Actually Ron, the threads contained posts that insulted the owner of the D&SNG as well as the community members that the railroad has worked very hard to build relationships with.

Reread the posts and you'll see that one poster called the D&SNG owner "@#$%&" and "boneheaded". Worse, that poster then refused to stop when the board's hosts told him to stop.

The loss of the NGDF is not an instance of political correctness run amuck; rather, it is a case of a single individual refusing to take responsibility for his words.

--
Chris Webster
http://www.speakeasy.org/~cwebster

Chris,
You are correct that there were insults in both posts. I would only take issue with the characterization that one or both threads were “insulting matches,” or that the misbehavior was so over the top that it justified terminating the forum. In the second thread, the insulting tone directed at some Durango residents was a general indictment of an imagined stereotype of those who would object to the smoky nature of the D&S operation. It was indeed an insult, but as I mentioned, I have seen dozens of posts demanding that Durango NIMBYS go back to where they came from if they don’t like smoke, and harshly questioning the intelligence of anyone who would move into a smoky neighborhood if they don’t like smoke. The comment in the post that supposedly destroyed the NGDF was an expression of that same sentiment, but was milk toast by comparison.

As for the supposed insult to D&S, the insult was actually directed at the carbon-offset idea, not the D&S per se. The newspaper article mentioned that the carbon-offset concept for D&S was the product of a consultant in the business of carbon offsets. So I assume that the one insult was initially directed at the concept and the consultant. It is true that D&S has embraced the concept, so by extension, they might feel insulted. When the person who made the insult was called on it, he clarified that it was directed at whoever came up with the idea.

In any case, there is a great deal of controversy surrounding the concept of carbon offsets, so it is not surprising that it raised some passions on the forum. Furthermore, the subsequent masking of the insult with "@#$%&" conveys the impression that it was more sinister than it actually was. It was not swearing or an obscenity. I suspect that it could be said on TV or radio today without being censored. In any case, this thread was locked and everybody moved on. It was the second thread with its mild insult of Durango residents that broke the camel’s back. And this sin was not committed by the person who criticized the carbon-offset idea in the first thread. That person started a new thread just to apologize, prior to the advent of final thread that brought the house down.

Thanks RPYN for a chance to vent a bit on this subject. I was quite surprised that the treads mentioned as so offensive were the at least temporary demise of the forum. Over the past couple years threads that were tolerated that criticized the Colorado Historical Society were often far more vitriolic. Even though I have no particular interest in the subject, I found many comments over the top, but I did not have to read them unless I chose to. A couple times in the past I have suggested on the N.G.Diss. Forum that what is typical rhetoric between individuals in a certain setting where it is considered normal back and forth banter complete with @&^%$* tends to offend other people who are used to extremely polite sanitized conversations. For example in the construction trades that I have involvement in rough banter and discussion with all of the 4 letter adjectives thrown is just normal chatter for some (hopefully not myself), but it should not be taken too seriously. Some of my customers in agriculture are pretty rough types with a tongue to match. Just because they preface their sentence with the "f" word doesn't mean they are really P'O'd. So one of the problems as I see it of a public forum on the internet, is that when the moderator insists on a certain level of decorum, polite civility has different meanings to different people, because the words they are in the habit of using have different connotations in terms of strength and severity in different walks of society. If someone point blank calls someone on a discussion board an SOB, it is probably out of line, but also probably not grounds to throw in the towel on the operation of the board.
I agree with others who have responded to this thread that when things are too sanitized, free and meaningful discussion becomes quite lame and uninteresting. I would rather hear what serious posters that have an opinion on a subject I am interested in have to say, even if they are a bit crude by my standards in the way they say it.
I do believe that moderators need to act as censors at times and it must be difficult with something as subjective as this to always be fair and equatable with all posters.

I would like to know why moderators seem unwilling to just delete offending posts or temporarily suspend individual members who violate the board's policies, but instead will shut down the entire board. RYPN went through such an unneccesary ordeal last year. Moderators have the ability to delete posts or suspend members. By taking targeted action the problem is solved and the board survives.

I guess that is just a result of a PC non discrimination policy? One bad apple, cut down the tree!

Oh how short our memories are. In 2005, I deleted a post on this very forum that IMHO was outside the terms of service and all parties to the discussion united in vilifying my judgement and action. I understand completely why they took down the board.

Maturity and tolerance of diverging opinions is not part of the INTERNET ethos hence I limit my participation regarding RR preservation to an occasional "drive by" comment.

As someone who has been dissed on that board and returned the favor on this one, it does seem to me that there's a lot more latitude for emotional reactionary uninformed or miisinformed content to be posted there. Much more good information seems to be posted here by generally more thoughtful people based less on emotion and more on reality - so much so that the others are glarlingly out of place here. Granted, I was in the center of a political storm at the time which is still raging (thankfully without me) but still, the principle of GIGO applies. You just have to recognise the G when you see it.

FWIW, when people who did post to that list visited, they were treated in a gentlemanly and gracious manner, as were all our visitors. I had the privlege of showing a few through our shop and conversing candidly with them about the situation. When not on line there seemed like pretty fine fellows.

I try to post things here that are rationally justifiable opinion or actual experiences, when I think it might do some good. Occasionally, I try to do it with some entertainment value added, which doesn't always work......so I'm learning to be more careful about literalness and providing reasoning behind opinions offered. In the end it is about respect, and there has been in my experience a lot more to respect about the level of discourse on RyPn than the other aforementioned forum which speaks well of the majority of the posters here. Even when we don't agree I find validy in the POV in all but the occasional case, which leads to thought and consideration, which are beneficial and enlightening.

