Hi RR,
Sorry for the delayed response. I've been off line since my post about Scott last night.
I wrote to SI Admin & expressed my concerns. Their response was too generic to have any meaning. They essentially said Scott was spaming again & he got the boot.
My complaint was that I knew they said he was spaming, but they never gave any warning & they didn't even explain what SI considers spam. I told them I am quite familiar with his posting style & I read many of the threads Scott posts on. I told them I reviewed his posting history & that there was no evidence of what I would consider spam at all. In fact, if they consider his posting style spam, then there are a considerable number of people on SI who should be immediately suspended. Considering the response I received, it is apparent they don't care what we think.
Meanwhile, intentionally disruptive people are free to ruin many of SI's better threads. They are free to indulge in personal attacks, obscene language, repetitive insults, etc., etc., etc. It seems that SI Admin is not interested in dealing with these people that a vast majority of SI members consider in violation of SI's TOU. However, they have no problems in suspending someone like Scott who is appreciated by a vast majority of his peers for his efforts to be informative on these threads.
Apparently SI Admin is not interested with the concerns of the vast majority of their customers. Instead, they seem to go out of their way to protect the small minority of belligerent posters who are nothing but trouble makers.
It never ceases to amaze me how we (our society) go out of our way to protect & give extra rights those who violate others rights & we are so quick to severely punish those who try to walk the straight & narrow.
OOF :-| |
