Free Speech or Censorship?

[Sun Dog]

I have lurked about this site as a guest for some time prior to joining as a member.  During that time I took notice of a recurring theme, the possibility that censorship of posts exists on this site.

Some members make direct or insinuated accusations of censorship.  These are quickly followed by claims of denial by other members and moderators.  Which is it?  Is this a censored site or are members free to express themselves provided they do so within the framework of the site rules that we all agreed to comply with?

I started a similar post a day or so ago but deleted it.  I apologize to those members who responded to the original version just to have their input unceremoniously flushed.  Please repost your thoughts.

Tango Yankee –

SD

[stormgoalie]

My personal experience is that this site is not censored, but it is moderated within the boundaries of the forum rules.  The only time I have seen posts deleted is where the post was so far out of line as to be either slanderous, libelous, or downright threatening.  If you would like to see what is allowed outside of the public forum become a Gold Member.  We have our own section of the forum where the rules are a bit more relaxed, but it still has rules and is occasionally moderated for the above reasons. The idea behind ANY forum is an exchange of information, ideas, or experiences, but still within the boundaries as stated by the forum staff.

[Camella Black]

Censorship happens daily in all walks of life; most of the time we just call it editing. Any magazine or print material you read has been edited, so are the news shows, talk shows or comedy/dramas we watch or listen to. Of course if it’s live then mistakes happen and people get a clear picture of someone’s boob, vulgar language or other material that the powers that be feel is not appropriate for public viewing.

I was called in for a reprimand once by my publisher because when a proofreader/copy editor was editing my work they accidentally changed it’s to tits… yes it was missed by her, me and our editor and ran on the front page of a small town paper; funny but they (the publishers) went gaga because so many people were offended.

I have also been edited here on nukeworker (thankfully) and have most of the time have had no problem with it. I have pushed it to the limit and even violated forum rules... I have been a member of this site for a number of years and if you follow the rules and don't act like an ass anything is fair game… there are rules and if you don’t follow them well then the moderators are forced to censor edit posts… all websites that are moderated do this (edited by Camella)


Censor

1. Suppression of published or broadcast material: the suppression of all or part of a play, movie, letter, or publication considered offensive or a threat to security

 
2. Suppression of something objectionable: the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable

Edit

1. Prepare text for publication: to prepare a text for publication by correcting errors and ensuring clarity and accuracy

 
2. Decide content of publication: to be in overall charge of the publication of a newspaper, magazine, or broadcast program

 
3. Cut material: to remove material from something such as a publication, broadcast item, recording, or movie, e.g. because it is lengthy or offensive was edited for bad language has been edited down from 5 hours of live recording



http://encarta.msn.com

Censor

To ban or cut portions of (a publication, film, letter, etc.)

Edit

1.
a. To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting.
b. To prepare an edition of for publication: edit a collection of short stories.
c. To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable: edited her remarks for presentation to a younger audience.
2. To supervise the publication of (a newspaper or magazine, for example).
3. To assemble the components of (a film or soundtrack, for example), as by cutting and splicing.
4. To eliminate; delete: edited the best scene out.
n.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com

Censor

To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>



Edit

1 a : to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation b : to assemble (as a moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging c : to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose <carefully edited the speech> <edit a data file>
2 : to direct the publication of <edits the daily newspaper>
3 : delete —usually used with out

http://www.merriam-webster.com

[Rennhack]

Sun Dog,

This is a great post.  I would really like the feedback.  PLEASE post your experiences here.  Especially if you think you have been inproperly censored.

Lets take this time to review the forum rules, here is a link:

http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,4700.0.html

Along the same lines, does anyone have a problem with the actual rules we enforce?  Or do they seem to make sence?  I've basically adopted the same forum rules other sites have.

[RDTroja]

As a former Moderator (and one of the earliest) I can tell you up front that I never censored anyone for any ideas, even (especially) those that I disagreed with or even thought irresponsible. I don't know of any other Moderator that did, either. I rarely deleted messages at all and only did if there was a threat to the site due to legal issues or if the post was abusive (and I apply a very broad definition of what people are allowed to say.) I left posts that attacked me personally alone except to reply. I think most of the other Moderators have or would do the same.

Having said that, there are a lot of people that think the internet is an area where rules should not apply to them and that they can post whatever inflammatory, insulting and just plain libelous thought crosses their otherwise unoccupied minds. Most of that will be edited or deleted and the poster will invariably cry foul and wail that their personal rights have been crushed for absolutely no reason and that they are, once again, the target of a personal and deliberate attack by everyone with any power and victims of a major conspiracy.

Read the rules and abide by them and I can assure you (even though I am no longer a Staff Member) you will not be censored.

[Camella Black]

I have lurked about this site as a guest for some time prior to joining as a member.  During that time I took notice of a recurring theme, the possibility that censorship of posts exists on this site.

Some members make direct or insinuated accusations of censorship.  These are quickly followed by claims of denial by other members and moderators.  Which is it?  Is this a censored site or are members free to express themselves provided they do so within the framework of the site rules that we all agreed to comply with?

I started a similar post a day or so ago but deleted it.  I apologize to those members who responded to the original version just to have their input unceremoniously flushed.  Please repost your thoughts.

Tango Yankee –

SD

btw I believe a the lead moderator can retrieve the deleted topic for you if that is what you want.

[Rennhack]

btw I believe a the lead moderator can retrieve the deleted topic for you if that is what you want.

If we merged them, they would be Chronologically older than the first post in this thread, placing it out of order and confusing people.

[HydroDave63]

as you can see,....even the thought of such an abomination initiates said confusion,....

Or sets off wild swings in the ElectroEncepheloGraph 

[Rennhack]

as you can see,....even the thought of such an abomination initiates said confusion,....

You are killing me.  You know I can't spell.

