter how much truth you expose them to, they simply refuse to act rationally?  It's that old "objective vs subjective" issue rearing it's ugly head again.

And in such instances, sometimes you just have to let the person suffer in their own misery, let them be wrong...who cares?  I suggest that it in no small part  it might be insecurity  on behalf of the "expert",  rendering them incapable of just allowing the target of their contempt to simply be wrong, without having to start an argument over it.

Convicted One,

You sure have got some words of wisdom there.  It’s refreshing. 

[Paul of Covington]

   I wouldn't be surprised if by now Steve feels like a schoolyard monitor trying to calm down a bunch of squabbling kids.

[Murphy Siding]

     Steve-  What's the most difficult part about trying to moderate this forum?

[cx500]

The heart of the problem is the divide between professional railroads and the amateurs on this forum.  I think it fair to say that the pros are here to share between "equals", and also as a public service to help the amateurs come to a better understanding.  Those professionals come from a variety of backgrounds, railroads and territories, so it is not surprising their input has different slants depending on the source.  I like to think I have useful expertise in a number of aspects, but willingly stand back for the experts in many others.  And sometimes we too make mistakes.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.   Incomplete knowledge can easily lead to errors, because assumptions become the base.  The professionals attempt to insert a dose of reality, not to control the poster but to guide same into a deeper understanding.  Usually in the past it was accepted quietly, probably gratefully.  Convicted One mentions differing POVs.  While perhaps several can be equally valid in fields like economics, when dealing with unforgiving metal objects and machinery there is often only one correct POV. 

The obvious picture of railroads is that of large equipment and far flung tracks.  Yet it is the tiny details, more or less invisible to the layman, that are so critical to routine operation.  Speculation without that knowledge is usually of little value.  And the pool of professionals on this forum share that knowledge. 

Perhaps it has developed into somewhat of a control fight, and certain posters have been treated with contempt.  However, brushing off helpful criticism provided freely by experts is showing contempt in return.  It is not surprising the threads degenerate.  

As a rule I just skip over anything by one or two specific posters as not worth my time reading.  I don't need an ignore button.

John

[Norm48327]

Convicted One

From a neutral corner:

Reading this thread through, the one new thing to have occurred to me is how the more (*ahem*) "strident" personalities seem to be the staunchest defenders of using the report abuse feature.

This might suggest that control issues could be a driving factor. Just something to ponder.

As far as the mocking "yes but" scenario, Let me point out that such mocking is clearly fueled by a degree of contempt. And have to ask why  someone would feel justified  acting in a hostile manner towards another simply because they are (in the opinion of the mocker) "wrong"?

Perhaps the person being mocked has a different set of priorities than the person intent upon harassing them? Not every person is going to see every scenario with the same personal preferences and value sets. And it seems (to me) that this last point must be way over the heads of the so called "authorities" who allow themselves to become so angered when they bump heads with someone failing to  embrace their POV.

To put it in a neutral context, have you ever had a friend who was in an abusive relationship that they just plain needed to get out of,  yet reused to because they were in love with their tormenter? No matter how much you reason with them, no matter how much truth you expose them to, they simply refuse to act rationally?  It's that old "objective vs subjective" issue rearing it's ugly head again.

And in such instances, sometimes you just have to let the person suffer in their own misery, let them be wrong...who cares?  I suggest that it in no small part  it might be insecurity  on behalf of the "expert",  rendering them incapable of just allowing the target of their contempt to simply be wrong, without having to start an argument over it.

[Convicted One]

From a neutral corner:

Reading this thread through, the one new thing to have occurred to me is how the more (*ahem*) "strident" personalities seem to be the staunchest defenders of using the report abuse feature.

This might suggest that control issues could be a driving factor. Just something to ponder.

As far as the mocking "yes but" scenario, Let me point out that such mocking is clearly fueled by a degree of contempt. And have to ask why  someone would feel justified  acting in a hostile manner towards another simply because they are (in the opinion of the mocker) "wrong"?

Perhaps the person being mocked has a different set of priorities than the person intent upon harassing them? Not every person is going to see every scenario with the same personal preferences and value sets. And it seems (to me) that this last point must be way over the heads of the so called "authorities" who allow themselves to become so angered when they bump heads with someone failing to  embrace their POV.

To put it in a neutral context, have you ever had a friend who was in an abusive relationship that they just plain needed to get out of,  yet reused to because they were in love with their tormenter? No matter how much you reason with them, no matter how much truth you expose them to, they simply refuse to act rationally?  It's that old "objective vs subjective" issue rearing it's ugly head again.

And in such instances, sometimes you just have to let the person suffer in their own misery, let them be wrong...who cares?  I suggest that it in no small part  it might be insecurity  on behalf of the "expert",  rendering them incapable of just allowing the target of their contempt to simply be wrong, without having to start an argument over it.

[Euclid]

I don’t really see where there has been all this alleged disagreement between me and others in my threads.  There is talk of me floating all these wild theories that people with practical experience know won’t work or have been tried before and found unworkable.  And then I supposedly refuse to listen to their wisdom.  Show me examples. 

My sense is that very few people actually read most posts with enough care to fully understand them.  A technical discussion requires a constant clarification of terms.  To people who aren’t paying full attention, this may seem like arguing. 

So, I think what develops is a sense of combat over the mere perception of disagreement that does not actually exist.   Then lots of people join right into the imaginary battle without realizing what they are doing.  People get offended because they perceive disrespect and insults were none actually exist.  

[gardendance]

tree68

Euclid

That is the pompous attitude that I hear in your “Yes, but.”

Alas, I'm not the one who presents the "yes, but" arguments.

I'm not sure why you say "alas", I rate "yes but" just barely above the dead horse meme, so I'm grateful you don't present it. I also find it hard to consider a "yes but" post coming anywhere near the Monty Python definition of an argument. It's not even contradiction.

[zugmann]

Hmmmm.  

I'd participate in this thread, but I don't have anything to throw.

[tree68]

Euclid

That is the pompous attitude that I hear in your “Yes, but.”

Alas, I'm not the one who presents the "yes, but" arguments.

[schlimm]

tree68

And this has been a large part of the issue.  Even though claims, concepts, and statements may be shown to be completely baseless (and this is not just in the realm of railroad issues), said claims and statements are simply restated, perhaps a little differently.  Hence "yes, but..."

As for feeling that the real railroaders have a "my way or the highway" state of mind, oftimes the laws of physics are on their side, never mind the rules under which they operate and must be very familiar with.  Sometimes there seems to be an issue with "and this is the way it is."

Larry: Sometimes it is best to just let the force of the argument stand on its own merits and let the other folks continue to restate, rephrase, repeat or even regurgitate.  Why is it such an issue to merely ignore the thread at some point?  What's the big deal?   The alternative becomes exceedingly close monitoring by the moderators, and they are not about to do that because they really do not have the time. 

One of those recurrent threads concerned the setting of handbrakes on parked trains.   Now you may well think it is as clear as the laws of physics (which have changed a wee bit in the last 100 years, BTW) but anyone examining those threads (aside from becoming very fatigued) would note considerable disagreement among railroaders, as well as investigators.   It isn't always so black and white as we might like to think.

[Euclid]

tree68

cx500

I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back. 

And this has been a large part of the issue.  Even though claims, concepts, and statements may be shown to be completely baseless (and this is not just in the realm of railroad issues), said claims and statements are simply restated, perhaps a little differently.  Hence "yes, but..."

As for feeling that the real railroaders have a "my way or the highway" state of mind, oftimes the laws of physics are on their side, never mind the rules under which they operate and must be very familiar with.  Sometimes there seems to be an issue with "and this is the way it is."

A large part of the issue?  Is that the issue that when person A says that person B’s claims, concepts, and statements are completely baseless, person A is right and Person B is wrong just because Person A says so; and that Person B should not have the audacity to doubt Person A?  That is the pompous attitude that I hear in your “Yes, but.”

[tree68]

cx500

I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back. 

And this has been a large part of the issue.  Even though claims, concepts, and statements may be shown to be completely baseless (and this is not just in the realm of railroad issues), said claims and statements are simply restated, perhaps a little differently.  Hence "yes, but..."

As for feeling that the real railroaders have a "my way or the highway" state of mind, oftimes the laws of physics are on their side, never mind the rules under which they operate and must be very familiar with.  Sometimes there seems to be an issue with "and this is the way it is."

[schlimm]

Norm48327

schlimm

cx500

I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back.  It may be the point was wrong or valueless from the start.  Desperately trying to add nuances is rather like adding lipstick and nail polish to the pig.  And starting with a fresh pig won't change the fact that it is still a pig.

One can still admire a pet pig; it may indeed look as cute as a puppy in your eyes.  Nothing wrong with that.  But persisting in trying to convince others who do not suffer the same delusion is just a waste of time, yours and ours.  Claiming the pig is a quite different animal, in the face of evidence to the contrary, just means a poster loses credibility for all subsequent posts.

I wondered whether to use a horse as the animal, but decided it had been flogged enough 

John

And why can't you ignore rather than seek censorship or feel the need to ridicule the authors of posts that are repetitious, but basically innocuous? The threads and the author are clearly labeled.  

So, why can't you just ignore cx500's post or is taking your own advice too difficult for you?

Why?   This thread is a discussion about the forum and the posts such as the ones Euclid makes, which you also have a strong aversion to.    If you have a positive contribution, why not make it on your own instead of merely parroting or ridiculing what others say?

Some folks who are rail employees do not like outsiders saying anything about their field because they feel we don't actually know anything.   Some of us outsiders may regard comments made about our fields as displaying a lack of knowledge, but mostly we see no need to ridicule.   it's better to just ignore them.

[Norm48327]

schlimm

cx500

I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back.  It may be the point was wrong or valueless from the start.  Desperately trying to add nuances is rather like adding lipstick and nail polish to the pig.  And starting with a fresh pig won't change the fact that it is still a pig.

One can still admire a pet pig; it may indeed look as cute as a puppy in your eyes.  Nothing wrong with that.  But persisting in trying to convince others who do not suffer the same delusion is just a waste of time, yours and ours.  Claiming the pig is a quite different animal, in the face of evidence to the contrary, just means a poster loses credibility for all subsequent posts.

I wondered whether to use a horse as the animal, but decided it had been flogged enough 

John

And why can't you ignore rather than seek censorship or feel the need to ridicule the authors of posts that are repetitious, but basically innocuous? The threads and the author are clearly labeled.  

So, why can't you just ignore cx500's post or is taking your own advice too difficult for you?

[schlimm]

cx500

I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back.  It may be the point was wrong or valueless from the start.  Desperately trying to add nuances is rather like adding lipstick and nail polish to the pig.  And starting with a fresh pig won't change the fact that it is still a pig.

One can still admire a pet pig; it may indeed look as cute as a puppy in your eyes.  Nothing wrong with that.  But persisting in trying to convince others who do not suffer the same delusion is just a waste of time, yours and ours.  Claiming the pig is a quite different animal, in the face of evidence to the contrary, just means a poster loses credibility for all subsequent posts.

I wondered whether to use a horse as the animal, but decided it had been flogged enough 

John

And why can't you ignore rather than seek censorship or feel the need to ridicule the authors of posts that are repetitious, but basically innocuous? The threads and the author are clearly labeled.  

[Norm48327]

cx500

I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back.  It may be the point was wrong or valueless from the start.  Desperately trying to add nuances is rather like adding lipstick and nail polish to the pig.  And starting with a fresh pig won't change the fact that it is still a pig.

One can still admire a pet pig; it may indeed look as cute as a puppy in your eyes.  Nothing wrong with that.  But persisting in trying to convince others who do not suffer the same delusion is just a waste of time, yours and ours.  Claiming the pig is a quite different animal, in the face of evidence to the contrary, just means a poster loses credibility for all subsequent posts.

