I offer the following suggestion to relieve the moderators (as cited by Erik below)

If you think that a post is inappropriate, tell the poster-not the moderator. We are all big kids here-we should all be able take a little peer criticism.

I think most people who post here wish to be heard-and part of that means adapting to the
expectations of the readership. If you complain to the moderators-they post a red "ADMIN"-but you haven't done a thing to explain to the poster what your concerns are OR to hear their counterpoint.

The internet is still a developing media-and it sure has is rough edges (porn, spam, pop ups, spyware, etc) but we have no idea where it will go. Maybe its greatest potential is to relieve us of inerme4iaries and bureacracies just a little. Why impose the dictums of the old order on the new?

If you disagree-my address is above.



superheater@rrmail.com

I have a somewhat different perspective on this than the one Superheater just offered.

Communicating directly with another poster to resolve questions or continue an involved discussion offline is certainly a good idea. We do ask people to use real names and to provide an e-mail address whenever possible to encourage just that kind of communication.

That said, I don't want to discourage anyone from contacting the moderators. That is what we are here for.

As for new rules for a new medium, I'd frame the issue a little differently--the new behavior I would recommend to people for this new medium is an ethic of personal responsibility and thoughtfulness.

Pushing the envelope by introducing topics far from railway preservation or by using rhetoric that skirts the borders of hurtful language--sarcasm is a good example--can be seen as a way of pushing as hard as you can, to see when the mdoerator will push back. It assumes a hierarchical power relationship--and therefore I'd say that's old-style behavior.

The new-style behavior I would recommend is a decentralized ethic of responsibility. I'd recommend that particiants study the rules of the board and the requests of your hosts, and then try to write and act in harmony with them, not in friction with them. Instead of probing for the edge, embrace the generous and--dare I say it--kind spirit we recommend, and make it your own spirit when visting and participating here.

eledbetter@rypn.org

The biggest offenders (save for me--heeheehee......) almost never post their e-mail addresses, or even their names.

For example, certain folks hiding behind aliases........ <:-)

I won't hesitate to take a personal debate person to person, but save for me and Erik sparring over whether I've crossed the line or not, I can't ever recall being ABLE to take the discussion to the individual involved, because they didn't add an e-mail. I *might* give some modest amount of credibility to someone who *may* have professional reasons to hide behind a pseudonym, but if they hide behind both a pseudonym and a lack of e-mail, all bets are off. The newspapers I work with want a signature, an address, and a way to confirm both via phone or e-mail with a "letter to the editor". I only expect the same here. I don't *get* it, but.......

LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

I have to say that is well said!

We all have heart felt feelings for historic preservation, there is no need for amyone to get nasty about what is said here.

By the way I use my real name and address and I wish everybody else did too.

Ted Miles

ted_miles@nps.gov