Professional ethics in posting and responding on Eng-tips 17

[sms]

Where are the ethical grey areas in posting an responding on Eng-tips? The discussion in this forum titled "My boss says to look the other way?" might be one example of a discussion that should not be taking place online in a public forum, where should the line be drawn in such online discussions?

Another example a few weeks back, someone had posted a question to mechanical engineering other topics about how to use a lawn mower engine to rig up a rope tow for skiiers in their back yard. Should we be giving advice to non engineers on such a thing? Especially if someone might get hurt? I didn't think so, so I red flagged it.

In gas compression engineering there is an ongoing discussion about how to rig up an air compressor to compress natural gas off the utility system so the guy will have a nice supply of welding gas. There has been lots of discussion on how to do it, and most of the posters have stated that it could be dangerous. I took some heat because rather than comment on the technical details of how to do it, I rudely just said it shouldn't be done, and yes I implied it was a stupid idea. So the heat was probably justified since I didn't handle it gently, but should we really be giving the guy ideas on how to do it and what to watch out for, when it is just a bad idea? Or I am being too sensitive?

-The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

"If I don't help him someone else will" That's bunk.

No it's not bunk ... it's human nature. Most people will keep seeking answers till they get them. Better the answer be, "That would be very dangerous, you could kill someone." from a group of "professionals" rather than, "Hey, just do it, dude." from Joe Blow in some chat room.

RF'ing a "dangerous" thread doesn't eliminate the problem, it just hides it from view and stops others from giving possible life saving advice.

IMO, RF'ing such a thread smacks of the NIMBY attitude ... "I don't want it here, let somebody else deal with the problem".

 

[civilperson]

Censorship by its very nature is wrong. Censorship allows lies and half truths to be spread and hides unpopular views, (which may have a better founding in truth than the prevailing view. See Galileo vs. Pope). Complete exposure and rigorous debate is the path to allow readers of this forum to make their own judgement of the merits and dangers of the ideas within. This is the burden we place on concerned citizens of the engineering community, to cast a sceptical eye on what is presented and make a determination of its correctness or errors.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

It is a website with rules

Agreed, and that is what makes Eng-Tips so good and sets it apart from most other forum groups ... but where does the rule, stating that threads relating to dangerous activities be removed, reside?

 

[dcasto]

You know, its kinda like the jury awarding a bunch of stupid guys that the pilot threw off the plane, $400,000. From now on all pilots should just stop the plane from taking off and have the state gather up a jury to decide if the plane should fly, heck lets grab a jury to read posts first.......

 

[dtn6770]

When it comes down to it, determinations as to what is good or bad, crazy or sane, safe or unsafe can be largly subjective. What may unacceptabe to one persone may be acceptable to another.

Righ now in Boiler and Pressure Vessle Engineering there's a thread794-176703 debating pneumatic testing versus hydro testing. There are stong opinions on both sides. I would hate to see the thread get pulled because one or two people flagged it because THEY THOUGHT pneumatic testing is too risky and discussing it was "inappropriate." That wouldn't be right, in my opinion...period.

 

[mrMikee]

I think this site is well managed both by the staff and the help of some necessary red flags, which in my opinion is necessary to keep the site going in the right direction. But engineering is difficult work and there are going to be a lot of questions and differing opinions that sometimes get into the gray areas of both technical and ethical issues. I agree that there are certainly topics and legal situations that shouldn't get discussed here, but you have to expect that a forum titled "Professional Ethics" for example, will discuss in some detail ethical questions.

Regards,
-Mike

 

[JAE]

I agree with mrMikee - this site is very well managed and Red Flags are reviewed by the staff carefully - even with efforts to see outside opinions at times.

 

[drawoh]

FACS,

Crazy, dangerous ideas hurt people when they get carried out. If a discussion on Eng-Tips convinces the original poster that the idea is crazy and dangerous, then it won't get carried out. If it disappears into the aether, then it may be obvious that the black helicopters got to it.

Post it and criticize it.

If your post gets red-flagged, you get no feed-back. My original attempt to post the John Barrymore quote on SB's S Lounge got red flagged. My second attempt is up there now, with some language censored. There was an obvious explanation, which appears to be correct.

At the very least, the software should send a nastygram when a post is deleted.

JHG

 

[JStephen]

What the red flag is for:
"The members of our forums have a right to communicate free of commercialism, and we at Tecumseh Group stand ready to vigorously defend that right. With the help of our members using the "Red Flag" utility found in our TipMaster forums, we can accomplish this goal."

IE, it's more to weed out advertisements or someone hawking their product than anything.

 

[IRstuff]

Non-censorship is an ideal. This is a reality and a privately-owned forum. There is no "right" to freedom of speech HERE. Anyone who wants to spout off can do so at a number of blog and other public sites designed for that specific purpose.

There is an expectation of relatively calm, rational engineering discourse. People that do not fit that requirement should expect to be booted off. Perpetual motion machines are routinely booted off, because they attract loony toons to join into a pointless discussion.



