Looks like you've got yourself a "hit" KBC.. a post about posting.. how clever.
Ulrich.. a post about posting.. how clever.
Exactly! All part of his evil scheme, we've been had. Look at you KBC, already on page two.
schlimm Wizlish 1) The original poster gets to decide whether or not the thread can 'drift' to other subjects. He or she can signal this directly, or by posting with a message that says to please return to the topic, or by posting new details that steer the discussion back onto topic. 2) If the original poster wants to stay strictly on topic, the "official" policy is applied by the moderators if the thread is drifted (the 'drifters' are contacted and warned; the moderators can remove them (they used to be able to modify them, but no longer); etc. In this situation if there is no further on-topic posting, the thread gently dies. With the exception of mass off-topic bombing of threads by people who want the thread (kind of a reverse trolling) locked, why not just let a thread go wherever members' posts take it?
Wizlish 1) The original poster gets to decide whether or not the thread can 'drift' to other subjects. He or she can signal this directly, or by posting with a message that says to please return to the topic, or by posting new details that steer the discussion back onto topic. 2) If the original poster wants to stay strictly on topic, the "official" policy is applied by the moderators if the thread is drifted (the 'drifters' are contacted and warned; the moderators can remove them (they used to be able to modify them, but no longer); etc. In this situation if there is no further on-topic posting, the thread gently dies.
With the exception of mass off-topic bombing of threads by people who want the thread (kind of a reverse trolling) locked, why not just let a thread go wherever members' posts take it?
23 17 46 11
Wizlish wanswheel What if lots of replies were more than several. Would it be possible to go off-topic? I again propose the rule my father used for discussions of steam technology. 1) The original poster gets to decide whether or not the thread can 'drift' to other subjects. He or she can signal this directly, or by posting with a message that says to please return to the topic, or by posting new details that steer the discussion back onto topic. 2) If the original poster wants to stay strictly on topic, the "official" policy is applied by the moderators if the thread is drifted (the 'drifters' are contacted and warned; the moderators can remove them (they used to be able to modify them, but no longer); etc. In this situation if there is no further on-topic posting, the thread gently dies. Where the fun has come in is when the original posting is a 'troll' of some kind, and the original poster announces a desire to keep from drifting. The 'right' answer to this is, as WOPR said, 'not to play'. There have been attempts in the past (which I, personally, admire) to signal awareness of the troll by "changing the subject" -- classically, to a discussion of root beer. Those coming late to the party see a beverage discussion and know the original topic was 'loaded'. The problem with this approach, of course, is that it gets used for other purposes, for example when a clique disagrees with a particular poster and argues with everything they try to say (rightly or wrongly). So I regretfully concur with the opinion that 'we not do that anymore'. 2) if the OP doesn't object to drift, it goes where it wants to. The biggest problem with this is that, while very valuable insights and discussions may evolve out of threads, they still have the original title. Newbies seeking information, and folks trying to research older discussions, are now in the unenviable position of having to wonder if the particular needle they're looking for might be not in the expected haystack, but in a junkyard, catacomb, Toledo, or French twist (to quote four 'unexpected' places to look among a distressingly large number of patently unpredictable loci)... 3) This suggests my recommended approach if the thread deserves a drift -- start a new topic (referencing the old thread), with a clear subject and title, and let the discussion flower on-topic in its on-topic thread. 4) I also have to mention one other little issue, involving those 'Shari Lewis' kinds of thread. I think it is bad form to complain about how an original poster continues his own thread. If you don't like it, stop reading it! Stop commenting on it! Leave it alone to fall naturally past the second-page moribundity threshold! Sure, the Constitution gives you free speech rights to bully anyone you want on a forum. Sure, it gives 'posses' the ability to essentially spam threads with multiple negative posts ... look at any Web comments or blogs that are critical of, say, Amway or Scientology to see the technique in well-oiled action. If you see obnoxious 'yes, but-ism' in one of your threads, go ahead and bully it out. But don't do it to the guy who introduced the topic to have a discussion on it at great and numbing length and detail -- and probably to hash out his point of view rather than happily embracing everyone else's. He has free speech rights, too, and I think ought to be extended some author's privilege.
wanswheel What if lots of replies were more than several. Would it be possible to go off-topic?
