Rupert, Re: My post has received 30 recommendations so far. But the moderator banned me for two days on the grounds it was Off Topic. In fact, as is plain to see, my post is a direct reply to the post that preceded it.
Message 23357116
Whine, whine. Eggnog received a two weeks vacation for the post you are refering to. This was at the same time you received your previous two days suspension. Your mocking above is therefor really inappropriate. Also you could have nominated that post to me and let me take care of it. You didn't. OK, enough about that.
re: A rule would be introduced to contain the excesses of dougSF30 and the reactions they caused. But the rule would be applied by the moderator more often to others, often at the mocking insistence of dougSF30. Then another rule would be introduced to close a loophole in the first,and so on.
Speedlimit: I've suspended DougSF30 more times, by far, for exceeding the speedlimit than anyone else (NOT less). So for as far as you implied what you said above for speed limits you are using easy presumptions. And where's the other rule to close this loophole? You're using easy conclusions here too. BTW, as a result of that rule the amount of his posts dropped rather significantly. And not only his posts but that of one or two other posters too.
Minor insults: I've suspended DougSF30 some times for minor insults too. I've probably suspended more others for making minor insults at him, that's right. But you just jump to a nice sentiment based conclusion without considering really very carefully whether this was just or not. Where are your facts regarding minor insults? Sentiment alone just doesn't do it for me. (BTW, in case you missed that, you're insulting me here.)
OT: It's right we had one rule for OT for a couple of months till Nov/Dec but that didn't work, which is we came up with the rule against minor violations. For OT you are right it was closing a loophole. Is closing a loophole bad? Or is your statement maybe over-simplistic?
re: Just as dougSF30 used personal attacks and an overwhelming volume of posts to drown out and obscure and obfuscate the opinions of those who thought that AMD was overvalued and risky in January 2006, so he applies the same techniques now to intimidate discussants who want to explore the feasibility of an AMD revival or predict future share movements from which they can profit.
Most participants of this board have intellectual heft and are accustomed to arguing a case robustly without flinching too much. They don't object to vigorous and persistent argument.
That's never been the objection to dougSF30.
The point is that his volume and the sneering and personal and repetitive nature of his remarks have made the board an unpleasant and tedious place to visit, depriving it of the input of those more informed about the technology and the industry and the stock market than he is.
In my opinion, his presence is a serious detriment. His history indicates that he will not change or cannot change his behavior whatever complex rules are designed to contain him.
I think that a permanent ban under his current and any of his other user names would give a moderator a chance to start again - remove the unnecessary rules and help restore the board to its former status as possibly the least moderated SI forum and certainly the most informed and most interesting on the net on the subject of the competition between AMD-Intel.
You're exaggerating it too much:
1. DougSF did change. Suggesting anything else is untrue. He just didn't change as much as you wanted, but that's not what you said. As a result of his change reports of major violations have dropped to near zero as well.
2. I'd ban DougSF for major violations if they are reported to me via PM/email. You haven't done that anytime recently iirc, right? So why moan if you don't even try it the normal way (not anytime recently that is)? Another very respected poster also complained recently and very loudly on the main board accusing DougSF of a lot of things, while it turned out that DougSF was also right, just like that other poster was too btw (the facts show that the both of them had facts to base their opinions on because Intel handed out conflicting information over when 45nm Penryn is going to be introduced; I checked). It's good to have a serious discussion over this, but really should annoyance over DougSF discussion style in case he has facts like he did this time serve as a good excuse for the major insults that the other well respected poster then made? I think not. Never will either. Anyway, even though that respected poster did use a specific cause (unlike you) it was simply not appropriately justified. You 'justify' removing DougSF permanently on well supported sentiment, not on facts. I looked at a lot of the facts individually and overall (I spend some real time here) and cannot come to the same conclusion. I considered minor violations, and reiterations. With regards to reiterations/repetitional arguments I considered it less worse when he used facts.
Anyway, you can make a facts based case and PM/email it, or if you must post it on the OT board, and I'll consider it thoroughly. Alternatively the board can vote for another moderator (I do not mind). It's not an alternative to keep posting moderated OT on the main board.
(Bridge to next subject:) Everyone here is allowed the most divers opinions about investing in AMD as long as there is respect as is specified in the rules.
According to those same rules you post moderating related OT, so you're out for two days. It was completely unnecessary as you could have made the same post on the OT board you have access to (just like I'm doing now). Most of the times these decisions reasonably simple and straight forward. And don't complain, you well earned it.
Lastly, you can use ignore. You didn't mention it in your post. And pls set a better example yourself if you want better behavior from others.
Regards,
Rink |
