Reference, Questions and Help > Forum Help

Ideas for new Forum rules

(1/2) > >>

Already Gone:
In the past three years, this website has evolved from a little bulletin board to a powerful tool for us NukeWorkers.  Still, I see a couple of ways it is being abused.  So, I'm suggesting some new rules to keep it from getting out of hand.

First, the forums should not be used for free advertising.  If your business has something to sell, buy an ad and leave it at that.  Currently the Careers section is so cluttered with this type of post that you couldn't tell if a real job offer was in among them.  It has always been one of the best features of this site that it is a tool for employers and NukeWorkers to hook up.  The way it is now, most of the posts that look like they might contain job info are just someone hawking correspondence courses.  If this stuff is going to be allowed, maybe it should be limited to a Goods and Services section.

Second, the Looking For section is a great tool for old friends to get back in touch.  But, replies should not be allowed.  If I want to find someone, I can post a notice with a way for that person to contact me.  If that person reads the post, he/she can reply off this site only if he/she wants to.  If that person is not a member, someone who is can simply alert him/her to the post.  It's a real problem when a third party chimes in and says "He's at Vogtle" or something like that.  Anyone who wants to find me knows where I am, but not everyone wants to be found by every schmo they ever met.  You might think you're being helpful, but you could be tipping off someone who was being avoided for a good reason.  I'd hate to see this site be the means for some stalker or jealous psycho ex-lover to track down and hurt someone.

Anybody else have any suggestions?

Camella Black:
I may be wrong, as I often am, but regardless of whether a person replies to a post under "looking for someone" or whether they just click on the screenname of the poster and im or email them, the results could be the same. The only difference I can see is that you would be telling one person where to look and not the entire site.

In todays world of technology I don't believe that this site would be the only source for looking up people if someone intended to to do harm.

You are correct Carmella, I think he is referring to token replies like "Half the women in the state are hunting for him, good luck".

The statement adds no value to finding the person, and invites snide comments from others...the "pack of dogs theory"...once blood is drawn they all jump in.

Already Gone:
I don't want this to sound combative, but I can buy heroin in a certain part of town.  Does that mean that I should be allowed to buy it at 7-11?  My main concern is for the privacy of the individuals.  If John Doe doesn't have a current address for Jane Roe, it is very likely that there is a reason for that, which is nobody's business.  Jane is the only one who has the right to decide if he gets that information.  Also, posting it here makes it available to all those other guys whom she doesn't want to have it.
There are a few old buddies I'd like to find again.  The reason I won't ask here is that someone might tell me where they are.  I don't want to be responsible for that kind of thing being made public without permission.  If replies are not actually blocked, at least we can police ourselves and have some respect for the privacy of others.
Secondly, I'm concerned for Mike and this site.  If some creep gets an address off of Google and goes there to hurt someone, that's not Mike's problem.  If that info was passed over this forum, without the knowledge or permission of the subject, there could be lawsuits involved.  If you think he doesn't lready get enough grief over the things we post here, you should ask him about Pet Cow and the U.S. Secret Service.

Troy has a good point.

Troy, would you be interested in beeing moderator of the "Looking for" section??


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version