TTFN

 

[PSE]

The red flag brings a posting to the attention of the site master(s) and allows you to comment why you think it inappropriate. From what I have seen, they will review the posting and if they agree, it is removed. If they decide not to remove it, it stays. The red flag does not automatically mandate removal of a post.

Regards,

 

[michfan]

If you ask the IRS for help and they give you the wrong answer, you are still held responsible for your own return. This is called "taking responsibility for your actions", something we are all expected to do as adults.

If you come to this forum looking for help on how to rig up a rocket using your vacuum cleaner or some other such insane idea, you are still the person responsible when your vacuum explodes...

To the people who want to red-flag every idea/topic/post they feel is "dangerous", stop and think about how much better it would be to try to teach the person something, explain why what they are doing is not a good idea, instead of just yanking the post.

Like with children, the best way to lead is by example, by teaching right from wrong, and not by saying "because I said so".

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

... and a privately-owned forum

It is? Who is the moderator?
It is not mentioned here as being private. Anyway, whether it be private or public is irrelevant to the ethics question posed by the OP.

IRstuff ... No poster has suggested that total free speech should be allowed here, nor that people should be allowed to "spout off" about anything. The OPs main question was whether advice should be given in a thread related to the creation of potentially dangerous equipment and even whether the thread should be allowed to exist. Most respondents have stated they are in favour of allowing its existence (or have been non-committal), but because there is no "Green Flag" button, the minority RF'ers will rule.

For the record, I am not opposed to RF's and have used the function often ... but not for the OPs situation.

 

[IRstuff]

CBL,

Check copyright notice at the bottom of each page of this website.

I also refer you to civilperson's posting

TTFN

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

IRstuff ...
I'm sorry, I don't understand what I am supposed to see in the copyright notice. Were you referring to the Eng-Tips forums as a whole or this Pro' Ethics forum? I assumed you meant the latter.

Civilperson posted 4 replies ... and I agree with them all. What specifically were you referring me to?

 

[GrimesFrank]

I agree that this is a "privately" owned forum, as evidenced by the Tecumseh copyright. If they feel that a discussion in this forum would lead to a liability on their part, i.e. negligent homicide, then they have every right to delete a thread. Simply because you don't like a topic as you feel its dangerous, so you red-flag, expecting it to be deleted is inappropriate.

If I post asking how to build a dirty bomb and I receive replies on how dumb I am and why I can't do it, then let it sit.....if however the unabomber wants to post to me on exactly how to do it, Tecumseh Group has a due diligence requirement to delete the topic as they may be held criminally responsible for what I do with the information "they" have facilitated. Just as an ISP can be held responsible for the pirated music I share on their server, not that I do that mind you.....

Frank "Grimey" Grimes
You can only trust statistics 90% of the time.

 

[FACS]

michfan,
I agree with you; but we are not children.

When my children post inappropriate material on their website, I make them take it off. I don’t leave it up there as an example of what not to do. I don’t let them cuss; when they do, I correct them and I don’t post the words up on a wall for them to see what not to say. Because then everyone can see the words, then I have other children learning them…. (To use your analogy.)

So Joe Blow came in one day, and posted an idea that we all thought would kill someone. After much response from the members, it was removed with a red flag. Thank goodness it was; all we needed was one nut-cake to come in, see the idea, and disregard the warnings.

The best way to cure a disease is to eliminate it… not keep it around so everyone can see it, and then one day it gets loose.

Proof positive is this: You don’t see these dangerous ideas posted on this site, that’s management doing a fine job, and I support their decision.


Charlie

http://www.facsco.com

 

[JAE]

CBL...."Most respondents have stated they are in favour of allowing its existence (or have been non-committal), but because there is no "Green Flag" button, the minority RF'ers will rule."

RF'ers don't rule anything. They simply bring a questionable post to the attention of the ownership...that's all.

And if the OWNERS of this site wish to leave it alone, that is there right, and if they wish to remove it, it is their right to do so as well.

The Tecumseh Group has a vision for what this site is all about. If a post doesn't meet that vision, then they can do as they please.

Minority RF'ers "ruling" and Green Flag voters voting imply a democratic form of site government....which is not what exists here...or on really any forum type site for that matter.

 

[IRstuff]

CBL,
This one:

"Censorship by its very nature is wrong. Censorship allows lies and half truths to be spread and hides unpopular views, (which may have a better founding in truth than the prevailing view. See Galileo vs. Pope). "

and:

If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck and flies around the pond like a duck then it is probably CENSORSHIP hiding behind "good judgement", protection of the uninformed or similar specious reasoning.

So there is a suggestion to allow postings that would fall well outside of the norm for this site. Hence, my response.

TTFN

 

[ewh]

Charlie,
No, we are not children. And you are not our parent. I agree with michfan that, as adults, saying "because I said so" is not a legitimate reason for anything. The exception, of course is the forum host, who has the right to decide what direction to take these fora.