Your post infuriates me because it is filled with double standards and outright SI policy neglect. You think you can just post your GOD message and that is the final word? I don't think so. What you said is <<surrounded>>.
<<
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.
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.
>>
It appears to me that these "Thou shalt nots" are open for a lot of personal interpretation. And you added "These are hard and fast rules". Item B is full of personal interpretation.
Well, I've sent in a request just last week requesting that disciplinary action be taken against someone who was spamming their recent pick. This poster was asked multiple times to not spam one of the threads I was watching, and these were ignored. The next day, this poster spammed our thread again. I sent in the request and haven't heard anything back and this poster has not been suspended (checked the [profile for recent posts).
I've seen serious abuses about item B. By their posts, certain people essentially and routinely call company management liars. I even saw one call company management cockroaches. Would that be harmful, libelous, vulgar, improper or otherwise objectionable? What's worse, they do not even call most of the companies they are trying to tear down.
<<
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.
>>
How many times do we need to complain before the actual suspension? Or how many warnings do they get? I don't think I should have to spend my time compaining to SI just to get rules and guidelines followed against certain people.
With the amount of complaints about certain people, there should be more suspensions. How many suspensions before they get banned? I would think that certain people would obey the rules/guidelines just a bit more if they could get banned.
And while I'm thinking about it, SI has a lot of wonderful conveniences. You guys have spent a considerable amount of time creating a powerful user environment. You know what's amazing to me about SI? With all the really kewl and awesome features, SI still doesn't have the ability to ignore certain people's posts. I mean, I was looking at Raging Bull, and SI has a much more sophisticated interface. However, Raging Bull has the ability to ignore certain people's posts. This can't possibly be the first time this has been brought to SI's attention. And SI has been around for how long?
SI is so worried about protecting freedom of speech, we should have freedom from harassment and abuse as well. I mean, that is part of the terms of agreement, right?
<<
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.
>>
Hm, you said that Jane didn't get suspended yet I see she hasn't posted since late Tuesday night, actually Wednesday morning. Now I'm not saying she has been or hasn't been. I'm just going by your innuendo above.
And I do notice that we seem to have a constant bombardment from certain people, which to me indicates they are not suspended or if they were suspended, were only suspended for a few hours. Yet I hear and you have admitted that others are suspended for days (or weeks) at a time.
Appears to me to be another opportunity for personal interpretation.
<<
"Proove us wrong. Do something."
I have.
>>
Really? It appears that no matter what we say or request, personal interpretation is still the rule. Or would that be a guideline?
<<
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.
>>
I wouldn't expect a ban of any group of people. I would expect SI to aggressively pursue solutions to the derisive and antagonistic environment that has been created. The technology is available.
Here are some suggestions that might help:
1) Create the opportunity to ignore certain posters, like Raging Bull has.
2) Create the ability to have a PM distribution list
3) Have ability to vote a certain poster off of a thread. Majority rules.
4) Keep track of the number of posts per thread by a certain poster.
5) Make the rules/guidelines more definitive and give suspension criteria (i.e. spamming is a 3 day suspension, 3 suspensions is a 1 month ban, ...)
I really hope this helps make SI better.
Good night,
Tod |