I wondered whether to use a horse as the animal, but decided it had been flogged enough 

John

[cx500]

I would suggest if a poster can't make his point in the course of a handful of exchanges, it's time to take a step back.  It may be the point was wrong or valueless from the start.  Desperately trying to add nuances is rather like adding lipstick and nail polish to the pig.  And starting with a fresh pig won't change the fact that it is still a pig.

One can still admire a pet pig; it may indeed look as cute as a puppy in your eyes.  Nothing wrong with that.  But persisting in trying to convince others who do not suffer the same delusion is just a waste of time, yours and ours.  Claiming the pig is a quite different animal, in the face of evidence to the contrary, just means a poster loses credibility for all subsequent posts.

I wondered whether to use a horse as the animal, but decided it had been flogged enough 

John

[Euclid]

In my question to Steve Sweeney above, when he says, “but we don't feel it is up to us [moderators] to determine every nuance of the railroading conversation. That's up to you,” I would like to know who it is up to.  Maybe he is saying that it is okay for other members to wreck the thread if they do not like the nuances of the discussion or think it has gone on too long. Indeed, that has been done several times lately, and the moderators seem to accept that solution.

[schlimm]

Overmod

I would like to see a rule that explicitly bars ad hominem comments and other forms of insult.  Responses to topics should address the topic,

One would think forum rule #2 would cover banning ad hominem posts, but recently it has not been consistently enforced.

 "#2 No personal attacks or name-calling."" 

One would also think if a thread topic was about "securing a train" then a series of posts about "beating dead horses,"  "yes, but," ad nauseam, that would also get moderated per rule #1.  But that does not appear to be consistently enforced, either.

"#1 Please keep discussions on topic."

[Overmod]

Euclid, he just said there isn't a stated rule regarding redundant threads.  Since you said

Euclid

Also, moderate only to the stated rules.

then there isn't any problem, is there?

Of course, there's nothing that stops other people from commenting ithat a new thread is redundant... that's part of how free expression works.

In the past, that seems to have been handled by pointing people to the 'previous' thread(s) -- with the discussion then being taken up by resuscitating them if desirable -- if the new thread is truly redundant.  (Some of the T1 threads have been like that.)  In such cases the 'redundant' thread simply drops back and dies a natural death as folks fail to go back past enough pages of is there any talk of trains moving past locations to see it.  Or the poster keeps bumping it... and others keep ignoring it, or the horse actually learns to sing and new knowledge gets brought in; in either case no particular modac is needed or, frankly, should be wanted.

I would like to see a rule that explicitly bars ad hominem comments and other forms of insult.  Responses to topics should address the topic, not the people involved.  As I've noted, I also think that the 'stay on topic' rule should be applied via the expressed wish of the person starting a thread: if they want to allow drift, they can; if they insist on staying focused, they can do so too.  This is just a formalization of general policies as they are applied now -- but this approach imho would remove the opportunity for threads to be hijacked or poisoned by people who disagree with the original topic or poster. 

[schlimm]

Euclid

Steve Sweeney

Murray

Good Morning Steve and Ang:

Is there a Moderator's policy regarding redundant threads?

In other words, how do you deal with multiple threads on the same subject?

Murray and Euclid:

I am going to answer your questions in one answer about redundant threads: We have no policy on redundant, or seemingly redundant, threads. Redundant threads can be annoying, but we don't feel it is up to us to determine every nuance of the railroading conversation. That's up to you.

~Steve S.

Steve,

In your answer to Murray and me, you conclude by saying, “That's up to you.”  What exactly do you mean by that?  Here is why I ask:  Say one person wants to add to a discussion, and another person wants the discussion to end.  These are two conflicting objectives.  When you say the outcome is “up to you,” how is this conflict supposed to be resolved?   

Just guessing but perhaps Mr. Sweeney is leaving it up to the readers, member and non-members alike, to rely on their own discretion about reading threads and posts, whether redundant or not.  But it seems the rule barring off-topic and/or political posts still applies.

[Euclid]

Steve Sweeney

Murray

Good Morning Steve and Ang:

Is there a Moderator's policy regarding redundant threads?

In other words, how do you deal with multiple threads on the same subject?

Murray and Euclid:

I am going to answer your questions in one answer about redundant threads: We have no policy on redundant, or seemingly redundant, threads. Redundant threads can be annoying, but we don't feel it is up to us to determine every nuance of the railroading conversation. That's up to you.

~Steve S.

Steve,

In your answer to Murray and me, you conclude by saying, “That's up to you.”  What exactly do you mean by that?  Here is why I ask:  Say one person wants to add to a discussion, and another person wants the discussion to end.  These are two conflicting objectives.  When you say the outcome is “up to you,” how is this conflict supposed to be resolved?   

[Euclid]

I ask the moderators to answer the questions implied by these points:

My suggestion to the moderators is to moderate to the rules on an individual basis, rather than blaming the thread participants collectively when a flame war starts.  We are individuals, and just because personal insults are made, it does not follow that everyone in the thread is to blame.    

Also, moderate only to the stated rules.  I have seen threads locked or deleted simply on the basis of a made up issue that a topic is only allowed to be discussed so much.  Then after the thread has passed that hypothetical cutoff point, disgruntled members assume the authority to disrupt the conversation based on the violation of the imaginary rule.  Then the moderators lock or delete the thread based on that disruption.  So a violation of a rule has been disciplined, and yet the rule does not even exist except in certain member’s imaginations.

[Euclid]

Norm48327

 

 

I don't hold grudges.   

[gardendance]

A caveman told me he killed a dinosaur with his club. I asked "How big is your club"? He replied "We have about 150 members."

I don't think I've been meme to anyone, but I can't resist this one.

[Norm48327]

edblysard

Whaaat?...........a spear chucker club?

Where do we sign up?

First, we gotta find the Mammoths. Methinks we're eons too late.

[edblysard]

Whaaat?...........a spear chucker club?

Where do we sign up?

[zugmann]

Steve Sweeney

ON AVATARS, there is a scheduled software update that will be taking place to the Trains website on Oct. 1, anyway. When that update happens, our IT guys will try to increase Avatar size to the extent allowed. This is a "no-cost" fix, so shouldn't be hard to update.

Thanks, Steve.  I know the avatar thing is petty and unimportant, but it still is appreciated.

Now back to the name calling and snipefest.

[Norm48327]

dakotafred

What do you want to bet Steve is heartily sorry he ever started this?

The old grudge matches will rekindle in any thread or Trains forum. (If General Discussion and Passenger attract more of them, that's because that's where the action is, vs. Steam, Preservation, Classic Trains, etc.)

Call us a family that is as "dysfunctional" as many, with brothers-in-law we love to hate. I think we can continue, especially with the moderate moderating practiced by Steve and Angie. 

Fred,

I don't hold grudges. However, I dislike someone constantly rehashing the same old subject over and over ad-nauseum  and constantly rephrasing post while trying to get the answer he wants. The subject of securing a train is a prime example of such behavior and becomes old quickly. It indicates the poster is simply fishing for replies to boost his ego and post count. It's truly inane.Hammering a subject to death does not win friends or influence others.

I also don't think ideas are dismissed out of hand. Many have already been tried and found unworkable but the poster keeps insisting they be tried just to satisfy himself. In any profession/trade, those with knowledge of the game resent being told they don't know of what they speak. In any endeavor, people are always seeking a way to make their job easier/safer/more productive/etc. If they weren't we would still be chucking spears at Mammoths.

[narig01]

On updated software.
I use an Amazon Kindle Fire. Not sure about the browser.
The biggest problem I run into is I can not post in the "Standard" format and must use a mobile format. It makes it very difficult to quote others. Also in long running threads it is very cumbersome to get to the current posts. Best examples I'll cite are the Classic Railroad Quiz and Part Deux. Also the Chatterbox Cafe and predecessors.

I like to pop in and say hi there at times.

Thx IGN

[schlimm]

Fred, I concur, although in the Passenger forum the disagreements are not as rancorous.  it's more civil and a good model for disputes without so much of the vitriol.  A lot of us over there use PMs with each other, even after a strong disagreement.   Not sure why.  Mostly different posters?

[dakotafred]

What do you want to bet Steve is heartily sorry he ever started this?

The old grudge matches will rekindle in any thread or Trains forum. (If General Discussion and Passenger attract more of them, that's because that's where the action is, vs. Steam, Preservation, Classic Trains, etc.)

Call us a family that is as "dysfunctional" as many, with brothers-in-law we love to hate. I think we can continue, especially with the moderate moderating practiced by Steve and Angie. 

[Overmod]

BaltACD

Not to get back into the paraphrasing equine flagellation -- but what I think balt actually meant by this cryptic little detail was that the accuweather forum has a control to 'manage ignored user' -- and the engine code for that site might be a useful resource for tech people who are considering 'ignore this user' functionality.  (Apparently navigation is to go into My Controls, then Manage Ignored Users...)

Meanwhile, the Bitcoin forums have implemented an 'ignore' button at the side of posts, under the user information.  This is functionality that might be easy to implement in the Kalmbach forum instantiation.  See here for an example that both discusses the issue and displays the 'ignore' controls.. 

[BaltACD]

[NorthWest]

Steve Sweeney

ON AVATARS, there is a scheduled software update that will be taking place to the Trains website on Oct. 1, anyway.

What is the scale of the modifications? Are we going to the MR software?

The MR forums no longer have spell check, but otherwise work pretty well. There was a substantial learning curve, though.

Thanks for providing this wonderful resource.  

[Norm48327]

gardendance

Steve, I suggest if you ever try this again, make it a locked thread asking for private messages, then you can post to the thread whatever messages you think are appropriate to the thread and your replies.

Patrick,

Tell us what you really think.

[gardendance]

Murray

So it appears that we have a very defensive Schlimm and Euclid in one corner....
...and the rest of the sane trains.com posters in the other.

Murray

schlimm

Young man, having been a member here much longer than you, I would stake my reputation amongst the posters here as being much higher than yours. One cursory review of your posts within this thread alone is proof of that.

It appears you may have made a mistake either in including me in "the rest of the sane trains.com posters", or staking your "reputation amongst the posters here as being much higher than" anyone else's. I place your reputation no higher than anyone else's, and my cursory review of your and Schlimm's posts in this thread does not present me with any proof that you're any better than Schlimm.

Steve, I suggest if you ever try this again, make it a locked thread asking for private messages, then you can post to the thread whatever messages you think are appropriate to the thread and your replies.

[Norm48327]

Euclid

Murray,

It does not seem like your button is working.

Push it again.

[Euclid]

Murray,

It does not seem like your button is working.

[Anonymous]

Deleted:  Ignoring Schlimm and Euclid

[schlimm]

BaltACD

It would be nice if the 'Search Site' function that appears at the top right of each forum page - searched the forums, not the train magazine site.  If one desires to search the magazine site(s) there should be separate search functions for those searches.

I think that is a great idea, the best I've seen here.   There is a wealth of information in past posts which it would be better if the search were easier.   Even better if one could narrow the parameters: for example, which forum.

[BaltACD]

It would be nice if the 'Search Site' function that appears at the top right of each forum page - searched the forums, not the train magazine site.  If one desires to search the magazine site(s) there should be separate search functions for those searches.

[BaltACD]

Other forums I participate in have 'like' and 'dislike' buttons.

[schlimm]

Murray

Young man, having been a member here much longer than you, I would stake my reputation amongst the posters here as being much higher than yours.  One cursory review of your posts within this thread alone is proof of that.

Thanks for the compliment.   However you choose to view them, I can say that I have never been "moderated" for my posts.  Can you say the same?

