Flintlock76It doesn't bother me if an old topic is brought back from the dead, in fact I'm amazed someone has the time to go looking for the same!
I did that years ago on one of the old "uselists." Got a royal reaming in return.
I suspect that the folks who do so are doing general searches in an area of interest (perhaps not even on the forum) and get back these old posts/threads. At least their comments are on topic.
As you may know, I spend a fair amount of time watching the Deshler webcams on YouTube. Every now and then someone will come on the chat with some variation of "what am I watching?"
If they happen in when a train is passing, it's more obvious, but if they visit the site during a lull in the traffic, all they see is the backside of downtown.
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...
I agree with you. But there have been times when bumping a very old thread would arouse the 'all-volunteer torch and pitchfork brigade' to high alert.
It doesn't bother me if an old topic is brought back from the dead, in fact I'm amazed someone has the time to go looking for the same!
Hey, if a topic doesn't interest me I just don't bother with it, and there have been plenty.
selectorhe took great delight in dredging up archived posts, posting a question or a comment to bring them up to the top,
The pendulum seems to swing both ways on that particular area. If one posts a new thread on a topic that has been well covered in the past, you are almost guaranteed to be admonished that "we have already covered that" or "learn to use the search feature".
But, if you instead bump an ancient thread, you run a very real risk of irritating someone over just the grounds you state.
I was surprised there were no complainers grousing over the recent ressurection of the "Freight on Manhatten Island" or "Has a GG1 Ever Been Restored to Running Order?" threads.
I think there was a complication at one point where an update to the forum software unlocked all the previously locked threads. And someone would from time to time bump one of those. (which was when the complaints about bumping old threads really gained momentum)
But how is a newbie to know which threads were previously locked, but subsequently emancipated?
Flintlock76I'm careful to post links, and links only, which is supposed to be fine according to the rules.
So you're golden if you say "Mike MacDonald found this, and I'm sharing it here" ... but not if you say 'I'm posting this for wanswheel'. This would largely be a distinction without much of a difference, except the latter is a formal no-no in most forums...
Forum rules are important to follow and it's a shame they can't be followed by some. Though on the other hand you lose valuable information. Double edged sword in a way.
Overmod I still worry for Wayne when he mentions something he posts as coming from there...
Don't worry about me, I'm careful to post links, and links only, which is supposed to be fine according to the rules. If I shouldn't do so no-one in Forum authority's told me not to.
I have been moderated once myself, but in my case it was due to aggressively trying to save a Kalmbach employee's job, and on a particular Kalmbach Forum. The post only lasted (seemingly) about 30 seconds before it disappeared but it sure got someones attention! Water under the bridge now.
selector Maybe fly poop in the pepper, fellas, but it's 'flout', not 'flaunt.' One flaunts one's achievements or decorations, but one flouts the rules. About moderation: it used to be, when Tom, Ken, Norris, and I had the privileges all those years ago, that we were given the authority and the tools to ban people. We agreed to be extremely careful and conservative about banning people, and we did a fairly good job if I say so myself. I believe I banned one, maybe two people, Tom another couple, and believe it or not, they were the ones volunteer mods were brought on board to control because they were so nasty, persistent, and prolific. Then, in 2010 or so, our privileges were withdrawn and most/all of us resigned. It helped that we had achieved the aims Bergie had set for us. And yes, we were encouraged to actively coach people in an attempt to help them to remain active and valued members. It worked for a few. Most often, it did not. No surprise there. One really bad egg would appear on weekends with a 'banked' prior registration, of which we think he had at least 20 stored up, and he took great delight in dredging up archived posts, posting a question or a comment to bring them up to the top, and then he'd cut loose, so to speak, and post filth and personal attacks at the mods or at one of his favourite target members. We would look for IP's that were located in the same area and know it was that person. This was pre-VPN. We'd smoke him before he got another post in. Tom and I would literally tag team him until the wee hours of every Friday and Saturday night until he got bored. All this to say that some of these banned people are very clever and know that they have to pick their way back into the server's welcome carefully, or back into the graces of people watching for them. Often, it's just not worth their while.
Maybe fly poop in the pepper, fellas, but it's 'flout', not 'flaunt.' One flaunts one's achievements or decorations, but one flouts the rules.