[Rennhack]

as you can see,....even the thought of such an abomination initiates said confusion,....

Or sets off wild swings in the ElectroEncepheloGraph 

Normally I'd chastise the both of you for posting off topic.  Typically topic starters don’t appreciate it when people hijack their topics with off-topic banter.  They started the topic for a reason.  And reading 30 pages of how Rennhack can’t find the spell check button he installed on his own site to find out about 6 posts about censorship is typically annoying to the topic starter.  However… due to the nature of this post… I’m not going to tell you to stay on topic.  Veer off as much as you want on any wild tangents you see fit.  I’m sure your witty remarks are more important that the actual topic.  By the way, what was the FIRST rule in the website forum rules I JUST linked above?  Oh yeah, something like “1. Keep all replies to a message on topic; this includes witticisms and smart remarks.”  It’s OK, I’m sure the rules don’t apply to you two; after all, you are Gold Members with over 7702 Karma and 5742 posts between the two of you.  You obviously understand the nuances of what is acceptable and what isn’t.  Back at you.

As I said, I’m going to leave the above posts intact, and I request that the posters don’t delete them either.  This is an example of some posts that add nothing to the thread, violate the ‘off topic’ rule, and would be deleted just for the sake of housekeeping.  Without the housekeeping, we would now have 4 posts that add nothing to the thread (counting this one) out of only 11 total posts.
Some people would see this as censorship.  Dave and Marssim don’t see it as censorship.  They understand that it’s housekeeping.  They also understand that it’s ok for them to post their one or two posts, as long as the whole thread doesn’t get hijacked.  If, however, they reply to this message, and I reply back, and others dog pile on, further compounding the hijacking – your thread would be lost and it would all be about ME ME ME ME…and not about censorship.

[mostlyharmless]

For my part, I only want to encourage discussion. I do not post where I have little interest and I dont scoure the site looking for something to delete. I would love to see more people register and post. A lot of people look but not many reply. Every one has an opinion or information, but not so many will share. It gets to be like network news; you get more responce than actual news and it soon devolves into ego mardigras. This is not to devalue anyones opinion,to marginalise anyone. In the topics that interest me there are folks I read because there thoughts are expressed well and make sense,wether I agree or not. And I am not afraid to show my own ignorance. Like most people, I do not know everything,and did not pull the rods on the sun. This sites value is in the information exchanged. We need more info. You folks that post a lot keep posting; you lurkers need to jump in. Pare down the ego and it wont hurt quite so bad when someone steps on it.

[Camella Black]

Camella –

Thank you for sharing your experience as a writer and the dictionary definitions.

In some applications censoring and editing may be synonymous.  But there is a distinct difference between the two in an open forum environment like NW.  See the « Last Edit: Today at 14:13 by Rennhack »  in your previous post?  What Mike did was editing with no content or intent change.  If Mike had deleted a portion of your post or otherwise altered your intended message without your permission, or if he deleted it entirely that may be indicative of censorship.

I do not understand why you referenced the NPUA.  I did not create this post to promulgate a battle that is being waged elsewhere on this site.

I created this post so members and moderators on both sides of this issue would have a convenient sounding board where they could express their beliefs and personal experiences with the subject matter on this site.  By communicating, maybe both sides will come to understand each other better and stop the infighting and backbiting.

We are all on the nuclear ark together.  Sink or swim.

BTW – I prefer to leave the original post in the trash.  I now understand that it was not well worded.

SD

Sorry, I did not mean to offend you, I should have censored myself and I did not... therefore I was forced to edit my own post. 

[Smart People]

Most of the moderators will give you notice if you have broken the rules and give you a chance to change it.

I remember receiving a notice from a moderator telling me that I had broken the rules and giving me a chance to modify it. I added the link I needed and showed how I was within the rules and my post stayed.

It was definitely a political piece and the content generated plenty of debate. There was no mention of the content. only the need to follow the rules in my post.

[Fermi2]

You are a guest in Mike's house, when you sign into the forum you have no right to expect free speech. Given it's Mike's house no, it wouldn't fall under Censorship, it would fall under Mike's House Rules.

[retired nuke]

As I posted in Sun Dog's original thread, I have had posts deleted. But, as I said, at the time, I was way out of line in a personal attack. Somebody pushed a personal button during a divorce, and I went off.

I have left NW before over other's posts being edited, and over other poster's being put on probation. But I came back.

I knew Mike Rennhack when he pushed a mop, and I sat on my butt staring at a meter. He was way smarter than me then, and still is. He grew up faster than I did. I didn't start growing up until I had kids.

I have seen moderators overstep their bounds (not you Camella... - HC) and be taken in hand rather quickly. Mike runs a pretty fair, benign dictatorship.

Remember, this is a publicly accessed, but privately owned board. Mike is king, and has the right to uphold his standards.

Peace,

John

[Rennhack]

Mike is king

Why does a line from "History of the World: Part I (1981)" by Mel Brooks come to mind?

[xobxdoc]

Do you mean the line that what said about the guy holding the bucket?
Sorry, couldn't resist. 

[Rennhack]

Do you mean the line that what said about the guy holding the bucket?
Sorry, couldn't resist. 

Thats the one.

[retired nuke]

Why does a line from "History of the World: Part I (1981)" by Mel Brooks come to mind?

actually, monty python was in my mind (he must be a king... he hasn't got $h:t all over him...) when i wrote that....

 

[stormgoalie]

Heck, as long as you are not the Queen life is good right?

[Rennhack]

Heck, as long as you are not the Queen life is good right?

It's good to be the King... oh piss boy.

[Rennhack]

On Topic:

Messages 17 - 22 would normally get deleted.  Again, because they are off topic and lend nothing of value to this thread.  I am purposefully doing this so that I have examples of how the site moderation philosophy works.

I have to admit, posting off topic IS one of the most fun things you can do on this site, unless you know where the games are hidden.