[Paul of Covington]

   Finally a sensible comment.   Thanks, Mookie.

[Mookie]

Hey Steve!  Job well done!  You have everyone squabbling on the same thread so the rest of the forum can move along.  You don't need buttons - just give them one thread to duke it out! 

Now about the video section you need to build. 

[carnej1]

Very Sad that a thread designed to help the moderators/management improve the forums has degenerated into members expressing their personal dislike of other members...

 It never ceases to amaze me that of all the forums on the Trains.com website the "TRAINS Magazine - General Discussion" forum has more nasty posts/flame-wars than all the others combined.

Were it up to me (and it most definitely is not) the GD forum would be replaced with one or more other forums, perhaps a "freight railroading" forum and maybe "Railroad operations and facilities".

[Anonymous]

Deleted:  Ignoring Euclid and Schlimm

[Semper Vaporo]

Another request:  Quoted material is indented on the Left and the Right and if there are quotes within quotes within quotes within quotes, the oldest quote is just a line of single characters down the middle of the page... I don't speed--read too well that way!  Could the "Right indent" be eliminated?  At least it would increase the number of embedded quotes within quotes before the oldest quote becomes a vertical string of single characters.

Maybe reduce the number of spaces on the Left that quoted material is indented too.

And maybe darken the box around the quoted material to help delineate the individual quotes from each other and the new material.

And when replying in a thread and the "Quote" link is clicked to copy the quoted material to the text input box, it would be nice if the cursor were placed below the quoted material on a new line instead of being left within the quoted material.  I have learned to always type "Ctrl-End" and "Enter" before I start typing; not everybody does that and sometimes their comments appear to be part of the quote.

 

[schlimm]

Murray

Oh and Schlimm:  Stop being so nasty in your comments to the other posters.  You also deserve at least an Oscar nomination with your hypocritical sense of self-righteousness.  Spare us!!!

You have one of the nastiest tongues on here.  Seldom a constructive or (heaven forbid!!) critical comment about railroading; you spend your time ridiculing others.   Great job, Scotty!!

[Euclid]

Norm,

I have copies of everything I posted, so there is no need to rely on memory.

[Norm48327]

Euclid

Murray

 

BTW:  Euclid:  You deserve an Oscar for the way you feigned ignorance in your recent posts.

 

 

Really?  How so?  What posts?  You will have to be a little more specific please.

Convenience memory?

[Euclid]

Murray

BTW:  Euclid:  You deserve an Oscar for the way you feigned ignorance in your recent posts.

Really?  How so?  What posts?  You will have to be a little more specific please.

[Steve Sweeney]

EVERYONE, SETTLE DOWN. Please

Sheesh.

OK. I talked to the folks downstairs about getting bigger avatars and the "ignore" button.

ON AVATARS, there is a scheduled software update that will be taking place to the Trains website on Oct. 1, anyway. When that update happens, our IT guys will try to increase Avatar size to the extent allowed. This is a "no-cost" fix, so shouldn't be hard to update.

On "INGORE" BUTTONS: This is a touch more complicated. Since we never had such a button, we never got any software to support one. IT will bring this up internally and report back. No deadline on this one, but if I know these guys, they will be checking and give an honest assessment of what is possible before long.

Questions, concerns, comments?

[selector]

Yet again, it gets old quickly.

[Anonymous]

Deleted:  Ignoring Euclid and Schlimm

[schlimm]

edblysard

Norm48327

schlimm

BaltACD

schlimm

Ulrich

Why not just ignore what you don't want to read? what's up with all the need for buttons? 

Exactly.  Why do some folks need a button or moderators to block certain posts, threads or posters for them? Exercising one's own discretion as to what to read should suffice for oneself, if that is all it is really about.

That has worked so well to date; especially among those that have no discretion only a sense of rightesnous.

Snarky posts like your self-righteous one above in blue are why we need to reprimand folks who refuse to be civil and then blame others.

Schlimm,

Do you have something worthwhile to contribute to the conversation?

Free speech for some, reprimands for those who exercise their right to speak freely in disagreement.

Allow only specific posters to express their point of view, censor those that have a differing point of view…..

I know, we need an “Elitist” button to warn forum member that participating in a particular thread means they must claim an IO of 131 or above, have at least one advanced degree, and agree totally with the original posters opinion.

We also need a” classified” or” jobs” section so minions can shop around for a leader they like.

I don’t know about the ignore button…if I used it, I would miss out on a lot of fun, it would be like the batteries running out in the laser pointer you use to tease a cat….you keep promising yourself you won’t use it again, but there it sits on the edge of the desk, and the cat is right there doing the same cat stuff again, and….well, it’s just so much fun to watch the troll, I mean cat, chase the same thing over and over.

It is so funny to watch you guys squirming around in circles trying to see who can be more silly.  "Race to the bottom?"

[Euclid]

I think we need a huff button.

[edblysard]

Norm48327

schlimm

BaltACD

schlimm

Ulrich

Why not just ignore what you don't want to read? what's up with all the need for buttons? 

Exactly.  Why do some folks need a button or moderators to block certain posts, threads or posters for them? Exercising one's own discretion as to what to read should suffice for oneself, if that is all it is really about.

That has worked so well to date; especially among those that have no discretion only a sense of rightesnous.

Snarky posts like your self-righteous one above in blue are why we need to reprimand folks who refuse to be civil and then blame others.

Schlimm,

Do you have something worthwhile to contribute to the conversation?

Free speech for some, reprimands for those who exercise their right to speak freely in disagreement.

Allow only specific posters to express their point of view, censor those that have a differing point of view…..

I know, we need an “Elitist” button to warn forum member that participating in a particular thread means they must claim an IO of 131 or above, have at least one advanced degree, and agree totally with the original posters opinion.

We also need a” classified” or” jobs” section so minions can shop around for a leader they like.

I don’t know about the ignore button…if I used it, I would miss out on a lot of fun, it would be like the batteries running out in the laser pointer you use to tease a cat….you keep promising yourself you won’t use it again, but there it sits on the edge of the desk, and the cat is right there doing the same cat stuff again, and….well, it’s just so much fun to watch the troll, I mean cat, chase the same thing over and over.

[edblysard]

BaltACD

 

Internet troll types

 THE MAJOR BREEDS

 The Vulgar Troll. These, the crudest of all trolls, make no attempt to hide their species. Often, they make racist comments, or they may post porn and other spam. Vulgars usually confine their comments merely to primitive, profane, off-topic observations. When you log into the Really Profound Serious Philosophical Discussions board and see the post, "I smell my farts," you've spotted the Vulgar Troll. Other species of troll sometimes revert to this form when cornered.

 The Deceptive or "Classic" Troll. More sophisticated but often easily identified and exposed, the Classic Troll gratifies his ego by pretending to be someone or something he or she is not. Classics make up elaborate stories about themselves, sometimes weaving some amounts of truth into their lies. As a web of lies is difficult to build with consistency, however, Classics are often "outed" by other forumites. When this happens, Classic Trolls have a bag of tricks to which they turn:

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 1: If the heat gets too much for you, claim it was all "a joke." In this way you can excuse any and all deceit by claiming people just weren't smart enough to "get" the humor of it.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 2: Create another account, and log on pretending to be someone else, in order to show support for the Troll in Question (TiQ). These puppet accounts sometimes claim to be disinterested third parties. At other times they pretend to be "friends" of the TiQ.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 3: When your lies paint you into a corner, claim that your little brother, or some unnamed friend, has commandeered your account and made you look foolish. This technique can also be applied in claiming that the puppet account(s) you created may not, in fact, be disinterested third parties or friends, but that they are your relatives ("little brother" is most common) only trying to help support you.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 4: When nothing else works, claim that now, finally, you're telling the truth about all the lies you told before. Make up a fresh set of lies, and throw yourself on the mercy of the forumites.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 5: When all else fails, claim to be leaving forever. Trolls who claim they are leaving never do, of course; you can bet that anyone who proclaims, "I'm never coming back here," will most certainly at least check back for responses, and probably will not be able to resist posting again.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 6: Have a tantrum. When all their other tricks are exhausted, Classic Trolls will become angry and start shouting. Often they revert to Vulgar Trolls when this happens.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 7: The insincere apology. Similar to Tactic 4, this involves pretending to repent for one's trolling and is accompanied often by great melodrama. Insincere troll apologists hope that they'll be forgiven if only they act disgusted enough with their own behavior.

The Contrarian Troll. A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. A forum dominated by those who support firearms and knife rights, for example, will invariably be visited by Contrarian Trolls espousing their beliefs in the benefits of gun control. It is important to distinguish between dissenters and actual Contrarian Trolls, however; the Contrarian is not categorized as a troll because of his or her dissenting opinions, but due to the manner in which he or she behaves:

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number One: The most important indicator of a poster's Contrarian Troll status is his constant use of subtle and not-so-subtle insults, a technique intended to make people angry. Contrarians will resist the urge to be insulting at first, but as their post count increases, they become more and more abusive of those with whom they disagree. Most often they initiate the insults in the course of what has been a civil, if heated, debate to that point.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Two: Constant references to the forum membership as monolithic. "You guys are all just [descriptor]." "You're a lynch mob." "You all just want to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you."

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Three: Intellectual dishonesty. This is only a mild indicator that is not limited to trolls, but Contrarians display it to a high degree. They will lie about things they've said, pull posts out of context in a manner that changes their meanings significantly, and generally ignore any points for which they have no ready answers.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Four: Accusing the accusers. When confronted with their trolling, trolls immediately respond that it is the accusers who are trolls (see Natural Predators below). Often the Contrarian will single out his most vocal opponent and claim that while he can respect his other opponents, this one in particular is beneath his notice.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Five: Attempts to condescend. The Contrarian will seek refuge in condescending remarks that repeatedly scorn his or her critics as beneath notice – all the while continuing to respond to them.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Six: One distinctive mark of Contrarian Trolls is that every thread in which they dissent quickly devolves into a debate about who is trolling whom. In the course of such a debate the Contrarian will display many of the other Warning Signs mentioned above.

 The YerATroll.  YerATrolls are those whining forumites who devote a tremendous amount of time and energy complaining about the tremendous amount of time an energy expended by Troll Bashers and Angry Forumites on the practice of troll-hunting. A self-righteous and hypocritical breed, YerATrolls spend all their time pointing fingers at everyone but trolls, petulantly demanding that their opinions be granted the significance the YerATroll believes they deserve. YerATrolls often start threads excoriating others for troll-hunting, all the while completely oblivious to the fact that they're engaging in trolling by picking fights with everyone else. One of the most ill-tempered of troll species, YerATrolls are characterized by a childish need for attention disguised as cynical nobility and pretensions of being "above it all."

 

 The Agenda Troll. Agenda trolls are those participants who join a forum specifically to pursue an agenda of their own – often a feud or grudge with another member, or perhaps a dispute with some party not participating in that forum. When a flame war erupts on another board, for example, Agenda Trolls will follow their opponents to other forums in order to continue the spat.

– Some Agenda Trolls are subject-matter oriented. An Agenda Troll who thinks Self-Defense Instructor X is a fraud, or who feels he has been ripped off or otherwise dealt with unfairly by Instructor X, will visit forums devoted to self-defense and martial arts in order to spread his or her negative opinion of Instructor X.

– Agenda Trolls may also be of the milder Spam Agenda subspecies; these are Trolls who join a board specifically to advertise some venture of their own. They are not often troublesome, though their shameless plugging is met with varying degrees of irritation.

 The Sophist Troll. Sophist Trolls, or "philotrolls," fancy themselves Enlightened Philosophers or Learned Experts of the highest order. Often well educated, Philotrolls are capable of speaking intelligently on a number of topics, and when the spirit moves them they can be worthwhile forum participants. Unfortunately, Sophist Trolls are an extremely hostile and intolerant species.