I again propose the rule my father used for discussions of steam technology.
1) The original poster gets to decide whether or not the thread can 'drift' to other subjects. He or she can signal this directly, or by posting with a message that says to please return to the topic, or by posting new details that steer the discussion back onto topic.
2) If the original poster wants to stay strictly on topic, the "official" policy is applied by the moderators if the thread is drifted (the 'drifters' are contacted and warned; the moderators can remove them (they used to be able to modify them, but no longer); etc. In this situation if there is no further on-topic posting, the thread gently dies.
Where the fun has come in is when the original posting is a 'troll' of some kind, and the original poster announces a desire to keep from drifting. The 'right' answer to this is, as WOPR said, 'not to play'. There have been attempts in the past (which I, personally, admire) to signal awareness of the troll by "changing the subject" -- classically, to a discussion of root beer. Those coming late to the party see a beverage discussion and know the original topic was 'loaded'. The problem with this approach, of course, is that it gets used for other purposes, for example when a clique disagrees with a particular poster and argues with everything they try to say (rightly or wrongly). So I regretfully concur with the opinion that 'we not do that anymore'.
2) if the OP doesn't object to drift, it goes where it wants to. The biggest problem with this is that, while very valuable insights and discussions may evolve out of threads, they still have the original title. Newbies seeking information, and folks trying to research older discussions, are now in the unenviable position of having to wonder if the particular needle they're looking for might be not in the expected haystack, but in a junkyard, catacomb, Toledo, or French twist (to quote four 'unexpected' places to look among a distressingly large number of patently unpredictable loci)...
3) This suggests my recommended approach if the thread deserves a drift -- start a new topic (referencing the old thread), with a clear subject and title, and let the discussion flower on-topic in its on-topic thread.
4) I also have to mention one other little issue, involving those 'Shari Lewis' kinds of thread. I think it is bad form to complain about how an original poster continues his own thread. If you don't like it, stop reading it! Stop commenting on it! Leave it alone to fall naturally past the second-page moribundity threshold! Sure, the Constitution gives you free speech rights to bully anyone you want on a forum. Sure, it gives 'posses' the ability to essentially spam threads with multiple negative posts ... look at any Web comments or blogs that are critical of, say, Amway or Scientology to see the technique in well-oiled action. If you see obnoxious 'yes, but-ism' in one of your threads, go ahead and bully it out. But don't do it to the guy who introduced the topic to have a discussion on it at great and numbing length and detail -- and probably to hash out his point of view rather than happily embracing everyone else's. He has free speech rights, too, and I think ought to be extended some author's privilege.
wanswheel That’s a fine answer to “would it be permissible to go off-topic?” But my question was about possibility. If every post reinforced at least part of the topic (lots of replys), would it not be impossible to go off-topic?
It is the internet. Every topic suggests 'similarities' and each 'similarity' suggests other 'similarities' until the thread is well 'off topic' - that is the beauty of most all discussions held by human beings - they wander and roam as each of the proponents brings in 'ammunition' to bolster their points of view - each element of the 'ammunition' causes the subject to wander.
The Earth's orbit around the Sun wanders slightly - taking it further away with each pass, the Sun's orbit in the Milky Way wanders slightly and it moves away form the center of the Universe each pass. The Universe is continually expanding and expanding at a increasing rate according to those who study such things.
Should we expect anything less from a silly internet forum thread?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidDoes it also mean to keep the discussion on the topic implied by the thread title written by the original poster?
I agree - a gray area. If the original topic was, say "Who ran GP-40's" and the discussion morphs into a discussion about SD-40's, is it now off-topic? That would be taking a rather hard line on it, though.
My general impression has always been that we should keep the discussions mostly in a railroad-ish vein. The GP-40 example would be fine, but a thread that morphs from a discussion of Casey Jones through the Grateful Dead song and into talk solely about about the Dead has pretty much crossed the line, I would opine.
Still, if the discussion is relatively benign and isn't running into the hundreds of posts, the occasional "side tracking" isn't always a bad thing.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
CShaveRR What's really neat, though, is when a person asks a question, gets his answer, and that's it. Two posts, no room for discussion. The end.(Trouble is, those get lost in a hurry.)
