David Curlee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OPRRMS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Then why all of a sudden did you decide to come
> up
> > with some rules? Particluarly since the new
> rules
> > seem to be geared toward a specific subject.
> Why
> > would you care about what people think or post
> > about Todd Clark, or anyone else for that
> matter?
> > It's not like anyone posted that they were
> going
> > to go his house and kill him! Or did I miss
> > that?
>
> For a long time I've considered writing rules
> based on the actions of several troublemakers.
> Over 99% of the people on this board behave
> perfectly fine. Thus, I resisted doing so as long
> as possible. Mongo's flame war was the straw that
> broke the camel's back.
>
> Allowing people to speak their minds has been a
> costly move on my part. A number of people refuse
> to visit this site due to the troublemakers. And
> because of that, it's a safe bet I've lost
> timetable sales. One time I called the general
> manager of a shortline, inquiring about timetable
> information. Before we finished talking, I had to
> apologize for somebody else's discussion board
> remarks about his shortline.
>
> Now if you would, answer the question, why should
> I have to suffer in this manner?

OK. If it had been me, I would've explained to him that this is an non-moderated, no subscription discussion board and that unless what someone posted was illegal or immoral (like, "I'm coming to your shortline and kill you"), I wasn't going to prevent the person from posting it. Then I would've thanked him for reading AP, told him I hoped he would continue to do so and that if he changed his mind about providing info about his railroad to please get in touch with me.

As to whether or not what's posted here affects your sales, I really can't speak to that, simply because I don't know. My recollection is that when you posted your Winterail letter, you stated that sales had fallen off the last couple of years and you suspected the reason was related to the economy.

> > I don't think I ever suggested that anyone post
> > their private information on the board. To the
> > contrary, I mentioned that "Espee99" had asked
> me
> > to contact him off list, which is what he
> indeed
> > did. And I responded. We had a nice,
> productive
> > chat, and he didn't have to spend any time
> trying
> > to trace my IP or writing new rules. Seems
> like
> > you could've done the same thing if you were
> upset
> > by what "Mongo" posted, and saved youself a lot
> of
> > trouble.
>
> I think you missed part of my earlier reply. I
> don't have time to contact people individually to
> discuss what is and isn't acceptable on the board.
> Mongo isn't the only person to stir up trouble on
> this board. Several others have done the same
> thing.

The distinct impression I got from reading what you previously posted on this thread is that you specifically wrote the new rules in response to "Mongo's" Todd Clark posts. I think you've confirmed that in your above quoted post.

> A publicly posted set of rules communicates the
> same information to everybody. Besides, I fail to
> see what's so bad about the rules I wrote. They
> are, perhaps, the most lenient of any discussion
> board out there.

I have no problem with any rules you write. I have a whole grip full of rules that I'm supposed to follow. Some make sense, some are clearly there for no reason other than to protect the company from liability ("We have a rule against it, the man did it anyway, so we're not resposible") or are just plain silly ("You're not allowed to walk with your hands in your pockets"). But the timing of the new AP rules seems to indicate that they were written so as not to disparage Todd Clark or his web site. You didn't write rules when people started taking potshots at Drew Jacksich, and I'd argue that Drew's done a lot to bring people to this web site than Todd. How come Drew wasn't afforded the same consideration?