When confronted by opinions with which they do not agree – particularly when they do not see any means of successfully arguing their contrary views – Sophists resort (repeatedly) to a variety of intellectually dishonest tactics. Most often, this is characterized by an overly snide, condescending, patronizing attitude. Philotrolls consider anyone with whom they do not agree to be "immature," and are fond of quoting that old saw that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

 When cornered they are quick to resort to personal attacks. A philotroll's bag of rhetorical tricks includes a variety of transparent ploys, such as willfully misinterpreting the opponent's words, committing Straw Man fallacies, accusing his or her opponents of engaging in the very tactics used by the philotroll, and so forth.

 When engaging in their sophistry, philotrolls are among the most hypocritical and aggravating of trollkind.

 

 The Affected Profundity Troll.  A mutant subspecies of Sophist Trolls, Affected Profundity Trolls post endless pages of pretentious drivel that is intended to appear wise, but which generally makes little sense (if any). Affected Profundity Trolls enjoy asking themselves questions, sometimes answering them and sometimes leaving them hanging, for they believe this looks intelligent and lends an aura of mystery to their incoherent ramblings. Affected Profundity Trolls aspire to become Sophist Trolls, but lack the intelligence necessary to make the leap.

 

 The Don King Troll.  Related to Affected Profundity Trolls, Don King Trolls spout gibberish in the hope that they'll either bore or confuse to death those with whom they disagree. The average Don King Troll is "a pursuitist who gromulates his adversarial computerists with height defining formulations to the disinterestingest adjunct."

 The Artistic Troll. A higher species of Classic Troll, Artistic Trolls are intelligent individuals who understand the subtle art of trolling, and who do what they do specifically to make others look foolish. Often employing the techniques of Deceptive Trolls, Artistics will string forumites along until some point in time designated by their own desires, at which point they will reveal the ploy, admit that it was a ploy, and laugh at everyone for being stupid enough to fall for it. Artistic Trolls delight in sowing discord, but do it in a highly developed and fully aware manner. They do not care if they are despised, and do not seek the approval of forum participants. Chaos is their only goal, and preferably chaos with a humorous bent to it. Without a doubt, this is the most dangerous species.

 The Bitter Troll.  Bitter Trolls are a curious cross-species. They can be trolls of any breed in their larval stages, but become Bitters after their previous activities are seen for what they were. What sets these trolls apart from other classifications is their behavior after they have been spotted and labeled as trolls. Angry, frustrated, and resentful about being "outed," the Bitter Troll will wage a campaign of indignant complaints intended to focus attention away from the troll and on whomever is responsible for identifying the creature. Often, a troll mutates into a Bitter just prior to becoming a Vulgar.

 The Bustr.  Bustrs are obsessive Bitters by whom you could practically set your watch. A Bustr never forgets, never forgives, and holds a grudge until the day it dies. Also a variant of Agenda trolls, Bustrs typically move from forum to forum complaining about the objects of their ire, often cutting and pasting age-old diatribes that have little meaning to most of their audiences. Most Bustrs are relatively incoherent, though a few of the more lucid ones are potentially dangerous stalkers.

 The Mutt.  Alternatively known as Dogs or Yapping Dogs. Mutts are pack animals characterized by their loud barking – vociferous, repetitive, usually ignorant and irrational criticism of anything and anyone they do not like. Mutts frequently become obsessed with a few or even a single poster with whom they disagree, often for purely personal reasons. Like a dog gnawing at a bone, the Mutt will attack the object of its ire over and over again, making a fool of itself in the eyes of those who understand such childish behavior for what it is. Often one Mutt in a group of Yapping Dogs will act as the alpha of the pack, while the others chime in to voice their mindless (but loud) support for their leader's opinions.

 The Holy Misroller (HM). Holy Misrollers are those online forum participants who give Christians (or other religious adherents) a bad name. The HM believes himself or herself to be a Christian (etc.) and will generally tell anyone who'll listen about his or her faith in God and in Jesus. At the same time, however, the HM will display decidedly un-Christian behavior, frequently making an *** out of him- or herself. The HM is often characterized by a great deal of anger and hostility. The breed tends to lash out at anyone and anything not in keeping with its incorrectly narrow worldview. The saddest part about HMs is that they do not truly understand Christianity at all.

OMG..I laughed so hard I think I ruptured something!

[Norm48327]

Balt,

That was so good I had to save it.

[Norm48327]

Euclid

Murray

Norm48327

cx500

My chief complaint, and there is no easy answer, is that some threads which started out interesting and instructive degenerated into a tedious morass, of hypothetical theories based mostly on ignorance.  It is easy enough to just ignore any postings by that (or those) specific individuals, but I fear that other people with less knowledge of railroading may be misled. 

Attempts in the past by a number of knowledgeable railroaders on this forum to correct the gabble were, and are, mostly just buried by more of the same.  I'd not be surprised if some lost their temper and flamed at the foolishness.  Was that what the veiled discussion was about several months back?

John Sutherland

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Theories don't cut it; results do, and there is a total lack of practicality in some of those theories. When confronted with the facts, the poster takes offense even the experienced people may have tried the idea in the past and found it to be unworkable. I certainly can't blame the railroaders for getting frustrated when they are repeatedly told they don't know what they are talking about.

Well said Norm!!!

Well, of course I have no idea what you three are referring to,

Could that be because you are unwilling to accept others viewpoints and the voice of experience?

but what I find is that if I or anybody else suggests a new idea for railroads, it is met with universal rejection here.  It is often rather hostile.  There is obviously a strong belief that if the railroads are not already doing it, you can bet that it is not a good idea.  It would be a natural reaction among railfans.  John Keiling was an idea-proposing machine, and he seemed to be despised by at least half the Trains readership.  Their extreme defensiveness was on parade.  Maybe that was DPM’s point. 

But I have never told a railroader that “they don’t know what they are talking about.”  In fact most of the critics start out by telling me that I don’t know what I am talking about.  At most, I have responded that I did not agree with their criticism of my idea.  Often I see that they have misunderstood what I am proposing, so I try to restate it more clearly.  From my point of view, some of these critics are way too defensive if I do not simply buckle under to their first objection.  They often become angry that I would have the audacity to not accept their condescending put down. 

[Norm48327]

schlimm

BaltACD

schlimm

Ulrich

Why not just ignore what you don't want to read? what's up with all the need for buttons? 

Exactly.  Why do some folks need a button or moderators to block certain posts, threads or posters for them? Exercising one's own discretion as to what to read should suffice for oneself, if that is all it is really about.

That has worked so well to date; especially among those that have no discretion only a sense of rightesnous.

Snarky posts like your self-righteous one above in blue are why we need to reprimand folks who refuse to be civil and then blame others.

Schlimm,

Do you have something worthwhile to contribute to the conversation?

[BaltACD]

 

Internet troll types

 THE MAJOR BREEDS

 The Vulgar Troll. These, the crudest of all trolls, make no attempt to hide their species. Often, they make racist comments, or they may post porn and other spam. Vulgars usually confine their comments merely to primitive, profane, off-topic observations. When you log into the Really Profound Serious Philosophical Discussions board and see the post, "I smell my farts," you've spotted the Vulgar Troll. Other species of troll sometimes revert to this form when cornered.

 The Deceptive or "Classic" Troll. More sophisticated but often easily identified and exposed, the Classic Troll gratifies his ego by pretending to be someone or something he or she is not. Classics make up elaborate stories about themselves, sometimes weaving some amounts of truth into their lies. As a web of lies is difficult to build with consistency, however, Classics are often "outed" by other forumites. When this happens, Classic Trolls have a bag of tricks to which they turn:

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 1: If the heat gets too much for you, claim it was all "a joke." In this way you can excuse any and all deceit by claiming people just weren't smart enough to "get" the humor of it.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 2: Create another account, and log on pretending to be someone else, in order to show support for the Troll in Question (TiQ). These puppet accounts sometimes claim to be disinterested third parties. At other times they pretend to be "friends" of the TiQ.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 3: When your lies paint you into a corner, claim that your little brother, or some unnamed friend, has commandeered your account and made you look foolish. This technique can also be applied in claiming that the puppet account(s) you created may not, in fact, be disinterested third parties or friends, but that they are your relatives ("little brother" is most common) only trying to help support you.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 4: When nothing else works, claim that now, finally, you're telling the truth about all the lies you told before. Make up a fresh set of lies, and throw yourself on the mercy of the forumites.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 5: When all else fails, claim to be leaving forever. Trolls who claim they are leaving never do, of course; you can bet that anyone who proclaims, "I'm never coming back here," will most certainly at least check back for responses, and probably will not be able to resist posting again.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 6: Have a tantrum. When all their other tricks are exhausted, Classic Trolls will become angry and start shouting. Often they revert to Vulgar Trolls when this happens.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 7: The insincere apology. Similar to Tactic 4, this involves pretending to repent for one's trolling and is accompanied often by great melodrama. Insincere troll apologists hope that they'll be forgiven if only they act disgusted enough with their own behavior.

The Contrarian Troll. A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. A forum dominated by those who support firearms and knife rights, for example, will invariably be visited by Contrarian Trolls espousing their beliefs in the benefits of gun control. It is important to distinguish between dissenters and actual Contrarian Trolls, however; the Contrarian is not categorized as a troll because of his or her dissenting opinions, but due to the manner in which he or she behaves:

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number One: The most important indicator of a poster's Contrarian Troll status is his constant use of subtle and not-so-subtle insults, a technique intended to make people angry. Contrarians will resist the urge to be insulting at first, but as their post count increases, they become more and more abusive of those with whom they disagree. Most often they initiate the insults in the course of what has been a civil, if heated, debate to that point.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Two: Constant references to the forum membership as monolithic. "You guys are all just [descriptor]." "You're a lynch mob." "You all just want to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you."

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Three: Intellectual dishonesty. This is only a mild indicator that is not limited to trolls, but Contrarians display it to a high degree. They will lie about things they've said, pull posts out of context in a manner that changes their meanings significantly, and generally ignore any points for which they have no ready answers.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Four: Accusing the accusers. When confronted with their trolling, trolls immediately respond that it is the accusers who are trolls (see Natural Predators below). Often the Contrarian will single out his most vocal opponent and claim that while he can respect his other opponents, this one in particular is beneath his notice.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Five: Attempts to condescend. The Contrarian will seek refuge in condescending remarks that repeatedly scorn his or her critics as beneath notice – all the while continuing to respond to them.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Six: One distinctive mark of Contrarian Trolls is that every thread in which they dissent quickly devolves into a debate about who is trolling whom. In the course of such a debate the Contrarian will display many of the other Warning Signs mentioned above.

 The YerATroll.  YerATrolls are those whining forumites who devote a tremendous amount of time and energy complaining about the tremendous amount of time an energy expended by Troll Bashers and Angry Forumites on the practice of troll-hunting. A self-righteous and hypocritical breed, YerATrolls spend all their time pointing fingers at everyone but trolls, petulantly demanding that their opinions be granted the significance the YerATroll believes they deserve. YerATrolls often start threads excoriating others for troll-hunting, all the while completely oblivious to the fact that they're engaging in trolling by picking fights with everyone else. One of the most ill-tempered of troll species, YerATrolls are characterized by a childish need for attention disguised as cynical nobility and pretensions of being "above it all."

 

 The Agenda Troll. Agenda trolls are those participants who join a forum specifically to pursue an agenda of their own – often a feud or grudge with another member, or perhaps a dispute with some party not participating in that forum. When a flame war erupts on another board, for example, Agenda Trolls will follow their opponents to other forums in order to continue the spat.

