I'd like to bring a little different slant to the debate. Many posters so far seem to be opposing the IHub model which gives someone the chance to challenge a suspension while being in some sort of purgatory. As I have not posted on IHUB, I have no way to opine as to how effective it is. It seems like a good idea. If the moderator becomes a bit too self-important or pompous, then I assume other posters will comment on that. I would respect a moderator who faces criticism and maybe even acknowledges that he has made a mistake once in awhile. I don't think the moderator should be subject to personal attacks about his appearance, hobbies (or lack thereof), or personal vices unless it relates to potential conflicts of interest that affect the performance of his position.
My recent experience on SI leads me to believe that the arbitrary use of administration "power," has been unfair and possibly will ultimately serve to hurt its very own business model.
I've been on SI, I believe, almost from the beginning, usually posting on stock boards. Over the years, I've received many compliments for advice given and many "bashes," and I've learned from both, even changing my own investment style to be more objective because of criticisms that I received for "falling in love" with stocks. I directly relate some very exceptional success in trading to critical posts received from some prominent "bashers."
At about the time the Iraq war started, I noticed a rapid increase in "Coffee Shop" boards where posters became more and more vitriolic in hatred for the USA and also Israel, often with extreme anti-Jewish sentiments thrown in, sometimes masked as political and sometimes overt name-calling. Without really thinking it out, I started posting in response.
At times, I admittedly reverted to a sarcastic style, even parroting the hatred I perceived, trying, in my own way, to point out how hurtful it is to call someone else a stereotypical name.
Let me say in general that I think that the SI business model might be better served by eliminating the Coffee Shop threads. SI bob, I believe, posted something like this when he first took over. There are plenty of "blogs" on the web and, if SI is to be a financial board, presumably it will have posters who primarily are discussing financial matters. I think quality of posts, rather than quantity, was what set SI aside from RB or Yahoo. I don't believe this "quality" is enhanced by the level of political hatred posted on many of the threads. That's just my opinion.
In any event, these discussion boards will likely continue for the foreseeable future and I realize that those with other views are free to start their own threads and that there are several pro-American and maybe even some pro-Israel threads. However, I guess it is in my nature that when I see unsubstantiated hatred posted about the US or its allies, or posts filled with stereotypical lies about a religion or nationality, that I feel a need to respond. Perhaps it's a fault, perhaps a virtue, or perhaps both. I'd ask the reader of whatever nation, religion or race, how they would react if they read many hate-filled posts about their respective nation, race or religion.
After the change in owners, I was suspended I believe three times, the last, from my memory during August25-September 7, 2003. I had been suspended around August 12, 2003 for 3 days. The first time - I forget the date, not important.
After the first suspension, I took SI bob's post to me seriously. He suggested that the party with whom I was trading posts and I should both "cool off." I have no problem with that suspension. I have to say that I do not believe that I have ever initiated a posting "war" with someone unless I have seen some sort of overt hate filled post, anti-American or anti-Jewish.
After the first suspension, I changed my style. I no longer responded with blatant insults or occasional obscenities (big of me <gggg>). Rather, I relied more on sarcasm and indirect cuts. (I do note with amusement that SI bob recently stated that his use of occasional obscenities or what others might consider "attack responses" was "ok" in the particular circumstances or in response to particular individuals in order for him to get his point across.)
After the second suspension, I purposely stayed away from a poster who I believe has severe mental problems. He has posted among other things that the Jewish religion condones pedophilia, necrophilia, has called posters he feels are Jewish "hook-nosed," "rats" and other assorted niceties, made reference to "matzoh balls" as anatomical as opposed to culinary, etc. He is vehemently against the Iraq war and often times seems to hate everyone, including himself and certainly the USA.
Instead of responding to that poster, I commented to others that this person is a bigot, in fact a "self-knighted" one in reference to his moniker. When this poster read my posts, he decided to post to me again. I, at first, asked him not to do this giving him a reference to SI bob's prior requests or "commands." He persisted and I did respond but with fairly mild stuff. He even offered to meet me "in person" and continued with posts using religious stereotypes.
In any event, I was suspended and the other poster, to my knowledge, was not that time, although he has been suspended in the past.
I'm not claiming to be an "angel" and certainly not "always right." I also understand that sometimes one posts something that one wishes that he or she could retract and sometimes it is difficult to acknowledge that.
However, I have received several e-mails from other posters who cannot believe that I was suspended this last time. They refer to others who post what I believe most sane readers would consider hate-filled posts. In fact, some members of SI who support this nation or who post against anti-Semitism have written to me wondering why I was suspended and they themselves have not been.
Let me clearly state that as the "owner" of the board, SI bob clearly has the right to establish whatever rules he wishes and has the absolute right to kick people off. Whether that is a breach of an enforceable implied covenant of fairness is a subject of debate perhaps but only someone with way more time than I would ever consider testing it out in a judicial forum given the financial costs and minimal potential rewards. That's not my concern.
My concern is that SI bob seemed to do this rather arbitrarily. Using the hockey analogy, I got the whistle for the retaliation or even 3d man in AFTER seeing my teamate being slashed. So, maybe the referee is always right because you don't want chaos, I can see this. However, this other poster's content has been so vitriolic, so hate-filled, so stereotypical "fighting words", that many have questioned his sanity. Those posts still exist. Si bob has been notified of them by me and by others.
I may be wrong and would love to hear pro/con from others. I believe strongly that I was suspended for basically commenting that someone is a bigot, perhaps in a colorful or sarcastic way, while trying to avoid that person with direct posts and yet that poster continues to post and is apparently sanctioned by the powers that be here on SI. It makes it difficult to determine what is "appropriate" under the TOU as determined solely by the resident administrator and owner.
Finally, whether or not I am a member of SI is not earth shattering either for SI or myself. If I am suspended as Bob threatened "for good," as a result of this post or otherwise, it will not be a drastic change in my life. I prefer to remain a member and feel I have something positive to contribute. However, I do feel that for a message board to have a chance at being a financial success, it should have rules that don't appear to be enforced arbitrarily or at the whim of the all powerful owner. Again, I'm not saying that the owner can't do pretty much what he chooses. I'm just questioning whether it makes sense even in his own selfish interest.
With my last "finally" - I apologize if this is not the place for my post and for this posts' length. I debated putting it on the Welcome to SI thread and may post it there if appropriate. But this thread seemed to have some good debate about the methods of "punishment" and posters who have some good ideas about what is fair. I don't want to come off as one of those posters who is always right and, when challenged, posts over and over in a rant. I recognize that it is easy to fall into that trap and have promised myself to fight that urge. However, I believe that is something to which many, many other should adhere if the level of discourse is to improve. |
