Free Speech or Censorship?

[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.