About moderation: it used to be, when Tom, Ken, Norris, and I had the privileges all those years ago, that we were given the authority and the tools to ban people. We agreed to be extremely careful and conservative about banning people, and we did a fairly good job if I say so myself. I believe I banned one, maybe two people, Tom another couple, and believe it or not, they were the ones volunteer mods were brought on board to control because they were so nasty, persistent, and prolific. Then, in 2010 or so, our privileges were withdrawn and most/all of us resigned. It helped that we had achieved the aims Bergie had set for us.
And yes, we were encouraged to actively coach people in an attempt to help them to remain active and valued members. It worked for a few. Most often, it did not. No surprise there.
One really bad egg would appear on weekends with a 'banked' prior registration, of which we think he had at least 20 stored up, and he took great delight in dredging up archived posts, posting a question or a comment to bring them up to the top, and then he'd cut loose, so to speak, and post filth and personal attacks at the mods or at one of his favourite target members. We would look for IP's that were located in the same area and know it was that person. This was pre-VPN. We'd smoke him before he got another post in. Tom and I would literally tag team him until the wee hours of every Friday and Saturday night until he got bored.
All this to say that some of these banned people are very clever and know that they have to pick their way back into the server's welcome carefully, or back into the graces of people watching for them. Often, it's just not worth their while.
That says a lot (negatively) about their need to mess with moderators. And I was glad to see someone else point out the flaunt v flout distinction, as I didn't want to be accused of being a grammar Nazi.
Lithonia OperatorSD70Dude, I'd. I'd for you flying under the radar. Be careful. I've learned a lot from your posts, and hope you'll be sticking around. Why poke the beat?
Agree, it's just not the same enjoyable discusssion without at least one token Canadien to mess around with in the head. :)
charlie hebdoYou are fully aware of that.
SD70Dude, I'd. I'd for you flying under the radar. Be careful. I've learned a lot from your posts, and hope you'll be sticking around. Why poke the bear?
Overmod It would be interesting to learn from schlimm what the terms of his ban were... or how much notice or warning he received.
It would be interesting to learn from schlimm what the terms of his ban were... or how much notice or warning he received.
You are fully aware of that.
Backshop Convicted One Backshop I don't understand why some feel the need to flount the rules There is a fairly common mindset out there that is overly self-forgiving. Their perceptions are that they themselves somehow do the violations in a manner that is "acceptable", while everyone else does it "wrong" or goes a step too far. This same mentality might perceive personal insults as "just in fun" when they are the source, but unacceptable and abusive when they are on the receiving end. There are examples of that right in this thread...
Convicted One Backshop I don't understand why some feel the need to flount the rules There is a fairly common mindset out there that is overly self-forgiving. Their perceptions are that they themselves somehow do the violations in a manner that is "acceptable", while everyone else does it "wrong" or goes a step too far. This same mentality might perceive personal insults as "just in fun" when they are the source, but unacceptable and abusive when they are on the receiving end.
Backshop I don't understand why some feel the need to flount the rules
There is a fairly common mindset out there that is overly self-forgiving. Their perceptions are that they themselves somehow do the violations in a manner that is "acceptable", while everyone else does it "wrong" or goes a step too far. This same mentality might perceive personal insults as "just in fun" when they are the source, but unacceptable and abusive when they are on the receiving end.
There are examples of that right in this thread...
I hope that isn't directed at me... ....at any rate, I should clarify the specifics of what happened in my case.
I was banned after I expressed my feelings about the demise of a certain railroad executive in a lewd, crude and rude manner (you'll probably remember who died in December 2017). Though this was my first offense I did not receive a warning, I found out through not being able to log in to my account one day.
A warning and deleting that post probably would have worked just as well in my case as an all-out ban.
I haven't ever been put on moderation, though I along with several others were warned by Angie to knock off the political stuff when a particular thread got a little too heated some time ago, and as far as I know no moderation or bans resulted from that particular exchange.
I suppose C.O. is right, continuing to write about my experience could attract unwanted attention to my current account.
Anyway, I don't mind the current 'hands off' moderation policy, it seems that threads only get locked or deleted after someone complains. We'll see where this one ends up.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Convicted One Backshop There are examples of that right in this thread... You bet . It's like a street version of "holier than thou" "Anyone who fails to see things the way I see them are less than sane" being another popular perception of such people
Backshop There are examples of that right in this thread...
