“In fact, the SI Administrators are really great people“
I will take your word for it. I am sure you state that for the best of reasons.
“we appreciate your feedback on how we can improve Silicon Investor.“
Let me accept this without argument, too. OK?
Do you appreciate feedback when you are trying to thoughtfully consider both sides of an issue? Do you ask the accused party for feedback? You responded to me exactly 2 minutes and ten seconds after greg or e made his complaint. He had supplied you with four links to read and to consider, and (of course) it took you time to write me with a considered response. So it is very clear that you did not have any opportunity to hear other than ONE side of the story. You would have had no idea whether one or BOTH of us ought to be sanctioned.
Stripped of rhetoric, all I said to greg or e is that if he followed me and hunted me down on my private property for the purpose of continuing name calling and harassment--then he would find me ready to defend my dignity. I said nothing about taking a fight TO him--DID I?? I simply told him that if he wanted to keep bad-mouthing me he could look me up and do it to my face where I was staying on holidays. Obviously, HE would have had to come to ME and then I would have been totally and legally in defense of person and property. The only thing I “threatened’ him with was defending myself. Hardly the definition of a “threat”.
My lawyer is one of the best in Canada. I DID NOT threaten greg or e. PERIOD. You know where I live and his name starts with Jay--and we are gambling buddies.
Because I had had bad family news, I was provoked more easily by his intentional baiting than I would have otherwise been. But that is not the point. The point is this: Does the first person to complain AUTOMATICALLY damage the rights of the other party?
My point is not whether or not your sanction of me was justifiable. Rather, my point is that it was one-sided and arbitrary.
Under your system--the person who complains first is the only one permitted to be heard. The other person is convicted without any process whatsoever--and is immediately muzzled so that no links can be produced nor explanation given. Isn’t it fortunate that society has a rather different perspective on what being “fair” entails? Who among us would wish to be put in jail just because we have an enemy who makes a complaint?
The adversarial system works just fine in the larger society. It allows the accused to inform the “judge” (in this case--YOU)--and to point out pertinent evidence.
One good thing came out of the matter! I did not have to endure the epithets of “dirt bag” and such for an entire week! Thank you again for making the effort to be fair. I understand it is not you but the structure of the SI protocol;--which leads to arbitrary punishments and violation of fundamental rights.
Autocratic rule can be despotic or it can objective. It is fortunate for the SI community that you are very objective, thoughtful, and unbiased. But when ONE person gets to supply ALL the links and to characterize the circumstances , the context, and the meaning?--then the other person is not allowed to give ANY feedback because he is MUZZLED. Shouldn’t these facts be published in the TOU so that we all understand that any complaints prevent us from telling our side? And that the only feedback that is “appreciated” is complaint feedback--NOT defense or reasons feedback? Is a person supposed to just “know” that if another person complains FIRST, then the accused will be prevented from posting any links or other explanation of defense?
“Great people” do not punish people without hearing their side of the story. When you claim to be a “great person” you assume the responsibility to be fair, decent, and above board--at the very minimum.
So let me make a suggestion as part of the feedback that you welcome. Let all accused have 24 hours to supply their OWN links and their OWN commentary. Your decision would then be final and without argument.
This policy would have several advantages. Firstly, it is a courtesy which convinces any rational person that they are not simply being framed or railroaded ,but are being allowed to at least tell their side of the story. Human beings appreciate that. Can you imagine your neighbor calling the police with a complaint that you ate a tomato from his yard, and the police come and throw you in prison for 7 days and they never ONCE ask you what your side of the story is?? And you have a gag in your mouth? Try to imagine how unfair that is? How would you feel?
Another advantage is simply that it costs nothing to be courteous and fair. It saves you from being a private investigator and it puts the onus upon the parties to make their (BRIEF) case. It therefore allows you to use your valuable time to maximum efficiency. All you need to do is read the defense and then suspend or warn one or both parties. And nobody can say they were not allowed to give their side. And really…how can any rational person claim it is better that the accused NOT be allowed to give their side. Let me repeat that: And really…how can any rational person claim it is better that the accused NOT be allowed to give their side???
You said you invited feedback and you said you were a great person. I have accepted both of these pronouncements at face value and I offer you this feedback with the most sincere intention of improving SI and making it a fairer and less hostile place. Nothing makes a person more hostile than the justified impression that they have not had a chance to speak to the issue of their own execution.
Thanks for listening, Dave.
Solon |
