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.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Finally a sensible comment. Thanks, Mookie.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
MurrayYoung 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?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Other forums I participate in have 'like' and 'dislike' buttons.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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 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.
Deleted: Ignoring Schlimm and Euclid
Murray,
It does not seem like your button is working.
Euclid Murray, It does not seem like your button is working.
Push it again.
Norm
MurraySo 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.
MurrayschlimmYoung 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.
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.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
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.
Steve SweeneyON 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.
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..
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 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.
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.
Steve SweeneyON 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.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Whaaat?...........a spear chucker club?
Where do we sign up?
23 17 46 11
edblysard Whaaat?...........a spear chucker club? Where do we sign up?
First, we gotta find the Mammoths. Methinks we're eons too late.
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 I don't hold grudges.
I don't hold grudges.
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.
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.
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?
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 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, he just said there isn't a stated rule regarding redundant threads. Since you said
EuclidAlso, 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.
OvermodI 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."
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.