You bet . It's like a street version of "holier than thou"
"Anyone who fails to see things the way I see them are less than sane"
being another popular perception of such people
BackshopThere are examples of that right in this thread...
We definitively know how many times miningman was warned: none. (unless he is a liar, which I doubt). That's official Kalmbach warnings; we of course warned him repeatedly not to repost 'for wanswheel' and advertise he was doing so, and kept saying so. I still worry for Wayne when he mentions something he posts as coming from there...
For the TOS to mean something, I'd agree that the least trace of sock-puppetry, especially on behalf of an acknowledged banned member posting more of the same material that ultimately got him banned, is grounds for discipline. It's the lack of warning, grievance, or appeal of any kind that comes across as high-handed.
wanswheel received warning in the form of 'permanent moderation' -- which of course gave Kalmbach oversight by pocket veto, as it were, over any long post as well as any perceived copyright violation or other issue of concern. It was while under that restriction that he came to be banned, apparently without notice for several days, as I recall only manifesting when he had to log out and back in for some reason. I don't believe anything was formally ever communicated to him; most of the justifications here are retroactive explanations 'after the fact' -- although I don't argue with their validity under the TOS.
The 'elite clique' is a comparatively few people at Kalmbach who put themselves in charge of this aspect of moderation. It clearly doesn't involve Dave Lassen when he was actively moderating some posts of concern; it clearly doesn't involve Ang, whose style is clearly to warn before discipline. On the other hand we have seen quite a few editors and columnists leaving just a little quicker or sooner than seems 'fully voluntary' -- not with positive effect on either the magazine or the site quality. As I suspect the old 'house policy' of disallowing any discussion of moderator policy may still be in force I will go no further, but that there is the same sort of arbitrary modac we suffered under Wibberley, I think there is little doubt.
I know I was banned without warning for making a joke about a friend -- and I did get an explanation, after a week, essentially saying it wasn't funny. I subsequently got put on moderation for something in a self-deleted post (it was intended as amusing and was factually correct, but read, and more significantly reacted to, as something much different and not at all a sense I would even imply, as if no other posts of mine 'counted' for anything here) -- that was reversed after a couple of weeks, in a grudging-sounding way, which I took as a stern warning to avoid stepping on invisible toes.
BackshopI don't understand why some feel the need to flount the rules
That is just a general observation pointed towards your question, and in no way is it intended reflective of WW's and MM's specific situation.
SD70Dude JPS1 BaltACD Minining Man was the conduit, however, he has also been banned. Why were they banned? Please be as specific as possible. Posting copyrighted material to the forum without proper permission.
Thanks.
Overmod Backshop It's like being invited into someone's house and being an arse. The problem with a great many of these 'bans' is more like being invited to someone's house, and suddenly being informed that you've triggered them for some undisclosed reason and are being summarily kicked out on the sidewalk without recourse. There are many intermediate stages, including Ang-style warnings that people are 'treading on sore water' as an old friend of my father's liked to say, followed up by PMs of more, or less, politeness stating the precise problems and 'watch out not to do them again'. In turn followed up by mandatory moderation, which prevents errant posting in the first place ... and in fact getting rid of any unsatisfactory post 'submitted' before anyone reads or is irritated by it. Banning is a last resort to get rid of incorrigibles who Just Don't Get It. Or who repeatedly flaunt the terms of the TOS after being given the necessary Talmudic warning. What it isn't is a Star-Chamber like way to send posters an elite clique doesn't like down the memory hole, as George Carlin said, "forever"...
Backshop It's like being invited into someone's house and being an arse.
The problem with a great many of these 'bans' is more like being invited to someone's house, and suddenly being informed that you've triggered them for some undisclosed reason and are being summarily kicked out on the sidewalk without recourse.
There are many intermediate stages, including Ang-style warnings that people are 'treading on sore water' as an old friend of my father's liked to say, followed up by PMs of more, or less, politeness stating the precise problems and 'watch out not to do them again'. In turn followed up by mandatory moderation, which prevents errant posting in the first place ... and in fact getting rid of any unsatisfactory post 'submitted' before anyone reads or is irritated by it.
Banning is a last resort to get rid of incorrigibles who Just Don't Get It. Or who repeatedly flaunt the terms of the TOS after being given the necessary Talmudic warning. What it isn't is a Star-Chamber like way to send posters an elite clique doesn't like down the memory hole, as George Carlin said, "forever"...
