Locking of CNY RR leasing Tier thread

[nessman]

nessman, Damn! What's got into you lately?! I've always thought of you as well mannered, but to snip at Otto (or anyone) like this shows you must be very upset. This just isn't "you". Have you contributed in threads here before and had them locked?

I thought it was a very interesting thread and it got locked because Otto basically got bored with it.

I think a good moderator is one who makes sure that things don't get out of hand (i.e., flame wars) or completely off-topic. As long as the conversation is within the scope of the forum - then there's little reason to lock threads unless it starts straying into a topic that has little to do with railroading in NY.

[J.D. White]

You bring up a valid point, however, we as members must be aware of the fact here posted in the rules:

- Thread titles may be edited for content and clarity at the Moderator's discretion.

I'm not taking any sides in this issue. The rule is as I see it. There's an impass here which will eventually drift away, it will be forgotten, and I'm sure all the parties affected will gain something from this. Time will tell.

[Pj]

I am a moderator on several phpBB based boards.

One of the options (if installed) given to moderators (if enabled) is the ability to split posts from a topic and throw them all into its own thread, which I think would have been a perfect thing to do.

That way, all those EL posts could have stayed on track within its own topic. I enjoyed reading that thread, but I must agree that by a certain point, it was off topic from the orginal post....which is where the split command would have worked perfectly..and thus neither threads would die.

[Mr Lehigh]

I totally agree with you PJ. I've seen that done on other phpBB boards. It keeps a good conversation flowing that may have flown off the original topic. That's the whole point of a board like this is to encourage conversation and exchange of ideas. I'm glad to see Otto keeps up with all these threads. i just wish he used tools such as you described instead of simply locking down wandering threads. Lock downs should only be used for threads gone seriously bad (flame wars, non railroad stuff). For conversations that wander, splitting off into new threads is best. Since us users don't have the ability to do this, it's up to the admins to do it.

[nessman]

I think the best policy is to leave things be and step in only if things start getting way out of hand (flaming, way off topic, etc.).

Micromanaging threads is IMHO a waste of time and a source of aggravation for the end-user.

[Otto Vondrak]

Mr. Lehigh- you're right, I absolutely forgot that I could split off posts and create a new topic. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. But it seems no matter what I do, someone will be upset with me.

-otto-

[bwparker1]

Otto -

Whether we all like it or not, it is your site, you volunteer your time to do this (Maybe you are making a big profit, if so thats great) so as moderator you need to go with the guidelines you have set for the forum. That being said, I do agree that if possible, try to create new threads (splitting) if one meanders from its original topic, that helps to facilitate the sharing of information, which is what I find this site and the net in general extremely useful for (and get equally as angry when people flame others for posting info from another source somwhere else, even if credit is given, if you didn't want it known to the public, don't put in on the web!).

The Erie/CNY thread in particular seemed quite interesting, hence why people may be sharing their distaste for the lockdown of the thread.

Brooks

[Otto Vondrak]

No big profits here yet (or even small ones). We'll let you know when we break even over here. ;-)

-otto-

[JBlaisdell]

Otto,

I am not upset with you. I started this thread to see if anyone felt like me, and I see some do (and some don't).

I am all for peeling off a thread or renaming it, so long as we know where it went.

Thanks for your time, effort, AND $$$$$ for this forum. I know that when a hobby becomes an obligation, it can lose its appeal. I hope you are still enjoying it.

Jeff

[Otto Vondrak]

I'll take any opportunity to get feedback on my performance as a moderator (as long as its constructive) and the performance of this site overall. It's the only way we can improve. No bent feelings here.

-otto-

[Zeke]

Sorry Otto but I have to agree with nessman and the others, a lighter touch on your part would be in order. I like this forum a lot and think you do a great job in keeping things civil, however it is also incumbent of all moderators to let discussions ride and if they stray a tad so what ? I can't stand heavy handed moderators in principle and will flee their sites every time. It's on my top ten list of all time pet peeves.

[DutchRailnut]

Flee if you must Zeke we are guest in this forum, however Mike and Otto want to run it.
The popularity proves that the concept works, and more people keep signing in.
If you were a guest in my house you would not be telling me how to run my house either.

[nessman]

Flee if you must Zeke we are guest in this forum, however Mike and Otto want to run it.
The popularity proves that the concept works, and more people keep signing in.
If you were a guest in my house you would not be telling me how to run my house either.

Well you're always gonna have people who are going to worship those who are in charge. But while I respect the rules of the house - there are times where the rules can be unbearable for the guests and next thing you know no one wants to visit you anymore!

[J.D. White]

I'm sorry, what part of the forum rules didn't you understand? I'm certain this site and its staff will not change their ways based on grievances from a few members verses the vast majority who have a full scope on the matters. There are issues I'd like to bring forth while visiting websites, but if I could not outright pinpoint a moderator in "direct violation" of the site rules, I would have nothing to stand upon, other than defending for the ways I would want things to be run.

[scottychaos]

I'm sorry, what part of the forum rules didn't you understand? I'm certain this site and its staff will not change their ways based on grievances from a few members verses the vast majority who have a full scope on the matters.

I have stayed out of this, because I have already discussed it privately with Otto!
and we "agreed to disagree"..
but I cant let a distortion go unchallanged.

I dont think the people complaining are the "minority"..
they are not "the few"

and the members who accept it are not a "vast majority"
actually, you have it backwards.

the people complaining about the policy are the vast MAJORITY.
I just went back through this thread, and I count 10 forum members who were against the locking (including me)
and 4 members who support the decision (including otto)

thats a vast majority who are against the locking policy..
and you cant assume that all other members SUPPORT something if they say nothing..
silence does not equal support.

im just saying, if a vast majority are against a policy, maybe the policy is wrong and should consider being changed?
just because something is a "rule" doesent mean it has to to be cast in stone..rules can be changed.

if a policy annoys far more members than those who "like" it..
maybe its the policy that is wrong..

I also agree that topics only need to be locked if there is flaming, or if they REALLY go off topic (non-train discussion).
talking about New York trains in the New York train forum IMO is not off topic!

but..I also agree that it is Otto's decision to make.
and if this is the way he wants to moderate his forum, then we should accept that.
we can complain sure!
give polite "constructive criticism" if its warranted.
and maybe convince him to change something if enough members disagree for a good reason..
but if not, we can just make a new thread.
(which already happened in this case)

Scot