[Content1]

Let me give an example of deletion, just need these key words

Obama - liberal - gulf disaster ineptitude - socialism

I give this about a 10 minute life.

[retired nuke]

Let me give an example of deletion, just need these key words

Obama - liberal - gulf disaster ineptitude - socialism

I give this about a 10 minute life.

usually, these type subject / topics get moved to GM POLISCI as a matter of following the forum rules....

[co60slr]

usually, these type subject / topics get moved to GM POLISCI as a matter of following the forum rules....

I vote for a new GM section:  GM: Toilet.      Violate Mike's rules and your post isn't deleted, it's put on the "wall of shame" with an automatic -100 point Karma deduction.   Naturally, one could plead their "case" publicly with the deleted post. 

Another idea would be to disallow anonymity.   If you want to "flame" someone, then "man up" and sign your first and last name.   It's easy to throw sticks and stones while unseen from the shadows.  If you want to see how that works, visit Facebook: Navy Nukes and see how BUPERS detailers and potential recruits are interacting in a public forum.   I don't see anyone wanting "go check your spelling" or "go Google the Internet" tied to your real name for public display.

You have all the "free speech" in the world.   However, you do not have the right to use the popularity of this website for YOUR agenda.   You can always go do what Mike did:  make a website, set your rules, and then gain your own popularity with your website content.  Send us a link...maybe we'll visit. 

Co60

[Rennhack]

usually, these type subject / topics get moved to GM POLISCI as a matter of following the forum rules....

That is correct.  As political and religious topics get very passionate, and can lead to some very hurt feelings.  Additionally, they add nothing to the "Let’s be a nuke worker and find a job" category that the site falls under.  There are sites dedicated to those topics.  This site is dedicated to helping nuclear workers support their families.

But in the spirit of "Let them talk about anything they want with fellow nuclear workers" we created a special place to allow them to do this.  The website didn't start the way it is today.  It evolved to what it is by the usage of it.  First we created a Sub-Board called Polysci… After we received complaints about the objectionable material, we made it so you had to enter a password to enter the Poli-sci area, so people didn’t HAVE to see it.  Later, we started the Gold Member program because people wanted a way to help out the site.  We wanted to give these gold members something for their donation, so we moved the ‘fun’ non-work related forum sections into the gold member area.  Since we give most everything away for free, there wasn’t much else we could ‘give’ these gold members.

We try to keep the main forum areas clear of non work related material so the filters at peoples work don’t flag the site as objectionable.  We want people to be able to come here and get the help they need, when and where they need it.  We even have a mobile version for folks.

I just wanted to give some insight into the history and reasons that some of these rules exist.

[Preciousblue1965]

One small observation:

Seeing as a large portion of the people that post on this site, myself included, are former Navy Nukes, wouldn't witty remarks and off-the-cuff comebacks just be par for the course, and thus allow us to feel right at home?

[Rennhack]

One small observation:

Seeing as a large portion of the people that post on this site, myself included, are former Navy Nukes, wouldn't witty remarks and off-the-cuff comebacks just be par for the course, and thus allow us to feel right at home?

This is honestly a good point, one that I had to think long and hard about.  This is an area where I try to apply grey logic vs black and white.  If the witty remarks and off-the-cuff comebacks don’t hijack the thread, we don’t mind them.  However, they have a tendency to hijack the thread, which is the part that’s not allowed.  WHEN the hijacking occurs… you know, when a few people reply to the witty remark, and everyone forgets what the original topic is, because they are all trying to one up each other with their wit… THEN we have to go in and trim things up or remind people what the topic is and to try to stay the course.

The job of corralling cats is not an easy one, nor is it usually appreciated.  The moderators do a very good job of keeping the site’s discussions running smoothly without their impact being seen or noticed 95% of the time.

When we look to add moderators to the site, we look for people that are passionate about the site.  We look for people with a lot of hours logged in, many posts, and good overall knowledge of the site and the industry.  Sometimes this passion gets in the way.  Sometimes they are TOO passionate.  That is why we have Tom AKA Nuclear Nascar.  His job is the toughest.  Tom has to evaluate the moderators, judge their actions, mediate disputes, mentor, and when the time comes – terminate our moderators. 

We have recently added a new unofficial role in the mix.  We have added an independent oversight of our moderator team.  Tim Tarbox is a long time user of the site, and a level headed guy.  He is fairly unbiased, and has agreed to help the site.  He doesn’t judge the forum moderators, he observes them.  He has access to the moderator’s only message board so that he has unrestricted access to observe everything.  It is due to Tim’s observations that we have changed some of the way’s we do business in regards to moderation of the forum.  We had a “Moderators manual” that was in the works for over a year, that has recently been released, detailing how we expect our moderators to behave.  Prior to that, the moderators acted in their best judgment with little guidance as to what Tom and I thought was how we do business.  That is my fault; I failed to give specific direction as to how we expect moderators to act.  I have to tell you, the decisions that were made were personally very difficult, which is one reason it took so long.  The moderators represent the site; they are also users of the site.  Do we disallow our most passionate users from expressing themselves?  We didn’t want to, but that got us into ‘trouble’.  So now we do. 

We honestly want to provide the most transparent and least intrusive moderating possible.  We take the perception of the site as serious as the actual content of the site.  Our intent is to moderate nothing.  So we start from nothing, then add only what we have to in order to keep order.  The rules we have were created because we learned from experience, not arbitrarily decided on by a dictator (benevolent or otherwise) to suit an agenda.

Again, I welcome and request anyone that feels they were censored to speak up.  THIS is the place to do it.  NOTHING on this thread will be deleted, unless it’s porn spam.  If it’s off topic, we’ll just tease you with witty remarks and off-the-cuff comebacks.

