Atomic Systems

Would the Mods or site operator please explain what is so wrong with using the word "Railfail" in a signature or posting in reference to Railworks, particularly in context of the programmes failings?

I ask because over the last couple of days, my signature which stated "Bye bye Railfail" was mysteriously disappeared and a thread in which I referred to the game as "Railfail" was also changed to Railworks.

In neither case did I receive a note from a moderator to advise what had been done or why and in the case of the forum thread no blue mod pen/commentary either.

Now Railfail may not be a very flattering moniker, but so far as I can see it doesn't breach any CoC and sums up how some of us feel about the state of the programme, particularly when RS.com's own staff are allowed to spout nonsense (like the recent thread about juddering) in a kind of Air America, "We're not really here right now", capacity.

Now if it is UKTS policy to apply protectionism towards software products in the same way as Railworks America does then fine, it's a privately owned forum and the rules of free speech don't necessarily apply. However your CoC need to clearly state that.

I've now amended my signature to something far less shocking, unless of course the site operators are in league with the Irish Rail and a reference to closing one of their lines is not permitted?

Experiencing mild to moderate irritation with UKTS over this...

bigvern wrote:Would the Mods or site operator please explain what is so wrong with using the word "Railfail" in a signature or posting in reference to Railworks, particularly in context of the programmes failings?

I ask because over the last couple of days, my signature which stated "Bye bye Railfail" was mysteriously disappeared and a thread in which I referred to the game as "Railfail" was also changed to Railworks.

Your signature was reported to the moderators by a member of UKTS.
By referring to Railworks as "Railfail" in your signature, the moderating team feel that you are in breach of section 3 of our guidelines...

3) Members are expected to behave in a reasonable manner and with a spirit of goodwill, and opinions should be posted and read in good faith.

Personal attacks, rudeness, flaming, baiting, insults to others, arguments, impersonating other users and posts that blatantly breach the established spirit of goodwill and reasonableness will not be tolerated.

bigvern wrote:In neither case did I receive a note from a moderator to advise what had been done or why and in the case of the forum thread no blue mod pen/commentary either.

The current rules do not state that we have to notify users, but we are considering modifying this. Our introduction to the forums clearly states that...

The Moderators may remove, edit, move, or close topics (by locking the thread) that they feel do not follow the Code of Conduct.

Whenever possible, we edit posts without making it obvious or drawing attention to them. The "edited by moderator" tag is usually only used in extreme cases.
Our sig file guidelines refer to the technicalities, not to the specific content, which is covered by section 3.

bigvern wrote:Now Railfail may not be a very flattering moniker, but so far as I can see it doesn't breach any CoC and sums up how some of us feel about the state of the programme, particularly when RS.com's own staff are allowed to spout nonsense (like the recent thread about juddering) in a kind of Air America, "We're not really here right now", capacity.

We are fully aware of how you and other members feel about this.

bigvern wrote:Now if it is UKTS policy to apply protectionism towards software products in the same way as Railworks America does then fine, it's a privately owned forum and the rules of free speech don't necessarily apply. However your CoC need to clearly state that.

It is not UKTS policy to apply protectionism towards software products and valid criticism is welcomed whether the companies like it or not. However, name calling or distorting product names is not constructive and will not be tolerated since the site is responsible for what is posted here. We think the fact that we have guidelines make fairly it obvious that "the rules of free speech don't necessarily apply", otherwise there would be no guidelines, or moderation, in the forums! Members are free to express their views, as long as they follow the guidelines!

Well I will accept under protest the situation with regard to the signature but I still think it is a bit prissy and nannified TBH.

As regards the silent moderation, I regard this as totally unacceptable and I will (again) be reviewing any further involvement with the site and forum though at this stage not planning to do anything with my uploaded files.

And, while noting the denial as regards protectionism, unfortunately the Railworks banners and ads everywhere, the constant promotion of payware in the forums and the latitude which seems to extend to those from RS.com even when they post in a manner likely to provoke justifiably irate response from customers has to leave me wondering...

dorlan wrote:Whenever possible, we edit posts without making it obvious or drawing attention to them.

Whilst accepting the need for moderation I am a little disturbed by the above statement. In my opinion a post is either acceptable or unacceptable, and in that context would accept the decision of the moderation team. However I do not accept that a post can be altered by a moderator and no tag added to say that that has been done! I have fallen foul in several posts and have accepted the moderator's decison - albeit occasionally with bad grace - because a PM was sent explaining the reason.

I would once again stress that it is disconcerting that a moderator could amend my post, and hence significantly change the meaning, without informing me.