– Some Agenda Trolls are subject-matter oriented. An Agenda Troll who thinks Self-Defense Instructor X is a fraud, or who feels he has been ripped off or otherwise dealt with unfairly by Instructor X, will visit forums devoted to self-defense and martial arts in order to spread his or her negative opinion of Instructor X.

– Agenda Trolls may also be of the milder Spam Agenda subspecies; these are Trolls who join a board specifically to advertise some venture of their own. They are not often troublesome, though their shameless plugging is met with varying degrees of irritation.

 The Sophist Troll. Sophist Trolls, or "philotrolls," fancy themselves Enlightened Philosophers or Learned Experts of the highest order. Often well educated, Philotrolls are capable of speaking intelligently on a number of topics, and when the spirit moves them they can be worthwhile forum participants. Unfortunately, Sophist Trolls are an extremely hostile and intolerant species.

When confronted by opinions with which they do not agree – particularly when they do not see any means of successfully arguing their contrary views – Sophists resort (repeatedly) to a variety of intellectually dishonest tactics. Most often, this is characterized by an overly snide, condescending, patronizing attitude. Philotrolls consider anyone with whom they do not agree to be "immature," and are fond of quoting that old saw that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

 When cornered they are quick to resort to personal attacks. A philotroll's bag of rhetorical tricks includes a variety of transparent ploys, such as willfully misinterpreting the opponent's words, committing Straw Man fallacies, accusing his or her opponents of engaging in the very tactics used by the philotroll, and so forth.

 When engaging in their sophistry, philotrolls are among the most hypocritical and aggravating of trollkind.

 

 The Affected Profundity Troll.  A mutant subspecies of Sophist Trolls, Affected Profundity Trolls post endless pages of pretentious drivel that is intended to appear wise, but which generally makes little sense (if any). Affected Profundity Trolls enjoy asking themselves questions, sometimes answering them and sometimes leaving them hanging, for they believe this looks intelligent and lends an aura of mystery to their incoherent ramblings. Affected Profundity Trolls aspire to become Sophist Trolls, but lack the intelligence necessary to make the leap.

 

 The Don King Troll.  Related to Affected Profundity Trolls, Don King Trolls spout gibberish in the hope that they'll either bore or confuse to death those with whom they disagree. The average Don King Troll is "a pursuitist who gromulates his adversarial computerists with height defining formulations to the disinterestingest adjunct."

 The Artistic Troll. A higher species of Classic Troll, Artistic Trolls are intelligent individuals who understand the subtle art of trolling, and who do what they do specifically to make others look foolish. Often employing the techniques of Deceptive Trolls, Artistics will string forumites along until some point in time designated by their own desires, at which point they will reveal the ploy, admit that it was a ploy, and laugh at everyone for being stupid enough to fall for it. Artistic Trolls delight in sowing discord, but do it in a highly developed and fully aware manner. They do not care if they are despised, and do not seek the approval of forum participants. Chaos is their only goal, and preferably chaos with a humorous bent to it. Without a doubt, this is the most dangerous species.

 The Bitter Troll.  Bitter Trolls are a curious cross-species. They can be trolls of any breed in their larval stages, but become Bitters after their previous activities are seen for what they were. What sets these trolls apart from other classifications is their behavior after they have been spotted and labeled as trolls. Angry, frustrated, and resentful about being "outed," the Bitter Troll will wage a campaign of indignant complaints intended to focus attention away from the troll and on whomever is responsible for identifying the creature. Often, a troll mutates into a Bitter just prior to becoming a Vulgar.

 The Bustr.  Bustrs are obsessive Bitters by whom you could practically set your watch. A Bustr never forgets, never forgives, and holds a grudge until the day it dies. Also a variant of Agenda trolls, Bustrs typically move from forum to forum complaining about the objects of their ire, often cutting and pasting age-old diatribes that have little meaning to most of their audiences. Most Bustrs are relatively incoherent, though a few of the more lucid ones are potentially dangerous stalkers.

 The Mutt.  Alternatively known as Dogs or Yapping Dogs. Mutts are pack animals characterized by their loud barking – vociferous, repetitive, usually ignorant and irrational criticism of anything and anyone they do not like. Mutts frequently become obsessed with a few or even a single poster with whom they disagree, often for purely personal reasons. Like a dog gnawing at a bone, the Mutt will attack the object of its ire over and over again, making a fool of itself in the eyes of those who understand such childish behavior for what it is. Often one Mutt in a group of Yapping Dogs will act as the alpha of the pack, while the others chime in to voice their mindless (but loud) support for their leader's opinions.

 The Holy Misroller (HM). Holy Misrollers are those online forum participants who give Christians (or other religious adherents) a bad name. The HM believes himself or herself to be a Christian (etc.) and will generally tell anyone who'll listen about his or her faith in God and in Jesus. At the same time, however, the HM will display decidedly un-Christian behavior, frequently making an *** out of him- or herself. The HM is often characterized by a great deal of anger and hostility. The breed tends to lash out at anyone and anything not in keeping with its incorrectly narrow worldview. The saddest part about HMs is that they do not truly understand Christianity at all.

[schlimm]

Euclid

Murray

Norm48327

cx500

My chief complaint, and there is no easy answer, is that some threads which started out interesting and instructive degenerated into a tedious morass, of hypothetical theories based mostly on ignorance.  It is easy enough to just ignore any postings by that (or those) specific individuals, but I fear that other people with less knowledge of railroading may be misled. 

Attempts in the past by a number of knowledgeable railroaders on this forum to correct the gabble were, and are, mostly just buried by more of the same.  I'd not be surprised if some lost their temper and flamed at the foolishness.  Was that what the veiled discussion was about several months back?

John Sutherland

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Theories don't cut it; results do, and there is a total lack of practicality in some of those theories. When confronted with the facts, the poster takes offense even the experienced people may have tried the idea in the past and found it to be unworkable. I certainly can't blame the railroaders for getting frustrated when they are repeatedly told they don't know what they are talking about.

Well said Norm!!!

Well, of course I have no idea what you three are referring to, but what I find is that if I or anybody else suggests a new idea for railroads, it is met with universal rejection here.  It is often rather hostile.  There is obviously a strong belief that if the railroads are not already doing it, you can bet that it is not a good idea.  It would be a natural reaction among railfans.  John Keiling was an idea-proposing machine, and he seemed to be despised by at least half the Trains readership.  Their extreme defensiveness was on parade.  Maybe that was DPM’s point. 

But I have never told a railroader that “they don’t know what they are talking about.”  In fact most of the critics start out by telling me that I don’t know what I am talking about.  At most, I have responded that I did not agree with their criticism of my idea.  Often I see that they have misunderstood what I am proposing, so I try to restate it more clearly.  From my point of view, some of these critics are way too defensive if I do not simply buckle under to their first objection.  They often become angry that I would have the audacity to not accept their condescending put down. 

I am probably also one of those who finds some/all of Euclid's posts repetitious and mostly not of interest to me.  But he does raise questions, but apparently the professional railroaders believe (and often they are correct, though not always) that they know better.     But even if all his posts were nonsense, they may well interest some members and even more non-members. He has the right to expect disagreement, but not being hooted down, mocked, made fun of, etc.  Courtesy costs us nothing.    Why can't we all just ignore the posts we don't like?  

[narig01]

More of a comment

Recently one of the flaming threads has been on the Lac-Megantic wreck and in general crude oil by rail. To say the least it has gotten rather heated.
After an oil train wreck in Alabama and after seeing no casualties and minimal disruption I decided time for a little humor. I took the side of the beaver. The results were a few good laughs.
One thing about the Internet is there is a copper wire and or a fibre optic line separating us. One bad thing is it turns people into words on a screen. It can separate us. It also brings us together as well. It does prevent one from reaching out and touching one another physically. The flip side is people tend to be more pushy to get their point across.
I try not to go overboard. And when someone deserves a little consideration I try to say as much. Sometimes after reading a few posts in hot subjects my thoughts are someone needs to lighten up. Sometimes I think someone should "get a life!". There are a lot of commentators who are retired with a lot of time on their hands. Who have a world of knowledge and memories. Others who work in transportation and or logistics, again with a lot of knowledge and experience. The writings of these people is invaluable. Recently one person, an active railroader, received a major complaint. He started to pull down all his comments. I did not see the offense so I do not know what to say. I did see any number of others who went a little far at about the same time. There is another (an OTR driver from the Chicago area) who I think got banned. In the last having been a driver myself I mostly learned to filter his comments with the knowledge that his type was not uncommon (listen to CB channel 19 near a truck stop some nites) around my former career.
The world is made up of all types. To keep things civil there are rules both stated and unstated. One rule I have is to forgive those who would trespass against me. If I have given offense to others I would ask to be forgiven.
In the words of another "Can't we all just get along ".

Thanks for the space.
Thx IGN

[Euclid]

Murray

Norm48327

cx500

My chief complaint, and there is no easy answer, is that some threads which started out interesting and instructive degenerated into a tedious morass, of hypothetical theories based mostly on ignorance.  It is easy enough to just ignore any postings by that (or those) specific individuals, but I fear that other people with less knowledge of railroading may be misled. 

Attempts in the past by a number of knowledgeable railroaders on this forum to correct the gabble were, and are, mostly just buried by more of the same.  I'd not be surprised if some lost their temper and flamed at the foolishness.  Was that what the veiled discussion was about several months back?

John Sutherland

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Theories don't cut it; results do, and there is a total lack of practicality in some of those theories. When confronted with the facts, the poster takes offense even the experienced people may have tried the idea in the past and found it to be unworkable. I certainly can't blame the railroaders for getting frustrated when they are repeatedly told they don't know what they are talking about.

Well said Norm!!!

Well, of course I have no idea what you three are referring to, but what I find is that if I or anybody else suggests a new idea for railroads, it is met with universal rejection here.  It is often rather hostile.  There is obviously a strong belief that if the railroads are not already doing it, you can bet that it is not a good idea.  It would be a natural reaction among railfans.  John Keiling was an idea-proposing machine, and he seemed to be despised by at least half the Trains readership.  Their extreme defensiveness was on parade.  Maybe that was DPM’s point. 

But I have never told a railroader that “they don’t know what they are talking about.”  In fact most of the critics start out by telling me that I don’t know what I am talking about.  At most, I have responded that I did not agree with their criticism of my idea.  Often I see that they have misunderstood what I am proposing, so I try to restate it more clearly.  From my point of view, some of these critics are way too defensive if I do not simply buckle under to their first objection.  They often become angry that I would have the audacity to not accept their condescending put down. 

[schlimm]

BaltACD

schlimm

Ulrich

Why not just ignore what you don't want to read? what's up with all the need for buttons? 

Exactly.  Why do some folks need a button or moderators to block certain posts, threads or posters for them? Exercising one's own discretion as to what to read should suffice for oneself, if that is all it is really about.

That has worked so well to date; especially among those that have no discretion only a sense of rightesnous.

Snarky posts like your self-righteous one above in blue are why we need to reprimand folks who refuse to be civil and then blame others.

[Anonymous]

Norm48327

cx500

My chief complaint, and there is no easy answer, is that some threads which started out interesting and instructive degenerated into a tedious morass, of hypothetical theories based mostly on ignorance.  It is easy enough to just ignore any postings by that (or those) specific individuals, but I fear that other people with less knowledge of railroading may be misled. 

Attempts in the past by a number of knowledgeable railroaders on this forum to correct the gabble were, and are, mostly just buried by more of the same.  I'd not be surprised if some lost their temper and flamed at the foolishness.  Was that what the veiled discussion was about several months back?