[Rennhack]

In my above post, I mentioned a new moderator handbook.  I bet you are very curious as to what secrets are in there, aren't you?  Well, here it is for the first time ever in a public forum; our official NukeWorker.com Forum Moderator’s Handbook.  This book goes into more detail on our views and stances on subjects, and gives the moderators their formal direction.  It was officially released April 13th, 2010 – 11 years after the site went online.

I believe it fits in with the discussion, and may offer even more insight as to how we do business and why.  You will hopefully see what we put up with, and what we don’t.  If anything is happening that does not comply with what is laid out in the handbook, please let Tom and Myself know about it.

It is attached to this message.

[spentfuel]

  It is attacked to this message.

OK is it a trick will something bad happen if I open it 

[Rennhack]

It is attacked to this message.

OK is it a trick will something bad happen if I open it 

It's a pdf, it should be fairly safe.  As usual, scan everything.

Edit: I edited my post above to fix the typo.

[Rennhack]

The question must have struck a nerve with someone in the inner circle...

Why is it that the censors moderators don't show up on the Karma Log when they express themselves? 

Name:  Sun Dog
Posts:  4 (N/A per day)
Position:  Lite User
Karma:  -1 
Date Registered:  Yesterday at 13:55
Last Active:  Today at 09:42

I found this in the trash.  I believe Sun Dog deleted it himself.  I’d like to address the question none the less.

There IS a conspiracy.  It is true.  I’ll show you mine, if you show us yours.  How about it Sun Dog?  Tell us your real name, and the other alias’ you use on this site past and present.

Sun Dog is the 3rd iteration of a user that has had several handles on this site.  There is currently a free advertisement in the lodging area from someone with his specific, unchanging, IP address. 

He had some issues with the moderation of the site, with accusations of an “inner circle”.  It was his issues with the moderation of the site that led to the release of the moderator handbook posted above.  It is also the reason that we added Tim Tarbox as an independent observer/evaluator.  I view his challenges to how we do business as a good thing, and not a negative thing.  Sure, it was painful at times, but change usually is.

Due to his accusations of an “inner circle” I no longer let moderators post in the Polysci area, which resulted in a number of the long time moderators stepping down.  We lost many moderators due to this, which increases the work load on the rest.  We made this decision because I want the moderators to be viewed as unbiased.  Apparently they can’t be viewed as unbiased when they are debating with people in the polisci area. (You have no idea how much trouble the polisci area and karma has caused due to the actions of a very vocal minority.)  When we started the polysci area, we let moderators post in there, and moderate.  You know, we assumed everyone was adults, and would have no problem being professional.  We assumed no one would have a problem drawing a line where moderating was moderating and debating was debating.  Yet, some people seem to have a hard time grasping that concept so as a result we have forbid our moderators the luxury of speaking their mind.

Additionally, there had been accusations about these “inner circle” karma issues.  This one really escapes me.  I don’t understand fully how smiting someone makes them biased.  BUT, none the less, the vocal minority once again strikes.  In a previous revision to the handbook, we prohibited moderators from affecting people’s karma also.  – Our independent evaluator Tim said he thought that it was silly to do so.  He suggested removing the karma log. He surmised that if no one could see what was going on, then they couldn’t accuse the moderators of being biased. – So I did, just for fun, knowing full-well what would happen.  I removed the karma log for a few days.  You know what happened?  It rained fire and brimstone.  I was not surprised one bit, but the newly appointed observer was floored.  He couldn’t understand why people were so up in arms about a silly log.  I personally don’t “understand” why people give a hoot, but I know all too well that they do indeed care very passionately about karma.  So the next suggestion was to create a log that didn’t include the karmic activities of site moderators.  Surely that would go unnoticed, how could someone possibly miss something they couldn’t see gone?  Oh how they noticed it, and immediately.

This leads me to the posting today.  Let’s all get together and make a decision.   If a moderator smites a poster, is there the potential to be biased?  Yes.  Does that mean the moderator shouldn’t be allowed to moderate?  It does, if we want them to be immune to accusations of bias.  Should they not be allowed to smite people?  It does, if we want them to be immune to accusations of bias. What does one do in this situation?  Do we ignore the bias accusations as the ranting of a mad man?  We can't.  All we can do is beat on our poor moderators even more.  If we beat on them enough, perhaps they will all go away and then we can post whatever we want. – Or perhaps, we’ll get lucky and we’ll find some people that have no opinion, and just want to moderate.  I don’t know how you can find someone that is passionate enough to want to moderate and dispassionate enough to not want to express an opinion.

So, what is the final decision?  Do we prohibit moderators from smiting people? If not, how do we prevent people from accusing them of being biased?  Do we remove the karma system all together? Do we just not list the moderator’s names, do you don’t know who is smiting you?

I don’t want to have to address this situation again.  So let’s get a group consensus.

[Camella Black]

Well I am sitting here stunned by all the revelations of things that have passed... I really don't know what to say but if you find someone who can be totally unbiased and without human emotions, reactions or errors then you better grab your garlic and wooden stake 'cause that "suckers" a vampire!

The site has worked fine since I've been a member, it was only up until the past couple of years that a a select few have gone ballistic and caused so many problems; of course many of the moderators used to post or moderate under an alias' or had two usernames (how I wished I had done this).

Has a former moderator who was asked to step down, I can tell you that moderating was one of the hardest things I ever did. I loved it and hated it and being "fired" was one of the worse things that ever happened to me ... moderators are human and yes they react as such at times and its unreal that a select few have nothing better to do than cause problems for the moderators and the site.

In my opinion I could care less who smites me or whether they were a moderator or not; I would like to have feedback at times on why I've received a smite or even +karma, but that's cause I'm just curious.

[HydroDave63]

So, what is the final decision?  Do we prohibit moderators from smiting people? If not, how do we prevent people from accusing them of being biased?  Do we remove the karma system all together? Do we just not list the moderator’s names, do you don’t know who is smiting you?

