THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (19656)	8/22/2002 7:05:45 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) of 21057

The process you describe is in place on the header of TTMAR but has never been used. I seem to remember something like this being done on the predecessor threads to TTMAR. The principles of freedom of association suggest that the group ought to be able to choose not to associate with that person, and as a group request that the moderator exclude that person. Isn't that one way of viewing what's going on? One person eloquently likened the thread to a corner bar and the person who the bar's regulars might want to exclude as the foolish drunk on the stool at the end who is always shouting obnoxious nonsense and just generally making a fool of himself. It appears there are people who feel that that is exactly what is happening here. The details of the process have not been fleshed out because they have not been needed. Only once has a PM suggestion been sent to me advocating an expulsion, and I responded by indicating that the person involved probably hadn't earned an expulsion yet, and the request was withdrawn. Was I the target? :-) I would suggest that Laz privately decide who should be on the jury, and PM those people for votes and discussion. You understand that now I can make this go either way if we do it that way? :-) Remember, I now know which jurors to pick for either result. If people want to make their discussion public I don't have a problem with that. I voted already and so far have chosen not to discuss publicly who I voted for, though if that discussion develops I may chime in. No votes will be made public without the voters permission. I am keeping the PMs containing the votes to protect myself against miscount charges. However, even if such charges are made, I still will not reveal votes without permission. The reason people can send me their votes is to allow them to vote as they choose w/o worrying about who they will or will not offend. Some sort of supermajority, such as two thirds or three fourths, ought to be required IMO for expulsion. I will take that under advisement. If a 3/4 vote is required, it's already dead. A 2/3 needs one vote to kill it. And that's essentially guaranteed. I can think of 3 highly likely "no" votes off the top of my head.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next