To All
I've read this thread and would like to suggest problems with almost all suggestions, and also end with the outline of another problem. Perhaps some will have some ideas?
Someone suggested the thread should vote out members. Here are the problems with that. The majority is sometimes wrong. There are posters here who were knocking a woman on the Fonar thread. My reading of the thread has been that she was the victim. I find her posts valuable on that thread and elsewhere, too. I don't understand why SI doesn't remove the fellows who behave badly toward her and yet are blaming her for the problems. Yet if the majority voted on that thread, she might be voted out, even though I think they are wrong. What happens to justice and equal enforcement of rules? The fellows baiting her with dozens of notes are breaking the rules and yet she is the one who'd be booted off.
Also, the constitution of a thread changes, since stockholders move in and out of stocks. She could be voted out by some of these fellows, who I think have been bullies, and then others who appreciate her comments on the stock would be unable to have the benefit of her point of view as they join the thread. A disliked member at one time may be favored at other times. Also, the people who are negative about a stock would always be voted out. And then there would be politicizing to get people to vote out some people and friends of a poster would be asked to come into a thread just to vote for or against a poster. It would be a real mess.
The negative aspects to a kill key is that it distorts information. There would be dozens of notes saying to "ignore" someone, and people will end up having distorted conversations -- some responding to an ignored person will quote him and people then will read the information, anyway. Kill Key is okay, but it doesn't solve the problem, since I don't think a list should be circulated about who is ignored. It should be a private decision and not discussed endlessly on the threads. But if the Fonar thread is an example, people will constantly tell others to ignore someone. Raven, for example, posted repeatedly to press the "next" button when this woman posted. Who needs to read that? Everyone knows they can push the "next" button. She'd be doing the same thing with the "ignore" button. So I don't think the ignore button is a complete solution.
Overall, I think the people should all try to get along and not respond repetitively in an unpleasant way to posters whom they find objectionable. Responding creates more of a problem than the original notes. With the Fonar thread as an example, if some don't like a person, why do they post hundreds of notes repeatedly saying so? They create the real problem with the thread.
As for restricted threads, it's hard for me to see the value of them. I'm open if I can hear a value to them. Anyone? But right now a company can always post in the existing threads and many do participate. The company can end their notes by saying they aren't able to reply to questions, if that is the case, but are just providing information. A special thread for that is okay but not very exciting. There are currently several news threads and "libraries" and they work. Why does it have to be officially restricted?
If the point of such threads is to keep out some members, it becomes potentially discriminatory. All members here should be able to equally participate in discussions and services. I don't like censored points of views, and don't see the reason for it. If someone is a constant pest, they should be removed from membership.
The problem with a membership committee recommending action to SI, is that it's possible here that they might be involved in some way with the people under consideration. The idea sounds good at first blush, but if they have had dealings with the players, or their friends have, how can objectivity be insured? I do think objectivity and equal enforcement of the rules is a problem on SI. Does anyone have any ideas about how to approach this problem?
There are rules of service that are not enforced. Disruptions of threads through notes designed for that should be reason for removal of membership. Continuing with the Fonar thread as the example I've seen, the fellows posting personal attacks and irrelevant notes to that woman should be "up" for removal -- not the woman being attacked. I'm wondering why can't the rules of service be more clearly defined and enforced by the management? Can you explain, Brad?
LOAF |
