1.”Effective moderation” – The site users have spoken, that they do not want moderation. That is what they are getting.
2. Your in-fighting with BZ only serves one purpose, and it’s not your intended purpose. Your intended purpose is to discredit him, with the desired outcome being that either BZ stops his behavior, or the OP’s ignore him. Correct? I agree with you that BZ can be a jackass, or is a jackass. If you answer an OP’s question, and also add “Oh, by the way, you can ignore BZ, we all do.” I believe your desired outcome will be accomplished. When you simply start off topic flame wars with BZ, you are no better than he is, and it damages YOUR credibility.
Hey, it’s just a suggestion. If you two want to throw them on the table and measure them, go for it.
Nukes are widedly recognized debaters on the most ridiculous of subjects (e.g., GM: Poly Sci). The debates between BZ and I are lame compared to what Navy Nukes do to each other underway...particularly right around the 1/2-way through deployment phase. However, they're also good at going out after a deployment, laughing about the "zingers" that got each other, and then buy each other a beer.
If BZ and five other Gold Members want to "thump" a newcomer, than I hope they're as thick-skinned as they claim to be. However, since I'm convinced that 50-75% of the "newcomers" are just trolls looking for entertainment, that will be considered in my future postings as well. I think we have some junior "kids" throwing rocks at the Bee's Nest and then running when the hornets come out. I'm not biting on that too much anymore.
As far as my credibility, I think we all risk professional credibility with our postings (e.g., your reference that two of your Forum members should put their male genitals on the table). I'll go buy BZ a beer, as he and I have discussed and probably laugh at our online rantings...or so I suspect. No position or title is above "peer checking"...from MMFN to ADM. That's the way nuclear power programs work. Sometimes, our emotions get in the way, and you're right...no one wins. Anyone afraid to challeng, to peer check, or to question what has become the Status Quo is truly at risk of losing professional credibility.
Meanwhile, while I thought for sure my Karma would take a nose dive (including the head-smiter himself), it has taking a sharp rise with many "thank you" PMs. Go figure. It appears I'm not alone. However, my previous post stands...you're dink in smiting me. I'm not here for thank you's, I'm here as a volunteer. Given the lessons learned I had from Boot Camp through my transition into the commercial industry, I see many with the same questions that I had. If you want people to just go Google their questions, then why should anyone come here to begin with?
My credibility is already challenged by being here. I'm frequently asked why I bother on "DisgruntledNukes.com". Perhaps people like myself, JustinHemi, and other Nukeworker Newbies thought we could inject some positive energy here. I know when I first arrived with 0 Karma, I was stuffed back in my "outer circle box". Meanwhile, the notion that you have a long-standing group of "Nukeworker Dinosaurs" that dominate most discussions is what discourages open thought. A notion that is VERY contrary to how our industry operates.
Most importantly, I don't know anyone on here enough to credit or discredit them. Most Nukes pave their destiny through their competence, writing ability, and communication skills. I can do nothing to help/hurt BZ or any other member. All the rest of us should do is pay attention to how many public guests, viewers, lurkers are ALSO viewing our postings and consider the broad range of our words. People are watching/listening. I know many very senior industry people bop in here from time to time and I'll bet a paycheck we'll NEVER see their name/title in a signature line.
All good. As the wise Marissm has counseled on several occasions..."Lighten up. It's just a website".
Co58