I don’t want to have to address this situation again.  So let’s get a group consensus.

I'll try to condense this smaller than my 5 page post on 1986 in PolySci (well worth the read for just 3 dollars a month ) but seriously, in order:

1. Mods should be able to smite, it is just as valid a social feedback tool for newbies and longtimers. Having that social feedback helps establish peer accountability, both positive and negative. That's coming from the number #1 issuer of smites and top 10 applauds.

2. Removing Karma (actually, even just the threat thereof) makes the site a lot less fun for a lot of people. Taking a look at the "Why are you a Gold Member?" partially substantiates my point. When the product changes, customers are lost. QC, Deming, behavioral science and all that.

3. Some people who get disciplined by a Mod will accuse bias anyhow. Having been one of the most active and colorful Golds, I'd say it is generally fair and Tom and Tim have a good sense of things. Minor exceptions belong in the realm of PM.

4. Removing Karma would be harmful, removes the feedback feature so that offenders can see the reproach of their peers on 1 Karma Log vs 10 replies in forum that some Mod then has to referee. And yes, I've had to eat my hat before!

5. All mod smites should be visible. Doing otherwise creates the perception of bias, which is why we are killing innocent electrons to post here.

6. Food for thought....for those have been here a while, and remember who used to be here and who has let their GM lapse...could there be a performance metric (not public viewed) about this? I think that would tell the tale. Just speaking for myself, I'm not concerned about impressing 9000 lurkers that never post or join or log in for 5+ years. I'm more interested in preserving the cyber-and-real community of Nukeworker.com FOR nukeworkers. The balance between fun and Überprofessional seems to be about right now in 2010

[Smart People]

Hmmm.... Who watches the watchmen?

I like the idea of an "impartial observer". I've always liked Tim even though its been 17 years since we've worked together.

Mods should be able to execute karma and it should be on the karma log just like anyone else on the forum.

I'm conflicted as to whether they should be able to post in the Poly-Sci area. everyone has a voice here and as one who loves the debate there, I would hate to miss out on the excellent points they could share to liven up the debate. But then their actions as moderator on the threads would have to be well above board and open to scrutiny.

[UncaBuffalo]

If invisible karma (by the moderators & time donors) keeps them from appearing biased, then I am okay with the concept.

Maybe we could get a list of everyone with the ability to give 'invisible karma'...maybe put with the karmalog?  An occasional 'applaud' to the moderators is the only way I have ever thought of for me to reward them for their work.  If staff/time-donors have the choice of displaying only their gold-member badge, I won't know who deserves a ...unless you post a list...

Just a thought...Thanks! 

[t_tarbox]

I found this in the trash.  I believe Sun Dog deleted it himself.  I’d like to address the question none the less.

Yes, He did.

I was the one who smited his post. When he posted that comment, I also PM'd him to tell him that I did it and explained why I did it. According to a reply, he understood (and apparently agreed) where I was coming from in my explanation, and decided rephrase the entire question..hence the comment in the first post in this thread, about the previous thread being deleted (by himself).

I also told him if he had a genuine concern, it was a fair topic, and I encouraged him to start another thread, with his revised words (the first phrasing was probably going to be taken the wrong way by some).

This is also not the first time I've PM'd someone that questioned a smite action of mine, letting them know I did it and why..as many of you know, I PM much more than I post..some of you have heard me say this before..I generally prefer to talk to people via PM than talk at them via a post.

In a previous revision to the handbook, we prohibited moderators from affecting people’s karma also.  – Our independent evaluator Tim said he thought that it was silly to do so.  He suggested removing the karma log. He surmised that if no one could see what was going on, then they couldn’t accuse the moderators of being biased. – So I did, just for fun, knowing full-well what would happen.  I removed the karma log for a few days.  You know what happened?  It rained fire and brimstone.  I was not surprised one bit, but the newly appointed observer was floored.  He couldn’t understand why people were so up in arms about a silly log.

I still don't really understand the concern over the log..but the community has definitely spoken on that one; that was a bad suggestion on my part. My thought was "people will be more honest" with karma, and it would end the "you smite me, so I smite you" actions, as well as some of the hurt feelings that can arise from a smited post; people tend to forget that quite often, a smite is over someone disagreeing with one post, either in content or phrasing..and it does not necessarily mean the person being smited is actually disliked by the person performing the smite (both Mod or other member)..It just seemed like it would eliminate many issues.

Mods are an unpaid and generally a thankless position; as noted, they are already restricted from a popular area of the site and asked to limit their own opinions and speech; I didn't think it would be fair to also restrict them from karma play also; If you put too many restrictions on them, they go away..

What if karma play was double blind? karma action both from mods and to mods are blind; then it becomes a two-way street; general members are protected from bias if they smite a mod, just as a mod is protected from bias if they smite a member. Seems fair..any thoughts?

3. Some people who get disciplined by a Mod will accuse bias anyhow. Having been one of the most active and colorful Golds, I'd say it is generally fair and Tom and Tim have a good sense of things. Minor exceptions belong in the realm of PM.

Thank-you, HD63.

Hmmm.... Who watches the watchmen?

I like the idea of an "impartial observer". I've always liked Tim even though its been 17 years since we've worked together.

Thank-you, Smart People.

Also just to clarify..I'm not a mod, nor do the mods report to me in any form..my only function is to read the internal discussions and try to throw other ideas in for consideration..when the opportunity comes up..I'll often PM with people to discuss site politics; I try to include the insight and / or opinions of others (in confidence) when throwing another perspective into the mod conversations.

