Well, I feel pretty safe in saying that you have done NOTHING because they have never missed a heartbeat in spreading their crap all over SI. None of them have missed ONE SINGLE DAY!! [emphasis mine] So yes. I say you have done NOTHING!
That is an incorrect statement, and easily proven so. Of the group to which you are referring, I can remember 3 recent suspensions and several warnings, which, for the most part, have been heeded. One that wasn't heeded resulted in a suspension. Anybody ever think to ask them? Probably not. Much easier to just accept what is printed and go off about it.
When it comes to John Rizzo and others, you want to go strictly by the 'terms of use'. When it comes to the Shell gang, the 'terms of use' are no longer rules or terms...they are 'rough guidelines'. Those are YOUR words, not mine.
That's one of a number of cases of suspensions here in which the reasons given publicly (by the suspendee, usually) are far different from the real reasons.
Examples:
Someone who claims publicly they were suspended for reposting an AOL message, and who told me in email he posted it only 4 times, actually was suspended because he posted it 11 times (spamming) and also had engaged in personal attacks.
People are up in arms now because another user reportedly has been suspended, when I know it has not happened.
Someone who claims to have been suspended for abbreviating someone else's name in a harrassing way (name-calling) was, in reality, warned to quit doing it, then immediately started doing it again.
Now, as for the "rough guidelines", let's visit parts of the Terms of Use. I'm sure we've all read them, but I want to point out a couple of things:
Summary of Terms of Use
A. You agree to provide true and correct information about yourself in the Silicon Investor Registration
Form.
B. You agree not to use the service for illegal purposes or for the transmission of material that is unlawful,
harassing, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene, tortious,
improper or otherwise objectionable, or that infringes or may infringe the intellectual property or other rights
of another.
C. You agree not to use the service for the transmission of junk mail, spam, chain letters, or unsolicited mass
distribution of e-mail.
D. You agree that Silicon Investor in its sole discretion may remove posts by you or terminate your account
if it believes that you may have in any way violated the Terms of Use.
E. Please report any violations of the Terms of Use to us at: webmaster@techstocks.com.
This is the section I think of as the "Thou shalt nots". Note that each starts with "You agree". These are hard and fast rules and you acknowledge you will comply with them before you're allowed to use the system.
Now, let's take a look at another section:
It is members' responsibility to bring violations
of the Terms of Use to Silicon Investor's attention, although we do not guarantee any action based on such information. The following actions, among others, may result in removal of messages and/or termination of your membership.
[...]
* Posting improper or off-topic messages or posting more than twenty messages in six hours.[emphasis mine]
[...]
My point is that, while we say we may take action for posting more than twenty messages in six hours, it is my interpretation that this is not a hard and fast rule.
When I see violations of the "20/6 guideline", I typically issue warnings, then suspensions if the warnings are not heeded.
In every instance in which it has been reported to me that someone has exceeded this guideline, I have issued a warning. In one instance, the warning was ignored and I issued a suspension.
You can preach all day about not being in cahoots with those people, but your actions say otherwise.
Actually, it seems obvious to me that nobody here really knows my actions. Of course, I'll never discuss them specifically in a way that would violate anyone's right to privacy, but anyone that cares to check (hint: Who is posting? Who isn't? How frequently do people post?) can quite easily find that I have taken action. For investors, I would think this would be a comparatively easy due diligence job.
Proove us wrong. Do something.
I have.
However, I will not, as many people have suggested, simply ban an entire group of people simply because the majority have requested it. No matter how loudly and frequently they demand it.
Responses to mailto:si_admin@techstocks.com or Private Message. |