John Sutherland

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Theories don't cut it; results do, and there is a total lack of practicality in some of those theories. When confronted with the facts, the poster takes offense even the experienced people may have tried the idea in the past and found it to be unworkable. I certainly can't blame the railroaders for getting frustrated when they are repeatedly told they don't know what they are talking about.

Well said Norm!!!

[Anonymous]

cx500

My chief complaint, and there is no easy answer, is that some threads which started out interesting and instructive degenerated into a tedious morass, of hypothetical theories based mostly on ignorance.  It is easy enough to just ignore any postings by that (or those) specific individuals, but I fear that other people with less knowledge of railroading may be misled. 

Attempts in the past by a number of knowledgeable railroaders on this forum to correct the gabble were, and are, mostly just buried by more of the same.  I'd not be surprised if some lost their temper and flamed at the foolishness.  Was that what the veiled discussion was about several months back?

John Sutherland

John:  Thank you for your excellent post.  This is exactly what we have been struggling with here for quite some time.

[Anonymous]

There really should not be all this drama over something as innocuous as an "IGNORE" button.

"IGNORE" is  a simple concept:  If I (or any other poster) do not want to see the posts of a particular participant in a thread...one touch of a button, and problem solved.

Bear in mind that "IGNORE" usually works on a thread by thread basis.  What it is not designed to do is put up a blanket screening of an individual forever.  Additionally, "IGNORE" starts to work at the time the user engages it.  so if there were previous posts made by a individual, those posts stay.  It is simply the subsequent posts that the user will not see.

So as I mentioned earlier, consideration should be given to the development of both an "IGNORE" and a 'REPORT" button.

[Ulrich]

Exactly overmod...we're out of diapers and past the point of  needing buttons and levers in place of exercising personal judgement. 

[Overmod]

dehusman

You can hear everybody talking but you're only getting half the conversations.

Perhaps it's a little more like this?  ...

I can't imagine ANY effective method of blanking out 'viewing unpleasant posts' that wouldn't produce some sense that conversations are occurring but you're not hearing all of them ... that is precisely what a proper ignore button would be doing, isn't it?  (One note is that you'll probably still see 'ignored' material that someone else has quoted, just as we currently see the 'last post' updated with the date and time of a 'banned' poster even though the post itself never makes it to the thread.)

I'm actually more with Schlimm on this one: we should have the patience to tolerate other points of view, the discipline to keep actual disagreements strictly on PM until resolved, and the option to call for the gendarmes if not.  What we should NOT have is a tendency to go whining to the mods over any little perceived slight ... or making fun of someone who does that.  Let alone the tendency to mistake a sinner for their sin, and start an ad hominem parade.  In other words, courtesy and maturity should go a very, very long way toward making things work ... especially if those are the things being 'moderated for'.

[Ulrich]

Why not just ignore the post/user instead of the need to press a button to do so? Sorry, I'm belabouring the point, I know. 

When some of you gentle easily offended souls go to the supermarket and some little kid shouts an obscenity, what do you do? You ignore it (or if you're like me you quietly  laugh at the discomfiture of the child's parent). You're going to be ok... your ears will recover. And so it is here.. not everyone is going to agree with you.. not every post is a learning moment.. some (like the Amtrak coffee thread) was downright hilarious.. humour has value too. 

[Norm48327]

There are two ignore buttons I've seen on other forum software. One is "Ignore this user", the other is "Ignore this thread".

[tree68]

Euclid

I am not sure I understand the ignore button.  I take it that the point is that anybody who does not like posts in a thread can simply have them ghosted out and never see them.  So then the troublemakers can just fill up a thread with nonsense, and it will become invisible to anyone who cared about the discussion. 

Or it could go the other way - posters could fill up the thread with with fact-based posts and opinions and the nonsense posts wouldn't be seen.

[Ulrich]

Maybe the internet should come with special polarized glasses that block out any offending material. 

[Euclid]

I am not sure I understand the ignore button.  I take it that the point is that anybody who does not like posts in a thread can simply have them ghosted out and never see them.  So then the troublemakers can just fill up a thread with nonsense, and it will become invisible to anyone who cared about the discussion. 

[BaltACD]

schlimm

Ulrich

Why not just ignore what you don't want to read? what's up with all the need for buttons? 

Exactly.  Why do some folks need a button or moderators to block certain posts, threads or posters for them? Exercising one's own discretion as to what to read should suffice for oneself, if that is all it is really about.

That has worked so well to date; especially among those that have no discretion only a sense of rightesnous.

[schlimm]

Ulrich

Why not just ignore what you don't want to read? what's up with all the need for buttons? 

Exactly.  Why do some folks need a button or moderators to block certain posts, threads or posters for them? Exercising one's own discretion as to what to read should suffice for oneself, if that is all it is really about.

[Ulrich]

Why not just ignore what you don't want to read? what's up with all the need for buttons? 

[dehusman]

I would think the "ignore" or "foes" button would result in a thread like being in a room with a bunch of people on a conference call where all of them but you is on Bluetooth.  You can hear everybody talking but you're only getting half the conversations.

If you are going to do an ignore feature then you ought to show each user how many people (not who) have them on an ignore list.

[Overmod]

Steve Sweeney

BaltACD, Norm:

There's no harm in asking. I know Facebook has this kind of feature, maybe we can too. I will report back to y'all on that one.

My understanding was that the "Foes" feature of the forum software accomplished substantially what has been indicated as needful.  It makes posts designated by one's 'foes' disappear from the displayed threads (if I understand the description correctly; I don't believe in using that feature).

An "ignore" button would be most useful if it allowed designation of particular threads to be blocked.  Perhaps this could be additionally coded by providing a specialized version of the 'foes' feature that would allow blocking of a particular individual's posts at a certain point in the thread (preserving anything that person may have posted up to that time).

Just for my 2 bits' worth -- there needs to be some method to report abuse, and both the methods currently in use (the yellow triangle and the red "Report Abuse" for detected content) work just fine as they are.  The only thing that might need to be amended would be the way in which clicking that button informs the moderation staff -- as an analogy, it seems that this button currently works a bit like the class X priority in the Manhattan Project, notifying everyone whether or not they need or want to know, without any modulation of intensity for serious TOS vs. disagreement.  I wonder whether there might be some method whereby the 'yellow triangle' only goes to the Trains moderators from the Trains pages, but there's an escalation to 'all mods' for particular types of violation == and perhaps with the understanding, as with pulling the emergency brake on a train, that there will be consequences for frivolous over-use of the facility for reasons much better handled directly with PMs...  ;-}

[Steve Sweeney]

Norm48327

BaltACD

Suggestion for next software 'update'.

Eliminate the abuse button; instead create a Ignore Button - when activated, a specific poster(s) posts in a thread are eliminated from display to the poster that activated the Ignore Button.

Not sure I would eliminate the "Report" button, but the "Ignore" button is a great idea that works well on other forum software and is frequently used on some forums I regularly visit.

BaltACD, Norm:

There's no harm in asking. I know Facebook has this kind of feature, maybe we can too. I will report back to y'all on that one.

Oh, and Zugman ... Bigger avatars. If MR has them, we should be able to get them without a problem. 

What else?

~Steve S.

[Steve Sweeney]

zugmann

A real question:

Who are all the mods on this site?  I know we have Mr. Sweeney and Ms. Ang, is there anyone else?

They seem to come and go, and half the time we never know their names. Just about any other forum I've been on, the mods are usually listed somewhere really accessible.

Zugmann:

Mods come and go, and so will we, someday. For right now, the only moderators taking responsibility for Trains are me and Ang.

~Steve S. 

[Ulrich]

Kudos to Steve and Ang for doing a good job with moderating the forum. Personally i don't get worked up over troll posts or posts I'm not interested in... I just don't read them. Maybe that's the best solution. 

[Anonymous]

Norm48327

BaltACD

Suggestion for next software 'update'.

Eliminate the abuse button; instead create a Ignore Button - when activated, a specific poster(s) posts in a thread are eliminated from display to the poster that activated the Ignore Button.

Not sure I would eliminate the "Report" button, but the "Ignore" button is a great idea that works well on other forum software and is frequently used on some forums I regularly visit.

 

I also would support the creation of an "IGNORE" button.  I believe that would solve many of the issues we are currently facing on this forum.

I also recommend keeping the "REPORT".  That is a necessity in any forum such as this.

One again...kudos to Steve and Ang for their work in moderating this forum.

[Norm48327]

BaltACD

Suggestion for next software 'update'.

Eliminate the abuse button; instead create a Ignore Button - when activated, a specific poster(s) posts in a thread are eliminated from display to the poster that activated the Ignore Button.

Not sure I would eliminate the "Report" button, but the "Ignore" button is a great idea that works well on other forum software and is frequently used on some forums I regularly visit.

[Norm48327]

cx500

My chief complaint, and there is no easy answer, is that some threads which started out interesting and instructive degenerated into a tedious morass, of hypothetical theories based mostly on ignorance.  It is easy enough to just ignore any postings by that (or those) specific individuals, but I fear that other people with less knowledge of railroading may be misled. 

Attempts in the past by a number of knowledgeable railroaders on this forum to correct the gabble were, and are, mostly just buried by more of the same.  I'd not be surprised if some lost their temper and flamed at the foolishness.  Was that what the veiled discussion was about several months back?

John Sutherland

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Theories don't cut it; results do, and there is a total lack of practicality in some of those theories. When confronted with the facts, the poster takes offense even the experienced people may have tried the idea in the past and found it to be unworkable. I certainly can't blame the railroaders for getting frustrated when they are repeatedly told they don't know what they are talking about.

[gardendance]

If I understand correctly, the abuse button lets the submitter write text explaining their complaint. Certainly it must let the moderators send the submitter a request asking for more details about what the submitter's problem is, and I hope the moderators at least try to decide which are bogus complaints. Complainers likewise could still send moderators private messages, or as I've seen, open new threads which complain about other threads. I'm not sure how eliminating the abuse button helps.

I haven't paid attention to if it's on trains.com, but on other sites I've seen a "mark as enemy" button, which when selected will stop one from seeing enemies' content unless one clicks on a "show" button. The downside, to me, is that like a horrible sight which I don't want to see but to which I'm inexplicably drawn, I wind up clicking that button. It's a lot like the way "Do not walk on grass" signs affect me. So marking somebody as an enemy in that case doesn't help me much, my mental illness seems to handle just ignoring the posts, but the "show" button just tempts me too much.

Perhaps you meant to have the "ignore" button keep the system from showing that they posted at all. A downside of that would be if other posts refer to them one would still have some hint at their presence in the thread, and just a more cumbersome way of suspending "ignore" when curiosity overwhelms one.

zugmann

gardendance

Again the quick and callous answer, "so what?". I'm not sure it matters much who the moderators are, I don't think it matters any more than who the posters really are.

And time for me to be callous:
I wasn't asking you! I was asking the moderators. Kind of the whole point of this thread.

Hence my lead off "I'm not sure if Steve Sweeney intended this thread to be a discussion between participants. I hope this falls under the 'post your concerns' part of Steve's initial post." I'm expressing my concerns. It seems to me there can be several valid interpretations of this thread's whole point, but if Steve Sweeney were explicitly to clarify that he wanted only questions from participants to the moderators that'd certainly show me that my interpretation's not valid.

But he didn't do that yet, and he didn't tell me that I'm not allowed to post my thoughts, or concerns, about your post. Also in this case we do know who the moderators are, Steve Sweeney and Angela Pusztai-Pasternak

[BaltACD]

Suggestion for next software 'update'.

Eliminate the abuse button; instead create a Ignore Button - when activated, a specific poster(s) posts in a thread are eliminated from display to the poster that activated the Ignore Button.