[stormgoalie]

Well, as a "short timer" here by comparison I still figure I might as well throw my $.02 Cdn., or $0.195 USD into the mix.  I can count on one hand the number of people on this site that I have worked with or met outside of the nuke industry, yet when I joined I still felt welcomed.  The decision to become a Gold Member was driven by my thoughts that if I am going to take advantage of the benefits this site has to provide I should contribute.  As a pleasant byproduct I was given the ability to give karma and smite folks, and I have done both on a regular basis. I have received karma and been smitted on occasion myself.  There is one occasion where I was smitted by a Mod., but when I asked why I received a gracious reply that explained to me that my post had offended the person very much on a personal level.  I accepted the smite and offered up an apology for an unitentional offense.  To be honest I was happy to have received the smite as it drew something to my attention that caused another person diress.  Taking the ability to smite/praise people away from the Mods, hide their activity, or otherwise is not the answer.  One thing to keep in mind is that some people will complain if they are hung with a new rope.  Nothing anyone can do will make them happy. I seem to remember one of the first things I was told when I got into the Nuke industry, "Grow a thick skin or you will not survive for long.". Anyway, I am off on a rant so I apologize, but for my money, don't change a thing, the Mods are people and should have all the rights the others have.

[Nuclear NASCAR]

First off, let me apologize for weighing in so late.  I've gotta say this is some of the liveliest discussion I've seen since the Karma log disappeared for a few days. 

Sun Dog, I'm not certain if you had any idea what effect your posting might have when you first did it.  Some of the greatest moments I've witnessed here have been started by someone with a simple idea or question.  I must say that I believe this is one of those and it's part of why I'm joining in.  (What can I say, I like being part of history    )

What I've seen perusing this thread today renews my mostly unfailing faith in my fellow nukeworkers.  We are an inquisitive, opinionated, helpful, curmudgeonly bunch who truly put the fun in dysfunctional.     We will argue our points with conviction and back it up with gusto.  At the same time, I've seen folks who vehemently disagree still consider an opposing point of view without running the other person down.

I have no doubt that as time goes on this will be a thread that gets brought up often.  I'm honored to see the passion that so many of you have for our little corner of the internet and hope that I don't betray the trust I've been given as a caretaker.  I also don't want to stifle any discussion so I return you to our latest regularly scheduled discussion.   

Peace y'all,
Tom

[Rennhack]

I'd like to clarify, and repeat:  I pulled that karma post out of the trash.  So please don't direct anything in Sun Dog's direction, as he did not "officially" say anything about the karma.  I resurrected the post because I felt that it had redeeming qualities.  I didn't want there to be any question about what is and isn't in the karma log, since we are on the subject of censoring.

I'd also like to point out that the number of posts per min. went up dramatically when I only mentioned that removing karma was even an option.  You karma obsessed people kill me, but in a good way.

Anyways, the "full flavor" karma log was never really gone, it was just renamed.

Here it is for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/karma-log.shtml

[Rennhack]

Now that I look at the log.... how come I'm not feeling the karma love?  I want to play too.  Hey UncaBuffalo, why didn't I feel any of that karma in your love fest?

[UncaBuffalo]

Now that I look at the log.... how come I'm not feeling the karma love?  I want to play too.  Hey UncaBuffalo, why didn't I feel any of that karma in your love fest?

You got applauded y'day morning, so I can't you again until the 24 hours is up...unless you loosen the 24-hour restriction for karma to staff!?!?  

Anyways, the "full flavor" karma log was never really gone, it was just renamed.

Here it is for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/karma-log.shtml

Excellent!  Thanks!



I owe you an 'applaud'...or three...for that!  

[UncaBuffalo]

There!  Now 24 hours has passed, so.... 

[Rennhack]

There!  Now 24 hours has passed, so.... 

Thanks.  Now... Nuclear Nascar, where is my karma love?  Thats right, I'm going down the list and taking names.

[co60slr]

Thanks.  Now... Nuclear Nascar, where is my karma love?  Thats right, I'm going down the list and taking names.

Ok, I guess this counts as sensitivity training for the week. Count me in.  .   

However, I'm not impressed unless you get a hug (i.e., ) from Broadzilla.   The gauntet has been thrown down...

Co60

[retired nuke]

Ok, I guess this counts as sensitivity training for the week. Count me in.  .   

However, I'm not impressed unless you get a hug (i.e., ) from Broadzilla.   The gauntet has been thrown down...

Co60

BZ ain't a GM.... last I looked

 

[co60slr]

BZ ain't a GM.... last I looked

 

I know.  That adds to the challenge though...doesn't it.   

[spentfuel]

In my above post, I mentioned a new moderator handbook.  I bet you are very curious as to what secrets are in there, aren't you?  Well, here it is for the first time ever in a public forum; our official NukeWorker.com Forum Moderator’s Handbook.  This book goes into more detail on our views and stances on subjects, and gives the moderators their formal direction.  It was officially released April 13th, 2010 – 11 years after the site went online.

I believe it fits in with the discussion, and may offer even more insight as to how we do business and why.  You will hopefully see what we put up with, and what we don’t.  If anything is happening that does not comply with what is laid out in the handbook, please let Tom and Myself know about it.

It is attacked to this message.

A little former admin/mod humor that nobody picked up on  

now please no

sf

[t_tarbox]

Another idea would be to disallow anonymity.   If you want to "flame" someone, then "man up" and sign your first and last name.   It's easy to throw sticks and stones while unseen from the shadows.  

An interesting point CO60slr,

I suspect many times the appearance of censorship is the result of a "reported post" to a moderator. What if the OP of the reported post were included on the notification automatically? I think many deleted posts would still exist and/or be addressed without Mod intervention if there was a dialogue between the OP and the person that reported it. The OP could receive an automatic PM that reads something like "ABC has reported post XYZ for the following reason: (insert description typed in when post is reported)". The mod could monitor the post to see if the two find common ground; if not, then moderate.

