Too Much Information

[Rallymatt]

The Buffet Car

[SteveM6]

Fight Club.

I’ll see myself out.

[Brew Man]

As an Administrator of another, unrelated forum I can tell you it's not worth the aggravation that will inevitably ensue. That forum was almost brought to its knees on more than one occasion by off-topic discussions.

[96RAF]

As an Administrator of another, unrelated forum I can tell you it's not worth the aggravation that will inevitably ensue. That forum was almost brought to its knees on more than one occasion by off-topic discussions.

 

 

Hence why it was binned long ago on here.

[Yelrow]

I disagree with Brew Man. On the other forum, where both i and at least 4 others from here, post regularly, their off topic section, runs well, without any Mod, adjustments. Surely, tis worth a punt. Easy to shut it down if it became a problem.

[96RAF]

I disagree with Brew Man. On the other forum, where both i and at least 4 others from here, post regularly, their off topic section, runs well, without any Mod, adjustments. Surely, tis worth a punt. Easy to shut it down if it became a problem.

 

 

'Tis down to the quality of the members John as to whether such a section works as intended or turns into play-school antics. The jury as you see is still out.

[Yelrow]

Rob, yup, totally agree. Unfortunately, i remember the old friendly forums, where banter and the odd wondering, was not only accepted, but joined in with. I dont like the present forum, so for me, anything would be an improvement. je ne conform pas.

[Fishmanoz]

Only just came across this one and I’d make a couple of points:

• I agree with answers to the point
• we have a couple of experts on here at answering the question never asked
• I'm finding the forum less enjoyable lately due to the tenor of discussion and the techno-drivel included
• the group contributing here, interestingly, does not seem to include the culprits

[RB51]

Any forum so set up would be moderated with the forum rules in mind. As others have said it can work very easily, or not. However, at the moment we have no go ahead from Hornby Towers but this thread will help provide the general sentiment of members. R-

[Rallymatt]

There is a certain irony on this thread, it started as a point on excess technical jibber jabber when dealing with really simple issues and has developed a side subject of an off topic open discussion section and a potential name competition. Personally I blame Rob for the carefree offer of valueless New Platform Brownie Points… hooked me 🤣

Glad to see another member commenting on the initial issue. Something I’d like to add is, contributors feel obliged to give overly technical explanations in a response to avoid being immediately ‘corrected’ unnecessarily and that’s when descends into chaos.

And I am going to go in with the old classic.

‘DCC is Alternating Current’ type that and you can hear the clacking of keyboards launching a full scale digital attack. Yes, technically that’s not entirely correct but for 99% of purposes, while playing trains it explains the basics well enough. A white paper on Quantum Physics is not required.

[Fishmanoz]

Not sure I agree RM. a good paper on Quantum Physics would be preferable to some offerings here of late.

[Rallymatt]

If it was one where I understood where the cat comes in then I agree.

[Yelrow]

Now you see why we need a Banter section. Hear Hear, Fishy.

[LTSR_NSE]

Now where the heck did I put that box? …Oi cat Meow would you! (agreed) 😉

[SteveM6]

RM has a valid point. The majority of users on here just want a simple, straightforward answer to solve whatever issue they have stumbled across and s such the majority of problems can be resolved by a simple answer conveyed in layman’s terms. The ‘DCC is AC’ is a good example - more than enough for most issues.

However, we have a couple of ‘contributors’ who are ‘rivet counters’ when it comes to technical terms and explanations. It is particularly irritating when, as a contributor, I have deliberately chosen simple language (it’s all I have) to explain or describe something by pitching it at what I consider to be the OP’s knowledge level, only to be jumped on by the ‘Technical Police’ as demonstrated by a recent question about linking decoders.

[96RAF]

Don't set the hares running again.

[Fishmanoz]

Don’t know about hares but my cat is called Benny, not Schroedinger. His uncertainty principle is about whether rolling stock should be upright on the rails or on its side after his last layout exploit.

[Rallymatt]

Schrödinger’s cat was called Benny! Wow Fishy, what are the chances of that?