Ruf

Not even have the guts to politely complain directly to Vern but hide behind the badge of anonymity, coward.

John

A sense of proportion is needed when considering the silent edits.

That vast majority are for perfectly sensible reasons such as :

1. Fixing broken links.
2. Adjusting oversized screenshots.
3. Fixing glaring spelling mistakes - sometimes even in the title of threads.
4. Making email addresses non-harvestable by the bots i.e. make them non clickable such as easilyconfused <at?> uktrainsim.com
5. Removal of txt-spk.

Now all of those can be done with the lurid moderator message splashed all over the post if that is what members want.

New members on post approval usually have the post rejected if they fall foul of any of the above or it would be edited prior to approval depending on the workload of the moderators at the time.

More serious issues tend to get either a public notice i.e. that lurid colour text or a PM however, in some cases it would be a waste of time since the persons involved will never accept the decision and just keep grumbling on about it as has happened a number of times.

If there was a question of the meaning being changed the post would most likely end up in the topic dump for posterity and a PM sent to them explaining why. Changing the deliberately distorted name of a product back to it's official name really needs no explanation.

Changing the deliberately distorted name of a product back to it's official name really needs no explanation.

Surely it does if only to "educate" other users that the phrase is not acceptable - personally I think the "deliberate distortion" sums up the current situation of this crummy programme quite nicely and is a means of expressing an opinion.

I don't recall such paranoia when people were posting M$TS instead of MSTS when referring to the older sim which could be regarded as equally derogatory.

Anyhow I can see I'm not going to win this one but thanks to Ruf and John for the support that I could least have been PM'd to discuss the signature issue and that a post had been edited, changing the context of the original sentiment.

Couple of things:

Bigvern your input to the forum is appreaciated by many and I would like to see your presence and input to the forums remain. I am sure that is the view of most members:

bigvern wrote:And, while noting the denial as regards protectionism, unfortunately the Railworks banners and ads everywhere, the constant promotion of payware in the forums and the latitude which seems to extend to those from RS.com even when they post in a manner likely to provoke justifiably irate response from customers has to leave me wondering...

I feel that that UKTS is a very balanced forum/site. There are as many threads on issues and complaints with RailWorks and 3rd party DLC as there are threads where members share positive opinions on PayWare.

On rare occasion (as many including myself have done) RS members have posted comments that may make others irate but I think very few members could say they have never done this in a moment of frustration or heated debate. As with the vast majority of UKTS members, RS and Bigvern, you both take part in an online community to the benefit of others. I would not like to see either leave for any reason.

Just my thoughts but remember this is a hobby (for the vast majority of us) and the UKTS forums allow many to get information and enjoyment from helping others and by taking part in a community. I hope you decide to stay part of UKTS BigVern.

I'd like to say that surely if your taking the time to alter someone's post as the moderator feels it is "Personal attacks, rudeness, flaming, baiting, insults to others, arguments, impersonating other users and posts that blatantly breach the established spirit of goodwill and reasonableness will not be tolerated" then where is the harm in sending a short but simple PM stating UKTS's view,
though to mither about "Railfail" seems childish does this now apply to "Networkfail" incase this upsets or offends this company or an employee of said company?
or refering to a 170 Turbostar as "tubrot" in case Bombardier takes offence?
Having read most of Bigverns posts in the Route building forum I would imagine that he is frustared with some of the silly niggles and is someone who wants to see the best of Railworks as I do.
Simon

Slightly off at a tangent but still related to the whole issue of debating payware and possible sponsership implications... It may just be me but looking through the the JT Class 20 thread in the RW General forum we have just been treated to the unedifying spectacle of two payware developers/publishers duking it out over who's addon is the better with a bit of egging on from RS.com on the touchline. Far worse than my occasional irreverant use of the word "Railfail" to make a point.

This seems totally at odds with what UKTS was supposed to be about, the continuation of the failed Trainsimfiles site and forum where train sim hobbyists and freeware developers could gather and share both their knowledge and work for the mutual benefit of the community. At times now the RW forums are becoming little more than a shop front for RW payware promotion. The type of "comparing sizes" debate we just saw between IHH and Just Trains would never have been tolerated by two MSTS payware producers, wouldn't have happened in the first place probably as we knew our NDA's and "professionalism" precluded doing that sort of thing on a forum.

A recent PM to a moderator about the participation of commercial stakeholders, following the nonsense posted by one of the RS.com techs in the "juddering" thread went unanswered. Personally I would like to hear from Matt which direction things should be going in, it is still his site and forum after all.