If I used the "report to mod" button everytime I thought something was out of place in the open forum, I'd wear it out..instead, I PM people, and ask them to consider if the content is right for the open forum..or.. I've sent many "It's not what you said, but how (or where) you said it.." type of PMs..sometimes people change wording..sometimes they don't..it's ok either way..I feel like I've done my part by bringing it to their attention for consideration. I don't think I've ever had anything go horribly wrong by talking to someone. I don't see why two people discussing a reported post (via PM) would be bad, generally speaking. It would reduce the amount of moderation by site admin, hence reduce the feeling of censorship on the site. It puts control of the words (in most cases) back in the hands of the members. Any thoughts?

[Rennhack]

Interestingly only 8 people have downloaded the Moderators Handbook as of this moment.

[RDTroja]

A little former admin/mod humor that nobody picked up on  

now please no

sf

I noticed it... didn't comment because I try not to attach people for their grammatical errors. 

[co60slr]

An interesting point CO60slr,

I suspect many times the appearance of censorship is the result of a "reported post" to a moderator. What if the OP of the reported post were included on the notification automatically? I think many deleted posts would still exist and/or be addressed without Mod intervention if there was a dialogue between the OP and the person that reported it. The OP could receive an automatic PM that reads something like "ABC has reported post XYZ for the following reason: (insert description typed in when post is reported)". The mod could monitor the post to see if the two find common ground; if not, then moderate.

If I used the "report to mod" button everytime I thought something was out of place in the open forum, I'd wear it out..instead, I PM people, and ask them to consider if the content is right for the open forum..or.. I've sent many "It's not what you said, but how (or where) you said it.." type of PMs..sometimes people change wording..sometimes they don't..it's ok either way..I feel like I've done my part by bringing it to their attention for consideration. I don't think I've ever had anything go horribly wrong by talking to someone. I don't see why two people discussing a reported post (via PM) would be bad, generally speaking. It would reduce the amount of moderation by site admin, hence reduce the feeling of censorship on the site. It puts control of the words (in most cases) back in the hands of the members. Any thoughts?

Personally, I don't believe anything on the Internet is truly anonymous.  Mike recently pointed that out for us here in an example with his IP Log.  I think email and other electronic forms of communication (e.g., public forums) should be treated much more formally than most of us do.   The Google Spider is recording/archiving tons of information that one can NOT take back after you hit send.  Regardless, it just seems that some people are quick to throw mud at someone without accountability.  Should it matter?  No.  Do some hide?  I think so.  Just a thought.

I like the private "coaching" idea...a lot.  A forum section/sub-section moderator should nudge a poster to edit his/her own posting if it seems inappropriate.   Give the person that didn't "count to 10" before posting a chance to see how the posting was actually taken by someone and self-correct/edit.  The moderator can even give "" if he/she was successful.

However, if an unprofessional poster (e.g., Troll) is unwilling to "tone down" the content, than I think deleted postings and Profiles is warranted to keep the site professional...as us Nukeworkers have to be day to day.  Mike seems to be laying out the threshold his wants for his site. 

In any event, I disagree it's censorship.  If it were true censorship and dictatorship, we'd all leave and Mike would be by himself.

Co-60

[Mike_Koehler]

I hardly ever comment on how I think You (Mike) should run your site....in fact, I think that this is the first time. This site is ultimately yours and any decisions on how it is run eventually return to you. All you can do is ask for input (this thread) read the responses and make Your decision. You have been doing great since I've been a member (2002). Keep up the good work and remember that no matter what you do, you will probably rub someone's antlers the wrong way. A long time ago someone old and wise said to me "If you gather 50 techs together and ask them a simple yes/no question, You will get 50 different ways of saying yes or no." It is especially true for this question.

Mike Koehler

[mostlyharmless]

NukeWorker‟s mission to help nuclear workers find work. This mission is accomplished with NukeWorker‟s values:honesty, respect, and excellence. Its gone a little beyond finding work. And its a good thing; its a great place to learn,complain,stroke your ego and talk about things with people with whom you have a good bit in common. But people get bold when anonymous and out of reach. You cant police egos or even expect folks to rein them in. But you can control what posts stay in view. I believe less is best. I mean, don't moderate very much. Its not called free speech for nothing.
Rennhack has set the rules and has now shown them to anyone who cares to look. They are not to specific but you get the idea.Be cool, just a little. Sometimes you got to vent,passionately. Do it, let it out. Just don't send a pipe bomb to my house.
Tarbox has a good idea to be used when necessary.
You can raise hell and still have a peaceable kingdom, you can honestly disagree and voice it in an excellent way. Just do it with a little respect.
Ive used up my feel good words and am slipping into darkness so I'm back to the world cup. Like that will make it better.
I type slowly and cant get the thoughts out with fluidity. Love to all of you who can.And screw spelling.

[stownsend]

Hmmm.... Who watches the watchmen?

I like the idea of an "impartial observer". I've always liked Tim even though its been 17 years since we've worked together.

Mods should be able to execute karma and it should be on the karma log just like anyone else on the forum.

I'm conflicted as to whether they should be able to post in the Poly-Sci area. everyone has a voice here and as one who loves the debate there, I would hate to miss out on the excellent points they could share to liven up the debate. But then their actions as moderator on the threads would have to be well above board and open to scrutiny.

I agree with everything quoted here. I would miss the imput from the moderators. BTW Camella when you stopped posting the value of NW went down .I may not agree with everything you believe but you brought alot to the table.Thanks.We all come from different backgrounds and education so listening to each of you and your opions helps shape mine.

[Camella Black]

I agree with everything quoted here. I would miss the imput from the moderators. BTW Camella when you stopped posting the value of NW went down .I may not agree with everything you believe but you brought alot to the table.Thanks.We all come from different backgrounds and education so listening to each of you and your opions helps shape mine.

Thank you that means a lot. I am gradually attempting to get back into the groove... and I couldn't agree more I agree that moderators should not moderatate (edit, delete) on boards that they moderate but I believe that a common ground can be found and if all else fails the old adage "you can't please everyone" should come into play.