The villain (if there is one) seems to be the crossing of the line between rational and emotional content - tell me why I'm wrong and I will consider it, but don't tell me I'm an idiot because we disagree. I may be an idiot, but the fact of our disagreement doesn't prove it, and isn't exculaptory evidence to the contrary either.

dave

Maybe so, but that is a matter between them and history. You don't know your opinion is fact; you have only your limited view of the situation. It's entirely possible that factors you are unaware of are in play. That is for them to work out.

To some extent you can discuss those considerations, but this forum does have rules against discussion of the internal affairs of other organizations. That's what other forums are for.



The problem is not the substance of the discussion, but the delivery. Every egotistical person's fantasy is to have a captive audience to lord over with their sage opinions - but in the real world, the audience doesn't like it. Thus it's frowned upon on forums.

You can discuss the same thing, appropriately (where allowed) by making it NOT about flaunting your ego-opinion, but about actual discussion - which is to say with a willingness to admit that your view may not be correct, and a willingness to listen to others. You have to phrase your statements or questions in such a way that this is apparent.

Good question.

I won't go into which community, but I'm involved in a community which has gatherings, and rules for those gatherings, typically most of one page. Some people are irked by these rules, regarding them as unnecessary. "Duh, we know that." One such person organizes his own gatherings. He has boiled it down to one simple rule, and forgive my use of language, but I'd like you to hear it exactly as he says it:

[quote]Don't piss off the hosts.[quote]

That's the rule. That's it.

It seems to me that is a universal rule that, in reality, applies everywhere -- even if not stated. It is implicit in the venue being hosted at all, because it being hosted is what causes it to exist.

It seems to me in the case of these forum closures, much was done to violate that rule. The reaction should be no surprise. It's not your forum, it's theirs. They can do with it what they will, and they (not you) are accountable for the result.

In many of our discussion boards, our hosts are not neutral people but have their passions which they pursue. So how do you deal with a problem when the host is apart of the problem?

Robby

Do your own discussion group. Then you can decide what goes in and what goes out.

Frankly, I don't blame the moderator and/or server provider for doing as they wish. The're paying the bill and doing the work. I would not have my own discussion page simply because of having to make the decision on what gets posted. Read this thread and you'll find those condemning the moderator and server's action, and those defending them. You can't make all the people happy all the time.

dan

So there is no ethics one should follow when being a moderator of a forum? If I do not agree with a decision all I need to do is form my own group so I can have a closed society that agrees with everything I say?

The last discussion that closed the board has been tame compared to other previous conflicts. The last real discussion I was involved with in the board the moderator allowed a person to post under the name El Goaway. The discussion was about the 487 and the bulge that was found in the firebox along the mud ring. It was a very dangerous and telling situation that did not look good for several people. The solution was to ignore the safety issues and pretend that everything was wonderful with a public property.

I have seen too many groups divide into faction and split up because of personal views and opinions. These divisions within groups cause people to spend energy fighting each other instead of dealing with the real issues. The NGDF drove people away because of its inability to objectively moderate the board. It is not a loss.

Robby

Well, you can't expect moderators to be neutral. They care enough about the topic to run a forum, obviously! That's a lot of caring.

But the host is part of the problem? Plainly -- not to the host! Well, who's left who has a problem? You and those who agree with you. And since you're not the host, your options are tolerate or skeedaddle. You can't "make" the host do something for the good of the community. He possesses freedom of the press. Though you can always ask nicely...

Hi,

I've stayed out of this discussion after a few first posts.

I'm glad to see people thinking about the problems. That was the main object I wanted. I did not want us as free users to take for granted the boards and subjects we love and are passionate about.

We may not agree, but if we can agree to disagree in some circumstances and then go on to find where we agree, we can find funding or other resources to help keep our beloved hobby active and living and moving forward.

Thanks for thinking about the subject (continue it, I think there are more ideas that can be aired). As I posted about the PAs and Southern's Steam Program, we do not want to kill off the open channels the internet provides.

I also like the example of the NGDF and the Goat. Both are needed. As long as the rules are clearly mentioned up front, we can make an "informed" decision to whether we want or are up to the different board formats.

I tried the Goat a few times once it was first open. There are good ideas there. However, it is not my type of place. I do not belittle those who go there. They have a right to their own way.

Thanks for your time and thought and self control on this topic.

Doug vV

I think it is fair to say that forum members cannot expect hosts or moderators to be objective or neutral in either making or enforcing the rules. Neutrality would seem to be the basic job requirement of a moderator, but they can behave however they want. They also can definitely be part of the problem. They can even create an entire problem on their own without realizing it. For instance, they may be offended because they misunderstood something that was posted, and terminate their forum while believing that somebody else caused it to happen.

Obviously not everyone shares your view of news from Angola (this is the first news to come out the country in decades) and China (where the scene is changing daily, is real not imitation, and one wonders what will be preserved when it is all over.) Some may even find your remarks insulting.

But that is another problem with forums like this. Everyone has their own opinion on what they should be about. I loved Bob Yarger's findings, and miss them very much (thank you Les for trying to fill the gap.) But obviously others did not.

The name of the website is Railway Preservation News -- Online magazine of railway history and preservation. Nowhere does it say U.S. Railway; nor does it imply only equipment that is still running (historic or not?) But obviously some folks think just that.

I think that is a greater forum killer -- the mindset that only subjects that are of interest to me should be discussed here, anything else is not a worthy subject -- than enforcing etiquette. I hope I am quoting this correctly, but I think I read earlier that not even all of RYPN's founders like the direction the Interchange has gone. My hat is off to them for allowing it to go on anyway. That has shown great open mindedness on behalf of the board and the moderators.