Jeff Smith wrote:(thinks to himself: "I should lock this thread! With no explanation!" followed by evil laugh......)
I prefer, and have said a couple of times in private messages to moderators, that I'd prefer a lock with no explanation, and of course I imagine the moderator's evil laugh. As opposed to a "I'm locking this thread", or "simmer down boys" message. We know the thread's locked, it's got a different icon and we can't post anything new in it, we didn't need the moderator to tell us they locked it. What we probably needed to know is why they locked it.
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:
-- People can't interpret why this thread was cited when this other very similar by-topic or by-situation one wasn't, and are confused at what signs they've missed.
If we have to guess at what's the lockable behavior we're going to self censor a bunch of innocuous, and maybe constructive things, and maybe continue to post some borderline or lockable things because we're unsure about what's acceptable.
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:
-- People start posting in avoidance of a scolding. Things like having to preface a post with "I know this is slightly off-topic but it's not too far off . . ."
...
But it should never get to the point where people feel hesitant about posting a relevant related point that does ultimately loop back to the topic, out of apprehension that they're going to accidentally ruin it for everyone by getting the thread killed.
I've often wondered: a troll hijacks a thread, the moderator's solution is to lock the thread. Isn't that probably what the troll wanted to happen anyway? So who gets punished, or what behavior gets discouraged and what behavior gets encouraged?
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:
-- Being required to file posts neatly in very old topics not easily found... Some topics do repeat when they're not in running threads that get occasional bump.
Why do people, when posting in a long dormant thread, say something like "bump", and in fact to add extra punctuation like "*bump*". Just like the above "I'm locking this thread" message, it's not necessary, we can tell that it's an old thread resurrected. And why should bumping an old thread ever bother anybody? Don't we want to encourage folks to search to see if there's an appropriate existing thread before they create a new one? Of course we should have some balance. A 200 page thread titled "New high speed" whose first post was 5 years ago might have some posts that should be in a different thread, but it's also probably not a good thing to have 20 threads only 10 pages each.
And for what it's worth, I probably would not have made this post if you guys hadn't bumped the thread to the top of the list after it had been dormant more than 1 month.
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:
-- ...There have been times when posters have asked after a warning for clarification and those posts have either disappeared without a trace...
The agony of delete. I had one of those within the last month or so. I sent the moderator a private message as soon as I noticed the deleted posts. A week later with no response I sent another message, this time copying the 2 or 3 other users whose posts I remembered being deleted. The moderator replied, apologized for not getting back sooner, he didn't remember the particulars because since he deleted the posts even he couldn't tell what was in them anymore.
apcjr01 wrote:I feel, some of these moderators have way too much time on their hands; this obsession with rigidly organizing topics for example. I suppose if one of them were to walk into a room where groups of people were carrying on conversations, they would feel compelled to attempt to shuffle the people around according to the topic of their conversation.
It's just a lot easier to do with electrons than it is with people. Let's give the moderators the benefit of the doubt. They want to be good party hosts and have the guests mingle with folks with whom they'll get along.
apcjr01 wrote:
As for information being easier to find as a result of these efforts, I have my doubts.
I doubt it too
apcjr01 wrote:
But that member can easily re-subscribe with a different user name and will certainly have a score to settle.
But if they make the re-subscribe too obvious God might smite that new username, eventually either the user or the administrator with God like powers must give up.
charlie6017 wrote:I'm not completely sure a banned member can "re-up" with a new account with a different email, either if it's from the same ISP. I do not know.
I tend to think one must be able to re-up. After my 30 day Zuma Deluxe free trial expires they won't let me get another freebie, so they seem to record IP addresses, but I don't see how that's appropriate for a social networking site. There could be households with 1 shared computer but more than 1 railfan, each of whom I'd expect rr.net to want to allow to be users. Of course if banned member 1 used the same computer as questionable new user 2 that would be one sign that they're the same person.
charlie6017 wrote:
But moderators do not have authority to ban.
I'm guessing Jeff Smith has such authority. When one or 10 moderators ask for a ban does the authority holder listen more attentively than if it's 10 users?