Slightly off at a tangent but still related to the whole issue of debating payware and possible sponsership implications

Not on topic at all is it? Not sure what "sponsorship" you're referring to particularly. If it's about commercial involvement in UKTS then : JustTrains pay for a banner, RS.com pay for a banner, nothing about sponsorship there at all in my view, just a business arrangement that can be terminated by either party at any time. I'd rather it wasn't as it does boost the income to the site and contribute some way towards the loss of 50% of the income of the site with all the developers now self-publishing

The type of "comparing sizes" debate we just saw between IHH and Just Trains would never have been tolerated by two MSTS payware producers, wouldn't have happened in the first place probably as we knew our NDA's and "professionalism" precluded doing that sort of thing on a forum.

Heh, but there you go, here you are (as far as I can see) stating a case for censorship.

Bottom line is when it comes to products like this the consumer can see screenshots, can ask anyone else what their view is directly and really anything a publisher or developer says could be considered largely irrelevant. If they want to duke it out on the forums, then as long as the general guidelines are adhered to I don't see why we need to get involved. I'm pretty sure I remember pretty nasty goings on occasionally with payware stuff in the past so I think you're looking backwards through rose tinted glasses personally. That said, i'd much rather it wasn't done, i'd much rather that the commercial folks just took a more adult attitude about the whole thing... but then I rarely get my way

Personally I would like to hear from Matt which direction things should be going in, it is still his site and forum after all

Sorry Vern, I'm not exactly sure what it is specifically you want me to comment on... please do feel free to enlighten me and i'll let you know my position

I would once again stress that it is disconcerting that a moderator could amend my post, and hence significantly change the meaning, without informing me.

Just to clarify this point...

Any moderator has the capability to edit any post made by anyone in any form they wish. That said, there are internal moderator guidelines for what edits can be made and what the processes are for them and if I recall, the system keeps a log of all moderator actions so if complaints are raised we can see who did what. John has outlined the basics of it but the very simple headline is that if the post might be changed in any meaningful way then it is removed to the topic skip and dealt with offline and privately with the individual(s) in question and is either removed or edited with the posters agreement.

We realised a while back that we seemed to be constantly badgering lots of people "fix this spelling mistake" "fix this text speak" "fix this link" and so forth, the volume of PM's going out was frankly ridiculous and it tended to look much more like a police state, not to mention lots of extra work with PM's back and forth extra. We decided that the best way was to look for the minor stuff that goes against the guidelines or is just technically wrong (like links) and help out by just fixing them, it gets the issue out of the way and we can all move on. Please remember the moderators are all volunteers giving up their time to help the site and the forums and whether you like individual things that might crop up (nobody is perfect) I must say that I have never had bad feedback about the forum at shows or via email, always quite the opposite with everyone very positive about the content of the forum, feeling it is a friendly place. I believe this is in no small part at all to the work the moderators put in (which really is a heck of a lot, and most of you won't ever see or know that... that's fine... it's kinda how it's supposed to be!).

Like I say, do not worry your post will be changed in a meaningful way as that is definitely not in the permission of any moderator including myself.

Anyway, Vern, let me know what you want my position on

Matt.

NeutronIC wrote:That said, i'd much rather it wasn't done, i'd much rather that the commercial folks just took a more adult attitude about the whole thing... but then I rarely get my way

Not often I can look down from the moral high ground

I must admit, you do get a good view from up here !

@Matt...

Well I think you have pretty much answered the points I was after.

I think there is a world of difference between silently editing a spelling mistake and removing a signature/altering a play on a name intended for effect without having the courtesy to tell the OP why...

I'm busy with Trainz now and Railworks, while still on my PC, occupies a very small percentage of my dwindling interest in the hobby so as I said earlier I can't see me making too much in the way of contributions here anymore.

I must admit the few times i've fallen foul of the Moderators (usually for a non family forum friendly comment) i have always recieved a PM giving me a slap on the wrists and i have apologised for the innappropriate comment.

As for the silent editing, i do not see a problem with that if it is to fix a spelling error or make an email address non clickable. On another forum where i am a Moderator (believe it or not ) which uses the same phpBB forum layout as this forum i have myself made silent edits for spelling mistakes and to make email addresses non clickable.

Another time i remember a thread on UKTS being created called "Beaver Hunting" which in the context meant for was a user looking to buy some Plaxton Beaver minibuses. It soon got changed.

Anyway not sure whether i have just added 163 pointless words to the Internet or not with this post but ho hum.

Cheers

PT

I think it is probably better to let the matter rest and if the mods want to lock this one down I have no objection. Views aired, discussed and issue closed.