[Murphy Siding]

gardendance

Steve Sweeney

For the next few days, post your questions, concerns, and complaints on here about the forums

Murphy Siding

cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/232539.aspx

Each and every day, a half dozen of these threads are started with the sole purpose to smother the rest of the threads. There is no input from the OP, just a new thread for the sake of annoyance. What does that look like to a casual or new reader?

I'm not sure if Steve Sweeney intended this thread to be a discussion between participants. I hope this falls under the "post your concerns" part of Steve's initial post. Murphy Siding, I don't believe you can tell what cajonsummit's sole purpose is. The result certainly has not been to smother the rest of the threads. In fact when you explained that your complaint was that your desired threads had gotten pushed to page 2 and I asked you to give an example of a smothered thread, the only example you gave was a deleted thread. So I question not only what you say is the sole purpose, I also question your belief that it's the sole purpose. I believe you're the one who's posting just for the sake of annoyance.

I don't consider myself to be a casual or new reader, but I don't think, and I've mentioned in the "post after post" thread that I don't care and have found no reason to complain about the half dozen PER PAGE, not as you say it EACH AND EVERY DAY, of cajonsummit's posts.

 He asked for questions, concerns, and complaints on here about the forums.  That's what I offered.  Perhaps you've got a point about just ignoring some folks.  That's what I do to your posts, and it seems to be working for me.

[Mookie]

Sam:  Can you tell by either a date or the locomotives how old these videos are?

[Semper Vaporo]

cacole

As widely scattered as these linked videos are around the country, it seems that the poster is just getting them off of You Tube and none of them are his personal video shoots.

I went back over the last 20 pages of thread titles... since July 23 (which is the oldest one I found and was on page 15), there have been 80 (by my quick count) posts of videos by one member in those 54 days.  This member also started several other threads on various other topics about the RR industry, but I didn't count them.

I then checked the locations of the videos and they come from 3 areas of the country... most are centered around Cajon Pass in southern California, the next most common are around Austin Texas, and there are a few from the Wyoming/Nebraska border.  There are many city names but they are all within those areas.  They are all UPRR, BNSF and a couple of Amtrak on BNSF track.

 

[zugmann]

gardendance

Again the quick and callous answer, "so what?". I'm not sure it matters much who the moderators are, I don't think it matters any more than who the posters really are.

And time for me to be callous:

 I wasn't asking you!  I was asking the moderators. Kind of the whole point of this thread.

[gardendance]

Steve Sweeney

For the next few days, post your questions, concerns, and complaints on here about the forums

Murphy Siding

cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/232539.aspx

Each and every day, a half dozen of these threads are started with the sole purpose to smother the rest of the threads. There is no input from the OP, just a new thread for the sake of annoyance. What does that look like to a casual or new reader?

I'm not sure if Steve Sweeney intended this thread to be a discussion between participants. I hope this falls under the "post your concerns" part of Steve's initial post. Murphy Siding, I don't believe you can tell what cajonsummit's sole purpose is. The result certainly has not been to smother the rest of the threads. In fact when you explained that your complaint was that your desired threads had gotten pushed to page 2 and I asked you to give an example of a smothered thread, the only example you gave was a deleted thread. So I question not only what you say is the sole purpose, I also question your belief that it's the sole purpose. I believe you're the one who's posting just for the sake of annoyance.

I don't consider myself to be a casual or new reader, but I don't think, and I've mentioned in the "post after post" thread that I don't care and have found no reason to complain about the half dozen PER PAGE, not as you say it EACH AND EVERY DAY, of cajonsummit's posts.

Steve, for what it's worth, I think you answered Murphy Siding's questions adequately.

cacole

As widely scattered as these linked videos are around the country, it seems that the poster is just getting them off of You Tube and none of them are his personal video shoots.

I've mentioned before that I'm not interested in most of his posts, so I can't tell if what cacole says is true, but my quick callous answer is "So what?". There's no rule I know of that says they have to be his personal video shoots. Again though maybe I'm not the appropriate one to judge if there's justifiable annoyance, but if someone got annoyed after having clicked on the first 20 or so, why do they continue to bother clicking?

So far I think I'm repeating sentiments Semper Vaporo already expressed at the top of page 2, and Paul of Covington dittoed. And I agree with him that the "yes but" posts and beat the dead horse images have probably gotten to the beat the dead horse stage. Although the recent one with the Star Wars storm trooper is a cute, refreshing change of pace, I bet it'll get tiresome soon too.

zugmann

Who are all the mods on this site? I know we have Mr. Sweeney and Ms. Ang, is there anyone else?
They seem to come and go, and half the time we never know their names.

Again the quick and callous answer, "so what?". I'm not sure it matters much who the moderators are, I don't think it matters any more than who the posters really are.

zugmann

I have one complaint. I want bigger avatars like the model RRer side has.

Not a bad idea. I often feel viewers suffer because my avatar's so small.

AND NOW FOR my actual thoughts on how I think moderators should modulate:

If there's a problem, lock the thread, post that you're locking the thread and will review, invite anyone who's concerned to send private message, ask "meanwhile please don't open a new similarly theme thread", if you haven't had a chance to complete review in a reasonable time, post "I haven't forgotten, will try to get on it soon" to bump the thread to the top of the list, but by all means eventually straighten things out to at least your satisfaction.

LAST RESORT should be deleting the thread. Next to last resort should be deleting posts.

[Euclid]

What I would like to suggest to the moderators is that when a dispute erupts, they don’t automatically conclude that everybody in the thread is equally at fault as though we were a collective.  That is not fairness.    

[tree68]

cx500

My chief complaint, and there is no easy answer, is that some threads which started out interesting and instructive degenerated into a tedious morass, of hypothetical theories based mostly on ignorance.  It is easy enough to just ignore any postings by that (or those) specific individuals, but I fear that other people with less knowledge of railroading may be misled. 

Attempts in the past by a number of knowledgeable railroaders on this forum to correct the gabble were, and are, mostly just buried by more of the same.  I'd not be surprised if some lost their temper and flamed at the foolishness.  Was that what the veiled discussion was about several months back?

John Sutherland

Which is exactly the source of "Yes, but..."

[schlimm]

What's wrong with demanding some civility?   Folks can vehemently disagree with opinions of others.  That makes for interesting threads.  After all, that is what the "marketplace of ideas" is supposed to be all about.  Clearly ad hominem attacks, as opposed to factual disagreements, should be off-limits.  In my opinion, allowing some folks to divert/deflect the topic of the thread into a series of off-topic posts is deliberately disruptive and should also be discouraged.  Recognition of both of those tactics by the moderators should not be difficult.  It's not rocket science.

[cx500]

My chief complaint, and there is no easy answer, is that some threads which started out interesting and instructive degenerated into a tedious morass, of hypothetical theories based mostly on ignorance.  It is easy enough to just ignore any postings by that (or those) specific individuals, but I fear that other people with less knowledge of railroading may be misled. 

Attempts in the past by a number of knowledgeable railroaders on this forum to correct the gabble were, and are, mostly just buried by more of the same.  I'd not be surprised if some lost their temper and flamed at the foolishness.  Was that what the veiled discussion was about several months back?

John Sutherland

[BaltACD]

The abuse button is the tool of the 'passive-aggressive forum disrupter'.  Makes it much too easy for someone to get, and/or direct attention when he got his/her feeling hurt for actions by a 'outside'  3rd party (Mods, Steve or Ang). [ie.- Mommy - Daddy my siblings are antagonizing me]

This is a forum to discuss all aspects of the very adult business of railroading, including some of the life and death aspects of operations.  Life & death are taken seriously by all participants and are frequently discussed in heated language.

Additionally the adult business of railroading is inextricably entwined in politics in all levels from a local precinct to Congress.  Many aspects of railroading cannot be discussed without getting into political waters.  Amtrak is a politically created and controlled entity.  Carriers in their efforts to improve their operations run into political road blocks all over the country.

Running the forum like Mommy & Daddy is abhorrent in the 21st Century.  Better the Brian France (NASCAR) model - 'Have at it boys'.

Whiners will always whine - especially if they get a audience.  There is no need to reward whiners. Punishment should only be applied to the most egregious of actions.

[selector]

Well, Norris, ummm...[cough]...it could be that their mutual dislike is a very strong and unsuppressable factor in the rancour we have all experienced over the past several months...and it has been going on for quite some time.

When people develop a theme, or author a thread, it becomes an emotional extension of them as a personality, and they'll go to great lengths to defend them, even to the extent of drawing the annoyance and ire of many onlookers.   Eventually, some will begin to retaliate some way, often with their own emotional input.  From there, she's a conflagration fueled by more of the same...no shortage of it, really.

Before I go, and this is to everyone reading, when Norris and I were mods, we often felt that the best response to many complaints (and oh did we get 'em...!) was for the complainants to just not participate in the thread if it was annoying and didn't contain direct references to them that they felt compelled to address.  If they had responded with what they thought were facts, and the other person was unwilling to accept them, there is no point in berating the person, casting aspersions, or in continuing to explain or to defend one's position.  The conversation has to end at some point, and the person should just cease the engagement.   We would only begin to delete replies, or to lock threads, when they began to, as I used to describe it then, pollute the entire series of exchanges that were informative and  civil. Entire threads were not to be deleted...almost ever.  The only person who did that, two or three times while I was a mod, was Bergie, or Dana Kawala when he replaced Bergie as our boss.

Lastly, nobody will be above bias in his/her acts on the forum, regardless of their capacity or status.  I wasn't, Norris wasn't, and you, Dear Member...aren't.  It's human nature.  We work hard to be even-handed, and we try to be both reasonable and helpful.  But anyone who insists they work in any venue free from bias is naive. Moderation, by definition, is going to be discriminatory, even if it is strictly consonant with the rules of the forum.

-Crandell

[Murphy Siding]

    Guys- I believe the moderators are making an effort to improve the forums, by determining what the issues are.  I don't feel that actively showing personal  dislikes among ourselves on this thread does much to assist that endeavor.  Trust me, by now I'm pretty sure the moderators have a pretty good clue about who doesn't like whom and why.

     Since Steve asked us to direct questions toward him and Ang about the forum,  I feel like that would be the most productive way to proceed from here.

[Anonymous]

Deleted

[Euclid]

Murray

Euclid, there is NOTHING "so-called" about your redundant posts.  They are real, actual and in my opinion, highly annoying.

Gee Murray, you really seem to have gotten a burr under your saddle.  Why read something that makes you highly annoyed?   

[Anonymous]

Deleted

[zugmann]

I have one complaint.  I want bigger avatars like the model RRer side has.

[Anonymous]

Deleted

[schlimm]

Murray

Euclid

Paul of Covington

I agree 100% with what Semper said.    The complaints from several posters are far more irritating than the issues they are complaining about, and they often seem to be triggered more by personality conflicts than by actual substance.

Yes.  That part is quite clear.  The complaints are based on a deeper personal resentment rather than the so-called "redundancy". 

And to the dead horse.  I think BaltACD seems to be beating his own dead horse with his obsession about me beating one.  It amounts to beating a dead horse about beating a dead horse.  Poor horse. 

Euclid, there is NOTHING "so-called" about your redundant posts.  They are real, actual and in my opinion, highly annoying.

Additionally, you need to stop pointing finger at other posters here for 2 reasons:

1- This thread as started by Mr. Sweeney  is not to address personal grievances real or imagined.

2 - You need to stop playing the game of calling out other people on this thread as you did with BaltACD.  It is not appropriate for this thread, and frankly does not speak well of you.

This thread is about asking questions of the Moderators.  It is not intended to be a sanctimonious "gripe session."