[mostlyharmless]

Moderate in moderation is what I mean. So as not to dissuade anyone from voicing an opinion. I know some of you but I make no effort to identify anyone or to show my identity. Allthough there is a picture of me on every post I post. I think everyone should be free to post wherever they wan, including polysci. I dont plus or minus much but it should be visible to everyone.
In English 101 we had an automatic fail rule for two missspells or tech. errors. Writting for me became very slow. Now spell check makes it better.

[Content1]

This is not a free speech site.   It is at the whim of the moderators.   If you do not like it, start your own blog, but you do it somewhere else.   That is life.

[Smart People]

This is not a free speech site.   It is at the whim of the moderators.   If you do not like it, start your own blog, but you do it somewhere else.   That is life.

Have you read the Poly-Sci threads?

Let me give an example of deletion, just need these key words

Obama - liberal - gulf disaster ineptitude - socialism

I give this about a 10 minute life.

2 1/2 weeks and counting....

Yes, I will stop posting altogether as I find this is not a free idea board anymore, just a politically correctness board that I have lost interest in. 
Good bye to you all, and Moderator, PLEASE remove my name Permanently from this system.

Stupid moderators....Can't even follow directions

[Brett LaVigne]

I will say that I have had posts deleted or edited that I really couldn't understand the reason. It was one of the driving reasons that I stopped paying for the membership. I will also say that the site has seemed to loosen up on that type of thing since more and more people have taken the time to talk about it.

I believe that as long as it isn't a flame-fest or chronically off topic, leave it alone. I think it's heading in that direction.

[Rennhack]

I believe that as long as it isn't a flame-fest or chronically off topic, leave it alone.

I couldn't agree more.

[Rennhack]

There is a similar thread here:

http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,24666.0.html

Is this favoritism or censorship from the mods? 
I posted in the general area where I told someone I was proud of him not being a di*k for not flaming someone who didn't research the forums.  In using the slang for a male member, my post got deleted.  Then yesterday, I noticed the following post from Mike.

It's good to be the King... oh piss boy.

This post didn't get deleted.  How is praising someone and using the work "di*k" worthy of deletion but calling someone a piss boy not worthy?!

Personally, I don't think HIS post should have been deleted either.  But someone complained about it (T.I.M.) so a moderator deleted it.  -- You know, just because some one complains, doesn't mean we have to delete it.

Sure, he was crude.  But it  is another example of how our moderators intended to do the right thing, but perhaps went too far.  We don't want the site to devolve into a mash of vulgarities... the user should have been contacted and asked to change it, or god forbid, just edit out the offending word.  NOT just delete the entire post.

[Nuclear NASCAR]

There is a similar thread here:

http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,24666.0.html
This post didn't get deleted.  How is praising someone and using the work "di*k" worthy of deletion but calling someone a piss boy not worthy?!


Personally, I don't think HIS post should have been deleted either.  But someone complained about it (T.I.M.) so a moderator deleted it.  -- You know, just because some one complains, doesn't mean we have to delete it.

Hi!    

Sure, he was crude.  But it  is another example of how our moderators intended to do the right thing, but perhaps went too far.  We don't want the site to devolve into a mash of vulgarities... the user should have been contacted and asked to change it, or god forbid, just edit out the offending word.  NOT just delete the entire post.

Working on not being so quick to the Remove button myself.  Just as an aside if I do contact you about changing a post it such as the quoted example it's not just usually for language.  As can be seen just a few posts up our words have a nasty habit of following once they are posted. 

Being a chronic sufferer of hoof in mouth myself it's also why I don't always comment on many threads.  It's that two-edged sword thing.  On one side I just don't want to fulfill my full potential of looking foolish and then there's that whole face of the site thing too.

[Camella Black]

I have lurked about this site as a guest for some time prior to joining as a member.  During that time I took notice of a recurring theme, the possibility that censorship of posts exists on this site.

Some members make direct or insinuated accusations of censorship.  These are quickly followed by claims of denial by other members and moderators.  Which is it?  Is this a censored site or are members free to express themselves provided they do so within the framework of the site rules that we all agreed to comply with?

I started a similar post a day or so ago but deleted it.  I apologize to those members who responded to the original version just to have their input unceremoniously flushed.  Please repost your thoughts.

Tango Yankee –

SD

Lets get real, I am almost rolling on the floor... try going to your favorite website.... NPUA.org and typing in nukeworker - talk about censorship. They have a program that automatically (upon submission) that deletes the word nukeworker!!!! 

Heck, maybe we need to do this here on nukeworker other website. 

[Willy]

As someone who is not in the nuclear field this website is extremely useful.  I am very interested in getting into this field, and with the help of this website I have been able to compile a game plan that hopeful one day will get me into the nuclear power field. 

As someone looking in I can completely understand why there has to be order and organization to this site.  The organization has made it very easy to learn and navigate through the information for someone completely clueless.  I am thankful for everyone who post on this site.  I find nuke worker to be very professional, and that is because of the people who post here.  I do more reading, then posting because I really am not qualified to post on to many subjects.  I hope one day to give back to this website as much as it has given to me. 

Thanks to all
Scott
 

[Rennhack]

As someone who is not in the nuclear field this website is extremely useful.  I am very interested in getting into this field, and with the help of this website I have been able to compile a game plan that hopeful one day will get me into the nuclear power field. 

As someone looking in I can completely understand why there has to be order and organization to this site.  The organization has made it very easy to learn and navigate through the information for someone completely clueless.  I am thankful for everyone who post on this site.  I find nuke worker to be very professional, and that is because of the people who post here.  I do more reading, then posting because I really am not qualified to post on to many subjects.  I hope one day to give back to this website as much as it has given to me. 
Thanks to all
Scott

Scott,

Thank you.  It's been a while since I received one of these.  You've helped me.