I first launched the discussion board over eighteen months ago. After about a month, nobody used it any more; I’ve been scratching my head since, and I think I might have figured it out:
There wasn’t a space to actually discuss issues.
Duh.
So I completely overhauled it, with a Nuclear Issues category containing the forums Access to Energy, Alternatives, Economics, Environment, Fuel Cycle (with Fuel Recycling, Source Material, and Dual-Use Facilities sub-forums), How Nukes Work (with a Scientific Method sub-forum), Industry Performance, New Build and Decommissioning, Politics and Regulation, Proliferation (with a redirect to the Dual-Use Facilities sub-forum), Radiation and Health, Safety (with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island sub-forums), Security and Terrorism, and Waste. The Activism&Politics category has been renamed the Activism category, the Questions forum has been moved into its own category (Nuclear Glasnost–at the top of the board), the Studies forum has been moved into the Technical category, the Anecdotes forum has been folded into the Their Actions forum (which has been renamed the Anti-Nuclear Actions forum), and the Tactics forum has been folded into the Our Actions forum (which has been renamed the Pro-Nuclear Actions forum), leaving only the News forum in the News category. The forum descriptions have had some slight edits, and I’ve moved some topics around to fit the new structure. The categories have been moved around; it’s now (top to bottom) Nuclear Glasnost, Nuclear Issues, Activism, Technical, News, and Off-Topic (also with a new Nuclear Humor forum). I can’t figure out how to moderate topics and not posts added to those topics, so I can’t try this millionth different way to keep the Off-Topic forum’s obscene spam under control (this is why registration is required and also why you can’t post images). At least the spammers are getting a bit more considerate; they used to put it in the Fission Reactors forum.
If any of the original posters disagree about how their topics were moved, please comment here or on the board and I will move them back.
I’ve also updated the Board Guidelines:
-Try to keep discussions reasonably on topic. If requested, I (niof) will move them.
-Try to keep discussions in the correct forums. If requested, I will move them.
-I do not delete posts unless they are obviously spam or criminal in nature. My opinions are my opinions and are not reflected on the board. I am not the grammar police, the on-topic police, or your mother. However, if you do spam the board (defined as a post devoid of content but containing only links to non-nuclear-related external sites), I will delete the post and your account. If you don’t spam the board (defined as posting actual content, pro-nuclear, anti-nuclear, or anywhere in between), you will be part of an informed discussion of the issues free of censorship.
-If a forum doesn’t exist that fits your topic, post in the Site Maintenance forum requesting a new forum (e.g., Questions) or category (e.g., Nuclear Glasnost), give a reason that makes sense, and I will make a new one. I’m human; I’m sure there are things I overlooked.
-This board, as well as blog.niof.org, www.cafepress.com/niof, www.niof.org, and other sites that I admin, reflect the best of my ability. As I am not God, they do not reflect perfection. I cannot do everything right all the time; don’t sue me for it.
-All posts are the property of their respective owners, and they are solely responsible for any content.
-If you have any questions or comments about these guidelines, please email me, PM me, or post in the Site Maintenance forum.
Please feel free to use your best judgment about what to post; I’m a strong opponent of zero-tolerance policies of any sort and see my job as a board moderator to be interpreting the guidelines as situations come up. I hope this gives people some “regulatory certainty” and makes it clear that you’re free to post what nuclear-related content you wish to share with the online pro-nuclear community.
I would really like feedback on this. Is it useful and/or helpful to you? Are there other things that I should change? Should I shift more blog content into the discussion board a la Kirk Sorensen?
Filed under Site
Posted on January 30, 2007 by Stewart Peterson |
Unfortunately my initial feedback is simply: the links aren’t working for me, I can’t get to the board any more.
What message is it giving you? I checked to see if the board is up (it is) and if the links still work when I’m logged out (they do).
I can’t seem to replicate it. Is there an error message associated with this?
Ah… it’s working from another computer, so I’m guessing the problem is at my end (or just possibly self-fixed). Bloody IE7 perhaps. Feel free to delete my comments while I try the board out.
>>Feel free to delete my comments while I try the board out.
No reason to delete them–thanks for the heads-up.
The only real trace of your efforts in the general blogosphere, is the “antinuclear quote of the day” , which is reported out to my google labs search bot just about every day.
Intended or not, the effect is to turn your board into one of the most widely distributed anti-nuke propaganda sites currently active.
Ironic, isn’t it?
I don’t pick up a daily blurb from NIRS, Russell Hoffman, Clamshell alliance, etc., they are silent… just NIOF, stubbornly broadcasting dumb anti propaganda far & wide.
congratulations.
Other than that, Knownukes has more of the pithy commentors already onboard. You might begin posting over there.
Harry S.
The board doesn’t have anything to do with the Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day. That said, I’m trying to get better. I’d like your comment on a few points:
1. If an anti-nuclear quote is obviously loopy or indicative of a conflict of interest, why shouldn’t I post it?
2. If I don’t acknowledge the anti-nuclear arguments and throughly rebut them, do I not sound tin-eared? How is smiling and reassuring people effective?
3. Would you think that it would be better to reorganize that information so that it turns up in ordinary searches–which is what I’m doing?
I’m not aware of know_nukes having a discussion board distinct from a listserv. I’m also not aware of anybody joining know_nukes who is in the target audience (coffeehouse liberals who are on the fence and are seriously looking for information). If we’re trying to get nukes as well accepted as solar, these are the people to aim for. If we’re trying to be angry, then we can just say whatever we want without any sense of consequences. In other words, the only people who are listening are those who don’t need it.