Just to be clear what the purpose of this thread was stated to be by Mr. Sweeney, as opposed to your interpretation:

"For the next few days, post your questions, concerns, and complaints on here about the forums and Ang and I will do our best to answer them and find ways to make things better for everyone. Please, keep it civil, but we will answer every question posed to us through 3 p.m. Central Time on Sept. 19."

[zugmann]

A real question:

Who are all the mods on this site?  I know we have Mr. Sweeney and Ms. Ang, is there anyone else?

They seem to come and go, and half the time we never know their names. Just about any other forum I've been on, the mods are usually listed somewhere really accessible.

[Anonymous]

Deleted

[Anonymous]

Deleted

[zugmann]

Paul of Covington

   I agree 100% with what Semper said.    The complaints from several posters are far more irritating than the issues they are complaining about, and they often seem to be triggered more by personality conflicts than by actual substance.

What does that make the complaints about the complaints?

Or the complaints about those complaining about the complaints?

[Euclid]

.

 

[Norm48327]

@Semper Vaporo

"Yes BUT" became common after a certain poster, when called down on something, started his sentence with "Yes, but" and then simply reworded his previous post hoping for a different response. That got old, so people began tossing it back at him.

[BaltACD]

Euclid

Paul of Covington

I agree 100% with what Semper said.    The complaints from several posters are far more irritating than the issues they are complaining about, and they often seem to be triggered more by personality conflicts than by actual substance.

Yes.  That part is quite clear.  The complaints are based on a deeper personal resentment rather than the so-called "redundancy". 

And to the dead horse.  I think BaltACD seems to be beating his own dead horse with his obsession about me beating one.  It amounts to beating a dead horse about beating a dead horse.  Poor horse. 

Does the dead horse require CPR?  Over a dozen threads on the same aspects of the same incident, stating and restating the same statements over and over again would make even a dead horse cry.

[Paul of Covington]

    About fifty years ago, I read that some ancient eastern philosopher had said, "You become what you hate."   It didn't immediately make sense to me, but it stuck in my head, and as I observed the news and events around me, I started seeing the wisdom of it.   It's amazing how often it applies to life.   I wish I could remember who said it.

[Euclid]

Paul of Covington

I agree 100% with what Semper said.    The complaints from several posters are far more irritating than the issues they are complaining about, and they often seem to be triggered more by personality conflicts than by actual substance.

Yes.  That part is quite clear.  The complaints are based on a deeper personal resentment rather than the so-called "redundancy". 

And to the dead horse.  I think BaltACD seems to be beating his own dead horse with his obsession about me beating one.  It amounts to beating a dead horse about beating a dead horse.  Poor horse. 

[Paul of Covington]

   I agree 100% with what Semper said.    The complaints from several posters are far more irritating than the issues they are complaining about, and they often seem to be triggered more by personality conflicts than by actual substance.

[Murphy Siding]

Steve Sweeney

Murphy Siding

   What can be done to correct this very specific annoyance, which is done simply for the sake of annoyance?

 cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/232539.aspx

     Each and every day, a half dozen of these threads are started with the sole purpose to smother the rest of the threads.  There is no input from the OP, just a new thread for the sake of annoyance.  What does that look like to a casual or new reader?

 

Hi, Murphy. 

Quick question first, has anyone sent the poster a message asking about the videos and his intentions? Did the poster respond, and what was the response?

(If the person responded, please PM me, and do not send the contents over the thread.)

The reason I ask is because there is no specific violation of the terms of service in the post you referenced. Before the moderators would do anything, we would ask the poster what his intentions are and see if there is a way we can work with him to contribute more meaningfully.

If the intentions are other than honorable, we would assess it from there and discuss among the editors what comes next.

~Steve S.

  I sent you a PM

[Semper Vaporo]

Murphy Siding

   What can be done to correct this very specific annoyance, which is done simply for the sake of annoyance?

 cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/232539.aspx

     Each and every day, a half dozen of these threads are started with the sole purpose to smother the rest of the threads.  There is no input from the OP, just a new thread for the sake of annoyance.  What does that look like to a casual or new reader?

 

Personally, I don't care about those types of videos, but then I am only interested in steam locomotives (and a limited subset of them, at that!) but I don't see these types of postings as a deliberate attempt to annoy anybody.  They may annoy you or any number of people, but I don't care if they get posted here.  If you don't like them, don't read them.

What does annoy me are the posts of the various images of a dead horse being beaten.  Again, if a thread annoys you, don't read it.  Filling the thread with complaints that it annoys you is a whole lot more annoying to me.

Another annoyance is the constant ABUSE directed toward any other member of the forum by reference to previous user ID's or sub quotes like "Yes, BUT!" as a reference to previous arguments where one member is unable to receive an answer that satisfies their question.  Maybe they are unable to formulate the words to express their thoughts, maybe you cannot understand how they are stating it, maybe they cannot understand your explanation.  If you can restate your argument in a different way or explain your thoughts better, have at it.  If you cannot, then stop reading the thread.  To just abuse the thread by complaining, is acting like the "troll" you claim to hate.  Again, if a thread annoys you, don't read it and do not become a troll by cluttering it with your statements of dislike of the thread, or the individual(s) involved in it.

PLEASE, Moderators, PLEASE, delete those postings where people are doing nothing but complaining about the forum or a thread or individual (except this one, of course! ),

 

[cacole]

As widely scattered as these linked videos are around the country, it seems that the poster is just getting them off of You Tube and none of them are his personal video shoots.

[Steve Sweeney]

Murphy Siding

   What can be done to correct this very specific annoyance, which is done simply for the sake of annoyance?

 cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/232539.aspx

     Each and every day, a half dozen of these threads are started with the sole purpose to smother the rest of the threads.  There is no input from the OP, just a new thread for the sake of annoyance.  What does that look like to a casual or new reader?

 

Hi, Murphy. 

Quick question first, has anyone sent the poster a message asking about the videos and his intentions? Did the poster respond, and what was the response?

(If the person responded, please PM me, and do not send the contents over the thread.)

The reason I ask is because there is no specific violation of the terms of service in the post you referenced. Before the moderators would do anything, we would ask the poster what his intentions are and see if there is a way we can work with him to contribute more meaningfully.

If the intentions are other than honorable, we would assess it from there and discuss among the editors what comes next.

~Steve S.

[Murphy Siding]

   What can be done to correct this very specific annoyance, which is done simply for the sake of annoyance?

 cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/232539.aspx

     Each and every day, a half dozen of these threads are started with the sole purpose to smother the rest of the threads.  There is no input from the OP, just a new thread for the sake of annoyance.  What does that look like to a casual or new reader?

 

[Steve Sweeney]

zugmann

Do abuse reports generally come from participants of the threads, or from outsiders/lurkers?

I wonder how many abuse reports were made on my posts?  Heh.

Zugmann:

Abuse reports can come from any forum member, active or passive. More often than not, we receive complaints mostly from people who are active and concerned about the direction a thread is taking. We have also had a few forum posters who like to read more than type who warn us about trouble. 

If I had to guess, I would say the ratio is 90/10, with 90 of a 100 reports coming from people who are actively posting and the remaining 10 of a 100 coming from people who mostly read posts.

~Steve S.

[Steve Sweeney]

Murray

Good Morning Steve and Ang:

Is there a Moderator's policy regarding redundant threads?

In other words, how do you deal with multiple threads on the same subject?

Thank you for you time and effort in moderating this forum.

Murray and Euclid:

I am going to answer your questions in one answer about redundant threads: We have no policy on redundant, or seemingly redundant, threads. Redundant threads can be annoying, but we don't feel it is up to us to determine every nuance of the railroading conversation. That's up to you.

~Steve S.

[Steve Sweeney]

Murphy Siding

     Can you explain the process that takes place, when someone uses the Report Abuse button?

Hi, Murphy:

When any user files a message using the "Report Abuse" button, the message is immediately sent to all moderators. That is, all Kalmbach moderators receive the message in their email inboxes, as well as their Forum accounts, as well as logged by our Information Service department - a total of about 40 people. This happens with every abuse report, even if made by the same person on the same thread. With the most recent threads that I locked, we had a combined 37 abuse reports, many from the same individual. So, 37 times, 40 equals ... you get the idea.

Because of the way our Forums are structured, all moderators have authority over all forums. For ease of administration, Angela and I moderate Trains Magazine forums. Editors and volunteers from other magazines, such as Steven Otte at MR, moderate forums related to their magazines.

Then the moderator has to decide what to do about the report. More often than not, we read the thread and investigate the complaint. In our recent experiences, we've found that most abuse reports are flagging strong disagreements, and not violations of our Terms of Use. Still, we are obliged to keep an eye on the thread to see if anything else develops.

If there are continued reports, we try our best to moderate using private messages. On rare occasions, we've locked threads or deleted threads that are too far gone. These represent Gordion Knots of thread moderation and have just become too cumbersome to untangle in a reasonable amount of time.

On even more rare occasions, we do suspend an individual's posting privileges or ban them completely. For Trains Magazine forums, this now only happens only after a conference between two or more editors on staff and some agreement on the cause of the suspension and the wording to be used in emails and posts notifying the poster involved.

Does that answer your question?

~Steve S.

[Euclid]

Murray

Euclid

Following what Murray asks, if there is a policy on redundant threads, can you define what “redundant” means in this context? 

On one hand, we have never had two threads that were exactly the same; and on the other hand, all threads about the one subject of “trains and railroads” are redundant in that they are about the same topic.    

Just to clarify:  My position is that there is no need for multiple threads on the same subject.

I use the case of the Lac-Megantic oil train explosion as an example.

I would recommend that if a high profile event involving railroad has taken place, the moderators should them make it a single  "sticky" folder, and all subsequent posts be placed within that sticky.

But whether it is a sticky thread or not, the question is how to decide boundaries of the topic.  It is easy to say the compartment should be threads about Lac Megantic.  Does that mean that every thread about anything to do with runaway trains, train securement, handbrakes, tank cars, exploding oil trains, oil shipping by rail, a safer oil train, a power parking brake, oil train regulations, Bakken crude oil characteristics, etc. should all be required to be placed in a sticky thread called “Lac Megantic" ?

This is an obvious question because the threads that you complain about being on the same topic are really distinct variations of the topic.  It is just your arbitrary personal perception that has decided that they are all the same topic.   

[Mookie]

Murray - you do realize that if you do as you suggest, your first page would be all sticky notes (we have a lot of them there now) and would never leave the first page.  Who would release them? 

I guess we could just start out on the 2nd page.  Not hard to do.

[Anonymous]

Euclid

Following what Murray asks, if there is a policy on redundant threads, can you define what “redundant” means in this context? 

On one hand, we have never had two threads that were exactly the same; and on the other hand, all threads about the one subject of “trains and railroads” are redundant in that they are about the same topic.    

Just to clarify:  My position is that there is no need for multiple threads on the same subject.

I use the case of the Lac-Megantic oil train explosion as an example.

I would recommend that if a high profile event involving railroad has taken place, the moderators should them make it a single  "sticky" folder, and all subsequent posts be placed within that sticky.

[zugmann]

Do abuse reports generally come from participants of the threads, or from outsiders/lurkers?

I wonder how many abuse reports were made on my posts?  Heh.

[Euclid]

Following what Murray asks, if there is a policy on redundant threads, can you define what “redundant” means in this context? 

On one hand, we have never had two threads that were exactly the same; and on the other hand, all threads about the one subject of “trains and railroads” are redundant in that they are about the same topic.    

[Anonymous]

Good Morning Steve and Ang:

Is there a Moderator's policy regarding redundant threads?

In other words, how do you deal with multiple threads on the same subject?

Thank you for you time and effort in moderating this forum.

[Murphy Siding]

     Can you explain the process that takes place, when someone uses the Report Abuse button?

[Murphy Siding]

    Not a question, but...... Bravo!