What's really neat, though, is when a person asks a question, gets his answer, and that's it. Two posts, no room for discussion. The end.(Trouble is, those get lost in a hurry.)
Which is why Nora's "Stupid Question Thread" was so great - you couldn't really get off-topic, but the implication was that the questions were all railroad-related.
Euclid I assume that it means to keep the discussion about things related to “trains.”
Then, should this thread be banned?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington Euclid I assume that it means to keep the discussion about things related to “trains.” Then, should this thread be banned?
I have no objection to the thread. I don't know how the rules apply to it because the rule on topicality is unclear. And we do have off-topic threads that seem to be okay even though the rules ban off topic discussion (whatever that means).
A internet forum is a collection of 'aquaintances' - in most cases aquaintances that have not met personally. Banning topics other than those the are or become overtly party political or overtly religious in nature is ludicrious amongst 'friends'. We are all, or should be, adults. If one hasn't developed a 'thick skin' when it comes to things you disagree with - you haven't done the work to deserve to be called an adult. So long as the comments in any thread are not incendary or personally threatening toward any members no thread should ever be banned or lock. The dead horses don't complain about being further beaten.
Remember, once you present your ideas, not everyone and maybe no one will agree with your idea - deal with it and move on.
BaltACD [snipped - PDN] . . . The Earth's orbit around the Sun wanders slightly - taking it further away with each pass, the Sun's orbit in the Milky Way wanders slightly and it moves away form the center of the Universe each pass. The Universe is continually expanding and expanding at a increasing rate according to those who study such things. . . .
"Galaxy Song - Monty Python's The Meaning of Life" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr With that as a set-up, I can't resist this one (sorry):
Perfect! Thanks for sharing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hmDZz5pDOQ
I don't think so. I'm rather enjoying this conversation, adn it is about the forum itself.
Either way, Isn't Mookie a form official of some sort? (Correct me if i am wrong) She posted earlier and didn't seem bothered by the thread's existance, so i think we are probably okay....
The Beaverton, Fanno Creek & Bull Mountain Railroad
"Ruby Line Service"
"Yes, but....."
Murray "Yes, but....."
But...?
KBCpresident Paul of Covington Euclid I assume that it means to keep the discussion about things related to “trains.” Then, should this thread be banned? Either way, Isn't Mookie a form official of some sort? (Correct me if i am wrong) She posted earlier and didn't seem bothered by the thread's existance, so i think we are probably okay....
Mookie
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Mookie Young man - If you were closer - I would hug you! You made my day! Mookie
Young man - If you were closer - I would hug you! You made my day!
I have longevity on the forum, just no power. But I think that unless someone hijacks this thread and makes it vulgar/political, you have a safe thread. And it is reasonably interesting, also!
Yes, Mookie is an Elder Stateslady.
Johnny
I recall hearing in another thread that she works for Kalmbach. I'm not sure if that is true, but I assumed that meant she was an admin.
either way, I'm glad this thread keeps people entertained. [:-)]
KBCpresident I recall hearing in another thread that she works for Kalmbach. I'm not sure if that is true, but I assumed that meant she was an admin. either way, I'm glad this thread keeps people entertained. [:-)]
Mookie = Hep Cat
Mookie I figured just being on the forum was worth something....
I figured just being on the forum was worth something....
Murray Mookie = Hep Cat
My alter ego is a chocolate labrador puppy. So that's two creatures represnted (and humans of course.) Any others?
KBCpresidentAny others?
Hedgehogs count?
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
Well, HEP Cat would at least be a railroad reference.
zugmann Hedgehogs count?
They certainly do. THat makes three. Any more?
ChuckCobleigh Well, HEP Cat would at least be a railroad reference.
What railroad reference is this? C&O's Chessie?
Why do we need yet another social or non-topical thread, given we already have the Chatterbox spring thread and The Official Eleanor Roosevelt (And Anything Else Non-topical) Thread?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
"Head End Power" by CAT(erpillar) ?
Don't forget "Broadway Lion" . . .
Somebody ought to nominate and appoint Mookie as the Forum moderator. She has the right balance of time on here, good taste, and politeness, and apparently some experience with "herding cats" . . .
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.