We don't definitively know how many times Wanswheel or MM were warned. I believe someone said a while back that Wanswheel refused to agree to conditions of reinstatement.
Could you clarify your elite clique" remark?
BackshopIt's like being invited into someone's house and being an arse.
I don't understand why some feel the need to flount the rules? It's not like this is a paysite. It's free. It's like being invited into someone's house and being an arse.
Bans here are of course not based on IP - they are based on sign-in credentials. Otherwise how could you sign in to the forum from a hotel or a mobile device? The use of IP is only for identification at registration, not for posting.
The bans are accomplished through the software, and interestingly this not only triggers before any actual signing-in procedure takes place, but sets a cookie (perhaps more than one) that gives you an accelerated page from whatever local machine and browser you tried to log in from. In this respect, if no other, Kalmbach IT has thoroughly and correctly implemented effective security.
Unfortunately, it appears the bans are implemented for what may be the maximum length of ban the software is configured for: that's a year like 2058. Until then you can rest assured that no one will be able to use that 'banned' forum name again; you will note that the forum is already structured so that a given username can't be reused with a new 'contact' IP address... this was part of wanswheel's issue, he won't rejoin with a different username because that one has special meaning to him.
It will be interesting to see if the 'new and improved' forum software experience coming in 'stage 3' in the spring will use a different security approach, and that might include graylisting of 'suspect' (or unwanted) domains. For a forum of this kind, I don't think that level of gateway protection is necessary.
SD70DudeAnd yet they haven't. Even if they were to do so, wouldn't I just come back under yet another name?
Well you can't permanently ban someone anyway. Banning is based on IP and you enter banned IP's into a table. Problem arises that as you ban more and more IP's you start blocking off your website from others on the internet and traffic starts to decline. So common practice is to flush the restricted IP table every 6-18 months depending on accumulation. So nobody is ever banned permanently. Their account or pwd is changed or suspended. Most folks only try to come back within a 6 month period and give up.
SD70DudeI was definitely on moderation initially, just like any new account (my posts wouldn't appear immediately). But I didn't say anything complex or controversial, so I guess I slipped by.
LOL, perhaps you slipped through a rabbit hole during one of the changes in the guard?
It matters not to me either way, I don't have any problem with your posts.
Just seems like you invite unnecessary scrutiny with your admissions. The kind that seldom ends well. (FWIW)
Convicted One SD70Dude Even if they were to do so, wouldn't I just come back under yet another name? It is surprising that they flipped the switch on your newer account, allowing you to post without the prior moderator review . Which would be my concern if I was in that position.
SD70Dude Even if they were to do so, wouldn't I just come back under yet another name?
It is surprising that they flipped the switch on your newer account, allowing you to post without the prior moderator review . Which would be my concern if I was in that position.
I was definitely on moderation initially, just like any new account (my posts wouldn't appear immediately). But I didn't say anything complex or controversial, so I guess I slipped by.
I think I added the Canadian Northern avatar right away after creating this account, but if I had really wanted to stay hidden I could have chosen a unrelated username and added an avatar after the initial moderation ended.
Anyway, things seem to have worked out, I obviously haven't committed any ban-worthy offenses over the last few years.
It's a shame Wanswheel and Miningman didn't follow a similar strategy to mine.
SD70DudeEven if they were to do so, wouldn't I just come back under yet another name?
JPS1 BaltACD Minining Man was the conduit, however, he has also been banned. Why were they banned? Please be as specific as possible.
BaltACD Minining Man was the conduit, however, he has also been banned.
Why were they banned? Please be as specific as possible.
Posting copyrighted material to the forum without proper permission.
Convicted One SD70Dude after I got banned a few years ago, and they wouldn't do it. So I moved on and created another account with the same avatar and a similar name. I've seen you exclaim over that several times the past few years. Not that it matters one way or the other to me personally, but isn't that a lot like saying "doesn't play by the rules", just begging for the authorities to focus their ire upon you?
SD70Dude after I got banned a few years ago, and they wouldn't do it. So I moved on and created another account with the same avatar and a similar name.
I've seen you exclaim over that several times the past few years. Not that it matters one way or the other to me personally, but isn't that a lot like saying "doesn't play by the rules", just begging for the authorities to focus their ire upon you?
And yet they haven't.
Even if they were to do so, wouldn't I just come back under yet another name?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.