Murray Euclid Paul of CovingtonI 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."
Euclid Paul of CovingtonI 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 CovingtonI 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."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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
Deleted
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.
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?
.
@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.
Norm
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
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?
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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! ),
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
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 SweeneyDigital Editor, Hobby
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.
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.
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.
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.
Murphy Siding Can you explain the process that takes place, when someone uses the Report Abuse button?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Not a question, but...... Bravo!
Trains.com forums, including the ones for Trains Magazine, are one of several ways we try to reach out to new enthusiasts to get them to join this community of railfans, enthusiasts, and railroaders. The bigger the pool of people, the more viewpoints that can be shared and the more we can learn and know about TRAINS and RAILROADING, period.
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.
We will not answer questions asking about the status or personal information of forum posters or moderators.
~S
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.