Dear Silicon Investor Members:
When we started this thread, we were not entirely certain what to expect, except that we knew there would be heated debate. You certainly didn't let us down in that department. :)
With respect to Anthony, the results are in, and I'll get to them shortly. Meanwhile, I hope that you'll indulge me for just a moment, and let me comment on several of the key issues raised in this debate.
Let me start by saying that this was my call. Yes, we thoroughly discussed the pros and cons of this voting experiment, but ultimately it was my decision to make. The only reason I mention this is because if anyone feels a burning desire to blame or rant at someone, then blame me.
In fact, a number of you have already (emphatically) expressed your opinions regarding this process, and your assumptions as to the rationale behind it. Your comments have ranged from "stroke of brilliance" to "unleashing the fires of hell" (an actual quote). If nothing else, I think this points to the diversity represented in the Silicon Investor community.
Most likely, it would be a fruitless effort on my part to attempt to change the opinions of those who believe that this process undermines the integrity of Silicon Investor. To those who care, or are at least willing to listen, let me highlight the critical factors that drove this decision:
1. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such an event has ever taken place on the Internet. The Internet itself is a grand experiment that evolves on a daily basis. SI was a revolutionary concept when Brad and Jeff launched it, and we intend to continue that spirit in ways that serve the SI community.
2. Based on member response upon Anthony's termination, we felt that Anthony was an excellent candidate for this test run, and we appreciate his willingness to be put under the scrutiny of public opinion.
3. Since its inception, SI has been a unique forum for discussion and debate. No subject should be beyond its scope, especially a discussion regarding the fundamental rules and processes which govern its use. True, as owners of the site, we reserve the right to act as the ultimate arbitrators, but member input is a critical factor in that process.
4. It ultimately boils down to a commitment to community - the entire SI community. Some of you may consider this as self-serving, poppy-cock, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, if you spent even one day inside our walls, I am confident that you would realize that every discussion we have about SI starts and ends with the question, "Will our members like this?"
So, what have we learned from this test, and what are we going to do about it going forward? Based on a review of the debate (yes, I read all 2100+ public and private messages), we can draw two important conclusions:
A. Although there is general agreement as to the importance of the SI Terms of Use, there is some confusion over the specific application of those rules. We will try to address that in the next couple weeks by publishing our guidelines for enforcing the SI Terms of Use, as well as examples of what constitutes a punishable offense.
B. It is worthwhile to continue to experiment with some type of "community appeals" process for members who have been terminated. Many of you were quick to point out potential flaws with this particular experiment, and we appreciate the input. I assure you that your voices have been heard, and we'll work to design a system that will be even more effective in the future.
In short, if it wasn't clear before, I hope that everyone now understands that this wasn't just about Anthony@Pacific. Speaking of Anthony?
We had a total of 703 valid, unique votes (about 3 times what we expected).
Those who believe SI is better off with Anthony as a member - 435 = 62%
Those who believe SI is better if we keep Anthony off the site - 268 = 38%
Anthony's membership will be reinstated. For those of you who may be wondering, he will absolutely be subject to the Terms of Use, and if his membership should ever be terminated again, there will not be a second vote.
Thank you to everyone who participated. I welcome your continued input on this process going forward.
Sincerely,
Bryan |
